(04-19-2019, 09:43 AM)B2hibry Wrote:

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

Don't you think the fact that it is detailed in the report and no charges filed means that it was actually "investigated" or looked into? It is not the job of Congress to prosecute or be an integral piece of the Judiciary process. Their breadth stops at referals to the AG/DOJ. Quite frankly, referrals and subpoenas don't mean much as far as Congress is concerned. Claims that they need to convene for oversight at this junction would be just circling back around for the third time. Insanity.

Nothing I say is going to make my thoughts any clearer at this point. If there is reasonable cause to think that the President may have attempted to abuse his power by directing people in his administration to take actions that would have impeded an investigation into his actions, that's something I want to know more about. That goes for whoever's in the White House. The point in time at which the writing hit the wall for Nixon was the Saturday Night Massacre. I don't care about Trump's reaction to the naming of a special counsel, and I don't know why anyone would equate that to obstruction. I don't care about collusion because that question is answered. If Trump attempted a Saturday Night Massacre of his own (and that exact term was supposedly used by McGahn), I want to know more about what happened there, and I don't care if he's being investigated for treason, jaywalking or anything in between. I'm done here.

---