Timeline for Did Donald Trump break any laws by asking James Comey to end the Michael Flynn investigation?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 18:34 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | Hmmm, "criminal investigation" - washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/18/… | |
| May 18, 2017 at 16:22 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | If you want to bother with a chat, I can go into more detail about the NR article. Otherwise, I'm fine with leaving it as it is. | |
| May 18, 2017 at 16:10 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | NYT isn't going to run a story based on a single unconfirmed source. Other news outlets have independently confirmed, so the pretense that NYT reporting is adhering to some sort of Breitbart standard only shows your own bias. I have argued the merits. I've cited the code, and there's nothing there that suggests it has to be interference with a criminal investigation to be obstruction of justice. The passage you cited cites no facts, just speculation of what an imaginary "cynic" might think about what they might think Obama was thinking. Yeah, that's "backing up their stuff." Not. | |
| May 18, 2017 at 16:02 | comment | added | Machavity | @PoloHoleSet The Hill also disagrees with your assessment. As to NR, you're entitled to your opinion, but NR backs their stuff up pretty well (Andrew McCarthey is a former US Atty so he knows the code and relevant legal actions) and aren't Trump cronies. Remember, the NYT article here quotes a source reading a memo to them (over the phone) they've not even seen. So argue the merits. Attacking a solid source and ignoring their argument weakens your position. | |
| May 18, 2017 at 15:53 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | Sorry, but the "National Review" is not a credible source, since they generally start at the partisan conclusion they want and work backwards. As I said, there's nothing in the law that states obstruction has to be for criminal proceedings, alone. Some imaginary "Obama" standard for imaginary "signalling" an investigation into non-crimes does not enter into Trump explicitly asking Comey to end an investigation. That's a massive, massive stretch on your part, and it really puts the "false" into false equivalence. FBI was looking at Clinton to see if laws were broken. Period. None were. | |
| May 18, 2017 at 15:30 | comment | added | Machavity |
@PoloHoleSet It could be, but is unlikely. Obama was not held to that standard. From the second link A cynic might say that Obama had clearly signaled to the FBI and the Justice Department that he did not want Mrs. Clinton to be charged with a crime, and that, with this not-so-subtle pressure in the air, the president’s subordinates dropped the case — exactly what Obama wanted, relying precisely on Obama’s stated rationale.. The verbiage here will be important (the quotes are literally a game of Telephone at this point)
|
|
| May 18, 2017 at 15:06 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | Incorrect, IMO. It does not have to be a criminal investigation in order for it to be obstruction of justice. The definition, particularly "Obstructing Congressional or Administrative Proceedings" (18 U.S.C.1505) is massively broad and general. | |
| May 17, 2017 at 16:12 | history | answered | Machavity | CC BY-SA 3.0 |