First, as I recall, the ability to refuse a pardon (put aside if there is a string to it like requirement to a drug treatment program) has been questioned.

Second, I think "imputation" is valid, if potentially overbroad. A pardon like in the case of Nixon can be in theory be to remove any chance of liability, including by future actors, without necessarily thinking the person in question is guilty. For instance, an executive might think someone is innocent of murder but fear the next person will wrongly prosecute. Or, some nefarious special investigator from Baltimore.

Other hypos can be raised. Anyway, a past post cited the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, including regarding remarks he made. Former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg brought it up in this short article & suggested (years before the Supreme Court closed off the opportunity) it might have been open to court review if he was convicted: http://www.hastingsconlawquarterly.org/archives/V1/I1/Goldberg.pdf

 

Pardons?

:::chuckle:::

You Democrats do indeed live in an alternative, evidence free reality.

This morning, NPR ventured from its blue city studios and visited Iowa to speak with flyover Americans about NPR's latest Trump, Jr. du jour and discovered no one really cared.

The only thing which will likely save the cowardly Elephant congress in 2018 is the alternative is electing Donkeys.

God save the Republic...
 

"Gerald Ford, the story goes, would carry this quote in his pocket and pull it out as a justification when he was asked about why he pardoned Richard Nixon."

And I will despise Ford to my dying day for that pardon. He didn't heal the nation, he established a sick principle that Presidents would never be permitted to be legally accountable for any crimes they committed in office. Took us one more step towards being a monarchy, not a democratic republic. Or maybe just a banana republic.

That said, the Democrats and NeverTrumpers' fantasy of removing him from office over 'trumped' up charges is just that, a fantasy. And you'd better hope it stays that, because the consequences of proving to tens of millions of voters that if we ever elect somebody the Establishment doesn't approve of, you'll find some way to oust him, would be catastrophic.
 

SPAM's colon chuckling acrobatics seems to have no problem with Trump using the pardon power to protect his family, his appointees and even himself, while Brett seems to be suggesting that the pardon power should not be available to pardon a sitting or ex-president. Perhaps Nixon one thought that Watergate was just a "trumped" up "fantasy" as Brett seems to suggest is the case for Trump, even as the evidence unfolds in the early stages of investigations that Trump attempts to intimidate. Perhaps Trump's voter base of the Forgotten, of which Brett is a charter member, will never accept that it is not all a "fantasy" regardless of the evidence produced by investigations, as Brett states:''

"And you'd better hope it stays that, because the consequences of proving to tens of millions of voters that if we ever elect somebody the Establishment doesn't approve of, you'll find some way to oust him, would be catastrophic."

Trump surely seems concerned that it may not turn out to be a "fantasy." But Trump's Forgotten, whom Trump seems to have forgotten once in office, may remain in fantasy land.

5:25 AM
 

Query: Might a pattern of pardons be construed as obstruction of justice?
 

Shag: Query: Might a pattern of pardons be construed as obstruction of justice?

LMAO!

If the Democrats can claim a POTUS exercising his plenary power to fire a subordinate is criminal obstruction of justice, why not a pardon?

Brett: And you'd better hope it stays that, because the consequences of proving to tens of millions of voters that if we ever elect somebody the Establishment doesn't approve of, you'll find some way to oust him, would be catastrophic.

The political tactics of our mandarin class bear an increasing resemblance to those of the Maduro junta in Venezuela.
 

"'trumped' up charges"

Here's what we know:

Trump's National Security Adviser, Flynn, a registered foreign agent, lied about his connections to Russia and Turkey, including on his security clearance form which is a crime.

Trump's campaign manager, Manafort, also a registered foreign agent, broke the law for such registration by failing to disclose in the statutory time limit. Ditto for Manafort's employee and Trump operative Richard Gates. Manafort additionally broke the law in meeting with what was represented as a Russian government agent in order to receive from them information the Russians had gathered on Trump's opponent.

Trump's Attorney General, Sessions, committed perjury declaring "“I did not have communications with the Russians" in his confirmation hearings, this of course was later found to be a lie.

Trump's Sec. of State, Tillerson, has ties to Russia, Putin awarding him the Russian Order of Friendship.

Trump's son broke the law in meeting with what was represented as a Russian government agent in order to receive from them information the Russians had gathered on Trump's opponent.

Trump himself likely obstructed justice in asking the head of the FBI to drop an investigation of Flynn. When the FBI head did not drop the investigation, he fired the FBI head and then gave shifting and changing justifications for the firing.

If a scintilla of this kind of evidence existed regarding a Democrat Brett and his ilk would be howling their heads off. But, as long as it's a GOP, I think we can count on Brett to fall under Trump's own description of the obsequiousness of his devoted: "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters."



 

Consider what Bart's comment about 'plenary power' to fire subordinates would mean.

It would mean that a President could make him, and any of his allies he cares to extent his protection to, 'bulletproof' from any federal wrong doing. His son shoots his valet in DC? He could just fire any investigator who looked into it or prosecutor who brought charges. His cabinet official takes bribes? He could just fire any investigator who looked into it or prosecutor who brought charges. His appointee commits treason? He could just fire any investigator who looked into it or prosecutor who brought charges.

Is it any surprise that Bart would interpret our laws to result in such an authoritarian, dictatorial friendly fashion?
 

"if we ever elect somebody the Establishment doesn't approve of"

The idea that Trump is 'anti-Establishment' is ridiculous. If Trump is not part of 'the Establishment' then that term has no real meaning other than 'people I think in power that I don't think I like.' The guy was born a multi-millionaire and has his entire life hobnobbed in the most intimate way with nearly every major political, financial and entertainment elite out there.
 

Yet again, when things like "heal the nation" is said, it depends what it means.

Did Nixon get off scott free? No. He was going to be impeached, as set forth by the restraints of the Constitution, and resigned to avoid that. His own vice president as well as many members of his administration received criminal liability. Nixon received political accountability, pressured by the system in place in the Constitution. And, like was one reason to have the pardon power, Ford decided that it was best for him to be pardoned to have the nation move on. After Nixon resigned, his people charged etc.

If this was worth it like in other cases people were pardon in part for that reason, such as those involved in the Whiskey Rebellion, is obviously a deep matter of debate. A continual attempt to target Nixon criminally can be defended, but he was punished. Not being President any more isn't trivial. Accountability occurred. Likewise, just because ONCE involving everything involved that some was pardoned, maybe wrongly, doesn't mean for all time everyone has to be treated the same. Particularly if the facts are different. FORD isn't the one to blame for people acting long after he died. And, Ford himself was hurt in the elections.

Again, following the path set forth by this Constitution. When someone is pardoned, we repeatedly have people upset about the rule of law. It depends on the facts.
 

Mr. W. spells out the details of "charges" and as noted FORD isn't the one we have to worry about now, if -- partially because "he has the right enemies" -- proper action (be it impeachment or something less, such as something as simply having Congress do more of a job in fulfilling its duties under the Emoluments Clause, such as full disclosure and other limits) is not taken.
 

joe, I will say in one of my rare moments of agreement with Brett, I'm also quite critical of Ford's pardon. Presidents can't be above the law, if our Revolution is to mean anything that has to be one such part of it.

Shag, I like your question. It's easy to see how pardons could be seen as evidence of a crime. What if there were clear evidence of taking a bribe for a pardon, for example?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

One more thing ...

a pardon can I assume leave open certain civil liability, possible removal of privilege against self-incrimination (something Trump should weigh here), punishment for state crimes (such as arising in NY) and liability for future action such as again lying in testimony after the pardon occurs.

----

I believe Mark Field might have been against the pardon too. But, Nixon wasn't simply "above the law." He was forced to resign. He could be submit to civil liability. His papers (this might not seem like much, but young Scalia thought they were his property) was put open to public view etc.

Sometimes, a pardon -- be it the President or a lowly whiskey rebellion offender -- might be a good idea at the time. I am fine with thinking on balance Nixon should not have been pardoned. But he did not simply get off and Ford's alleged error does not put forth a set in stone requirement. Him not being elected in part because the public opposed it can in fact be said to be a message that current public understanding holds a President should not be pardoned like that.
 

Just to add to Mr. W's list, Trump is pretty much daily violating the Emoluments Clause. That may or may not be a crime, but it's certainly an impeachable offense.

I agree that Ford's pardon of Nixon was a huge mistake.
 

"Trump is pretty much daily violating the Emoluments Clause"

Yup. The movement conservative response to the Clinton Foundation's alleged conflicts of interests and this current daily reality is telling.
 

