 |
| I solemnly swear to leak sensitive information if my investigation seems to be hitting a brick wall |
There are questions about public statements. Questions about tweets. Questions about 2013 meetings. Questions about possible questions about Putin. Questions about Cohen. But the largest share of questions deal with the President's decision to fire the FBI director and Mueller buddy James Comey.
Pretty much every legal expert at this points agrees that there is no good reason for the President to talk to Mueller. Moreover, the leaking of these questions does nothing but reinforce the belief that there is no good reason for the President to talk to Mueller.
It begs the question. Did this leak actually come from the Mueller camp? Or was it a strategic leak from the President's own legal team to embarrass Special Counsel? Perhaps this is Rudy's doing?
211 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 211 of 211Even McCarthy (a Republican columnist for NPR), in his nakedly political opinion piece, acknowledges the paucity of your argument:
"Nor am I contending that lawful presidential actions are unreviewable: The president can be impeached — just as the president has plenary power to fire an executive subordinate, Congress has plenary power to determine what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.
... If, for example, there was a concrete basis to suspect the president of a crime, and the president pardoned his accomplices in return for their silence, the pardons would stand but Congress could impeach the president for abusing his power to conceal his misconduct."
In other words, McCarthy says that it's perfectly fine for Congress to impeach, presumably after an independent investigation, for a Presidential action that intends to conceal his misconduct. Even those for which he has plenary power.
Most of his opinion - not a legal analysis by any stretch - is based on whining about having a Special Investigator in the first place (which he incorrectly criticizes as a "Prosecutor"). It's kind of funny that he objects to the Investigator reporting to the President as "subordinate
officer of the executive branch whose job is to investigate" and not an agent of Congress, because that's exactly why the independent investigation is normally authorized as actually independent, and not in the DOJ reporting structure.
Much of his article is specious and playing to the base, with little merit. I'm not going into it piece by piece.
So, CH, if Trump has General Mattis shoot Mueller in the head, that would not be a crime because Trump has the Constitutional authority to command the military.
So you don't see a distinction between shooting someone in the head (which is a felony crime) and firing someone?
WP is lost.
The slow decline was fun to watch.
What kind of crazy crazy asshole even comes up with An odered hit by the President.
An ordered hit by the President.
The only one lost is you....read his post again....when in doubt, all you do is make shit up....Get a job, loser,,,,unemployed since 2004 us not something to be proud of, except for losers like you....your tireless stupidity is boring...chuckle...
Why is it so important to remove President Trump?
Congress has plenary power to determine what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.
Impeachment is foremost a political decision not a legal one. (If it was Obama would have been removed from office far sooner than the full 8 years he's served.)
You don't need a legal justification to impeach a president you can make up all sorts of trumped up reasons to do it. You just need the political will.
That being said, in order to overturn the results of an election, you need a very compelling reason or the electorate will not forgive you. (See GOP 1996).
Right now they don't have that compelling reason not do I foresee one.
Why is it so important to remove President Trump
And why are you such an unemployed loser?????
It wouldn't be an unlawful order, since Trump has the Constitutional authority to give orders to his Generals. That's the reasoning you folks are giving with respect to firing Comey.
Or are you saying that the intent of the order has something to do with it after all?
So you don't see a distinction between shooting someone in the head (which is a felony crime) and firing someone?
So when the President sends troops into combat, and they shoot someone in the head ... felony?
What kind of crazy crazy asshole even comes up with An odered hit by the President.
People like Texas Republican Pete Olson, one of your Tea Party heroes. You remember Vince Foster don't you?
Post a Comment