• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Wanted to Order Justice Dept. to Prosecute Comey and Clinton

Kal'Stang said:
Deep Throat and the Pentagon Papers were how long ago? The NYT's has changed quite a bit since then.
Click to expand...

Leaks have not. In fact this WH can easily be compared to the Titanic for leaks. And less than 2 years into his term.
 
MovingPictures said:
If he's so stupid he doesn't understand the limits of his constitutional authority, he ought to be forced from office on those grounds alone.

But I'd be willing to bet green money, Trump ordered the DOJ to go after Comey and Clinton, but the order was simply ignored, much like when he ordered the firing of Mueller.

If that happened, he's in deep, deep ****.
Click to expand...

:lamo So, Trump ordered the firing of Mueller huh? uhhuh. If he had done that don't you think that would be a slam dunk for obstruction charges? Why even bother with an "investigation into obstruction"?

Btw...since when is it illegal to order an investigation into possible criminal misconduct just because you happened to run against the person that possibly did it? Are people that run against others in election now immune from the law?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Nope. :shrug: But then again that's not what happened here is it? Two people claim that Trump wanted to prosecute Hillary and Comey and that Mr. McGahn rebuffed him for it. Mr. McGahn said Trump didn't do that. Who you going to believe? Mr. McGahn or "two people" too cowardly to come forward?
Click to expand...

No, that's not what McGahn said. E.g. this fits the facts:

Trump: McGahn, I want the DoJ to prosecute Clinton and Comey. Make it happen.
McGahn: That's the worst idea you've had all week, I can't do it, and if you order it done it might get you impeached.
Trump: OK.

The article and McGahn's statement are both accurate.
 
JANFU said:
Leaks have not. In fact this WH can easily be compared to the Titanic for leaks. And less than 2 years into his term.
Click to expand...

Yes, how many of those "leaks" have been confirmed? Even Mueller says that the media gets it wrong. Guess he's not believable to you in this instance because its not what you want to hear?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Oh puhleeze. :roll: That you're willing to believe anything and everything bad about Trump does not mean that the NYTimes has been "spot on" about Trump. Case in point...this article where Mr. McGhan straight up says "no".
Click to expand...
:lamo

I don't have to "believe" anything, Trump has publicly said he wants the DOJ to go after his political enemies, so it's a matter of public record that this is something Trump has wanted to do for some time.
 
JasperL said:
No, that's not what McGahn said. E.g. this fits the facts:

Trump: McGahn, I want the DoJ to prosecute Clinton and Comey. Make it happen.
McGahn: That's the worst idea you've had all week, I can't do it, and if you order it done it might get you impeached.
Trump: OK.

The article and McGahn's statement are both accurate.
Click to expand...

Psst...that's an order.
 
MovingPictures said:
:lamo

I don't have to "believe" anything, Trump has publicly said he wants the DOJ to go after his political enemies, so it's a matter of public record that this is something Trump has wanted to do for some time.
Click to expand...

Actually he has said that Hillary should be investigated for possible wrong doing. Should that not happen just because she ran against him (and lost)? Do you not care about possible wrong doing?
 
Atomic Kid said:
Except you ignoring the three most important words. "to his knowledge". Which leaves open a large fuzzy area. Not to mention McGahn serves the institution of the Presidency and the White House. He is neither the President's personal lawyer and or a principal.
Click to expand...

You're right, its possible that Trump ordered it outside of Mr. McGahns knowledge. But then how would Mr. McGahan have "rebuffed" him "according to two people"?
 
Kal'Stang said:
:lamo So, Trump ordered the firing of Mueller huh? uhhuh. If he had done that don't you think that would be a slam dunk for obstruction charges? Why even bother with an "investigation into obstruction"?
Click to expand...
Mueller confirmed the story. :lol:

Btw...since when is it illegal to order an investigation into possible criminal misconduct just because you happened to run against the person that possibly did it? Are people that run against others in election now immune from the law?
Click to expand...
This is literally you saying "Trump didn't do it ... BUT IF HE DID!".:lol:

Here's how the law works. If there are grounds for an investigation, federal officers would request DOJ leadership authorize one, and present evidence for one. If the acting AG finds cause for an investigation, he or she authorizes one.

The president has no part of it. It's an abuse of Trump's power to politicize the DOJ to harass his political opponents. Period, end of ****ing story.

Ask Nixon.
 
JANFU said:
You do not get to set your biased parameters. That does not work with me.
Is he egotistical- recall the love fest by Cabinet?
Is he ill informed- look to NK- NATO- his dealings with Foreign leaders?
Is he a constant and inconsistent liar?
Has he raised the levels of hate in the country- Charlottesville- Good people on both sides?
Has he constantly attacked the DOJ?
Click to expand...

It's not MY parameters. Its the parameters that YOUR side HAS set. Either Trump is too egotistical to simply tell someone that he "wants" something and therefore has a mental illness or he's not. Which is it?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Yes, how many of those "leaks" have been confirmed? Even Mueller says that the media gets it wrong. Guess he's not believable to you in this instance because its not what you want to hear?
Click to expand...

Tell me how many of M Habermans reports been proven to be false?
How many breaking news stories from the NYT as a whole been proven to be false?
Keep on digging and when you get to the end say hello to President Xi
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually he has said that Hillary should be investigated for possible wrong doing. Should that not happen just because she ran against him (and lost)? Do you not care about possible wrong doing?
Click to expand...
Are you really this ignorant of ethical conflicts, like really?
 
