And Trump never offered any alibi, false or otherwise. There was no deceit. He only criticized the timing of the indictments.

Sure.  He's not allowed to stop otherwise lawful investigations on any case by case basis, though.  So if these weren't just idle words, thats a big problem.

And he didn't stop any lawful investigations. That was Loretta Lynch.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Criticism of an ongoing investigation doesn’t amount to obstructing justice. This is very simple.

---

Sure.  He's not allowed to stop otherwise lawful investigations on any case by case basis, though.  So if these weren't just idle words, thats a big problem.

And he didn't stop any lawful investigations. That was Loretta Lynch.

Right.  The AG is the one with that authority.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Criticism of an ongoing investigation doesn’t amount to obstructing justice. This is very simple.

When the person doing the criticizing can fire the person in charge of the investigation, yes, it does. That's even simpler.

---

TJ, Your TDS is flaring up again. Put some hydrocortizone creme on that, stat!

Take off your spray tan colored glasses. It scares me that 30% of our country still hangs on every word from this nitwit wannabe mob boss.

Dude... more like 50% and it's the liberals that hang on EVERY word, citing EVERY tweet.

Also... prior Presidents didn't have the means to publicly chastise someone because Twitter wasn't even a thing until the last 10 years or so...

---

Criticism of an ongoing investigation doesn’t amount to obstructing justice. This is very simple.

When the person doing the criticizing can fire the person in charge of the investigation, yes, it does. That's even simpler.

So, he hypothetically obstructed justice? I don’t know who isn’t telling you thos violates the code section but they’re wrong.

---

When the person doing the criticizing can fire the person in charge of the investigation, yes, it does. That's even simpler.

So, he hypothetically obstructed justice? I don’t know who isn’t telling you thos violates the code section but they’re wrong.

I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on the Internet.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

When the person doing the criticizing can fire the person in charge of the investigation, yes, it does. That's even simpler.

So, he hypothetically obstructed justice? I don’t know who isn’t telling you thos violates the code section but they’re wrong.

There's nothing hypothetical about it. A President telling a member of his cabinet that the indictments his office has brought (and not just on "Obama-era" investigations, by the way) are politically inconvenient is a statement designed to dissuade that person from letting future indictments come through. He's trying to influence the day-to-day operation of the Justice Department to improve his party's chances in the election. That is obstructing justice, I don't care what your spray tan-colored glasses show you.

I swear Trump could pour gas on a puppy and set it on fire on live TV, and some of you would be defending him because all he did was toss a match. The match killed the puppy, and it probably voted for Hillary too.

---

So, he hypothetically obstructed justice? I don’t know who isn’t telling you thos violates the code section but they’re wrong.

There's nothing hypothetical about it. A President telling a member of his cabinet that the indictments his office has brought (and not just on "Obama-era" investigations, by the way) are politically inconvenient is a statement designed to dissuade that person from letting future indictments come through. He's trying to influence the day-to-day operation of the Justice Department to improve his party's chances in the election. That is obstructing justice, I don't care what your spray tan-colored glasses show you.

I swear Trump could pour gas on a puppy and set it on fire on live TV, and some of you would be defending him because all he did was toss a match. The match killed the puppy, and it probably voted for Hillary too.

Firstly, included in many of Trump’s privledges is influencing the day-to-day operations of the DOJ. He’s been largely absent so as to avoid the appearance of influence into his case. He’s allowed to direct them. Don’t you remember the IRS and conservatives? DOJ targeting police departments?

Secondly, nothing you said constitutes obstructing. You can’t assign intent and then change the letter of the law to meet your criteria. Criticizing Sessions and his investigations isn’t obstruction. It does not meet the code section requirements. Would it be obstruction if Sessions criticizes Rosenstein? Or if Rosenstein criticizes a field agent? Of course not. 

Trump’s statement isn’t smart but it isn’t illegal.

---

There's nothing hypothetical about it. A President telling a member of his cabinet that the indictments his office has brought (and not just on "Obama-era" investigations, by the way) are politically inconvenient is a statement designed to dissuade that person from letting future indictments come through. He's trying to influence the day-to-day operation of the Justice Department to improve his party's chances in the election. That is obstructing justice, I don't care what your spray tan-colored glasses show you.

I swear Trump could pour gas on a puppy and set it on fire on live TV, and some of you would be defending him because all he did was toss a match. The match killed the puppy, and it probably voted for Hillary too.

Firstly, included in many of Trump’s privledges is influencing the day-to-day operations of the DOJ. He’s been largely absent so as to avoid the appearance of influence into his case. He’s allowed to direct them. Don’t you remember the IRS and conservatives? DOJ targeting police departments?

Secondly, nothing you said constitutes obstructing. You can’t assign intent and then change the letter of the law to meet your criteria. Criticizing Sessions and his investigations isn’t obstruction. It does not meet the code section requirements. Would it be obstruction if Sessions criticizes Rosenstein? Or if Rosenstein criticizes a field agent? Of course not. 

Trump’s statement isn’t smart but it isn’t illegal.

Things enter a new arena when you go onto Twitter and publicly criticize your Attorney General for bringing indictments against Republicans right before an election. You look at that and see a boss criticizing his subordinate. I look at it and see a President publicly telling his AG not to bring any more indictments until after the election. You see nothing wrong with that, I see it as interfering in a criminal investigation for political purposes. Maybe that's the point at which our understanding breaks down.

---

Firstly, included in many of Trump’s privledges is influencing the day-to-day operations of the DOJ. He’s been largely absent so as to avoid the appearance of influence into his case. He’s allowed to direct them. Don’t you remember the IRS and conservatives? DOJ targeting police departments?

Secondly, nothing you said constitutes obstructing. You can’t assign intent and then change the letter of the law to meet your criteria. Criticizing Sessions and his investigations isn’t obstruction. It does not meet the code section requirements. Would it be obstruction if Sessions criticizes Rosenstein? Or if Rosenstein criticizes a field agent? Of course not. 

Trump’s statement isn’t smart but it isn’t illegal.

Things enter a new arena when you go onto Twitter and publicly criticize your Attorney General for bringing indictments against Republicans right before an election. You look at that and see a boss criticizing his subordinate. I look at it and see a President publicly telling his AG not to bring any more indictments until after the election. You see nothing wrong with that, I see it as interfering in a criminal investigation for political purposes. Maybe that's the point at which our understanding breaks down.

In Trumps defense, his AG is a bumbling idiot, so the criticism is warranted, no?

---

Things enter a new arena when you go onto Twitter and publicly criticize your Attorney General for bringing indictments against Republicans right before an election. You look at that and see a boss criticizing his subordinate. I look at it and see a President publicly telling his AG not to bring any more indictments until after the election. You see nothing wrong with that, I see it as interfering in a criminal investigation for political purposes. Maybe that's the point at which our understanding breaks down.

In Trumps defense, his AG is a bumbling idiot, so the criticism is warranted, no?

You'll never get any argument from me on Sessions being a bumbling idiot.

My issue is not that Trump criticized Sessions. It's that:

1. He did so very publicly
   
2. He directly linked his criticism to it now being harder to hold those two seats in November
   

A boss criticizing his employee behind closed doors is what it is. A President criticizing his AG for handing down two politically inconvenient indictments is, well, something else entirely.

---

Firstly, included in many of Trump’s privledges is influencing the day-to-day operations of the DOJ. He’s been largely absent so as to avoid the appearance of influence into his case. He’s allowed to direct them. Don’t you remember the IRS and conservatives? DOJ targeting police departments?

Secondly, nothing you said constitutes obstructing. You can’t assign intent and then change the letter of the law to meet your criteria. Criticizing Sessions and his investigations isn’t obstruction. It does not meet the code section requirements. Would it be obstruction if Sessions criticizes Rosenstein? Or if Rosenstein criticizes a field agent? Of course not. 

Trump’s statement isn’t smart but it isn’t illegal.

Things enter a new arena when you go onto Twitter and publicly criticize your Attorney General for bringing indictments against Republicans right before an election. You look at that and see a boss criticizing his subordinate. I look at it and see a President publicly telling his AG not to bring any more indictments until after the election. You see nothing wrong with that, I see it as interfering in a criminal investigation for political purposes. Maybe that's the point at which our understanding breaks down.

I understand your point-of-view. I understand why you think it's obstruction.

I'm just saying that the code section doesn't give special exception to Twitter or Trump (the President) in regarded to criticism of investigations by subordinates. It's either illegal or it's legal. Criticism should be expected from superiors during criminal investigations. Putting that criticism in the public arena doesn't make it any less legal.

---

Things enter a new arena when you go onto Twitter and publicly criticize your Attorney General for bringing indictments against Republicans right before an election. You look at that and see a boss criticizing his subordinate. I look at it and see a President publicly telling his AG not to bring any more indictments until after the election. You see nothing wrong with that, I see it as interfering in a criminal investigation for political purposes. Maybe that's the point at which our understanding breaks down.

I understand your point-of-view. I understand why you think it's obstruction.

I'm just saying that the code section doesn't give special exception to Twitter or Trump (the President) in regarded to criticism of investigations by subordinates. It's either illegal or it's legal. Criticism should be expected from superiors during criminal investigations. Putting that criticism in the public arena doesn't make it any less legal.

You only look at the definition of crimes in statutes if it's a criminal procedure. It's understood that public officials can break the public Trust in ways that private citizens cannot. so an impeachment proceeding would be more about the spirit of the laws and the proper division of power. Both of which Trump is trying to violate in a big way.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Things enter a new arena when you go onto Twitter and publicly criticize your Attorney General for bringing indictments against Republicans right before an election. You look at that and see a boss criticizing his subordinate. I look at it and see a President publicly telling his AG not to bring any more indictments until after the election. You see nothing wrong with that, I see it as interfering in a criminal investigation for political purposes. Maybe that's the point at which our understanding breaks down.

In Trumps defense, his AG is a bumbling idiot, so the criticism is warranted, no?

....but he picked the bumbling idiot...
did he not know he was a bumbling idiot?
We all did lol

It was one of the few choices he made to his staff that I was not on board with totally.
His anti-marijuana stance was a big part of it... the bumbling idiot part... well... there's a lot of those in DC

---

I understand your point-of-view. I understand why you think it's obstruction.

I'm just saying that the code section doesn't give special exception to Twitter or Trump (the President) in regarded to criticism of investigations by subordinates. It's either illegal or it's legal. Criticism should be expected from superiors during criminal investigations. Putting that criticism in the public arena doesn't make it any less legal.

You only look at the definition of crimes in statutes if it's a criminal procedure. It's understood that public officials can break the public Trust in ways that private citizens cannot. so an impeachment proceeding would be more about the spirit of the laws and the proper division of power. Both of which Trump is trying to violate in a big way.

Of course that's what I'm looking at because that's all that should matter. If we intend to impeach Presidents because we simply don't like what they're doing, you'll have half of the population pushing for impeachment every year. To impeach on the "spirit of the law" would be equivalent to a cop pulling you over for speeding because you were going to speed limit but he thought you looked like you were speeding. As soon as you impeach for conduct that is legal, we'll never see another full-term President.

---

You only look at the definition of crimes in statutes if it's a criminal procedure. It's understood that public officials can break the public Trust in ways that private citizens cannot. so an impeachment proceeding would be more about the spirit of the laws and the proper division of power. Both of which Trump is trying to violate in a big way.

