During one recent Congressman’s townhall, an audience member asked if the Congressman would support an independent prosecutor to look into the Russian issue and any ties between the Trump campaign/administration with Russia. The Congressman said no and then proceeded to say that if Trump truly had anything to hide, he wouldn’t have fired Comey because that would be stupid and just bring more attention to the matter. At this point, mere (crushing) stupidity would be the best case scenario to explain all of Trump’s words and actions concerning Russia.
That may not have been prudent (we have no idea whether the report is true or what the information was) but it was not illegal. Presidents can de-classify any information at any time.
Was this one of the several reasons that Trump and his surrogates claimed? You know, aside from the ones that specifically said he was attempting to end the “Russian thing?”
A certain Democratic presidential candidate was scorched for far less by the same people who are making excuses for the President. I am trying to imagine the scenario where HRC won the election and this kind of news came out and having you and your ilk make the same head-shrugging reaction. Then I realize that the color of the sky in that world is one that humans cannot see so I stop thinking about it.
Do you have a cite for that? And a cite that any criminal activity has been proven? Remember that Comey influenced the election far more than the Russians.
It’s difficult to get that evidence when Trump refuses to cooperate in any investigations, Republicans are reticent to broach the subject of any kind of independent investigation and Trump fires and threatens everyone who might be able to provide any.
So? Trump through he could control Comey. Then he realized he couldn’t.
But you’re just gonna move the goalposts again. No amount of calisthenics to evade proper investigations or actual admissions by Trump himself doesn’t indicate anything is “proven” so you hang your hat on that.
Meanwhile this is the same institution that instigated eight investigations into Benghazi that were all completely complied with every step of the way by HRC, the State Department and anyone who was involved.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Not illegal. So, by the rubric I suggested above: nope.
[/quote]
The (albeit anonymous) sources in the story do not seem to indicate that anything was declassified. If information or documents were declassified, then they could be subject to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and potentially be released to the public. Given the highly sensitive nature of whatever information was shared and the sources’ reactions, it seems highly doubtful that there was any intent to declassify it and certainly no intent for it to potentially be releasable to the public.
I guess their take on it is as soon as the President releases classified information that he was making the decision to declassify it otherwise, why release it?
I am sure that HRC in the White House would have had the same latitude. Nothing to see here, comrade.
I, as a private citizen, cannot fire the investigators who are looking into whether I committed a crime, because they don’t work for me. But in any case I can think of where the investigators work for the subject of the investigation, then firing the investigator would be grounds for getting rid of that person. For example, if a city manager fires a police chief because the police chief is heading up an investigation into the city manager’s activities, then that would be grounds for the city manager’s bosses (the city council) to fire the city manager.
Impeachment and conviction of a president is not limited to felonies; that would be redundant. Impeachment has a lower bar than does a felony. Impeachment is like firing a person for abuse of their position, and that’s why I think Congress should “fire” Trump.
What are you saying-- is Congress on the verge of starting impeachment proceedings? It’s a serious question. Given reality, what exactly are your grounds for rejecting what Bricker was saying? He’s not talking about what should or shouldn’t happen; just want most likely will happen (or not happen).
I understand completely that in your opinion, Congress should fire Trump.
I’m not talking about opinion, though, but the ability to accurately predict the future.
I argue that my model is the best one, not because it’s more justicecy than yours, or more moral than yours, or produces better government outcomes than yours. No: I argue that my model is better because it more accurately predicts the future.
In my model, impeachment doesn’t happen merely because of a non-criminal “abuse of position.” That’s not to say it shouldn’t. Maybe it should, BUT IT WON’T.
Well there is Article III, section 3. While the President is generally immune to most things, I don’t think that the Supreme Court would decide that this is one of them.
No, I’m not implying that there is evidence of treason. I’m simply stating that the flat immunity statement is incorrect. Emoluments should also count, though the rule doesn’t seem to include any sort of penalty.
