Kavanaugh vs Dr. Ford Testimony. The lies...

How could you ever prove "why" the president fired the FBI Director?

 

It doesn't matter why.

The Constitution purposely gives POTUS powers to use as he sees fit. The Constitution doesn't say "Unless it triggers Democrats".

The Congress and SCOTUS are checks on the Executive Branch, not the FBI Director.

 

Not only can I. I just did. Section 4!!! Was I going too fast for you? Let me do it again a bit slower. Let's try some examples.

Section 4 states that Trump cannot fire Comey if he does it because somebody offered him a billion dollar, for example. That would be "bribery" It also says that if Comey is the only one standing between us and a foreign army waiting to invade us, it would be treason, so Trump is not allowed to do it.

In the same way, it also restricts Trump's power to fire Comey if such act constitutes high crime or misdemeanor. And what could constitute "High crimes and misdemeanors"? Obsturction of Justice.

Trump is allowed to fire Comey because he doesn't like his hairdo, or even "for no reason". But that is not the case. Trump said that he decided to fire him for "that Russiar thing... with Trump and Russiar..." It's on tape!!!!

And that is "High crimes and misdemeanors"

If Trump had said to Lester Hole "I fired Comey for no reason. I just felt like it!" Nobody would be able to question him. But no, the idiot confessed, in camera, to an impeachable crime!

Capito?

 

Because he said it. On camera. To Lester Holt.

 

The reason you didn't quote the Constitution is obviously because, as usual, you chose to mischaracterize it instead.

But I'm here to help.

US Constitution / Article 2 / Section4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Clearly it doesn't say the FBI Director can't be fired. It doesn't imply it. It doesn't hint at it.

It says Congress can remove the POTUS for committing offenses.

You could save yourself a lot of embarrassment if you just admitted at the beginning you were mistaken.

I don't think you're stupid. But you clearly aren't very wise.

Did you really think I didn't know for a fact you were wrong at the beginning of this?

 

It's Donald Trump. Why should he be believed in this instance?

 

Hahahahaha... Golem is now Trump's character witness...

But it doesn't matter.

 

At this point I have to conclude that you're just feigning it. Nobody could be that obtuse.

Actually... there is another explanation: The Cult to Trump.

So your argument is that Trump is lawfully allowed to obstruct justice if he doesn't mind being removed????

That's like saying that you are lawfully allowed to commit murder if you don't mind sitting in the electric chair

Wow! Looks like the Trump Cult is willing to take on millennia of jurisprudence, if that's what it takes to defend their idol.

 

Because his lies to embellish himself. Not to implicate himself in criminal activity..

 

Calm down. You act like you never got caught mischaracterizing the Constitution before.

The Constitution power of POTUS is not subject to the whims of the chattering class.

Obama only passed Obamacare because he lied about it. And everyone informed knew he lied before he signed it. Congress could have impeached Obama, but chose not to.

Congress could not tell Obama his power to sign a bill into law dissapeared because he lied to pass it.

 

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2132564513669847

No, this is what it's all about.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2132564513669847

 

That's odd..

I've never seen that before.

Did the idiot congressperson give an explanation?

 

Not that I have heard. Notice how low she handled the money to her lawyer? From her view it might have looked like it was hidden by the table. Remember she said she didn't know who paid for her lie detector test? Another lie.

 

That is at the minimum quirky.

 

They need to check her bank statements now. I bet there is a lot more put in that.

 

Come on, you can do MUCH better than that! What are you saying "nope" to? Is it the case that you were saying that Ford described gatherings that were "kind" of like the description from Kavanaugh's calendar?

 

Yes, but @Golem is 100% correct, IF Trump fired Comey specifically to obstruct the Russia investigation, but such intent is not evident and realistically never will be. Such intent is DEFINITELY not evident in that barely coherent, toddler level verbal diarrhoea from Trump in that interview with Lester Holt! Yet somehow, Golem sees it!

 

So you think that this barely coherent, toddler level verbal diarrhoea from Trump is proof that he fired Comey specifically to obstruct the Russia investigation! Surely you can't be serious! Okay, what if Trump had instead said, I fired Comey because he was incompetent at this job? Are you actually saying that THIS would've been an "abuse of power" and "obstruction of justice?"

 

1) Again, that requires reading words into the Constitution that were not written and not implied.

The FBI is part of the Executive Branch, therefore all FBI Investigations are run by people in the Executive Branch. POTUS is the head of the Executive Branch, therefore, POTUS is responsible for and in charge of all FBI investigations.

IOW - POTUS has the Constitutional Power to start or end any FBI Investigation he wishes for any reason he wishes. The only check on that power is the power of Congress to remove POTUS.

To argue that POTUS cannot legally obstruct an FBI investigation is to argue that POTUS cannot legally obstruct himself.

2.) Comey wasn't actually doing the FBI investigation on his own like Inspector Gadget. Dozens of other people were doing the investigation. The investigation was not, and could not have been obstructed by the firing Comey.

 

"Exactly" = "Precisely" Did you not know they are synonyms?

 

Did I express some confusion over the relationship of these two words?

 

Indeed, it could only have been STRENGTHENED!

 

Since you have trouble with the

We disagree on much, but not on this.

The "obstruction" argument is bogus on it's face.

 

Apparently you forgot to read my entire post that you quoted.

I specifically wrote it in a manner easy to understand. Go back, read the whole post, and if you have trouble understanding it let me know and I'll try to help.

 

He is the former president that his sycophants give the credit for the good economy to even though he has been out of office for almost two years.