Donald Trump straight up said on national television that he fired Comey in order to end the FBI investigation. That’s a damn big effort at impediment, straight from the Donald’s mouth.
The most that Acting Director Rod Rothstein can testify to is that no one has made a direct effort to impede him, Rothstein, personally, in the couple days since he assumed the Acting Director throne.
Trump’s comments don’t lend themselves to such an unambiguous conclusion. He can say, for example, that he intended to bring the investigation to a conclusion as opposed to having it stalled: that is, Trump believed Comey was stalling and unable to effectively continue and complete the investigation, so Trump fired Comey to facilitate the completion (not the stopping) of the investigation.
End might mean “stopping it from finishing” or it might mean “bring to a correct conclusion.”
Even if he hasn’t actually explicitly tried to stop the investigation, the firing of the director is potentially disruptive. If Jeff Sessions and his deputy AG were to remove others on the basis of nothing more than presidential prerogative, then this would send an even stronger message.
Nevertheless, Trump still probably has a lot of loyalty among those who voted for him, which means that he’s not going to be paying a steep political price in terms of a swift negative reaction to any of these antics. It’s clear that GOP voters really don’t care much about the norms of democracy and the rule of law, and haven’t for some time.
I suspect that what could possibly finally cause some Republicans to put a stop to Trump is the simple fact that we’re approaching the mid-year point and despite having control of both branches of government, the GOP hasn’t been able to accomplish much in the way of new legislation, and they may not for a while. The longer this continues, the more that voters back home may question their competence, but this is going to be a slow process.
And his most recent tweets read:
Great denial there. :rolleyes:
If McMaster wanted a clear denial and refutation, he would have said something like “Trump revealed no classified or otherwise sensitive information to the Russians”. He didn’t say that.
And now Trump basically confirms that he shared such info with the Russians.
Good thing I wasn’t sipping my coffee when I read that, O Carnac!
Good to know you’ve been granted authority over the future, so that you can verify in the present that you’ve accurately predicted it! 
[QUOTE=Mark 1:22]
The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law.
[/QUOTE]
I certainly will be happy to return to this post at any time in the future.
The problem is that you’re completely unaccountable.
When I come back in 2020 and bump this thread, I’ll be accused of gloating, and asked why I don’t get a life, and why it’s so important to rub in being right.
When I offer to wager on being right, you discover a pious objection to gambling.
In short, you want the flexibility of tossing out garbage predictions now with zero consequence for error when they don’t come to fruition.
Isn’t that about right?
He can but there’s a process. Just blurting it out isn’t the legal way.
And he’s not supposed to decide on his own to declassify something, he’s supposed to consult with the experts first. None of these things have happened.
Not sure what the legal meaning of ‘adhering’ to our enemies is, but to adhere is what adhesives, i.e. glues, do.
Trump certainly is sticking like glue to his Russian buddies, isn’t he? His friends at Commie Martyrs must be mighty proud of him. 
(That’s a joke, son.)
Is one of them providing information on sensitive intelligence assets to an enemy* that might help them identify and kill our assets?
Just asking. But not joking.
*Yes, I know, we’re not officially at war with Russia. But (a) we don’t declare war anymore, and (b) Russia is unquestionably acting in an aggressive and hostile manner towards us, seeking to undermine our alliances and the basic institutions of our democracy. Feel free to argue that that doesn’t mean they’re our enemy.
Lawfare blog, which is written by lawyers who are national security experts who have worked for both Democratic and Republican Administrations, asserts that gross misjudgments by the President could violate his oath of office to faithfully execute the duties of his office.
I’m not entirely convinced by this position, but I do think it is worth thinking about.
I’m completely unaccountable?! That’s amusing. You’re the one making all sorts of assertions backed by nothing more than being Bricker.
Your self-image as Mr. Rectitude has gone to your head, and you think that because you’re Mr. Rectitude, anything you say must be true.
Ah, more Carnac.
Dude, I’m not sure who you’re confusing me with.
You’re the one who’s made the garbage prediction here, and yes, I’m tossing it out, like the dead fish it is.
But really, Counselor, if you want to Pit me, have the guts to Pit me, rather than playing games like this in GD.
You realize we send American astronauts into space on Russia rockets, right? No need to get stuck on declarations of war, since we can look at whether we are engaged in armed conflict against the Russians. We are not. Even the Rosenbergs were not charged with treason (they were charged with espionage).
If I predicted that this idiot is going to get away with all the shit he has/is/will pull off, and will fuck this country up royally and it comes true, I wouldn’t be gloating.
I would be mourning.
From a legal standpoint, with respect to the crime of treason: it does not.
Bricker: Do you not think Trump should be impeached? Do you not think he intended to interfere with the Russia investigation or that he leaked highly classified intelligence because he’s incompetent?
I understand raising doubts about whether impeachment is likely (it isn’t), or whether the evidence is bulletproof (it isn’t), but are you not satisfied in your own mind that these claims are both true and impeachment-worthy?
OK, then I’ll offer you a wager: By January 20, 2021, Trump is not impeached for treason or any other cause. “Impeached,” means that a bill of impeachment is passed by a majority of the House of Representatives, regardless of what happens in the Senate.
$200 even money.
Deal?
sigh
I think he should not be in office. Unfortunately, the majority of electors didn’t.
But no. I don’t think he should be impeached. I regard impeachment as an extraordinary remedy that should be used when there is clear evidence of criminal activity.
I think both of those statements are more likely true than not, but that neither should be an impeachable offense.
How will you feel if you “win” this bet?
Forgive me, it’s a long thread. I scrolled back a couple of pages but didn’t see your position, so I just wanted to ask. I understand the frustrating dynamic of answering over and over.
So if he nukes France because a newspaper there criticizes him, you would not support impeachment?
It seems like you must have some standard other than criminality.
I’m not saying that it is a lock that Trump will be impeached, but I think the odds are decent enough that I’ll take that action. Though you’re robbing me blind with this even odds nonsense.