Kal'Stang said:
It's not MY parameters. Its the parameters that YOUR side HAS set. Either Trump is too egotistical to simply tell someone that he "wants" something and therefore has a mental illness or he's not. Which is it?
Click to expand...

My side. Nope. You again are trying to set parameters.
You are fine with Trump ordering investigations into political enemies.
No evidence needed, just Trump ordering it.
Can you say Banana Republic? Because that is what it comes down to.
 
MovingPictures said:
Mueller confirmed the story. :lol:
Click to expand...

Then why hasn't he brought up charges yet? Why "the investigation into possible obstruction"? Such would be a slam dunk don't you think?


MovingPictures said:
This is literally you saying "Trump didn't do it ... BUT IF HE DID!".:lol:

Here's how the law works. If there are grounds for an investigation, federal officers would request DOJ leadership authorize one, and present evidence for one. If the acting AG finds cause for an investigation, he or she authorizes one.

The president has no part of it. It's an abuse of Trump's power to politicize the DOJ to harass his political opponents. Period, end of ****ing story.

Ask Nixon.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting one key ingredient...Someone making an accusation. What? Did you think that LEO's automatically know when a crime happens?

I'll note that you didn't actually answer my question. Are people that run in elections against other people immune from investigations asked for by the winner into possible wrong doing? Yes or no?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Psst...that's an order.
Click to expand...

No, it's actually not. At least a lawyer can argue it because the request/order was to a person (White House counsel) who couldn't make it happen. Presumably he can actually ORDER the, you know, prosecutors in the Executive branch to prosecute someone, and they have the option of complying or resigning.
 
JANFU said:
My side. Nope. You again are trying to set parameters.
You are fine with Trump ordering investigations into political enemies.
No evidence needed, just Trump ordering it.
Can you say Banana Republic? Because that is what it comes down to.
Click to expand...

:roll: So you're denying what your own side has said now? Typical. If you're going to be this blatant then I guess we're done here.
 
JasperL said:
No, it's actually not. At least a lawyer can argue it because the request/order was to a person (White House counsel) who couldn't make it happen. Presumably he can actually ORDER the, you know, prosecutors in the Executive branch to prosecute someone, and they have the option of complying or resigning.
Click to expand...

"make it happen" is not a "request". It's an order. No matter what world you live in.
 
Kal'Stang said:
:roll: So you're denying what your own side has said now? Typical. If you're going to be this blatant then I guess we're done here.
Click to expand...

Drop the YOUR side crap - old and tired lines you use to deflect- I ain't falling for it- what did I say?
 
holbritter said:
I was thinking just that. That it's old news, so why is it being brought up again? Can't have one day without a negative story I guess.
Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:
Nope. :shrug: But then again that's not what happened here is it? Two people claim that Trump wanted to prosecute Hillary and Comey and that Mr. McGahn rebuffed him for it. Mr. McGahn said Trump didn't do that. Who you going to believe? Mr. McGahn or "two people" too cowardly to come forward?
Click to expand...
er uh, where were you guys when we had 8 Benghazi investigations because of a documented lie from one person "too cowardly to come forward" said President Obama issued stand down orders?
 
Kal'Stang said:
"make it happen" is not a "request". It's an order. No matter what world you live in.
Click to expand...

I see you've spent no time with lawyers. :roll:

They split rhetorical hairs like this for a living. If he ordered the chief WH leaf raker to fire Rosenstein, is that an "order?" No... At least any lawyer would say NO if that's the best answer for the client. How can the President make a valid order if he directs it to someone who cannot carry it out. He can't of course, so it's not an actual "order!" QED.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Then why hasn't he brought up charges yet? Why "the investigation into possible obstruction"? Such would be a slam dunk don't you think?




You're forgetting one key ingredient...Someone making an accusation. What? Did you think that LEO's automatically know when a crime happens?

I'll note that you didn't actually answer my question. Are people that run in elections against other people immune from investigations asked for by the winner into possible wrong doing? Yes or no?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Law has to be pure, or it's not law. When a president gets involved it taints the investigation, pure and simple, whether you like it or not.

JFC, do you seriously not understand how dangerous it is to let people who win use law enforcement as a weapon? That's ****ing scary.
 
Kal'Stang said:
:roll: So you're denying what your own side has said now? Typical. If you're going to be this blatant then I guess we're done here.
Click to expand...

You cannot support your argument by stating What I Said.
So yes you are done till you pony that up.
 
JANFU said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/president-trump-justice-department.html


The man who would be King. Reminds one of Nixon
The President trying to use DOJ to go after his political enemies

Now I eagerly await Trump supporters spin on this.
Click to expand...

As long as the republikkkans control the senate - there is ZERO chance of the orange turd being impeached. The republikkkans have put trump's best interests ahead of the countries.

Even former critics Cruz, Rubio, Flake, Donnelly, Ryan, Collins , Graham have jumped over to the satanic side and are goosestepping and saluting their dear leader.
 
Kal'Stang said:
"make it happen" is not a "request". It's an order. No matter what world you live in.
Click to expand...

'MAKE IT HAPPEN' is definitely an ORDER. And republiKKKans have been bowing down to the orange clown and giving him EVERYTHING he wanted. trump could commit murder live on national TV and the republikkkans will just let him get away with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom