• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President Trump Told Russians Firing James Comey Eased Investigation Pressure | NBC Nightly News

Re: POTUS admits obstruction of justice...again

Mach said:
Of course it was there.

Try it another way. Tell us what you believe Trump's response indicates, in the context of the broader Mueller probe and how Trump has reacted to hit, publicly and privately, in the past.
Click to expand...
No, let's try it the right way.
The headline is what it is and those words can't be found in the article without an interpretation predisposed to find them somehow.
You're asking me again to prove Trump's words didn't mean what the OP (and you, I guess) claims they did.
I already responded that a negative proof shouldn't be the responsibility of the reader to supply.
People can read the exact words of the article and conclude what they want. Like you did. But the words of the headline weren't there.
 
Re: POTUS admits obstruction of justice...again

Moderate Right said:
So why do we need the Mueller investigation to go on for one and a half years at the cost of millions and millions of dollars when you already have Trump's "confessions" as evidence?
Click to expand...

corroboration...confessions alone aren't adequate to convict
 
Re: POTUS admits obstruction of justice...again

bubbabgone said:
No, let's try it the right way.
The headline is what it is and those words can't be found in the article without an interpretation predisposed to find them somehow.
Click to expand...
Can't answer the question eh?

Your new argument makes no sense either. The 'words can't be found in the article' implies the headline has to be a direct quote from the article. That's absurd.
You appeared to be saying earlier that you believe the headline has to...what? QUOTE Trump? That would also be absurd.

Be specific. Why would a headline have to quote someone? It should capture the essence of the article with attention grabbing wording/brevity. It appeared to work, and the essence of what Trump said appears to be translated to the headline, correctly. Certainly grabbed your attention.

If you disagree, then describe what you believe the essence of the headline should be.

"Trump say words!"
How about "Trump asked about Whitaker, randomly tells us about why he really hired Whitaker"?
"Trump among friendly interviewers, tells all like usual."
"Trump, stupid ****ing Trump"
"Whitaker hired to obstruct justice, president clearly implies"

I mean, I'm not a journalist, I think their headline is better than mine.
 
Re: POTUS admits obstruction of justice...again

uptower said:
Remember that time Trump confessed on TV he fired Comey over the 'Russia thing'?

Well he did it again - this time admitting he installed Whitaker because of Whitaker's opposition to the Mueller investigation.

  • Wants to fire the man investigating him
  • Attorney General refuses
  • Fires attorney General
  • Installs a hatchet man for the job
Click to expand...

Hatchet man may also recuse himself, and Trump will wet his pants..................... Again. LOL.
 
Re: POTUS admits obstruction of justice...again

Logician Man said:
corroboration...confessions alone aren't adequate to convict
Click to expand...

You have no idea what Mueller has, but if he has something, and 2 confessions on top of that, Trump is toast.
 
Re: POTUS admits obstruction of justice...again

danarhea said:
You have no idea what Mueller has, but if he has something, and 2 confessions on top of that, Trump is toast.
Click to expand...

Where did I claim I have any idea what Mueller has,or doesn't have ?
 
Re: POTUS admits obstruction of justice...again

Logician Man said:
Where did I claim I have any idea what Mueller has,or doesn't have ?
Click to expand...

I as replying to this quote you made.......

"corroboration...confessions alone aren't adequate to convict"

And, as we all know, it is Mueller that would have the corroboration, if it exists, and I am willing to bet that it does, and that he has it..
 
Re: POTUS admits obstruction of justice...again

danarhea said:
I as replying to this quote you made.......

"corroboration...confessions alone aren't adequate to convict"

And, as we all know, it is Mueller that would have the corroboration, if it exists, and I am willing to bet that it does, and that he has it..
Click to expand...

you need to read the post I was responding to.
 
Re: POTUS admits obstruction of justice...again

bubbabgone said:
I was looking for where "Trump Just Blurted Out, Unprompted, That He Installed His Pet Attorney General Over the Russia Probe".
It wasn't there.
I suppose that being the kind of magazine it is, Esquire is entitled to put whatever it wants inside.
They just shouldn't pretend it's a journalism endeavor.
The problem being that they still may have influence with some readers who don't know they're only pretending.
Click to expand...
It's as if someone had said 'bubba likes to wine about mundane ****'. There is no quote where you explicitly state 'I, bubba, like to wine about mundane ****' but someone reading your posts could probably arrive at the conclusion that it's what you're doing.

Why would Trump say what he is quoted as saying? Would you like to discuss that? Maybe we can get some crayons, and draw out a diagram connecting you to the statements people are discussing instead of your crazy need to try and tell everyone how to title things to fit your world view.



Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Re: POTUS admits obstruction of justice...again

joko104 said:
Firing someone is not obstruction of justice. It is that simple.
Click to expand...

Unless you fire them to end or impede an on-going investigation of which you are a subject or target.

"...Obstruction of justice is the federal crime of “corruptly or by threat, or force” trying to influence, obstruct, influence or impede the due process of justice...."....."But to be charged with obstruction of justice, a person has to have acted with a “corrupt intent,” which makes the crime that much harder to prove....."

https://thehill.com/homenews/politics-101/373216-what-is-obstruction-of-justice

...but, the POTUS is not likely to face criminal charges, because he is POTUS. The remedy would be impeachment. The standard for impeachment is "....treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors...", which is whatever the then current House of Representatives says it is....
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS admits obstruction of justice...again

joko104 said:
Firing someone is not obstruction of justice. It is that simple.
Click to expand...

It is if the president's doing it to prevent a perfectly legal investigation of himself. Simple as that.

Obstruction of justice, like most crimes, first requires intent. We know that is Trump's intent, that makes it obstruction.
 
Re: POTUS admits obstruction of justice...again

Mach said:
Can't answer the question eh?

