(04-19-2019, 09:32 AM)TJBender Wrote:

(04-19-2019, 08:04 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: 1. Makes sense. White House Council is the first person to ask in a long chain, because it's WHC's job to know the law. Trump is not a lawyer. Nonetheless, since there was no crime specified, a Special Council investigation was illegal in the first place and Trump was completely within his rights to fire Mueller. That he didn't is the opposite of obstruction.

2. That's your spin in it. He could very well have expected an agency like NSA who has a huge amount of illegally obtained info on everyone to have actual proof that the collusion scam was a scam. If I were in Trump's shoes I would have expected NSA to have such evidence.

3. "You're the king of France!"

3. What you are saying is that Trump is not allowed to defend himself against false charges. Does that apply only to rulers in your mind, or is no one allowed to defend himself against false charges? Do you think that that Trump should have less rights than Joe Sixpack? Is it OK in your worldview that the FBI put Hillary above the law while they put Trump below the law? Shouldn't the law be applied the same to everyone?

For starters, Hillary should have been prosecuted for any number of reasons. I'm sure Trump realizes, despite his grandstanding, that spending time and resources going after her now will fire up his already fired up base and alienate most everyone else. It's not going to happen, but it should.

The difference between Trump defending himself from false charges and me defending myself from them is that I can't pick up the phone and direct my subordinates to fire the people investigating me. That's the big red line, and that's what needs to be explored. If there's nothing there, there's nothing there, but I would certainly like to know if the President tried to abuse his powers to interfere with an investigation of himself. I don't see how someone looking at it from 10,000 feet couldn't be asking that question. It's the only thing in the shreds of report and numerous summaries I've read that still bothers me, and I'd like to see both Judiciary Committees look into it and see what's there.