Federal judges' association calls emergency meeting after DOJ intervenes in case of Trump ally Roger

"Potential" crimes. So now we investigation political opposition for "potential" crimes? The government now investigates you for potential crimes? And yes Democrats and Republicans alike wanted Comey fired and he deserved to be fired and he still maybe in deep legal jeopardy. Firing Comey was perfectly within Trumps presidential authority. And people on the right are educated enough to know there is no national popular vote in this country.

 

Read your last sentence. Gross negligence does require intent. The 60 minute interview with whom? I can find it myself. Cite the testimony of Lisa Page regarding your comment...I don't believe she said that.

 

I did, negligence doesn’t require an intent to do harm, it’s just negligence.

60 Mins with Obama! He said it

I am on my phone I don’t know how to copy and paste links...just google Lisa Page testimony on DOJ instructing they won’t prosecute

 

All investigations are into "potential crimes," otherwise there would be just immediate arrests. What do you think an investigation is? There is no crime until convicted by a jury in the criminal justice system. Yes, firing Comey was within the President's authority...until he told everyone that he did it to stop the Russian investigation. At that point it became a "potential crime" (i.e. obstruction of justice.).

 

By using the power of impeachment as a political tool to try and influence the election. They knew there was no chance in Hades that the Senate would vote to remove a duly elected President on the impeachment article which they brought. So why did they do it. Pelosi demonstrated it when she bragged about how Trump would ALWAYS be an impeached President now.

The Clinton impeachment was based only multiple charges of FELONIES. Felonies which he later plea bargained with the Independent Prosecutor after being held in contempt by a federal judge.

The Senate is to base it's one judge, it's singular judgement on whether to remove a sitting President due to a House impeachment on the impeachment. The House votes, based on the evidence it produces and adjudicates whether to impeach. They send THAT to the Senate and the Senate decides if THAT impeachment warrants removal. It does not do it's own impeachment investigation. It has one judgement and one judgement only to remove or not based on the impeachment the House brings to it.

It is never a judicial process the Constitution is quite clear about that.

 

No it is when crimes have been committed, not that you will potentially commit a crime, that was the movie Minority Report. But OK let's say we need to investigate "potential" crimes so lets assign a Special Prosecutor for each presidential candidate and investigate them for potential crimes, let's subpoena there staffs their emails, there records and investigate for potential crimes.

Firing Comey would not and did not stop the Russian investigations UNFORTUNATELY. Trump was right they should have been stopped because there was NO Russian collusion and it was all a waste of time designed to hurt him politically.

 

You are simply wrong. Gross negligence requires intent. Goggle it.

It IS a political process, but that does not absolve the Senate from their oath. IMO, "impartial justice" required the jury to hear ALL relevant testimony regardless of when it was introduced. The Senate acted as BOTH judge and jury, in banning additional witnesses and testimony. In a judicial process, that decision would be accomplished by the presiding judge, who would rule whether or not to accept additional evidence. No court, I know of, would turn away relevant evidence at trial, on the basis of "process" and its failure to be introduced in Discovery. I don't contest the Senate's final decision...but it was an illustration of political partisanship as the Republican guiding principle...not impartial justice. But...IMO...that was the real purpose in pursuing it...exposure.

 

Look we can agree to stipulate it is a political process I am one of the ones who points that out. The Senate has one role, to judge the impeachment brought to them as to remove or not remove, nothing more. There were 13 witnesses the House managers brought, that's all they get. If they wanted more they should have been part of the impeachment. And you on the one hand state it IS a political process, not a judicial one, and then complain it was not a judicial one. If you really want to try and make that comparison the Senate is like the sentencing, it is not a fact finding body it decides the sentence.

 

I also said, that the verdict, as a political process, was foreordained. The purpose was to expose how easily the Republicans cast aside their oaths of "impartial justice," which certainly states a purpose beyond politics. Whether or not the House made a procedural mistake should not, IMO, be relevant to the oath to pursue impartial justice. But, I suspect you will hear much more on this topic as the campaigns progress, the Bolton book comes out, the Parnas trial proceeds and the pardons begin to flow.

 

I think we knew the impeachment the House was bringing and it was highly lacking to say the least. And you are admitting they used impeachment, the most serious consideration they can impart on for partisan political purposes. It was up to the House to bring the case they brought. It was not for the Senate to help them in that endeavor but to judge what they brought. And I have been hearing for 4 years about the "just you wait, we got him now, this is really it this time".

 

I did it only requires a reckless disregard, not an actual intent to do something. Clinton was clearly guilty of that, but after Obama’s intervention the recommendation. Was changed

 

Judge Amy in the Roger Stone case is a political activist in judicial robes.

 

I think you are wrong. Cite the law you are referencing.

 

And...they may have, or at least made it more difficult to vote for acquittal, had the Senate allowed direct witnesses. McConnell even gave up subpoenaing the Whistle Blower and the Biden's to avoid subpoenaing Bolton. If Bolton had explicatory evidence, in favor of the President, why would Republicans give up that opportunity? Remember, Bolton had offered to respond to a SENATE subpoena.

 

It’s the defination of gross negligence. I googled it like you said to do.

 

OK...let's use the Wikipedia definition...I assume that's what you used. Do you understand the significance of a "conscious act?" Conscious means you are aware you are breaking a law and if you consciously broke a law, it was intentional. Comey's explanation was they didn't think they could prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Nope doesn’t require knowing you were violating the law. That’s a specific intent. Laws that require that level specifically state “..with the intent...”

A conscious act would simply be using an insecure illegal server for official govt business

comey orginally used gross negligence and then changed the language, as you highlighted...after Obama intervened during the investigation
Obama could have saved us a lot of time and money has he just made that intent clear from the being

 

You have no evidence that Obama instructed Comey to change the recommendation. And, what law would have been used to indict Clinton?

 

He was on 60 Mins and said it to the world!


18 USC 793(f)

 

They had the witness testimony the House brought 13 witnesses and 192 videos of their testimony. That is 10 more witnesses than the Republicans brought in the Clinton impeachment. Bolton might have been one of them had the House subpoenaed him and when challenged take it to the court. Then if the court decides executive privilege does not applied he testifies, if it says it does apply then the Presidency is protected from a Congressional abuse. Trump didn't need any exculpatory evidence he had nothing for which to be exculperated. Bolton said he would show up, but it is the executive who would assert executive privilege not him. It should have been adjudicate in the House in their impeachment.

 

That only brings us back to the definition of gross negligence. I agree with Comey; you don't. Have a nice day.

 

They'll have more opportunities.

 

Clinton was fully instructed on the proper handling of classified information and the proper acrchiving of her official documents as Secretary of State. She was warned NOT to use some private system on a private unsecured server. She testified to Congress that she had approval of the cyber security departments at State and Comey testified they could find no such application let alone an approval nor anyone at the State department of cybersecurity who had ever heard or witnesses or received any such request for an approval. She ran it the first three months without ANY security on not even basic encryption, a simple text editor could read anything on it. That is GROSS negligence by every measure of the law. It was a prima facie case, the server was in an unprotected location and contained classified information and that information was stored there at her direction. Comey and the Obama White House let her skate on it hoping she would become President.

 

Oh you think impeachment is going to come back again? The polls weren't in favor of the last one what will be the next one?

 

I did agree with comey before Obama intervened and he changed his recommendation.
Manslaughter requires gross negligence, you don’t have to have the intent to kill to be convicted, quite the opposite that would be murder. Hope that helps you with the concept.