Comey's written statement for tomorrow

[President Johnson]

That's really a bombshell... But the big question is whether Trump's words will be seen as obstruction of justice or just "an opinion". I think there has to be clear proof that the firing had something to do with Russiagate and his demand for locality. That's unmistakeably obstruction of justice and ground for impeachment proceedings.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Wow.
Obstruction of justice IMO.

Yeah....in your opinion. An impeachment has to be based around more than just your opinion.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Wow.
Obstruction of justice IMO.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Wow.
Obstruction of justice IMO.

Yeah....in your opinion. An impeachment has to be based around more than just your opinion.

Impeachments are usually based on who's the majority party in Congress. So an impeachment probably won't happen prior to 2019.

[GeorgiaModerate]

That's really a bombshell... But the big question is whether Trump's words will be seen as obstruction of justice or just "an opinion". I think there has to be clear proof that the firing had something to do with Russiagate and his demand for locality. That's unmistakeably obstruction of justice and ground for impeachment proceedings.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or another way to think about it: suppose it was Obama who tried to get Comey to back off the investigation of Clinton.  Does anyone really believe that the GOP House wouldn't start impeachment proceedings?

[ProudModerate2]

Wow.
Obstruction of justice IMO.

Yeah....in your opinion. An impeachment has to be based around more than just your opinion.

If you can start impeachment proceedings based on silly things like blow-jobs and avocado dip, then this well exceeds the standards necessary to move forward.

PS to add: Or was it spinach dip ?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Wow.
Obstruction of justice IMO.

Yeah....in your opinion. An impeachment has to be based around more than just your opinion.

If you can start impeachment proceedings based on silly things like blow-jobs and avocado dip, then this well exceeds the standards necessary to move forward.

PS to add: Or was it spinach dip ?

Ironically you're gonna end turning Trump into Clinton - the victim.

[ProudModerate2]

Wow.
Obstruction of justice IMO.

Yeah....in your opinion. An impeachment has to be based around more than just your opinion.

If you can start impeachment proceedings based on silly things like blow-jobs and avocado dip, then this well exceeds the standards necessary to move forward.

PS to add: Or was it spinach dip ?

Ironically you're gonna end turning Trump into Clinton - the victim.

LOL.
I said "well exceeds." Not even close to being remotely the same.

[The_Doctor]

There are three areas of investigation that can lead to impeachment. I think we have a solid ground on one of the three; weaker on the remaining two.

1. Flynn and Obstruction of Justice. Comey confirms this in his detailed written testimony about his meetings with Trump; notably the February 14 meeting where Trump asks everyone to leave, closes the door, and asks Flynn to be let go. That's an obstruction of justice. Since the intelligence chiefs today didn't explicitly deny communications from the White House on this (they refused to state, did not deny and implied the answer was potentially different in a closed session), we have a pattern of trying to obstruct justice in Flynn's case. That is the strongest case for impeachment - which involves trying to end a criminal investigation into an associate / former NSA of Trump's who has Russian ties.  

2. Emoluments and business ties & U.S. policy. Lawrence Tribe has made a good case that Trump is running afoul of the emoluments clause. This is trickier and would require a Democratic House to initiate impeachment hearings on these grounds. However, if ever there was revelations that Trump traded in on his presidency with his businesses, we'd see this happening really quickly. It still remains plausible to me. Trump, right after his election, used his conversations with world leaders to kvetch about his businesses. That to me implies that as President, Trump MAY have (or used associates) to do the same. We'll see.

3. Collusion with Russia. I think this is the most explosive and damaging assertion possible, but if proven, the destruction of the Republican Party would be one consequence (no you cannot walk away from a winning presidential candidate who won victory through direct collusion with a major enemy foreign power). I also feel that it may be the most obvious but the direct evidence may be the hardest to prove. Trump's associates' multiple meetings, Trump trying to relax sanctions, and Trujmp refusing to commit to Article V of NATO and Russia's leaking of information to Wikileaks all imply some sort of relationship between the Trump Administration and Russia that is out of line with traditional American geopolitical foreign policy - plus Kushner's meeting with Sergei Kisylak and asking for a secret channel, and the state bank business. But proving all this remains a long term expedition. For the record, I think indirect collusion might be easier to prove than direct collusion and I would rank this ahead of #2 on provable offenses. But the damage to the political system would be explosive.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Wow.
Obstruction of justice IMO.

Yeah....in your opinion. An impeachment has to be based around more than just your opinion.

If you can start impeachment proceedings based on silly things like blow-jobs and avocado dip, then this well exceeds the standards necessary to move forward.

PS to add: Or was it spinach dip ?

Ironically you're gonna end turning Trump into Clinton - the victim.

LOL.
I said "well exceeds." Not even close to being remotely the same.

A witch hunt by angry losers is a witch hunt by angry losers.

[Santander]

Wow.
Obstruction of justice IMO.

Words have meanings. Obstruction of justice has a specific definition, just like Hillary's "extremely careless" handling of her emails was not the same thing as criminal mishandling of classified information.

This shows very inappropriate management of the executive branch by Trump. He was justified in feeling frustrated by the media obsessing over Russia, which has been consistently unfair, but that does not excuse this type of disregard for the chain of command or ethical carelessness.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Wow.
Obstruction of justice IMO.

Words have meanings. Obstruction of justice has a specific definition, just like Hillary's "extremely careless" handling of her emails was not the same thing as criminal mishandling of classified information.

This shows very inappropriate management of the executive branch by Trump. He was justified in feeling frustrated by the media obsessing over Russia, which has been consistently unfair, but that does not excuse this type of disregard for the chain of command or ethical carelessness.

He's guilty of not doing his homework. That's far more damning to me than anything. I don't want him to run again in 2020. He needs to get his ducks in a row and start governing once this is behind him.

[Brittain33]

LOL at anyone who was upset with Clinton meeting with Lynch on a tarmac, trying to explain that this isn't obstruction of Justice because a Republican did it.

[The_Doctor]

You have to look at all of Trump's actions within context and not as singular actions. Taken as a whole, there is a highly troubling set of interconnected actions and behavior that implies that is something more than just normal politics or the development of an ideological policy. The aberration is when you can suspect that there is criminal or unethical behavior.

Here's an example. W's war in Iraq began in 1998, with the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) calling for the war with leading neoconservative hawks on it. They saw a need to finish what Senior did. W took that foreign policy created in 1998 and then ran with it in 2003 to invade Iraq, using their convictions as his priors. (They actually wrote a letter to Clinton to invade Iraq in 1998). We had bombed Iraq in the 1990s, so honestly, the war was not entirely unexpected (especially after Gulf War I). You can see a bright line through legal ideological channels that gave rise to the war in Iraq.

Trump's behavior, however, has no precedent before 2014. In 2014, the Republican Party was highly anti-Russian and very vehemently anti-Putin. This was reflected in Romney's strident arguments against Russia in 2012. However, Trump comes out of the blue, and we now know that Russia aided his campaign openly through Wikileaks and sophisticated hacks. This is not a normal political - ideological development. There was no groundswell of support for Russia among conservative circles before 2014.

The behavior from Trump and his associates starting 2015 and going all the way to today taken in a whole suggests strongly criminal, unethical, or inappropriate behavior that imply contact with Russia and policy being made based on that contact. Essentially, logically, a foreign power influenced Trump and what we have yet to prove if there was direct contact or just indirect. What we don't know is WHY Trump (who bashed Russia in 2014) flipped so hard on the issue, which is an indicator that something aberrant happened.

His supporters take each piece of information by itself and refuse to acknowledge the whole, trying to deconstruct and dismiss each piece of evidence. For example, dismiss Comey's testimony on a specific event as a nothing burger. They ignore pieces of the picture, like Flynn's work for the Turkish and Russian government.

This is easier to do because if you take the whole thing as a whole construct, the picture becomes extremely damning.

Legally, however, when you assemble a criminal case, you look at the whole picture. This is what I want his supporters to address and convince me that the whole picture, legally, exonerates him.

[ProudModerate2]

There are three areas of investigation that can lead to impeachment. I think we have a solid ground on one of the three; weaker on the remaining two.

1. Flynn and Obstruction of Justice. Comey confirms this in his detailed written testimony about his meetings with Trump; notably the February 14 meeting where Trump asks everyone to leave, closes the door, and asks Flynn to be let go. That's an obstruction of justice. Since the intelligence chiefs today didn't explicitly deny communications from the White House on this (they refused to state, did not deny and implied the answer was potentially different in a closed session), we have a pattern of trying to obstruct justice in Flynn's case. That is the strongest case for impeachment - which involves trying to end a criminal investigation into an associate / former NSA of Trump's who has Russian ties.

...

Yep !

[jojoju1998]

This is going to end badly....

[Santander]

Trump is not a Republican.

[KingSweden]

Trump claims he "assumed he was being recorded" when he traveled to russia.

Why would a non-political person assume that? Does russia monitor even non-politicians?

Short answer, yes. Was common in KGB era, but there are even more Western businessmen to blackmail now

[The_Doctor]

Trump is not a Republican.

Could have confused me because he's the leader of the Republican Party, sets the Republican agenda, and is the person the Republican majority in Congress follows.

Now is he a traditional Reaganite Republican, no. Is he even a true Republican, possibly not, but he is most definitely the face of the Republican Party, and its national leader.

NOW does everyone understand why the #Never Trump forces were so keen to deny him the nomination AND the White House?

[Doimper]

Trump is not a Republican.

lol

[Santander]

Trump is not a Republican.

Could have confused me because he's the leader of the Republican Party, sets the Republican agenda, and is the person the Republican majority in Congress follows.

Now is he a traditional Reaganite Republican, no. Is he even a true Republican, possibly not, but he is most definitely the face of the Republican Party, and its national leader.

The US administered Iraq after the war until a new government could be formed. That did not make George W Bush the President of Iraq.

[The_Doctor]

Trump is not a Republican.

Could have confused me because he's the leader of the Republican Party, sets the Republican agenda, and is the person the Republican majority in Congress follows.

Now is he a traditional Reaganite Republican, no. Is he even a true Republican, possibly not, but he is most definitely the face of the Republican Party, and its national leader.

The US administered Iraq after the war until a new government could be formed. That did not make George W Bush the President of Iraq.

I'm sorry, how is that answer anything that responds to my argument?

Trump is the duly nominated, elected, and leader of the GOP. That is nothing like an invasion of Iraq with a unelected government leading Iraq. Trump is most definitely the leader of the Party through a convened election.

There is no argument where Trump is not recognized as a Republican. A bad one yes, someone who is hijacking the party for his ambitions, yes, but there's no way you can say with a straight face he's not a Republican or the party's national leader through the same process every GOP President has led the party.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Trump is not a Republican.

Could have confused me because he's the leader of the Republican Party, sets the Republican agenda, and is the person the Republican majority in Congress follows.

Now is he a traditional Reaganite Republican, no. Is he even a true Republican, possibly not, but he is most definitely the face of the Republican Party, and its national leader.

The US administered Iraq after the war until a new government could be formed. That did not make George W Bush the President of Iraq.

That's a completely different case.  Come on now.  Trump ran for and won the Presidency as the candidate of the Republican party.  That means the party "owns" him, whether or not he fits the mold of a traditional Republican (fwiw, I agree that he doesn't).

[ProudModerate2]

Trump is not a Republican.

Could have confused me because he's the leader of the Republican Party, sets the Republican agenda, and is the person the Republican majority in Congress follows.

Now is he a traditional Reaganite Republican, no. Is he even a true Republican, possibly not, but he is most definitely the face of the Republican Party, and its national leader.

NOW does everyone understand why the #Never Trump forces were so keen to deny him the nomination AND the White House?

Santander is starting to take baby-steps in preparation of jumping off the sinking ship.
He cant yet see the giant iceberg in front of the ship's path, but he knows there are plenty of enormous and deadly pieces of ice in the water.

[Andrew]

There are three areas of investigation that can lead to impeachment . . . Flynn . . . Emoluments . . . Russia.

I will be flabbergasted if even one Republican asks Comey even one single question about any of these topics.  I expect most of the questions from Republicans to be about Clinton's emails.