Read: James Comey's memos

[Excon]

The irony is that you just made an actual appeal to authority, but are too ignorant to know it.

1. Wow! You clearly have no idea do you?
2. It is clear that you like making things up about others in an effort to demean when you have no valid argument to make.
3. As for the actual relative substance of your complaint. Wrong.
Pointing out that there is a counter expert in response to an appeal to authority is not wrong. It actually shows why the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy to begin with, as they may be wrong. Additionally, pointing out that the other expert has far more authority, emphasizes that point.

 

[Winston]

1. We are not a democracy. We are a Republic.

2. It is not uncheck authority.
It is exercising a specific authority.

3. Read up and learn something instead of relying on others to make your argument then you can make your own.

Unitary executive theory

That link supports my position here:

Justice Scalia in his solitary dissent in Morrison v. Olson argued for an unlimited presidential removal power of all persons exercising executive branch powers, which he argued included the independent counsel; the court disagreed, but later moved closer to Scalia's position in Edmond v. United States.[14]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JasperL]

Impeachment is not likely to happen with this congress unless an actual crime was committed, and as we now know Trump is not a target of investigation.

Whether you believe something is likely or not isn't all that relevant to the discussion. The point was he can do a lot of things arguably within his Constitutional authority and still get impeached. The political alternative would be to encourage any POTUS under investigation to aggressively take any act necessary to shut the investigation down. I would hope Congress wouldn't stand for that, and niceties and technicalities about the law and Presidential authority should not impede them in removing a POTUS who engages in such behavior.

You're also I think taking too narrow a view of the question anyway. If there is an 'obstruction' charge, it won't be just for firing Comey. Almost certainly an 'obstruction' case would include Trump engaging in efforts to convince others to lie or remain silent, in exchange for a pardon or other benefits, and those would NOT be exercises of his Constitutional authority...

As for the second expert, Jeffrey Toobin? No where near Dershowitz.
And maybe you missed it, but "opposing opinion" is what I also pointing out.

OK, that's your opinion, which means about as much as mine on the subject.

 

[Excon]

Whether you believe something is likely or not isn't all that relevant to the discussion. The point was he can do a lot of things arguably within his Constitutional authority and still get impeached. The political alternative would be to encourage any POTUS under investigation to aggressively take any act necessary to shut the investigation down. I would hope Congress wouldn't stand for that, and niceties and technicalities about the law and Presidential authority should not impede them in removing a POTUS who engages in such behavior.

You're also I think taking too narrow a view of the question anyway. If there is an 'obstruction' charge, it won't be just for firing Comey. Almost certainly an 'obstruction' case would include Trump engaging in efforts to convince others to lie or remain silent, in exchange for a pardon or other benefits, and those would NOT be exercises of his Constitutional authority...


OK, that's your opinion, which means about as much as mine on the subject.

So what you are saying is that you have no actual relevant point. I agree with that.
Almost certainly? Hilarious. All this time and no such evidence has been presented to support such a claim.

And this Congress not likely to to impeach is very relevant to the discussion we are having. And it may be because they agree, that under the current circumstances and law, the President does have such Constitutional Unitary authority.

It is also like you are missing the underlying substance of the fact that Trump is not a target this late in the game.

 

[Anthony60]

Now I know why Repubs on the Commitee had to threaten contempt to get a hold of these memos

CNN needed a " hook " before publishing the unsubstantiated and salacious allegations taken from the dossier

Comey's meeting with Trump was that " hook " and the meeting was leaked iimmediately following the meeting .Comey also stated it was Clapper that came up with the plan

Brennan did the same thing.His briefing of Congress on the dossiers contents was followed immediately by a leak to CNN.
It was never about giving a Trump or Congress a heads up, it was a PR campaign from the get go meant to disseminate and spread unsubstantiated allegations taken from a dossier that in reality was just Hillary and DNC funded oppo-research

Everyone one of these lowlife's involved deserve prison time

Yes, the dossier was nothing, just a piece of trash that was a paid for opp research. It was completely useless. But once they were able to get it in as part of a briefing to the President, presto! This now a news story that CNN could run with.

Isn't it funny how fast this private information was leaked? Almost as if it was a coordinated effort to attack Trump. Can't be, because that would be a serious abuse of power.

And funny how Mueller, CNN, the Times, etc... are investigating everything under the sun, related to the dossier or not, but have completely missed the only real big story that is there. These people are disgusting.

 

[Winston]

So what you are saying is that you have no actual relevant point. I agree with that.
Almost certainly? Hilarious. All this time and no such evidence has been presented to support such a claim.

And this Congress not likely to to impeach is very relevant to the discussion we are having. And it may be because they agree, that under the current circumstances and law, the President does have such Constitutional Unitary authority.

It is also like you are missing the underlying substance of the fact that Trump is not a target this late in the game.

Was Bill Clinton ever a "target" in the Whitewater investigation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JasperL]

So what you are saying is that you have no actual relevant point. I agree with that.
Almost certainly? Hilarious. All this time and no such evidence has been presented to support such a claim.

JFC. Hilarious! As you know the investigation isn't over, and Mueller's team is good at not leaking, so I don't know what they'll uncover. We're dealing in uncertainties here, including you.

And my point is relevant - the actually germane question is what is impeachable, not prosecutable, and "obstruction" might be difficult to prove in court but the "Constitutional authority" argument isn't binding on the House and Senate. My guess is as good as yours, and it is that they'll decide the question based on more common sense issues instead of legal issues. I don't believe the Congress will permit ACTUAL obstruction, and whether or not his actions might be jammed into a legal box won't be all that relevant.

And this Congress not likely to to impeach is very relevant to the discussion we are having. And it may be because they agree, that under the current circumstances and law, the President does have such Constitutional Unitary authority.

To do what? Fire Comey? OK. I agree, but it's a moot point because an "obstruction" charge won't be based on that one act, so who really cares about that narrow legal issue?

It is also like you are missing the underlying substance of the fact that Trump is not a target this late in the game.

Well if he's not a target and there is no chance he'll become a target, then we're both wasting time arguing over a hypothetical that ain't going to happen. Problem is you're missing the underlying substance of the fact that he can become a target at any moment, such as when prosecutors get their hands on the Cohen documents for example.

And I'm a little unsure what the distinction means with regard to POTUS anyway. DoJ precedent is they won't charge a sitting POTUS with crimes, so be definition no matter what they uncover, he won't be a target by the traditional definition of the word. It would be arguably unethical to advise the President on his legal status based on "definition of 'is' is" arguments like that but the problem still remains that if the POTUS cannot become a target based on DoJ rules and precedent that the distinction might not mean what we think it does.

I know any lawyer to Trump who assumes the "not a target as of April 20" means he's not in legal peril and can take the rest of the month off would be an incredible moron. I'd suggest the same is true for the rest of us - we don't know what kind of legal peril if any he's in.

 

[Excon]

That link supports my position here:

No it doesn't.
But I am thoroughly convinced you are confused as to what specific you are speaking about.


Your claim, the one we were discussing, was in reference to Trump firing Comey and obstruction (from your link), in which you even claimed trump broke the law.
What you now reference has absolutely no relevance to that discussion.
Trump has the authority to fire Comey. Period.
And what we know of Trump's statements he wanted the investigation to continue. So Comey's firing was not to obstruct..
Secondly the information from the OP (Comey's own memos) confirms Trump's public comments that he wanted the investigation to continue.
So again no obstruction. We also have to keep in mind that we now know, Trump is not a target.
So your link, in relation to what we know is just bs.


On to what you cited.

Justice Scalia in his solitary dissent in Morrison v. Olson argued for an unlimited presidential removal power of all persons exercising executive branch powers, which he argued included the independent counsel; the court disagreed, but later moved closer to Scalia's position in Edmond v. United States.[14]

I do not know how you think the Court later moving closer Scalia's position supports you, but that is really irrelevant as none of it supports your argument.


What you cite references the firing of an Independent Counsel in regards to the Independent Counsel Act that was in effect at the time.
That Act, which was law at the time, was found to be Constitutional and applied to the President because it "did not violate the principle of separation of powers because it did not increase the power of one branch at the expense of another".

That is Independent Counsel Act (Law) dependent and does not apply to the FBI Director.


Now if you are somehow arguing the possibility of firing Mueller (which would be odd given your quote and claim the Trump broke the law), you would also be mistaken, in that the law which that decision was based on is no longer in effect. So the opinion is moot.

Currently it is an internally created DOJ Reg (not law) that states only the AG can fire the Special Counsel.
In order to claim Trump does not have the authority to directly fire Mueller (if this is what you are now arguing), you are going to have to show how an internally created regulation (not Law), from a subordinate authority, applies to the President.

 

[jet57]

Read em....Get your memo's here!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/19/politics/comey-memo-release/index.html

Looking for "collusion" or obstruction....Not seeing it....

Mueller hasn't spoken on the issue yet - has he.

I think that Comey is putting all this out there because of the real threat that Trump poses to the country and he wants the public to really see who this guy is in office. I think it's very important that we DO see what he's like as a leader; and so far, it ain't good, and we're all finding out why.

 

[trixare4kids]

Nothing wrong with Vox, they do fine work.

I can see how a progressive would think so...

 

[PoliSciXtina]

That's really not a serious question now, is it?

Can't answer my question, can ya? Of course you can't admit that you don't know what Mueller is truly thinking. Guess you think we're that stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Winston]

No it doesn't.
But I am thoroughly convinced you are confused as to what specific you are speaking about.


Your claim, the one we were discussing, was in reference to Trump firing Comey and obstruction (from your link), in which you even claimed trump broke the law.
What you now reference has absolutely no relevance to that discussion.
Trump has the authority to fire Comey. Period.
And what we know of Trump's statements he wanted the investigation to continue. So Comey's firing was not to obstruct..
Secondly the information from the OP (Comey's own memos) confirms Trump's public comments that he wanted the investigation to continue.
So again no obstruction. We also have to keep in mind that we now know, Trump is not a target.
So your link, in relation to what we know is just bs.


On to what you cited.

​

I do not know how you think the Court later moving closer Scalia's position supports you, but that is really irrelevant as none of it supports your argument.


What you cite references the firing of an Independent Counsel in regards to the Independent Counsel Act that was in effect at the time.
That Act, which was law at the time, was found to be Constitutional and applied to the President because it "did not violate the principle of separation of powers because it did not increase the power of one branch at the expense of another".

That is Independent Counsel Act (Law) dependent and does not apply to the FBI Director.


Now if you are somehow arguing the possibility of firing Mueller (which would be odd given your quote and claim the Trump broke the law), you would also be mistaken, in that the law which that decision was based on is no longer in effect. So the opinion is moot.

Currently it is an internally created DOJ Reg (not law) that states only the AG can fire the Special Counsel.
In order to claim Trump does not have the authority to directly fire Mueller (if this is what you are now arguing), you are going to have to show how an internally created regulation (not Law), from a subordinate authority, applies to the President.

Check out the part of the text where it says the court disagreed with Scalias solitary dissent:

Justice Scalia in his solitary dissent in Morrison v. Olson argued for an unlimited presidential removal power of all persons exercising executive branch powers, which he argued included the independent counsel; the court disagreed, but later moved closer to Scalia's position in Edmond v. United States.[14]

The court then agrees with me. That a president does not have unlimited presidential removal power. There are excepting cases, such as when a President is attempting to obstruct an investigation into himself and his allies.

 

[Anthony60]

Can't answer my question, can ya? Of course you can't admit that you don't know what Mueller is truly thinking. Guess you think we're that stupid.

Please don't tell me that you somehow thought I was posting anything other than my own analysis.

Please enlighten us. How do you know what Mueller knows? Are you telepathic?

Obviously, at least to most, I never said that I know what he knows.

 

[JoeTrumps]

The intel chiefs didn't brief Trump on the dossier to inform him of pressing national security info. They did it so one of them could immediately leak the briefing to CNN to validate a dossier none of them had verified. It was a PR scheme from day one.

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/987315074959396866

 

[Excon]

Check out the part of the text where it says the court disagreed with Scalias solitary dissent:



The court then agrees with me. That a president does not have unlimited presidential removal power. There are excepting cases, such as when a President is attempting to obstruct an investigation into himself and his allies.

Oy vey!
Your reply is as stupid as it is wrong, especially as that portion was already addressed.

They do not agree with you as that decision only addressed the law that was in effect at the time that pertained to the firing of an Independent counsel, not an FBI Director which we are discussing.
Secondly, the law that decision is based on no longer exists so it has no effect on any possible firing of Mueller by Trump.

 

[Excon]

JFC. Hilarious! As you know the investigation isn't over,

And? We know he is not now a target.

We know that he is also not a target of the Cohen investigation.

So again, "All this time and no such evidence has been presented to support such a claim."
After all this time, no such evidence exist in the hands of the investigators to make him a target.

and Mueller's team is good at not leaking,

Really? So who are all these anonymous sources the Press have been citing in relation to the investigation?
No. The OIG was good at not leaking. Team Pompeo was good at not leaking. Team Mueller? Not so much. Given the leaks that have occurred, any actual wrong doing by Trump would have immediately been leaked.

so I don't know what they'll uncover. We're dealing in uncertainties here, including you.

1. JFC Duh! No reason to state the obvious.

2. As for uncertainties? Four other indictments, no flips and Trump is still not a Target at this time. That is not an uncertainty.

And my point is relevant - the actually germane question is what is impeachable, not prosecutable, and "obstruction" might be difficult to prove in court but the "Constitutional authority" argument isn't binding on the House and Senate.

No. It is an exercise in futility as this Congress is not likely to impeach. If you need that to be more specific, over non-crimes and actions that the majority do not consider a crime. The minority isn't going to have any sway over that.

My guess is as good as yours,

No. One opinion will bear out while the other will not. Wait and see.

I don't believe the Congress will permit ACTUAL obstruction,

Let's see.
Hmmm? No obstruct has been shown. Yep no reason to address your comment.

but it's a moot point because an "obstruction" charge won't be based on that one act,

Speculative nonsense with no basis.
The evidence we have in regards to obstruction is that Trump publicly started numerous times that he wanted the investigation to continue.
Even Comey's memos support Trumps claims.
So what do you have to dispute this actual evidence? Speculative bs?

Problem is you're missing the underlying substance of the fact that he can become a target at any moment, such as when prosecutors get their hands on the Cohen documents for example.

No. I am not ignoring anything.
There is no reason to even suggest that will occur and thus has no bearing at this point in time.
Secondly is is absurd speculation as Trump is not a Target. Cohen is the target for something Mueller suspects is criminal. That is all at this time.
If that changes, fine, discuss it. Until then there exists no reason.

 

[OscarLevant]

1. Not at all, especially as it is known that Trump made it clear that he wanted it investigated both before and after Comey's firing.
2. You seem to be forgetting that Trump is not a target of the investigation. I would suggest that that statement was made long after looking at Comey's memos.

He's a 'subject' of the investigation, which is midway between being a person of interest, and a target, but even that midway point can lean closer to one way of the other, and that we do not know. Trump isn't too happy about the Cohen raid, that's for sure.

We shall see.

 

[OscarLevant]

I just love how you libs couch every little detail...Before Comey was fired, people like you were still screaming that Trump was trying to 'obstruct' the investigation....All along the way liberals have absurdly claimed that this President somehow doesn't have the same powers as every other President before him....

Question for you Winston, and we'll all see how honest and open minded you really are....Can you say in the hypothetical, that had a President Hillary Clinton been elected, that she wouldn't have fired Comey at 12:01 am on January 20th?

I don't think she would have, not at all.

 

[OscarLevant]

Oh so pseudo academic of you here....Ok, I'll bite....Tell us all how the modern democrat party today differs from this?:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

From the above link:

...the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.


No democrat advocates that. Please abstain from red baiting, it's nonsense.

 

[Excon]

He's a 'subject' of the investigation, which is midway between being a person of interest, and a target, but even that midway point can lean closer to one way of the other, and that we do not know. Trump isn't too happy about the Cohen raid, that's for sure.

We shall see.

And after almost a full year of investigation, still no flipping and no target.
Go figure.

 

[OscarLevant]

To get a conviction for obstruction of justice there has to be some justice that was obstructed.

Maybe you are talking about a charge that doesn't exist like attempted obstruction.

Everybody knows that firing the director of the FBI would in no way stop or even slow down an investigation as Comey wasn't doing any of the investigating himself.

It's all about corrupt intent. If he believed firing Comey would slow, or end the investigation, and that was the reason he fired him, that would contribute to the charge, but it would require many more similar acts to warrant an indictment, no isolated incident would be sufficient.

 

[OscarLevant]

What makes you think it's not? Collusion between Trump and the Russians was phony from the start.

There were many contacts between his staff and Russians, it was probable cause, which warranted the investigation.

Probable cause doesn't mean there is guilt.

It might not amount to anything, or it might, the investigation is done to determine if there was a crime, or to clear the air.

If it doesn't amount to anything, then clearing the air is a noble effort, let Mueller do his job.

That's common sense.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ussians/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f862dafea6f8

 

[Excon]

It's all about corrupt intent.

That is not a definitive argument, especially as the Constitutional authority makes no exception for intent.

 

[Lafayette]

Probable cause doesn't mean there is guilt.

It might not amount to anything, or it might, the investigation is done to determine if there was a crime, or to clear the air. If it doesn't amount to anything, then clearing the air is a noble effort, let Mueller do his job.

That's common sense.

Common Sense left the country very shortly after the southern states warmly cheered the 12th Amendment that instituted the Electoral College. They knew then that they could "fudge" the electoral-vote in conservative-politicians favor. Which is what happened five times in American history when the popular-vote winner loses the presidential election.

Which is what has happened twice in the past 20 years, and a mind-bent American public (slavely hooked by the BoobTube) swallows all sort of political commentary and acts accordingly to elect Rabidly Right candidates. Like Donald Dork, who LOSES the popular-vote but wins the Electoral College vote.

America deserves better of its "so-called democracy", but it aint gonna find it on the Rabid Right. Where Right-is-might, and money-is-political-power to manipulate elections.

Let's remember the Golden Rule of democracy. Which is the fact that whoever is elected by the popular-vote is a representative sent to help "govern". (So, all that one need do, is manipulate that popular-vote. Which is why the Electoral College was devised and the south insisted that it be part of the constitution without which it would not sign.)

For as long as that "mistake" is not corrected, the popular-vote cannot be an expression of the "democratic right to vote". Moreover, another manipulation of the popular-vote is none other than "gerrymandering" itself also a mechanism originating in the same period of history in America...

PS: To any who have an interest in history, and the way mankind can repeat great-mistakes, they should learn how Hitler remoulded political-thought in Germany in the post-WW1 years. And why/how? Here's why/how:
*The Germans were reacting to a recessionary period that was directly brought-about by the mindless "payments" that Germany owed to France and England due to WW1.
*Which required taxation to obtain and deliver, thus lowering Busines Investment and Public Demand (for goods/services) during the1920s.
*So when Hitler came around he refused all further "payments" and got on with building the German economy, but around a military structure. Which put people back to work, and that is all they wanted.
*What he produced of course, was a fascistic-nation that did his bidding out of fear and not personal volition.
*Leading up to his sparking of WW2 and loss of that war.
*What American foreign policy did was to assure that Germany prospered economically - perhaps out of a sense of fairness (and to avoid the previous mistake that brought about Hitler) but mostly because of the Communist Bear that was present in the East.

 

[Lafayette]

That is not a definitive argument, especially as the Constitutional authority makes no exception for intent.

It is damn easy in this "debate forum" to make one liner (often sarcastic remarks) to one another. That is not "debate" however. It's mindless sarcasm that happens on a Message Board.

No, I am not saying that your above remark is sarcastic. It's a one-liner response to a one-liner argument.

But, in any Real Debate Forum, one-liners just don't happen because without reflection and references and thus good argument to support their claims, there is no real debate.

And it is by real-debate that we learn:
*The point of real-debate is NOT TO WIN. Which is very American; we are obsessed by the notion of winning. As if debate were a physical sport.
*The objective of any real debate is a mental-game of defending one's point-of-view with bonafide arguments.

Methinks ...