He tried to obstruct justice

he tried to obstruct justice

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=bkp_Bmab07w
youtube.com/watch?v=hhkRQUtD_Jo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Lol no.

thats just not possible
how can the one guy in america with the power
to literally pardon criminals obstruct justice?
explain how the guy who can literally decide who and who doesnt get investigated obstruct justice?

it's the only story that makes sense, and it's what comey heard him do at the time

...

AG Lynch told Comey to call the Clinton investigation a "matter" to down play the fact that the Clinton campaign was under investigation and later meet with Bill on the plane which Comey said was the final straw.

The Obama administrations AG was colluding with the Clinton campaign and instructed FBI directory Comey to downplay the investigation.

Not an argument

the FBI is supposed to be independent

>>swedish flash along with "its the only story that makes sense"
KEK

I'm pretty sure it's usable as an argument, but as it stands I guess youre right

hi jim, ive just pardoned flynn
go back to your office

in order to be pardoned you must've done something wrong. are you willing to make this known to the public?

Good thing he's fucking terrible at it then because not even Comey thinks he did a good job at making it seem like a ultimatum.

>explain how the guy who can literally decide who and who doesnt get investigated obstruct justice?

The president doesn't decide who gets investigated you ignorant fuck.

>everything he does is legal because he's the president

I didn't realize the right was so hungry for authoritarian cock.

HE CAN JUST PARDON FLYNN
INVESTIGATION OVER

your melting

as hard as it for you accept
those are the powers of the president

the power to decide who, specifically, the FBI investigates?

>he tried to obstruct justice
Prove it.

>it's the only story that makes sense
Personal opinion. Not fact.

>and it's what comey heard him do at the time
Prove it.

>the FBI is supposed to be independent
And?

>I'm pretty sure it's usable as an argument
Personal opinion. Not fact.

>but as it stands I guess youre right
So you admit you're wrong?

>your melting
*you're

>the power to decide who, specifically, the FBI investigates?
The President doesn't answer to the FBI.

what dont you understand?
if the fbi is actively investigating, lets say a drugdealer who murdered 10 people.

the president whips out his pen, signs a presidential pardon, hands it to the fbi and says
ive just pardoned the target of your investation. Investagation is over.

you're also a bit fervent for your own good. Comey testified today that he took it as an order.

actually the more I read I realize your IQ is not above 80 so I don't see what the point is

who cares how comey "took it" thats circumstantial and proves nothing

no, what don't you understand- if he pardoned Flynn that would be suicide. it would NOT BE A POPULAR MOVE. if a pardon is his out in all of this then he's fucked

so what was the reason Trump sent everyone else out of that room? why did this have to happen in a steely eyed 1v1?

he will eventually pardon flynn anyway
you can count on it

>Comey testified today that he took it as an order.
No, he didn't.

>actually the more I read I realize your IQ is not above 80 so I don't see what the point is
You sound like an IQ Supremacist.

As Comey stated, the president has the Constitutional right to order or stop a investigation. So EVEN if he forced the FBI to stop ANY investigation he's within the law. BTFO FUCKTARDS

what law is there against having a private conversation

>The president doesn't decide who gets investigated you ignorant fuck.
The president can absolutely do this. The FBI is part of the Executive branch.

>so what was the reason Trump sent everyone else out of that room?
Because Trump wanted to and is allowed to.

>why did this have to happen in a steely eyed 1v1?
So what if it did? Are you saying it's illegal for Trump to have 1 on 1 conversations?

Do you think Trump blocking people on Twitter is illegal too?

youtube.com/watch?v=bkp_Bmab07w

For what? Flynn was cleared by the FBI before he was even fired.

that could or could not be right for now- as I recall he made it a point to say that he wasn't a legal scholar and didn't exactly know.

even if it were true it'd still look very bad, but we might go the full [spoiler]4[/spoiler] years

WOW

LOOK AT ALL TH EVIDENCE SUPPLIED

SHILL SLIDE THREAD

SAGE THIS SHIT

If anything, Comey put the spotlight on Loretta Lynch and the Clintons for obstruction.

well you know what they say, if it looks like shit and smells like shit

He did not even comey said he did not by his own words and his words are what matters not comeys.

The President is more or less above the law and can order any investigation shut down. What do you think Obama was doing for 8 years?

both can be true. who here /bernie/?

>as I recall he made it a point to say that he wasn't a legal scholar and didn't exactly know.

thats because comey et al is relying on stupid people to believe the political charade due to their not knowing any better

Alright, I'm tired of this fake news. Time to set the record straight.

The FBI conducts two types of investigations: criminal and counter intelligence. Obstruction of justice would only apply to a criminal investigation since there is no "justice" to reach in an intelligence investigation. At the time of the alleged "let it go" conversation, the FBI was not criminally investigating Flynn therefore it is impossible that Trump obstructed justice.

I've seen this dumb ass comment all over plebbit and twitter. Since when does wanting privacy show intent of a criminal activity?

Swedes are morons that don't understand real freedom, they believe people do not deserve privacy and the right of free speech no matter how terrible.

*Loretta Lynch

James Comey testified under oath before Congress today that he kept memos about his conversations with Donald Trump because he expected Trump would lie about it, making clear that he viewed Trump as a habitual liar. And that prompted Trump to trot out Sarah Huckabee Sanders of all people to deliver Trump’s very own Richard Nixon moment.

“The president is not a liar,” Huckabee Sanders said from the press briefing podium shortly after James Comey’s testimony concluded. And so this is the point at which we’ve now arrived. The debate at the center of public attention is now based on whether Donald Trump is or is not a liar. Not whether or not he lied once about one particular thing, as nearly all politicians do from time to time. The public is now focused on whether Trump lies so much that he’s defined as a liar.

And that’s a battle Donald Trump can’t win.

>the FBI was not criminally investigating Flynn
I don't believe that's correct.

nigga they were all in the room up until that very moment. you don't think they talked state matters before then?

>well you know what they say, if it looks like shit and smells like shit
Well, your argument is shit so there you go.

>both can be true. who here /bernie/?
Oh so you support an anti-White, communist kike?

Figures.

Stay salty, Swede fag.

The FBI isn't legally independent in the U.S., only independent de facto for some recent administrations. Previous administrations have worked closely with the FBI.

He's a crook, totally unsuited to the office he occupies.He thinks he can run a nation the same way one runs a corporation.
You cannot.

Well considering how Sessions is technically Comey's, boss and how ironclad Trump's inner circle is (he said as much), it looks suss. Probably because by limiting the number of people privy to the conversation, you limit the number of people who can testify to its haven taken place.

salt is key for a balanced diet. you die without salt.

this is still interesting if it's just a really stupid, ugly thing to do rather than actually criminal

Lol i love how you ignore that comey also said muh russia collusion is fakenews you fake.

Under the Constitution, the president may pardon only persons convicted or accused of federal crimes and offenses prosecuted by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States in the D.C.

swedecuck ignoring my post

reguardless of popularity, it would be legal.

It's really literally nothing. There's no rule that says the FBI is independent. Any administration can choose to work seperately from or close with the FBI at their discretion.

it didn't have the reply so I figured it was biased

>Well considering how Sessions is technically Comey's, boss and how ironclad Trump's inner circle is (he said as much), it looks suss
"looks" isn't against the law.

>robably because by limiting the number of people privy to the conversation, you limit the number of people who can testify to its haven taken place.
So what? Still not illegal.

If I were Trump I'd be limiting my discussions to only those who were directly involved. Trump already has a huge problem with leakers and the more people there, the bigger the chance for another leak.
Hell, I'd be recording every conversation as well.

impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. if trump does this before midterms, it'll just give the Dems a reason to mobilize and win back their majority. Then the ball's in their court: subpoenas, impeachment, whatever. It's up to the senate to try the crime, and based on the evidence trump would likely be acquitted. But it'd be a smear on his presidency and make it very hard to win re-election or make allies.

>liberal jew harvard law professor
yeah, i'm also really interested what fucking anderson cooper had to say.

...

Obstruction of justice requires the defendant to have consciousness of guilt AND. One could certainly argue that this establishes that.

anyone can have an agenda, why not include the reply

You are wrong, there was no criminal investigation on Flynn at the time of those comments.

Then why didn't one argue that during the 3 hearings so far?

source?

>Obstruction of justice requires the defendant to have consciousness of guilt
Too bad no one can prove that.

>AND.
???

>One could certainly argue that this establishes that.
Their argument would be pure speculation.

You see, there needs to be actual verifiable intent and evidence.

There isn't any.

So much so, that the FBI, NSA, and DoJ are not investigating Trump for anything.

All this is a liberal media and Democrat attempt to vilify, discredit and ruin Trump.

And apparently idiots like you are buying into it because you can't stop sucking media cock long enough to think for yourselves.

>law professor: president has the right to do that. presiden't have done that. it's constitutional.
>swedecuck: he's b-biased
go to sleep

no you are, hillary for prison 2016

youtube.com/watch?v=hhkRQUtD_Jo

Probably because those hearings pertained to the overarching Russia investigation–specifically the 2016 hack–not the Comey firing. Besides, these hearings aren't about actual cross-examination or arguments; they're about getting accounts on the record.

Then why haven't there been any hearings on the Comey firing, specifically how that would constitute the legal charge of obstruction of justice?

The president has the power to pardon anyone, even before they are brought to trial of the investigation is complete. Trump literally did nothing wrong.

checkem

However he pretty much nailed it, sorry swedecuck

Whether or not there was an direct order to cease the Flynn investigation (which there wasn't),
The President literally HAS the constitutional power to "obstruct justice" as much as he wants as it pertains to the FBI. He can pardon who he wants, fire the director, and cease any investigations being conducted as he sees fit. This would not be seen as criminal conduct or grounds for removal.
If there was in fact obstruction (which there wasn't) Congress could however consider it grounds for impeachment which probably wouldn't even make it to a hearing let alone removal from office.
In other words
W O W I T ' S F U C K I N G N O T H I N G
Just a last bit of fodder for CNN to use to ramble about hypotheticals surrounding a non-existant case for another month or so.