• More Americans support Trump's impeachment than oppose it for first time, poll finds
    40 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52239997]I was actually referring to Hillary Clinton :v:[/QUOTE] Fair enough then, lol. Since we were talking about impeachment I'd assumed you were talking about Bill to begin with.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52239970]You are completely divorcing intent from Donald Trump's actions, it has been explicitly stated that Donald Trump fired him for looking too closely into the whole Russia thing.[/QUOTE] Intent does not matter; the President could have fired Comey for virtually any reason and acted perfectly within the law. FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Russia is a function of the administration and is also run at the President's discretion. In theory, he could order the director to shut the whole thing down if he wanted.
[QUOTE=Chonch;52240013]Intent does not matter; the President could have fired Comey for virtually any reason and acted perfectly within the law. FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Russia is a function of the administration and is also run at the President's discretion. In theory, he could order the director to shut the whole thing down if he wanted.[/QUOTE] I couldn't disagree more. Intent most certainly does matter. Also the age old adage "just because you can doesn't mean you should" comes to mind. Just because can technically fire Comey over the Russia probe does not mean he should because even if you ignore the shady implications of his actions he's walking a very fine line when it comes to legality here.
[QUOTE=Chonch;52240013]Intent does not matter; the President could have fired Comey for virtually any reason and acted perfectly within the law. FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Russia is a function of the administration and is also run at the President's discretion. In theory, he could order the director to shut the whole thing down if he wanted.[/QUOTE] To add to this, this is why independent investigations and prosecutors are a thing congress can do.
[QUOTE=Chonch;52240013]Intent does not matter; the President could have fired Comey for virtually any reason and acted perfectly within the law. FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Russia is a function of the administration and is also run at the President's discretion. In theory, he could order the director to shut the whole thing down if he wanted.[/QUOTE] actually intent matters [B]A WHOLE LOT[/B] when it comes to prosecuting state actors. In criminal law there's this thing called mens rea, aka the guilty mind. Mens rea is one of those things that doesn't necessarily [I]need[/I] to be proved in certain offenses, but in things of this magnitude (high office), oh yes! I worked for the Office of the Prosecutor at an international criminal tribunal trying war crimes and genocide. My purpose was to examine the speech patterns of the accused, looking for linguistic clues to demonstrate that he intended to commit genocide. It's quite effective at picking apart their intent. As far as the current president is concerned? The question of intent is currently working its way through the courts vis a vis the travel ban. White House claims that Trump's statements as a private citizen are irrelevant because he was not president at the time (this is a laughable argument; the muslim ban was the basis of the policy that was then maneuvered to become a legal "travel ban", and the courts are finding as such). With respect to the FBI investigation, Trump's acknowledgment of his cognizance of the Russia investigation at the time of his decision to fire the director of the agency pursuing that investigation is a direct acknowledgement of his intent to obstruct an active investigation into himself and/or his associates. If the facts play out and indeed there was some element of collusion, Trump's decision to fire the FBI director itself becomes a crime. As of right now I can't comment much further as we only have Trump's intent to go off with none of the evidence. I expect that we will be seeing evidence in the coming months and years.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;52240067]actually intent matters [B]A WHOLE LOT[/B] when it comes to prosecuting state actors. In criminal law there's this thing called mens rea, aka the guilty mind. Mens rea is one of those things that doesn't necessarily [I]need[/I] to be proved in certain offenses, but in things of this magnitude (high office), oh yes! I worked for the Office of the Prosecutor at an international criminal tribunal trying war crimes and genocide. My purpose was to examine the speech patterns of the accused, looking for linguistic clues to demonstrate that he intended to commit genocide. It's quite effective at picking apart their intent. As far as the current president is concerned? The question of intent is currently working its way through the courts vis a vis the travel ban. White House claims that Trump's statements as a private citizen are irrelevant because he was not president at the time (this is a laughable argument; the muslim ban was the basis of the policy that was then maneuvered to become a legal "travel ban", and the courts are finding as such). With respect to the FBI investigation, Trump's acknowledgment of his cognizance of the Russia investigation at the time of his decision to fire the director of the agency pursuing that investigation is a direct acknowledgement of his intent to obstruct an active investigation into himself. If the facts play out and indeed there was some element of collusion, Trump's decision to fire the FBI director itself becomes a crime. As of right now I can't comment much further as we only have Trump's intent to go off with none of the evidence. I expect that we will be seeing evidence in the coming months and years.[/QUOTE] The FBI's investigation is a counterintelligence probe into Russia's supposed meddling in the election. The President has full discretion over such investigations, as well as the executive personnel that operate them. Had this been a criminal investigation into Trump himself, there would be cause for an obstruction of justice charge. This is not the case. [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] There is no crime to analyze.
[QUOTE=Chonch;52240080]The FBI's investigation is a counterintelligence probe into Russia's supposed meddling in the election. The President has full discretion over such investigations, as well as the executive personnel that operate them. Had this been a criminal investigation into Trump himself, there would be cause for an obstruction of justice charge. This is not the case. [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] There is no crime to analyze.[/QUOTE] Legally he does have the right but ethically, do you think it was a sensible decision? To fire a man investigating the Trump election campaign?
[QUOTE=Chonch;52239985]The President has full discretion over the scope of intelligence investigations within his administration. Added to that, the FBI director is a member of the administration, and serves at the pleasure of the President. He could have been fired for styling his hair wrong as far as the law is concerned. Is it worth looking into? Yes, and House Oversight is currently doing so under the auspices of Jason Chaffetz. Their probe resulting in a criminal charge seems to me highly unlikely. Yes, and the result of the investigation was that existing charges were dropped. However, charging a private citizen and charging the President (known as impeachment) are very different processes here in the US, hardly comparable. I don't see how Hillary's case is relevant.[/QUOTE] You don't bring up charges unless you intend to prosecute. Hillary was never charged because they couldn't prove intent to a satisfactory level. The point of investigation is to determine if charges are warranted. Would be foolish to do it the other way around. Gives the suspect notice that you're investigating them, and since you don't have what you need yet, you have to drop the charges cause you can't hold people indefinitely. With a memo asking Comey to stop investigating Flynn, Trump telling him to stop the Russia investigations, Trump literally saying he fired Comey for the Russian investigation, then trying to blackmail him over twitter, they have plenty of grounds for obstruction and blackmail charges.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.