Trump asked FBI director to drop investigation, which could be obstruction of justice

yeah with any luck this is a nail in the coffin of trumps presidency

veya_victaous wrote:yeah with any luck this is a nail in the coffin of trumps presidency

It's gonna take more than one nail.

There are plenty of nails.

http://news.sky.com/story/claim-trump-sought-to-end-flynn-investigation-is-game-changer-10880867

Where are all the posters raving about how great Trump is now?

although he didn't actually do that did he.

I know he can do no wrong in your view Dick brain. But his house of cards is falling down.

A president cannot be indicted for obstruction of justice.  Any crime he commits while in office is handled by impeachment proceedings.  That's why the Constitution doesn't specify any given criminal conduct, but speaks generally and collectively of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

After a president is removed from office he may be indicted and tried for the underlying crime.

Right now, it's the minority-President's word against Comey's.  But why are there no witnesses?  If the minority-President asked everyone to vacate the room, that would appear to suggest he was anticipating surreptitious, if not illegal behavior.

Comey is in the habit of keeping contemporaneously-written memos about all meetings, and apparently he has one of this meeting.  Contemporaneous notes, particularly if done out of habit, are admissible over the hearsay objection.  Under the Rules of Evidence they have a higher confidence factor.

Trump has suggested he has tapes of the meeting.  If he is bullshitting, that's another lie...and one more strike against his veracity.  If, on the other hand, he has tapes, they will be a check on the story (provided they haven't been tampered with--remember Rosemary Wood's 18-minute gap in the Nixon tapes?).

Angry Andy wrote:There are plenty of nails.

http://news.sky.com/story/claim-trump-sought-to-end-flynn-investigation-is-game-changer-10880867

Where are all the posters raving about how great Trump is now?

I'm quite sure that many of us have never raved about how great he was.

The Devil, You Know wrote:although he didn't actually do that did he.

The proof is in the pudding.  Unless Trump has ironclad proof, his balls (what's left) must be dripping sweat.  

If it comes down to he-said, they-said, Trump is a conspicuous and proven liar, a reputation he has carefully and skillfully cultivated himself.  Remember his allegation that Obama was born in Kenya? And he's still at it: where's the proof that Obama "wiretapped" Trump Tower?

If it comes down to belief, he will be judged according to his reputation.

Angry Andy wrote:I know he can do no wrong in your view Dick brain. But his house of cards is falling down.

he didn't ask him to drop the investigation. The FB had already found no evidence against him a month earlier.

Original Quill wrote:A president cannot be indicted for obstruction of justice.  Any crime he commits while in office is handled by impeachment proceedings.  That's why the Constitution doesn't specify any given criminal conduct, but speaks generally and collectively of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

After a president is removed from office he may be indicted and tried for the underlying crime.

Right now, it's the minority-President's word against Comey's.  But why are there no witnesses?  If the minority-President asked everyone to vacate the room, that would appear to suggest he was anticipating surreptitious, if not illegal behavior.

Comey is in the habit of keeping contemporaneously-written memos about all meetings, and apparently he has one of this meeting.  Contemporaneous notes, particularly if done out of habit, are admissible over the hearsay objection.  Under the Rules of Evidence they have a higher confidence factor.

Trump has suggested he has tapes of the meeting.  If he is bullshitting, that's another lie...and one more strike against his veracity.  If, on the other hand, he has tapes, they will be a check on the story (provided they haven't been tampered with--remember Rosemary Wood's 18-minute gap in the Nixon tapes?).

you are not a minority president when you won the electoral collage vote by a significant margin.
I think you agree it is the electoral collage that decides who wins? You need a majority of those votes.

do these revelations mean comey lied under oath?
because previously he said

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

eddie wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:
There are plenty of nails.

http://news.sky.com/story/claim-trump-sought-to-end-flynn-investigation-is-game-changer-10880867

Where are all the posters raving about how great Trump is now?

I'm quite sure that many of us have never raved about how great he was.

DYK and VoD both have, though...

Long, loud, and repetively..

Yeah but that is the limit to those foolish enough to praise trump

I said give him a chance, I don't think it's working out !

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:A president cannot be indicted for obstruction of justice.  Any crime he commits while in office is handled by impeachment proceedings.  That's why the Constitution doesn't specify any given criminal conduct, but speaks generally and collectively of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

After a president is removed from office he may be indicted and tried for the underlying crime.

Right now, it's the minority-President's word against Comey's.  But why are there no witnesses?  If the minority-President asked everyone to vacate the room, that would appear to suggest he was anticipating surreptitious, if not illegal behavior.

Comey is in the habit of keeping contemporaneously-written memos about all meetings, and apparently he has one of this meeting.  Contemporaneous notes, particularly if done out of habit, are admissible over the hearsay objection.  Under the Rules of Evidence they have a higher confidence factor.

Trump has suggested he has tapes of the meeting.  If he is bullshitting, that's another lie...and one more strike against his veracity.  If, on the other hand, he has tapes, they will be a check on the story (provided they haven't been tampered with--remember Rosemary Wood's 18-minute gap in the Nixon tapes?).

you are not a minority president when you won the electoral collage vote by a significant margin.

Yes, you are.  The terms plurality, majority and minority refer to the numbers in the popular vote count, not to a decision made by a elite committee like the electoral college.  Remember, America is not a democracy.  A committee selects the president.  So when we speak of the successful presidential candidate, we are not necessarily speaking of popular numbers.

Dino wrote:I think you agree it is the electoral collage that decides who wins? You need a majority of those votes.

That's two questions: 1) yes, the electoral college decides who becomes president; 2) no, a candidate does not need a majority of the popular vote for the electoral college to declare him or her a winner.  Once again, the United States is not a democracy.  

Two of the last three presidents (Bush and Trump) have become president after losing the popular vote.  Bush lost the popular vote in the 2000 election to Al Gore, by a count of 50,456,002 to 50,999,897.  Trump lost the popular vote in the 2016 election to Hillary Clinton, by a count of 62,984,825 to 65,853,516.  In this century, only Obama has received the blessing of the electoral college with the concurrence of the popular vote.

The US is not a single nation.  It is an alliance of 50 different states.  The electoral college is a committee of representatives of those states, which meets to choose a single executive.  It can select whomever it wants.  Frequently it might follow the suggestion of the popular vote, but on many occasions it chooses not to.