|
|
Ask Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby. Obstruction of justice doesn’t require that anyone actually be held responsible for an underlying crime in the investigation one obstructs.Originally Posted by DONW
In this case, quite a few people were found responsible, including Flynn - the person Trump first “endeavored to obstruct” justice for.
The above did commit crimes.
They were investigating Martha Stewart for insider trading and securities fraud. Then she committed obstruction and made false statements. They could never make the insider trading case, and the securities fraud case was dismissed. She got in trouble for the false statements and the obstruction during the investigation.
So you don’t think Congress has impeachment power now? Who do you think has the authority to hold a sitting president liable for criminal acts?
Who else does? Who else has the power to charge a sitting president?
And in case you forgot, our AG doesn’t think he has the power to indict a sitting president. That leaves the power to charge only with Congress.
https://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watc...-1426429507512
Either Lynch or Comey lied, under oath, to Congress. More to come on the attempted coup, and more revelations like this one. But for starters, one of these has to go to prison...right?
Sure. They can share a cell with Trump.
A cell?
That's a strange thing to call the oval office. Besides, I don't think Trump wants those losers around.
He wanted to go to dinner with Comey.
The question was to impeach. The SCOTUS and the American people have power as well.
You are taking the sentence out of context. I was responding to brtransplant who said that Barr’s opinion is the only one that matters (which you didn’t correct). He was clearly referring to criminal accountability, and that is why I pointed out that Congress’s opinion is actually the only one that matters (implicitly referring to criminal accountability).
I said: “Wrong. Congress’s opinion is the only one that matters. Barr, and the recent view of the DOJ, is that they can’t charge a sitting president with a crime. Period.
In the context of holding the president criminally accountable for breaking the law, what power does SCOTUS or the American people have?
You are taking the sentence out of context. I was responding to brtransplant who said that Barr’s opinion is the only one that matters (which you didn’t correct). He was clearly referring to criminal accountability, and that is why I pointed out that Congress’s opinion is actually the only one that matters (implicitly referring to criminal accountability).
I said: “Wrong. Congress’s opinion is the only one that matters. Barr, and the recent view of the DOJ, is that they can’t charge a sitting president with a crime. Period.”
In the context of holding the president criminally accountable for breaking the law, what power does SCOTUS or the American people have?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote