Another day, another treasonous act...

With respect to your post #5, can you imagine the over-the-top hysteria generated by Fux News, Breitfart, Info Lies, InsaHannity, Limpballs, Bill O'Sleazy, The Sludge Report, et al., if it was President Hillary who fired the lead investigator into Russian collusion and treachery, and then the very next day met with Putin's spies and divulged highly classified secrets, compromising a key source of intelligence in the fight against ISIS -- at the same time freaking out our allies, who are now reconsidering their agreements to share critical intelligence with the U.S.?

Forget "Lock her up!" It would be "String her up!" Articles of Impeachment would be out of the House and on McTurtle's desk by noon. She'd be convicted and swinging from a tree in the Rose Garden by midnight, with beer-gut Republicans celebrating around a burning cross.

Instead, most of Diane's sources and fellow hypocrites spent the morning studiously ignoring or deflecting Blabber Butt's latest bumble-f**k while focusing on debunked conspiracy theories, like the Seth Rich murder and Hillary's email, "fake daily engineered drama."

Another day in Medieval Amerikkka...

Glad to hear she's willing to support Israel! -Holly | https://www.queencityhealthcenter.com

The actor hired to distract low knowledge Americans is doing an exemplary job. While everyone watches his talented slap-stick comedy, the GOP wing of organized crime is robbing the American public blind, stealing $TRILLIONS$ of dollars from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs, while using US drug addiction, health insurance, and endless war without cause to rob our savings. Meanwhile, the Democratic wing of organized crime is desperately trying to figure out a way to take over these grifts. We the people need a party that represents we the people. We can convert one wing of organized crime, or we can build from nothing. Neither one can be accomplished while munching popcorn and watching sports.

Ok, so where to begin...first, let me say that as soon as republicans achieve any of their campaign promises, they become villains. A man chatted with me at work recently and told me anyone could go to an emergency room and receive medical care. I retorted that 22 years ago I underwent "elective" brain surgery to save my life. No one walking into an ER w/o insurance would still be alive today. He said nothing more.

We have to TALK to these people. We can't shut up. I live in GA, so they're always popping off to me about their views but are suddenly offended when I offer my own...it does not stop me and never will. That first amendment means more than our flag ever will. It is our duty to not shut up just because our views are not "popular."

Minds get changed this way. My parents live in Ossoff's potential district. Fingers crossed. They came home from their idylic life at the beach (or mountains?) to vote for him. They live in the oh so red area. It is their duty. It is each and every citizen's DUTY to vote so things like this aren't left to the electoral college, which just failed its first real test miserably.

They also have taught me that PAYING TAXES IS OUR DUTY AS PATRIOTS. We must support the nation we hold so very dear. Republicans, I recommend you cease your lapel flag pin wearing before you get stabbed by the pin...

Lastly, let me add that as soon as republicans achieve ANYTHING they advise, the public sours on it immediately. As the research paper writer says, "We are spoiled Americans." You can't take anything from us without a fight. So abortion illegal? You own all those dead young women in back alleys with no baby to show for your trouble.Take away prescription drug coverage from seniors? Reap the whirlwind. Deny me insurance coverage and allow me to die of a preventable cause? Gain a popular storm that will make FDR seem like a fever dream. Get greedy at your own peril, republicans. Democracy is refreshed by the blood of patriots and they may not be who you're expecting.

There sure are a lot of lawyers speaking legalese nowadays in the news cycle -- which is a good thing, I suppose, since no one is above the law, especially the crap-flinging twitter monkey who can barely speak fourth-grade grammar.

Even though our government is a constitutionally-limited, representative, democratic republic by definition, all the right-wing ideologues love to preach that we are a "republic" (because it sounds so "Republican") as opposed to a "democracy" (which sounds way too much like "DemocRAT"). Well, guess what, little trolls: a republic means rule of law. Damn, that really sucks for your fake president!

I can't remember the legal scholar or the interview, but he sliced through all the eye-glazing legalese and described in simple terms the main problem facing this reality-show administration: Never in the entire history of case law -- not once -- did anyone try to cover up their past actions without a crime having been committed.

So what is it, Donnie pouty-face? Come clean for once in your worthless life before you meet your maker. (Ever notice how puffy-looking he's getting lately? Not a good sign ...for him, anyway.)

Obstruction of justice

Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.

A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.

§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.

wex:

You need to go back to law school:

Obstruction of justice
Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.

A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.

§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.

Hey deepspace, we probably don't have an option ;-)

All Latin aside, would it be specious to assert that Dolald Trump has "the means, the motive and the opportunity" to squelch an official investigation into his potential cooperation with a foreign entity in determining the outcome of this past election in the face of mounting evidence (albeit circumstantial at this point) that he in fact did? And given the grave consequences, should we simply just blow it off? I don't think so.

ErinRose,

Stick to nursing, I certainly wouldn't call you for legal advice:(

RE: (#Ou812): Dershowitz is making the point that the POTUS has the *right* to fire anybody he wants to but is not addressing whether or not there is substantive reason for that fire or a preemptive strike of concealment to avoid being outed for engaging in illegal acts. Dershowitz is setting up a strawman argument.

Dershowitz says that there "is no legitimate basis for concluding that the president engaged in a crime by exercising his ..." Well, that remains to be seen and thus the reason for an investigation. The act of firing becomes an illegal act when improperly motivated.

We can only judge the Presidents mens rea (mental state) in the light of whether or not he had in fact engaged in illegal acts and to what extent those acts were illegal. if the official doing the firing has not been involved in anything untoward, he should welcome an investigation that would only return exculpatory evidence; not turn on an investigator and fire them. Should anyone be allowed to have a police detective fired for investigating suspicious and potential criminal behavior? Isn't that what "investigations" are for; to make determinations?

(1) "For something to be a crime there must be both an actus reus and mens rea — that is, a criminal act accompanied by a criminal state of mind."

(2) "Even assuming that President Trump was improperly motivated in firing Comey, motive alone should never constitute a crime. There should have to be an unlawful act. And exercising constitutional and statutory power should not constitute the actus reus of a crime. Otherwise the crime would place the defendant’s thoughts on trial, rather than his actions."

Here we have the definition of a crime; it has to have intent and an actual act. Then the author turns around and bifurcates this definition, isolating the mens rea and saying that we should not put thoughts on trial. While we all agree that we don't want to be putting thoughts without acts on trial, by bifurcating the definition, the author has changed the overall context and definition. Both parts must be present to prosecute; actus reus and mens rea. If we remove the motivation part of things saying we don't want to put thoughts on trial, then we remove intent. In the instance of defendant A being involved in the death of victim B, the court would want to know if the death was an accident (manslaughter) or intentional (homicide). Again, Dershowitz is playing with our minds as he engages in "rally 'round the president".

"Criminal law should be used as the last resort against elected officials, ..." Is he kidding? Oh, let us provide sanctioned cover for elected officials for any sick thing they want to be involved in or any act of self preservation in the light of improper or illegal acts.

"There is no place in a democracy for elastic statutes that can be stretched to fit lawful conduct with which political opponents disagree." This should read: There is no place in a democracy for elastic statutes that can be stretched to fit UNLAWFUL conduct with which a political political opponents disagree. Question: Is/was Comey a "political opponent"?

I could go on, but what's the point? I used to think Dershowitz was a brilliant mind once upon a time, but he has sold out to the NWO state and is now one of these people attacking the law and making it useless and nonsensical. Very disappointing.

1 or 1000 tapes will make no difference.

There will be no impeachment while the republicans have total control.

The only way we will get the fascist trump out of office and stop his destruction of America is a bloody revolution complete with guillotines. It worked before in France.

There are groups organizing to cause the revolution to become a reality, soon it hope.