Of course that's what I'm looking at because that's all that should matter. If we intend to impeach Presidents because we simply don't like what they're doing, you'll have half of the population pushing for impeachment every year. To impeach on the "spirit of the law" would be equivalent to a cop pulling you over for speeding because you were going to speed limit but he thought you looked like you were speeding. As soon as you impeach for conduct that is legal, we'll never see another full-term President.

False.  First, you're misstating my argument. The question is, did the President violate the public trust (this is the original meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors). It's a more than just "he did something we didn't like". It has to be an abuse of power or corruption or something similar. Second, that's where the 2/3 of the senate threshhold comes in.  A rational House wouldn't vote to impeach unless they believe their arguments will convince 2/3 of senators.  This means that the argument would transcend partisanship.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Of course that's what I'm looking at because that's all that should matter. If we intend to impeach Presidents because we simply don't like what they're doing, you'll have half of the population pushing for impeachment every year. To impeach on the "spirit of the law" would be equivalent to a cop pulling you over for speeding because you were going to speed limit but he thought you looked like you were speeding. As soon as you impeach for conduct that is legal, we'll never see another full-term President.

False.  First, you're misstating my argument.  The question is, did the President violate the public trust (this is the original meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors).  It's a more than just "he did something we didn't like".  It has to be an abuse of power or corruption or something similar.  Second, that's where the 2/3 of the senate threshhold comes in.  A rational House wouldn't vote to impeach unless they believe their arguments will convince 2/3 of senators.  This means that the argument would transcend partisanship.

It absolutely is not the original meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors". The complete phrase is, "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors." That phrase literally equates "high crimes and misdemeanors" with treason and bribery. Which crime has Trump committed equal in status to treason or bribery? 

You're treating when Hamilton spoke about unbecoming conduct that may violate public trust with being synonymous with the literal definition from the constitution. Hamilton's statement was in regard to violating public trust by committing crimes. It isn't about losing trust from some of the public. The argument has always been if any crime is sufficient or if "high crimes" included more serious crimes.

"Abuse of power or corruption" is a loose definition you apply to it to encompass whatever you want. Abuse of power is subjective unless considering cases that violate law. Corruption is violating law.

---

You only look at the definition of crimes in statutes if it's a criminal procedure. It's understood that public officials can break the public Trust in ways that private citizens cannot. so an impeachment proceeding would be more about the spirit of the laws and the proper division of power. Both of which Trump is trying to violate in a big way.

Of course that's what I'm looking at because that's all that should matter. If we intend to impeach Presidents because we simply don't like what they're doing, you'll have half of the population pushing for impeachment every year. To impeach on the "spirit of the law" would be equivalent to a cop pulling you over for speeding because you were going to speed limit but he thought you looked like you were speeding. As soon as you impeach for conduct that is legal, we'll never see another full-term President.

We disagree on a lot, but I am right there with you on this one. Impeachment is a political process, but it must never be a political tool.

---

False.  First, you're misstating my argument.  The question is, did the President violate the public trust (this is the original meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors).  It's a more than just "he did something we didn't like".  It has to be an abuse of power or corruption or something similar.  Second, that's where the 2/3 of the senate threshhold comes in.  A rational House wouldn't vote to impeach unless they believe their arguments will convince 2/3 of senators.  This means that the argument would transcend partisanship.

It absolutely is not the original meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors". The complete phrase is, "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors." That phrase literally equates "high crimes and misdemeanors" with treason and bribery. Which crime has Trump committed equal in status to treason or bribery? 

You're treating when Hamilton spoke about unbecoming conduct that may violate public trust with being synonymous with the literal definition from the constitution. Hamilton's statement was in regard to violating public trust by committing crimes. It isn't about losing trust from some of the public. The argument has always been if any crime is sufficient or if "high crimes" included more serious crimes.

"Abuse of power or corruption" is a loose definition you apply to it to encompass whatever you want. Abuse of power is subjective unless considering cases that violate law. Corruption is violating law.

Lots of good quotes from the founders and their predecessors here: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crime...sdemeanors

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.