Your new argument makes no sense either. The 'words can't be found in the article' implies the headline has to be a direct quote from the article. That's absurd.
You appeared to be saying earlier that you believe the headline has to...what? QUOTE Trump? That would also be absurd.

Be specific. Why would a headline have to quote someone? It should capture the essence of the article with attention grabbing wording/brevity. It appeared to work, and the essence of what Trump said appears to be translated to the headline, correctly. Certainly grabbed your attention.

If you disagree, then describe what you believe the essence of the headline should be.

"Trump say words!"
How about "Trump asked about Whitaker, randomly tells us about why he really hired Whitaker"?
"Trump among friendly interviewers, tells all like usual."
"Trump, stupid ****ing Trump"
"Whitaker hired to obstruct justice, president clearly implies"

I mean, I'm not a journalist, I think their headline is better than mine.
Click to expand...


POTUS: Matthew Whitaker is a very respected man. He’s — and he’s, very importantly, he’s respected within DOJ. I heard he got a very good decision, I haven’t seen it. Kellyanne, did I hear that?
WHITE HOUSE ADVISER KELLYANNE CONWAY: 20 pages.
POTUS: A 20 page?
POTUS: Well, I heard it was a very strong opinion. Uh, which is good. But [Whitaker] is just somebody who’s very respected.
I knew him only as he pertained, you know, as he was with Jeff Sessions. And, um, you know, look, as far as I’m concerned this is an investigation that should have never been brought. It should have never been had.
It’s something that should have never been brought. It’s an illegal investigation. And you know, it’s very interesting because when you talk about not Senate confirmed, well, Mueller’s not Senate confirmed.
​
Where are the unprompted blurting words about why Whitaker was hired?
Trump had just been asked about the report on Whitaker.
Whitaker will be acting AG since Sessions is gone.
Sessions recused himself from the investigation.
Then Trump went off on the investigation.
That was the sequence.

If there was blurting done, the implication was that Sessions recused himself from an investigation that Trump believes should never have started.
But we knew that. Not much of a blurt.
Nevertheless that's still the bug up his ass about Sessions.
You must have noticed by now that when he speaks it's from a train of thought. Sometimes the thoughts are related and sometimes they're wtf.
 
Re: POTUS admits obstruction of justice...again

Mach said:
Normally that may be the case where it's a headline taking something out of context, for example.

But we have a lot of historic, recorded evidence of this, a lot of context. Given all of that context, history, evidence, the idea that he is NOT admitting Whitaker was hired because of the Russia investigation, is absurd.
You have no evidence to support it that contrary.
All evidence points to his appointment of Whitaker, and this latest obvious admission of such, to be able protection from the Mueller investigation.
Click to expand...

That evidence you suggest is not worth a damn thing. He never made the comment and given all your BS does make it so. It would never stand up to make your claim that is what he said. Never.
 
Re: POTUS admits obstruction of justice...again

bubbabgone said:
You don't create headline or repeat a headline that isn't reflected in the body of a story and feel justified because no one can prove it's not true.
At least you're not supposed to.
But the media does it and it's probably why they poll worse than Trump.
Click to expand...

If you're posting a link in the BN forum you do. That's the rules.
 
Re: POTUS admits obstruction of justice...again

uptower said:
It is if the president's doing it to prevent a perfectly legal investigation of himself. Simple as that.

Obstruction of justice, like most crimes, first requires intent. We know that is Trump's intent, that makes it obstruction.
Click to expand...

What he actually meant was "If Trump did it, it's ok"
 
I think it's very possible that Trump didn't know it was happening. He often seems to be in the dark about what his people are saying or doing.
 
Re: POTUS admits obstruction of justice...again

rocket88 said:
If you're posting a link in the BN forum you do. That's the rules.
Click to expand...

I meant in the world of journalism. Not in the DP world where mining for such things are de rigueur.
 
Re: POTUS admits obstruction of justice...again

Born Free said:
That evidence you suggest is not worth a damn thing. He never made the comment and given all your BS does make it so. It would never stand up to make your claim that is what he said. Never.
Click to expand...

I've already refuted this above, you're simply calling it B.S., that's not enough, sorry.

You could try to share with us what you think Trump meant, by veering off into that revealing ramble about Whitaker. If it wasn't him saying why he hired Whitaker, please tell us why he said it when he did, and the content...what was Trump communicating?
 
Re: POTUS admits obstruction of justice...again

danarhea said:
You have no idea what Mueller has, but if he has something, and 2 confessions on top of that, Trump is toast.
Click to expand...

I doubt he has anything that implicates Trump personally.

And the only thing that would truly be damaging in our reality would be something out of the Kremlin that Putin has on Trump. Of course, I am assuming that most of America, beyond the pathetic loyalists who would not, would even care.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS admits obstruction of justice...again

joko104 said:
Firing someone is not obstruction of justice. It is that simple.
Click to expand...

It might be if it is after the apocalypse and there is nobody left to fill that seat.
 
Re: POTUS admits obstruction of justice...again

Mach said:
I've already refuted this above, you're simply calling it B.S., that's not enough, sorry.
Click to expand...

You refuted nothing, your just making **** up what you THINK, and what you THINK does not make it to. What you THINK is not a bases of FACT. SORRY.
 
Re: POTUS admits obstruction of justice...again

Born Free said:
You refuted nothing, your just making **** up what you THINK, and what you THINK does not make it to. What you THINK is not a bases of FACT. SORRY.
Click to expand...

You can't even keep your lies straight. You just got finished saying:
Born Free said:
That evidence you suggest is not worth a damn thing.
Click to expand...
You said it was evidence, and now you're saying I made it up, which is it? Feel free to debate yourself, you can quote yourself and respond to yourself. I don't think you can like your own posts though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom