CNN: More Fake News

[Darth Executor]

Doesn't matter, if in the Presidents own mind he believes that it will somehow impede the investigation, which the president has, on more than one occasion, implied that he did believe, then that is all that matters.

So you can now be impeached for imaginary crimes?

Hillary's defeat really has scrambled the brain of every liberal in a ten thousand mile radius

[Starlight]

So you can now be impeached for imaginary crimes?

Legally, a lot of crimes require prosecutors to prove intent. That was the main reason Comey gave for not prosecuting Hillary - nobody seriously believed she had intent to release classified information by putting it on her private server and getting hacked. Trump had clear intent to end the Russia investigation with his words and actions.

[JimL]

In other words, Trump's reasoning was more nuanced than someone like you is capable of comprehending.

Nothing nuanced about it, here Trump associates his firing of Comey with the Russia investigation, and with the pressure being taken off himself.

Trump was already in the clear as far as the investigation was concerned as confirmed by Comey during his testimony, so Trump had no reason to fire Comey on that account, which means the pressure Trump was referring to wasn't coming from the investigation, it was coming from Comey's grandstanding, refusing to publicly clear Trump's name, and leaking details of official, closed-door conversations to the press. Or as the President astutely put it: "He was crazy, a real nut job."

No, Trump was not already in the clear, he still isn't, the investigation is ongoing. Just because he isn't a specific target, doesn't mean he is clear. His campaign, some of whom are now in his administration, are under investigation, the actual targets, i.e. Gen. Flynn, Manafort, Kushner, Sessions, et al, who are under scrutiny, are associated with Trump, and if he is guilty, then the investigation into his underlings, could lead back to him.
So, if Flynn has anything on Trump, then Trump really doesn't want Flynn to be investigated, and perhaps be facing a long prison term, because Flynn might not want to go to prison. You get my drift?

[Tassman]

I get that you'd love to think so. The director of the FBI serves at the pleasure of the president. He can fire him for whatever reason he wants to, and it would be legal (whether it would necessarily look good is a whole 'nother matter). Since firing the director is legal for whatever reason, it is therefore not an impeachable offense. And as others have noted, firing the director doesn't stop any investigation because he's not the one doing the investigating. C'mon, Jim, THINK.

THIS is what's at stake. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has called upon the Judiciary Committee to investigate possible obstruction of justice over President Trump's firing of James Comey, including subpoenaing officials to testify if they don't cooperate.

She said "It is my strong recommendation that the Judiciary Committee investigate all issues that raise a question of obstruction of justice. These issues should be ... subject to full committee hearings," Feinstein wrote to Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the committee.

[Mountain Man]

His campaign, some of whom are now in his administration, are under investigation...

Are they? According to who? I would have thought you had figured out by now that any story based on "anonymous sources" is almost certainly fake news. Comey himself even testified to that fact.

Comey: ""

[JimL]

So you can now be impeached for imaginary crimes?

Nope, attempting to impede an investigation is reality. Dreaming you did it would be imaginary.

Hillary's defeat really has scrambled the brain of every liberal in a ten thousand mile radius

Us liberals aren't the ones who put a crazy guy, a real nut job, into the White house, that would be in large part, scrambled egg heads like you.

[Mountain Man]

Legally, a lot of crimes require prosecutors to prove intent. That was the main reason Comey gave for not prosecuting Hillary - nobody seriously believed she had intent to release classified information by putting it on her private server and getting hacked. Trump had clear intent to end the Russia investigation with his words and actions.

Your reasoning seems rather insane here.

Are you suggesting that if someone intended to commit a crime but never actually did, that they could still be found guilty?

As for Hillary's gross mishandling of classified information, intent is not specified in the law. Simply being careless with the data is a criminal act in and of itself, and there are people currently sitting in jail who did far less than what Hillary is guilty of.

And this is not even getting into the fact that it's not the FBI's place to decide or even to recommend whether or not a person should be indicted. Their job is to build a case, and that's it. It's the Attorney General's job to decide whether or not to go forward with it.

[JimL]

Are they? According to who? I would have thought you had figured out by now that any story based on "anonymous sources" is almost certainly fake news. Comey himself even testified to that fact.

Comey: ""

Yes they are. Manafort, Gen Flynn, Sessions, Kushner et al., I guess the fake news sites you frequent didn't let you in on this eh?

[JimL]

Your reasoning seems rather insane here.

Are you suggesting that if someone intended to commit a crime but never actually did, that they could still be found guilty?

As for Hillary's gross mishandling of classified information, intent is not specified in the law. Simply being careless with the data is a criminal act in and of itself, and there are people currently sitting in jail who did far less than what Hillary is guilty of.

And this is not even getting into the fact that it's not the FBI's place to decide or even to recommend whether or not a person should be indicted. Their job is to build a case, and that's it. It's the Attorney General's job to decide whether or not to go forward with it.

Too bad for Trump that Atty. Gen. J. Sessions had to recuse himself huh? I hear Trump is really peeved at him for that.

[Sparko]

Nothing nuanced about it, here Trump associates his firing of Comey with the Russia investigation, and with the pressure being taken off himself.

No, Trump was not already in the clear, he still isn't, the investigation is ongoing. Just because he isn't a specific target, doesn't mean he is clear. His campaign, some of whom are now in his administration, are under investigation, the actual targets, i.e. Gen. Flynn, Manafort, Kushner, Sessions, et al, who are under scrutiny, are associated with Trump, and if he is guilty, then the investigation into his underlings, could lead back to him.
So, if Flynn has anything on Trump, then Trump really doesn't want Flynn to be investigated, and perhaps be facing a long prison term, because Flynn might not want to go to prison. You get my drift?

Trump went on to say that if some of his associates had done something wrong, that would be good to find out, http://www.newsweek.com/james-comey-...-senate-622641


doesn't sound like obstruction to me. time to find another talking point

[One Bad Pig]

Wrong, Trump wouldn't be being impeached for the firing of Comey, he would be impeached for interfering in the investigation. He can fire Comey for any reason he wants, he doesn't even have to have a reason to actually fire him, but if it is found that he used this power in order to stop an ongoing investigation into himself or his administration, then that is what is called an abuse of power, which is an impeachable offense.

I've already gone over this with you multiple times, Jim. Have you tried reading for comprehension, or is that beyond your capabilities?

[One Bad Pig]

Nope, attempting to impede an investigation is reality. Dreaming you did it would be imaginary.

Us liberals aren't the ones who put a crazy guy, a real nut job, into the White house, that would be in large part, scrambled egg heads like you.

It's not the fault of conservatives that liberals put up the worst possible candidate to run against him. You can thank the DNC for that.

[rogue06]

It's not the fault of conservatives that liberals put up the worst possible candidate to run against him. You can thank the DNC for that.

It's incredibly ironic that liberals whine about rigged elections (with no evidence) and yet ignore how Hillary became their nominee

[rogue06]

I've already gone over this with you multiple times, Jim. Have you tried reading for comprehension, or is that beyond your capabilities?

Rhetorical question.

[rogue06]

Doesn't matter, if in the Presidents own mind he believes that it will somehow impede the investigation, which the president has, on more than one occasion, implied that he did believe, then that is all that matters.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Comey testified that Trump encouraged him to continue investigating.