Mr. W: Consider what Bart's comment about 'plenary power' to fire subordinates would mean.

Even to such extremes, legal terminations would not constitute criminal obstruction of justice. However, refusing to prosecute violations of the laws of Congress is a violation of the Take Care Clause and thus an impeachable misdemeanor.

This is one of the fundamental problems with vesting all executive power in one person. FWIW, one of the constitutional amendments I propose in my book project is to divide the executive power between an elected Attorney General tasked with enforcing the law and a President who will exercise all the other powers. Both would be subject to impeachment.

Mr. W: Here's what we know...

Trump is not accused of violating the foreign agent reporting laws and seeking advice from those suspected of doing so is hardly a crime.

The Sessions committed perjury charge is nonsense. Sen. Franken asked a rambling question referencing Trump campaign communications with the Russians. Sessions answered that his participation in the campaign was limited and he did not have communications with the Russians. Sessions was obviously discussing his role in the campaign, not that he never met with a Russian during his life.

The suggestion that any business or social dealings with Russians constitute collusion with the Russian government to commit unstated crimes is a malicious McCatrthyite slander. In fact, my analogy is unfair to McCarthy because he ended up being correct that the FDR and Truman administrations were riddled with Soviet NKVD agents and sources committing espionage and treason.

Asking a law enforcement officer or a prosecutor to drop an investigation or charge because the target is a "good guy" happens thousands of times a day and is hardly obstruction of justice. When you ask a traffic cop to let you off with a warning or I ask the DA (often successfully) to drop charges for my clients, we are not committing obstruction of justice. Law enforcement and prosecutors have discretion to consider the character of the accused in making charging decisions. Asking them to exercise that discretion is not obstruction.

In sum, we know there is absolutely no evidence Trump committed any crimes and the accusation he did are the basest form of defamation.
 

"legal terminations would not constitute criminal obstruction of justice. "

Because you defend a dictatorial interpretation of our system. We get that.

Impeachment is no sufficient answer, because an executive that can simply thwart any and all investigation/prosecution via firing can keep any politically damaging results that would trigger impeachment from surfacing.

"Trump is not accused of violating the foreign agent reporting laws and seeking advice from those suspected of doing so is hardly a crime."

It's interesting to see Bart suddenly discover a wide gulf between a candidate/President and his operatives, something he didn't seem to recognize for Democratic ones.

"In fact, my analogy is unfair to McCarthy because he ended up being correct"

Haha, 'he himself hath said it!"

"Sessions was obviously"

It's not obvious at all. What's 'obvious' is that Sessions said "“I did not have communications with the Russians" when in fact he had.

"Asking a law enforcement officer or a prosecutor to drop an investigation or charge because the target is a "good guy" happens thousands of times a day"

In your examples the person asking to drop is not the investigator's boss who can, and does, subsequently fire the investigator when they don't.



 

Mark: "Trump is pretty much daily violating the Emoluments Clause"

This argument is sophistry.

As a condition of his accepting employment as POTUS, the Constitution prohibits the POTUS from receiving emoluments or profits. Taken in this context, DOJ is self evidently correct in arguing the term “emolument” means “profit arising from office or employ.”

The Democrat anti-Trump argument that the Emoluments Clause prohibits POTUS from making any profit outside of the office means no business owner who engages in direct or indirect international trade can serve as POTUS. This sophistry not only disregards the textual context, but also the historical background of the Emoluments Clause. The Founders who drafted the Constitution and later served as POTUS were generally business owners. As POTUS, Washington and Jefferson owned plantations which in part engaged in international trade. No one of the Founding generation thought these Presidents were violating the Emoluments Clause.

What is amusing about this Democrat anti-Trump sophistry is, under this theory, Obama violated the Emoluments Clause by selling books internationally.
 

BD: "Asking a law enforcement officer or a prosecutor to drop an investigation or charge because the target is a "good guy" happens thousands of times a day"

Mr. W: In your examples the person asking to drop is not the investigator's boss who can, and does, subsequently fire the investigator when they don't.

Elected prosecutors can and do legally order their subordinates to drop investigations and prosecutions all the time. Under the Constitution, the POTUS is the elected chief prosecutor for the national government.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This is a good read:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/impeach-president-applying-authoritative-guide-charles-black

----

As to the original comment, cf. Biddle v. Perovich (1927):


"A pardon in our days is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is a part of the Constitutional scheme. When granted it is the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed."


Again, I don't think it is compelled to assume in all cases the person is guilty. That's a fair imputation but the pardon power is a bit less blunt than that too.
 

SPAM correctly spells "sophistry" but misuses its meaning. Perhaps SPAM as a textualist can point to text of the Constitution that supports the understanding of DOJ on Emoluments. What SPAM avoids is the concern with corruption, actual or potential, that led to the Emoluments Clauses.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], one of those clauses relates to foreign nations and the other to states.

Does SPAM concede that if an:

"Elected prosecutors can and do legally order their subordinates to drop investigations and prosecutions all the time."

that there are circumstances:when doing so would be illegal?

It seems that SPAM has been taking positions that the Constitution supports Trump whom SPAm claimed during the campaign was a fascist over and over again.

I can't get out of my head the cockamamie thought of an elected AG at the federal level. Why not an elected Secretary of State?


 

Shag: Perhaps SPAM as a textualist can point to text of the Constitution that supports the understanding of DOJ on Emoluments.

Have you read the Emoluments Clause in pertinent part?

[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

By virtue of holding the office, the EC prohibits POTUS from accepting a present, emolument (profit), office or title. Constitutional text rarely gets clearer.

Shag: Does SPAM concede that if an:"Elected prosecutors can and do legally order their subordinates to drop investigations and prosecutions all the time." that there are circumstances:when doing so would be illegal?

Of course. Let's knock out the Emolument Clause and obstruction issues with one hypo.

Let's say the evil Russian hackers never obtained and Wikileaks never published the Democrat emails showing Clinton lies and dirty tricks and the blissfully ignorant voters elected Clinton POTUS.

Let's say the FBI uncovered evidence POTUS Hillary Clinton provided trade favors to China in exchange for China sponsoring a Bill Clinton tour of China which paid him $5 million a speech for a dozen speeches.

When a Democrat in the FBI leaked the evidence to POTUS Clinton, Hillary invites Comey to the Oval Office and offers him plush position on the Clinton Foundation board of directors if he orders the investigation stopped and publicly exonerates the Clintons. Comey accepts and both sides carry out their end of the deal.

It would not surprise me if something like this happened with Lynch and/or Comey concerning Clinton's felony and misdemeanor violations of the Espionage Act, but I digress...

Under this hypo, Clinton profited off of the trade favors she did for China and thus violated the Emoluments Clause. In turn, Comey committed obstruction of justice when POTUS Clinton bribed him to order his subordinates to cease their investigation into the Clintons.
 

Shag: I can't get out of my head the cockamamie thought of an elected AG at the federal level. Why not an elected Secretary of State?

This division of power works rather well at the state level and avoids the obvious conflict of interest of a POTUS being in charge of criminal investigations of his own branch of government.

Special counsel who are unanswerable to the voters and enjoy unlimited portfolios and funding are a repeatedly demonstrated invitation to rogue prosecution.

There is no need to further subdivide executive power.
 

SPAM's hypo must be short for hippopotamus. SPAM defines emolument as profit. I assume SPAM has not read John Mikhail's very long paper of the emoluments clauses. I haven't for reasons of lack of time at 86, poor eyesight and struggling to saddle up that hypo on Hillary as an obvious diversion. Is there a particular dictionary that so defines emolument that SPAM relies upon as he seems to be competing with Tillman and Blackman on Trump's judicial shortlist. SPAM continues to ignore corruption, actual or potential, as discussed in the Federalist Papers. And of course SPAM ignores the tag end of the clause he quotes, " of any kind whatever" that broadens the things specifically enumerated.

And what works at the level of some states can be simplistic and unworkable. SPAM may be thinking of an ombudsman role for an elected AG. Considering the GOP Clown Car Candidates for 2016, what might we expect AG candidates - for both parties. I assume that SPAM has proposed amendment language for his cockamamie idea. If so, let's take a peek.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Shag: SPAM defines emolument as profit. I assume SPAM has not read John Mikhail's very long paper of the emoluments clauses.

I read Mikhail's chart of contemporary dictionary definitions of emolument and nearly every one includes "profit." The issue is not whether emolument can have a broader definition in other contexts, but rather what is it's meaning in the context of the text of the Emolument Clause.

"of any kind whatever" refers to the gifts, profits or titles gained by "holding any Office."
 

SPAM, who claims to be a textualist, responds to me:

***

"of any kind whatever" refers to the gifts, profits or titles gained by "holding any Office."

***

but "gifts," "profits" are not words contained in the clause SPAM had quoted. Here's SPAM's quote of the clause:

"[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

SPAM's textualism context emulates [pardon my French] TooLoose Le Dreck.
r
And those dictionary definitions of "emoluments" SPAM refers to demonstrate much more that "profits."

 

The WaPo tonight online includes battling legal OpEds on whether President Trump can pardon himself. Jonathan Turley thinks Trump can, but shouldn't. Based on Turley's view, Trump could every morning pardon himself until he leaves office. Does Turley really believe this?
 

Morning unconstitutional?

Turley is probably the go guy for the offbeat interpretation.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

The Washington Post is running dueling legal op-eds concerning the subject of yet another #FakeNews piece based on an anonymous source making an unsubstantiated claim about a discussion at the White House?

Really?

The National Enquirer has more credibility than the Democrat media right now. At least they have photoshopped pictures to support their #FakeNews.
 

https://www.justice.gov/file/20856/download

" different approach to the pardoning problem could be taken under Section 3 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. If the President declared that he was temporarily unable to perform the duties of his office, the Vice President would become Acting President and as such he could pardon the President. Thereafter the President could either resign or resume the duties of his office."
 

I recall from the early days of a TV ad cure for "morning unconstitutionals." It was called "Serutan," which, the announcer would tell us, is "Natures, spelled backwards."

As to the different pardon approach pointed out by Joe, if the President then resumed his office, he could then pardon the VP.
 

Turley may be relying on the French translation of our Constitution's pardon clause: "Pardonez Moi." [Credit to the Boston Public School System that provided me four years of French.]
 

Over at Larry Solum's Legal Teory Blog on July 15, 2017, his "Download of the Week" was John Mikhail's article on Emoluments, accompanied by Solum's editorial comments:

"Highly recommended. Download it while it's hot!

The government will surely wish to revise its argument in light of this research."

Keep in mind that Solum is a New Originalist (as compared to SPAM's "feint-hearted" [sic] textualism).

Query: Which DC hotel do Trump judicial roulette candidates check into?
 

Can anyone really believe he will think he is admitting guilt if he pardons himself? And if he does, what court will recognize such pardon as having any force?
 

Subjectively, Trump wouldn't believe he's admitting guilt. But the rest of us are free to interpret it that way.

What court? The current SCOTUS, in my judgment, will uphold a Trump self-pardon. That's assuming Trump were to be criminally prosecuted, which I consider unlikely -- the Rs will continue to control the presidency if he's gone and I doubt any R president would prosecute even if Trump murdered someone in cold blood on the Mall.
 

We are free to interpret as we like, but if Biddle v. Perovich is good law, it seems like a pardon is "granted" for the "public" good & not really something one can refuse, except if it requires some sort of string (like a drug offender agreeing to a treatment program). The case cited by GM is telling -- the person there refused a pardon to avoid needing to testify. Can someone do that today?

So, a pardon need not necessarily be an admission of guilt. Pardons, e.g., can be used to "restore the tranquillity of the commonwealth" [Federalist No. 74] by providing a blanket pardon, to avoid individual hearings of guilt or innocent. I think it would be unwarranted to assume each and everyone affected is guilty.

Trump? Well, not quite the same thing. As to what the Supreme Court does, seems like a pretty academic question anyhow. Before someone else tries to prosecute Trump, seems not ripe to decide anyhow. But, my question is if anyone self-pardoned. Did any governor or even foreign executive with that power try that?
 

"And you'd better hope it stays that, because the consequences of proving to tens of millions of voters that if we ever elect somebody the Establishment doesn't approve of, you'll find some way to oust him, would be catastrophic."

If by "catastrophic", you mean that some people who comment on blogs might become very angry, and might even go so far as to post their anger on blogs as a comment, you are correct.

If you mean anything other than that, color me unconcerned. I'm sure if we had political blogs during Watergate, such meritless concern would have been articulated then as well. The truth is, if tens of millions of Americans want to vote for a crook who can't even credibly pretend to care about the rule of law, and then feel angry when they are told "nope", that's just too bad for them. Sometimes you don't get what you want. There are plenty of candidates of all ideological leanings that they could have chosen instead.

