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

Apparently Obama's God-Like awesomeness only manifests itself 2 years after he leaves.

 

Very easy to understand. You had nothing to respond, so you invoked the Trump cult mantra: "Talk about obama and Hillary instead" Even if they are the greatest criminals in history, that doesn't remove one iota from Trump's criminal actions. Nothing could be easieer to understand.

Look. This is very easy to understand: Trump can fire Comey for any reason or no reason. But if he does it to obstruct justice, he is committing a crime. The crime is not "firing Comey" The crime is "Obstruction of Justice". Comey stays fired.... because that was done legally. But obstruction of justice also happened, And that part is illegal.

I'm sure you got it the first time I explained it. And that's the reason why you changed the subject.

 

Oh! You are talking about the name that right-wingers invoke when they run out of arguments to defend Trump. They'll do anything to change the subject in a discussion they know they can't possibly win.

 

You must be joking. A presidents immediate predecessor is very much relevant to his achievements or lack there of when he is in office.

 

Haha..

The subject was Trump's authority to fire people in the executive branch.

I quoted the ultimate authority, the Constitution, which gives Trump authority.

Tell me again about changing the subject... Or even better, read the Constitution.

 

But not in his successor's criminal activity.

 

No! That was the subject you tried to change the conversation to. It was your red herring. I have done nothing but explain to you over and over that that is not the issue.

But... finally!!!! Jeez! It was about time you got it!

Trump committed a crime when he fired Comey. Which is not the same as saying that he committed a crime by firing Comey. Absolutely nobody has claimed the latter. But it's the right-winger's favorite Red Herring

 

You need a civics lesson.

By definition it is not a crime for a POTUS to use a Constitutional power. It's his job.

The Constitution doesn't say Article 2 powers are suspended when Democrats are triggered.

You really aren't very good at this.

 

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?"

 

We DO? Like what?

 

Apparently I mangled my post.

Apologies.

 

I don't know. If everything else played out the same. Including Comey's testimony to Congress, I would have probably suspected that to be the case. But the evidence would not have been this clear. .

 

Let's have some fun.

Let's pretend that a POTUS cannot fire an FBI Director if the FBI Director is investigating POTUS. We'll pretend there is some invisible clause that undoes Article 2. Please try to answer. Consider this either a chance to save a little face, or consider it a brand new shovel. Your choice.

How long does this FBI superpower last? Until the next administration? What if the FBI Director investigates the next POTUS? Does he stay until he dies?

What if he investigates Congress? Does that mean he can't be impeached?

I love the "matter of timing" or " not if but when" argument. I like it because the Constitution shoots it down.

Part attention: The check and balance in POTUS is the Congress, not the FBI Director.

Article 2 doesn't say "sometimes" or "unless someone objects". Article 2 makes POTUS the head the Executive Branch 24/7/365 until he is either no longer active as POTUS. No ifs. No buts. No excepts.

 

To be honest, I had never thought of you as the one of the most "intellectually challenged" among Republicans on this forum. At a minimum, I placed you on the better 50% But now I might need to revise this. Because I have explained this to others who appeared to be much further down in the scale. And it never took more than two times, before they understood. But this is going to be.... I lost count.... but it has to be at least the fourth time I have explained it to you.

Pay attention. Key words: "if", "while", and "because". The most important being "because". If you omit the word "because" from any comment referencing the firing of Comey, you will know you are completely off the mark.

The issue is not if the President fires Comey if he was being investigated, or while he was being investigated. What makes it abuse of power is that he fired him because he was being investigated.

Got it? No? Read again....

I will leave the rest, so as not to be accused of removing the context. But it's irrelevant to the debate until you finally have it clear in your mind what we are saying and, more importantly, what we are not saying.

 

Show me the "if", "when", "while", "because", and "why" clausses on the Constitution.

Oh... You can't...

They must be next to the 4th Branch clause.

 

Nowhere. I use them only to explain to you. The Constitution is written for people who don't need the explanation.

 

Really? Then why was Nixon's dangling of pardons indirectly referred to in the articles of impeachment drawn up by the Judiciary Committee?

9. endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment

The Pardon Power Can Be Used to Obstruct Justice. Just Ask Richard Nixon.

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/168686

You aren't very good at this.

 

You really need to know what you're talking about before you try to be a smartie-pants.

1. Partisan Democrats making articles of impeachment isn't proof.

2. Impeachment doesn't require a criminal act.

Maybe you should start a thread on a subject you understand.

 

IOW, you can't find anything in the Constitution to support your lame claim.

The Constitution mean what it says. Not what you wish it said.

Imagine your outrage if Republicans tried to strip away Obama's Constitutional power because of an "if", "when", or "because".

Fascists often use vague, emotional, & subjective standards in applying laws and authority because using logical & objective criteria doesn't give them enough power.

 

Absolutely. Provided before you eveb understood what this conversation was about

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...timony-the-lies.542915/page-9#post-1069972667

and

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...timony-the-lies.542915/page-9#post-1069973352

and... others..

Please quote what constitutional power is being "stripped"

 

You aren't very good at this.

Us Constitution
Article 2

US Constitution
Article 2 Section 1.

Can you find it or do you want me to post it for you?

 

You certainly do get feisty when you're proven wrong.

"By definition it is not a crime for a POTUS to use a Constitutional power."

The power to pardon is bestowed by the Constitution yet when abused it can constitute obstruction of justice.

I'm not sure if it's your unwarranted arrogance or your bluster that makes it so enjoyable to humiliate you.

 

I probably am not, but I am obviously better than you. And that's all I need right now.

Thank you for the offer. Yes. Please find for me and quote the part of Article 2 Section 1 that is being stripped by prosecuting the President if he fires Comey for the purpose of obstructing the Russia investigation.

 

POTUS is always the Executive.

The Constitution by doesn't specify an FBI Director can be fired during an investigation, nor does it specify an FBI Director can be fired on Tuesday, before 2:00PM or while sitting down.

The Constitution doesn't need to specify every single instance that a POTUS can use his authority, because anyone literate can see it's anytime not specified as an exception in the Constitution.

If you read the Pardons Clause you see an exception for Impeachment hearings. I point this out so you can read it and recognize what a constitutional exception looks like, and therefore note there is no such exception in A2 S1.

 

"Misconduct before assuming office is not typically a fit subject for impeachment, legal scholars said. But there is one important exception.
“The main and possibly only form of pre-Inauguration Day conduct that would properly qualify as an impeachable offense is conduct relating directly to the acquisition of the presidential office,” Mr. Matz said."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/us/politics/offense-impeachable-constitution.html
.............................................................................................................
Hmmmmmmmm. What would an example of that be? Duping voters by committing a campaign finance violation in order to conceal information from them.