Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: 25 'impeachable' Obama scandals far more serious than Comey firing

  1. #1
    INGSOC GURPS's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Peoples Republic Of Maryland
    Posts
    31,509

    25 'impeachable' Obama scandals far more serious than Comey firing

    25 'impeachable' Obama scandals far more serious than Comey firing
    Ex-president racked up BIG LIST of outrageous abuses of executive power

    But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why?

    At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime.

    “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained:

    For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code.

    However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct.

    A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.”

    However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him.


    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/05/25-impeac...o8Eeh9Uyw3O.99
    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
    - Robert J. Hanlon.

    “There is a deeply anti-democratic undercurrent to much of the criticism of the new president, borne aloft by an assumption that democracy is too important to be left to the voters.”

    And if a statue can oppress you, then I submit that you have greater issues. - A West.

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Member Since
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    21,446
    Quote Originally Posted by GURPS View Post
    25 'impeachable' Obama scandals far more serious than Comey firing
    Ex-president racked up BIG LIST of outrageous abuses of executive power

    But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why?

    At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime.

    “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained:

    For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code.

    However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct.

    A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.”

    However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him.


    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/05/25-impeac...o8Eeh9Uyw3O.99
    Where is this precious memo anyway. Does Pelosi have it locked in a safe deposit box? Has anyone else other than pimps and leakers seen it?
    Let's all see the freaking thing., but on one condition. Let's see the whole memo book. What else does Comey have written in his little memo pad.
    Should be some good stuff about a certain political crook who took bribes for her Foundation in there.

  3. #3
    INGSOC GURPS's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Peoples Republic Of Maryland
    Posts
    31,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Hijinx View Post
    Where is this precious memo anyway.


    someone on Reddit was asking where is the Memo after the Bill C - Lynch meeting, and the follow up where Lynch told Comey she was not going to pursue Hillary Emails
    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
    - Robert J. Hanlon.

    “There is a deeply anti-democratic undercurrent to much of the criticism of the new president, borne aloft by an assumption that democracy is too important to be left to the voters.”

    And if a statue can oppress you, then I submit that you have greater issues. - A West.

Members who have read this thread: 23

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search:     Advanced Search
Search HELP

| Home | Help | Contact Us | About somd.com | Privacy | Advertising | Sponsors | Newsletter |

| What's New | What's Cool | Top Rated | Add A Link | Mod a Link |

| Announcements | Bookstore | Cafe | Calendar | Classifieds | Community |
| Culture | Dating | Dining | Education | Employment | Entertainment |
| Forums | Free E-Mail | Games | Gear! | Government | Guestbook | Health | Marketplace | Mortgage | News |
| Organizations | Photos | Real Estate | Relocation | Sports | Survey | Travel | Wiki | Weather | Worship |