http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/04/would-even-care-if-was-guilty.html We have seen Trump defenders, after the revelation that Donner Jr was eager to engage in collusion with Russia, resort to the "collusion with a foreign adversarial government is not a crime" defense. But what if Trump or his associates ARE guilty of a crime? Would you even care?
No because it saved our constitution for another 50 years by keeping a right leaning Supreme Court.. As Harry Reid and Obama/Grubber implied it doesn't matter how you do it as long as it gets you the results you want. .
Would you even care if he is not guilty? Russia was not a "foreign adversarial government," although I know you want the 1950s back - and even then is wasn't, nor has it ever been.
Obstruction of justice is the big one. But there are a whole host of money laundering, lying to a federal agent, and foreign agent acts that could potentially apply.
The previous right leaning court approved the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade, Obamacare, and upheld the right of the government to regulate individual firearm ownership. I would also note that none of the individuals you cited implied that they believed in the (falsely interpreted) Macchiavelli alleged philosophy.
But there is no evidence of any of these things happening so I right back to the first question. Fully of what?
I cared when Hillary committed a crime and got off with not even a hand slap and I care if Trump ends up guilty. Anyone that cares about justice and law in this country should have and should now.
Collusion isn't a crime and he was just helping pops the way Bill helped his wife on an airport tarmac.
No evidence? None at all? HE FIRED THE FBI DIRECTOR BECAUSE OF THE RUSSIA THING. Grand Juries return indictments 99.99% of the time.
Did you notice that you have zero evidence of what took place during that meeting at the tarmac, but we have hard documented evidence of what took place at the Trump tower meeting? I noticed.
To the posters saying Trump is innocent, the fact two of Trump's top operatives have had to register as special agents, and Mueller is bringing up a grand jury in Washington should be telling. Aside from openly admitting he fired Comey over Russia. I care simply because as a American citizen, I rather not see foreign interference in a national election.
But you're not Mueller, I'm not Mueller, but obviously following the money has led Mueller onto something.
What makes you say that? Thed grand jury? Isn't it just as logical to say that he empaneled the jury to gok through information as it's received to prevent an overload of info all at once? Or just to get documents and testimony as soon as possible?
He was well within his right to fire Comey any time he wanted. And Comey himself said he was never pressured to stop the investigation. The same guy that bowed to the Clinton campaign to help their PR problems.
You can do something legally that still qualifies as obstruction of justice given the circumstance. Similarly, whether Comey felt pressure is irrelevant to the determination of OoJ.
[wordy post alert! ]I would certainly care, but it is not necessarily the most important or crucial part of this story to me if we are deciding whether to impeach and remove. I think the constitutional standard for removal is a high bar, and clearly a 'crime' is not the standard. It must be high crimes/ misdemeanors. So I ask if there is a pattern of behavior that suggests pervasive contempt for the law. I ask myself if the conduct and attitude has corrupted /infected multiple departments, institutions, and cabinet positions of the executive, and whether the President knowingly and intentionally participated in the corruption in the executive. I ask myself if we dare wait until the next election for the President's removal by voters, or if the republic might be so compromised and weakened by delay. it might be to late to 'stop the rot' when he leaves. As I say, I prefer that Congress not nullify the results of an electoral college because they found 'a crime'. It had better be a doosie or several. It is also possible that the conduct never quite reaches a specific crime level but represents such a consistent amoral or immoral breach of honor and integrity so frequently , that it is still toxic to the broader executive, and lower levels. You still don't dare wait another two years to clean house. That is why that misdemeanor reference is sitting there. Its not just about what the President actually did, its about how his conduct echos through every nick and cranny of his stewardship. I would have voted for hearings on Iran Contra, and maybe the 'torture memos' but so far only Watergate / Nixon has met my standard for removal. , Nixon corrupted/ used the IRS, FBI, Justice Dept, and the AG's office and most of the west wing staff. My gut tells me that four more years of LBJ, might have brought a real 'unfortunate' atmosphere for a long time as well, even if there wasn't 'a' crime there. I think we can be glad from an ethics standpoint he did not run again and win.
Consider the following situation. Is it illegal to shred a piece of paper? No. Is it illegal to shred a piece of paper that includes financial data? No. Is it obstruction of justice to shred a piece of paper which includes that exact same financial data when you know (or should know) that it will be relevant to an ongoing investigation? Yes. Hopefully that helps to illustrate my point. It is entirely possible to do something legal that becomes illegal under the circumstance. Firing the FBI director when you have the authority to do such is not illegal. Firing the FBI director because you want to influence or stop an investigation into that Russia thing is obstruction of justice. But there is another potential aspect. Dershowitz has effectively made the argument that Presidents can not be guilty of the crime of obstruction of justice by virtue of the fact that they are the President. And that argument may hold water in a potential criminal proceeding. It would not stop the political process of impeachment as impeachment could be launched for something as completely inane as walking across the street improperly.
Using your same piece of paper, it is no longer obstruction of justice if those same investigators say you are not under investigation. That's why I think Trump made such a big deal of Comey saying he wasn't under investigation.
Whether Trump was personally under investigation is largely irrelevant to whether Trump obstructed justice when he fired comey because of the Russian thing. You do not personally need to be the subject of the investigation when you obstruct the justice of said investigation.
The Russia thing is based on Trumps campaign. If he's not under investigation then Russia doesn't matter.
