Trump said that he has no recordings of talks with FBI ex-director Comey

That's a totally irrelevant point. I just proved there was an intent to obstruct. That is the only point worth discussing. http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/rep-ted-lieu-trump-witness-tampering-on-tv-975022147541

 

Dersowitzh summed it up the best once again. For all those DTS suffers on this forum, read it, it's educational. There's no shame in being educated by an expert.

OPINION: Trump’s bluff: Perfectly legal
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/339096-trumps-bluff-perfectly-legal

The man is 100% right. This liberal craziness must stop as it is endangering the U.S democratic institutions and the system itself.

 

Obstruction requires intimidation which is exactly what Trump did; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512;

(b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1)
influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2)cause or induce any person to—
(A)
withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B)
alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C)
evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D)
be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or

 

Mueller's expert team is the best of the best in the world at unraveling complex money laundering crime. I believe this is where Trump is going to get nailed and everything else will just be gravy.

 

You did it again...why did you choose to reply by quoting an entire article?

 

Of course it does. Trump is a moron that thought, on an impulse, that a tweet wold result in a desired outcome.

 

Yeah, it really kept Comey from calling trump a liar.

 

Comey manipulated the process, by leaking through a cut-out, in order to get a special counsel appointed.

Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein fundamentally violates the applicable regulation. The regulation requires that the Attorney General or the Acting Attorney General determine “that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted…”

Rosenstein's Order: “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination.”

The way this is supposed to work is: the Justice Department first identifies a likely crime, and then assigns a prosecutor to investigate it. Here, by contrast, there are no parameters imposed on the special counsel’s jurisdiction.

Mueller’s probe is the functional equivalent of a general warrant: a boundless writ to search for incriminating evidence. It is the very evil the Fourth Amendment was adopted to forbid: a scorch-the-earth investigation in the absence of probable cause that a crime has been committed.”

Mueller’s team includes 14 lawyers and counting. There are “several more in the pipeline.”

A funny thing about these lawyers. They overwhelmingly, are Democrats. Mueller’s staffers contribute to Trump’s political opponents, some heavily. The latest Democratic talking-point about this unseemly appearance is that hiring regulations forbid an inquiry into an applicant’s political affiliation. That’s laughable. These are lawyers Mueller has recruited. They are not ‘applicants.’ We’re talking about top-shelf legal talent, accomplished professionals who have jumped at the chance of a gig they do not need but, clearly, want.

Mueller is drawing on a limitless budget to conduct an investigation without boundaries by lawyers hostile to the president.

Why does special counsel Mueller need 14 lawyers (and more coming) for a counterintelligence investigation, as to which the intelligence professionals—agents, not lawyers—have found no ‘collusion with Russia’ evidence after over a year of hard work? What will those lawyers be doing with no limits on their jurisdiction, with nothing but all the time and funding they need to examine one target, Donald Trump?

http://redirect.viglink.com/?format...s empire | Power Line&txt=“Mueller’s empire.”

 

The power is given to the president to begin with. The abuse of that power given, is not. That is where Dershowitz is wrong. The obstruction of justice by Trump rolls over into an abuse of power through intimidation. And that is why Trump is guilty of obstruction. http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/...r-could-be-as-bad-as-obstruction-963560515810

By the way, Lawrence Tribe walks circles around Dershowitz. He is the leading Constitutional Lawyer in the country. Dershowitz needs to go back to law school.

 

I do too.

 

You’d Be Scared if You Were Donald Trump, Too
https://www.yahoo.com/news/d-scared-were-donald-trump-220548435.html

 

Nah...Tribe can only carry water for Dershowitz. Tribe is a political hack and an embarrassment for the profession. How on earth you can call upon former Obama's mentor? As biased as it gets.

There is no evidence that the president Trump abused power, there is no evidence that the president Trump intimidate anyone. If you want to learn what the obstruction of justice looks like watch the following...

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Obstructs Justice, Threatens Police Chief With ‘Consequences’ [VIDEO]

http://thepolitistick.com/obstructi...e-wasserman-schultz-threatens-police-officer/

 

Wishing won't make your false claims real.

 

What intimidation? Comey himself said Trump never tried to intimidate him. You're just blowing ozone.

 

Dershowitz's argument isn't a very good one.

The idea that a sitting President cannot be indicted rests solely on the fact that no one has ever done it before.

In the 1990's, no US President had ever been subpoenaed to testify in a civil suit either. And unlike this indictment claim, there was case law to assert that the President was immune from having to testify while in office.

Ken Star went to the Supreme Court to argue that, and the Renquist Court upended 200 years of prescident, which is why Bill Clinton wound up giving a deposition in the Paula Jones case, which set the table for the Lewinsky debacle.

Ironically, Renquists ruling rested on the assertion that they could see no evidence that a sitting President testifying in a court case would have any impact on the functions of the Presidency or government.

The subsequent impeachment circus would prove the Supreme Court spectacularly wrong on that score.

Frankly, I hope a Grand Jury does indict Trump. The indictment would be challanged on Dershowitz's dubious assertion. It would almost certainly be appealed and counter argued all the way to the Supreme Court.

Which would guarantee that Trump and his pals would have this hanging over them for the rest of Trump's time in Washington.

 

That's not what he said. He said he never took it as a direct instruction.

That he was trying to intimidate him was obvious.

 

See? You and I both know that your statement is your own unsubstantiated opinion, not a real provable fact. That's why you haven't shown the proof. There isn't any. So, aside from squealing, what exactly is your point or goal in this? Aside from self serving baseless conspiracies, you have bumpkus on Trump and his team, not a single solitary criminal trespass from any of them. On these points I believe that I am more informed than you. I also know that a simple Trump tweet gives the left a collective wedgie. And you all squeal like little girls. And you can't stop hating, speculating and simply making up sh*t about President Trump. I also know that if you don't modify your behavior and look at the whole picture, choosing instead to believe the worst distortions imaginable, that it will crystallize into raging insanity.

 

Whats false about it?

 

Amazing that you have to correct and explain that. Of course, you will have to again......

 

Actually obstruction requires "corrupt intent"..............

 

That was a civil case not a criminal case. The indictment for the criminal charges were being held and in the end he plea bargained them.

 

First of all, the President of the United States has no legal authority to order, or prevent an investigation.

Second, the suggestion that Trump tried to interfere in the Flynn (and by extension, Russia investigation) is not limited to Trump's conversations with Comey. He also made similar suggestions to the NSA director, and the DNI, although neither has openly testified to that fact yet.

That Trump is now attacking Mueller continues his obvious pattern of acting as though he had something to hide.

 

I doubt that distinction will amount to much if ever such a case is brought.

 

There has to be an "or else I will", without that it's going nowhere.

 

Like Obama's executive privilege claim over Fast and Furious records?