New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Baahmshell!! Dershowtiz sez Trump firing of Comey was NOT “obstruction”

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
I'm still curious to find out who talked trump out of firing Comey right after inauguration day. so many people wanted to see him go. at least one person who had trumps ear managed to change his mind.

probably not sessions?
I don't know, perhaps he just didn't know enough about it at that time. I think that, when Comey revealed that he had a friend call for an investigation into the collusion with the Russians thing, that might have been the catalyst for the firing. This is just speculation on my part.
I think that, after Comey did his dog and pony show, making an excellent case for indicting Hillary Clinton, and then letting her off the hook, should have prompted Trump fire him on the afternoon of January 20, 2017.
 
I don't know, perhaps he just didn't know enough about it at that time. I think that, when Comey revealed that he had a friend call for an investigation into the collusion with the Russians thing, that might have been the catalyst for the firing. This is just speculation on my part.
I think that, after Comey did his dog and pony show, making an excellent case for indicting Hillary Clinton, and then letting her off the hook, should have prompted Trump fire him on the afternoon of January 20, 2017.
it was clear that Comey was a showboater and lacked the confidence of other branches of government. if you can't get rid of someone like THAT while you're "draining the swamp", then is there any hope at all for reform?
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
it was clear that Comey was a showboater and lacked the confidence of other branches of government. if you can't get rid of someone like THAT while you're "draining the swamp", then is there any hope at all for reform?
Trump has been very slow at getting rid of the Obama moles in the deep-state swamp. That is just about my only disappointment in him. It seems very simple to me, just fire the bastards. Most would not have to be replaced because Obama poly-saturated the bureaucracy with useless individuals who supported him and that was their only qualifications.
 

Arkady

President
No, it's that they're both Jews
Are they? I've always heard Greenspan referred to as an atheist. Or do you mean he has Jewish ethnicity? I thought you regarded "Jewish" as only referring to religion, never to ethnicity. Which is it?

Anyway, I made no reference to Dershowitz being a Jew. I wasn't even aware he was Jewish. He's another one I've seen referred to as a prominent agnostic by my fellow atheists.
 
Are they? I've always heard Greenspan referred to as an atheist. Or do you mean he has Jewish ethnicity? I thought you regarded "Jewish" as only referring to religion, never to ethnicity. Which is it?

Anyway, I made no reference to Dershowitz being a Jew. I wasn't even aware he was Jewish. He's another one I've seen referred to as a prominent agnostic by my fellow atheists.
Damn, you got busted again.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Give an example of Trump doing that.
1. Trump pressuring Comey to let Flynn off the hook.

2. Trump’s relentless tweeting and yapping directing the FBI and DOJ to go after Hillary.

You asked for one example and I gave you two. Hope you don’t mind.

;-)
 
Spotted your screw-up, didn't you? After constantly insisting it was anti-Semitic to use the word "Jew" to refer to anything other than religious faith, you just did so. Funny stuff, don't you think?
How is referring to two Jewish men as Jews a "screw up"? Your Reich is showing again, Arkadolf.
 

Arkady

President
How is referring to two Jewish men as Jews a "screw up"? Your Reich is showing again, Arkadolf.
You referred to an atheist and an agnostic as Jews. If you meant they have Jewish ancestry or are culturally Jewish or ethnically Jewish, that's fine. I'll take your word on that, knowing nothing about those things. But, that clearly flies in the face of your previous insistence that it can only refer to religion. Ooops!
 

Zam-Zam

Senator



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obstruct-justice-legal-experts-cite-limits-charges/story?id=51586257

Wow – when even the left doesn’t support Mueller, isn’t the whole case built on a house of cards?

Some excerpts from Alan Dershowitz, in the link above, regarding the dismissal of Comey by Trump:

  • Firing Comey in itself cannot be obstruction of justice because the president had the power to do so, unless there are "clearly illegal acts" and a criminal intent.
  • “You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power.”

  • “Professor Dershowitz is absolutely correct: In order to make a criminal case, a prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the president fired Comey with the specific intent to impede a criminal investigation,” Lauro said. “Based on what we know now, any prosecutor who brought such a charge would be laughed out of court.”

  • Professor Adam Samaha of NYU School of Law also pointed out: “If the president is acting within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority, of course, that cannot and should not be made a crime.”

If Trump had failed to name an independent prosecutor, or named an partisan/ineffective one, there might be room for discussion. But Dershowtiz seems confident that if Mueller proceeds he "will be laughed out of court".

Wait a minute - does that end up proving that Mueller is incompetent/ineffective after all?

"Mueller? Mueller? Mueller?"
Don't pop their balloon, they have so little else......:>)
 
You referred to an atheist and an agnostic as Jews. If you meant they have Jewish ancestry or are culturally Jewish or ethnically Jewish, that's fine. I'll take your word on that, knowing nothing about those things. But, that clearly flies in the face of your previous insistence that it can only refer to religion. Ooops!
They are neither atheist, nor agnostic. Both are practicing Jews.

And you're a Nazi.
 
Top