Obviously, Trump is not going to be impeached right now. But if Republicans in Congress were smart, when Trump finally crosses some line that they can't ignore, they will "more in sorrow than in anger" unify to remove Trump. The alternative (a clear division among Congressional Republicans barely hitting the thresholds) would be delicious for Democrats to watch (as Republican voters like yourself eat their own), but not so much for Republicans or the right.
 

Yes.

If we give those elected carte blanche, the alternative is bad. We would not want
"established a sick principle that Presidents would never be permitted to be legally accountable for any crimes they committed in office. Took [Take] us one more step towards being a monarchy, not a democratic republic. Or maybe just a banana republic."

So, we are left with the continual argument that there simply is not much there, that people are reaching in this specific case. If the evidence was deemed stronger, surely merely because the person (an apparent billionaire who has mixed with high society for decades) is someone "the Establishment" doesn't like shouldn't stop us.

I say "To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
 

That's assuming Trump were to be criminally prosecuted, which I consider unlikely...established a sick principle that Presidents would never be permitted to be legally accountable for any crimes they committed in office...if tens of millions of Americans want to vote for a crook

And what evidence is there Trump committed a crime in or out of office?

Nothing like a lynch mob presumption of guilt on a blawg run by professors of law.
 

Impeachable offenses, all criminal:

You want proof? Here's a few items:

1. Obstruction of Justice- shown by his self professed intent to stop the FBI investigation, when he fired Comey.

2. Abuse of power- statements inciting violence against aliens, specifically Mexican "rapists, et al." Inciting violence against lawful residents aliens, as well as minorities; attacking a federal judge- undermining confidence in and obedience to the courts; attacking the constitutionally protected press, inciting opposition to the free flow of information.

3. Conspiring with an (enemy) foreign power to upset the president election and to obtain scurrilous information about a political opponent.

4. Violation of the emoluments clause from the minute he took his oath of office.
 

SPAM, while shilling for the Cruz Canadacy, over and over accused candidate Trump as a fascist. What was his evidence? As a candidate Trump lacked political power, something that a fascist would need. Now that Trump is president, SPAM is more defensive of Trump than is Brett. Trump as president has political power to act as a fascist, more so than he did as a candidate. Did that earlier fascist evidence disappear or was it all in SPAM's mind? SPAM's Al Pacino imitation is incredible.
 

Seeing is believing. I met with Dr. GURILARICO GURU. He is a true spellcaster. He brought back my ex within 48 hours after he casted a spell for me. I insisted i wanted to meet with me because of many bad experience i have had with fake spell casters from Africa and Asia and he came to me in California all the way from Florida. He is real and based in Florida in the United States. You have nothing to lose here. contact Dr. GURILARICO GURU directly
Call :+1(832) 263-7128, +1(832) 730-7296.
Contact: dr.gurilarico@priest.com
He is always ready to help for free.
 

Robert:

1) Hereis a summary if the federal obstruction statutes. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34303.pdf How does firing Comey prove any of them?

2) You might want to acquaint yourself with the First Amendment.

3) Conspiracy to commit a crime requires evidence of an agreement to commit a crime. Your slander is not evidence.

4) There is no evidence Trump profited from his office by a foreign state. BTW, violation of the EC is not a crime.
 

I've done this before, but have time for an encore.

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 and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

The investigation into Flynn is a pending proceeding before a U.S. agency.

Trumps asking to end the matter and then firing the head of that investigation is an attempt at influencing, obstructing or impeding it.

As to corruptly, Trump has changed his rationale repeatedly which warrants a conclusion it's not on the up and up.

 

Mr. W:

Since I have time as well, I'll correct you again.

Trump can fire any of his subordinates at will. Comey was three levels above whoever is running this investigation, Comey's second in command was a partisan Democrat who led the Clinton white wash while his wife received a boatload of campain cash, and both testified that no one limited the investigation.

Case dusmissed.
 

SPAM's concent of "Case dismissed" is "Justice dismissed."
 

SPAM's attempt at a failed correction of Mr. W rehashes Nixon's failed efforts during Watergate. It didn't work for Nixon but SPAM revives it for his new hero President Trump. SPAM is showing his anarcho libertarianism once again. SPAM's concept of the rule of law is that the President is all powerful. Congress can't be expected to stick its head in the sand while Trum[ does all the things SPAM says Trump can do. What a maroon.