[Tom Bishop]

Bad comparison.  A judge cannot impartially arbitrate a case where he is defendant, but where Trump is being investigated by the FBI, his bias is irrelevant.

The bias is not irrelevant. The President has the power to direct the FBI on which cases to dismiss or pursue, and hire and fire at will. Trump cannot impartially arbitrate this case if he is the defendant.

The FBI isn't the be all and end all of law enforcement. The FBI (whose chief justice is Donald Trump) would simply be declining to pursue a case against the President of the United States (Donald Trump). That is a very reasonable position to take.

Unless there is substantial and irrefutible evidence that Trump committed a crime.  Then it is a very irrational and corrupt position to take.

If there is substantial and irrefutable evidence that Trump committed a crime why are you arguing that an organization headed by people hand picked by Trump should investigate him?

Using his authority to stop a frivolous investigation is not "breaking the law".

True, but only if the case is frivolous.  You appear to be defending Trump's right regardless of the substance of the case.  I sincerely hope that you would wish Trump to be held accountable for any crimes he has committed.  Regardless, I think in the case of there being substantial evidence against the president, impeachment is the appropriate avenue to prosecute him.

If there is a valid case against Donald Trump, an entity which is controlled by Donald Trump is not the appropriate entity to investigate, and the case should be dropped regardless of its validity.

[Rama Set]

Bad comparison.  A judge cannot impartially arbitrate a case where he is defendant, but where Trump is being investigated by the FBI, his bias is irrelevant.

The bias is not irrelevant. The President has the power to direct the FBI on which cases to dismiss or pursue, and hire and fire at will. Trump cannot impartially arbitrate this case if he is the defendant.

Well first off, he does not arbitrate the case, but secondly and most importantly, you are making the case that Trump should not use his powers, which is the exact ethical choice that a judge who recuses them self makes.  They let someone whose bias will not unduly influence the decision hear the case.  Likewise, Trump should let the investigation run it's course, trusting the head of the FBI to do the job appointed to him.  So thanks for affirming that there are cases where the presidents powers are tantamount to corruption.

Unless there is substantial and irrefutible evidence that Trump committed a crime.  Then it is a very irrational and corrupt position to take.

The threshold for laying charges has never been the threshold you are proposing.  All that is required is probable cause.  That Trump is president does not change this threshold.

If there is substantial and irrefutable evidence that Trump committed a crime why are you arguing that an organization headed by people hand picked by Trump to investigate him?

I am not really sure what you mean.  If there were such evidence, then obviously I would want an investigation.  However, seeing as this argument is a bit of a non sequitur because the threshold of evidence you are asserting is what is necessary for conviction, not indictment.

If there is a valid case against Donald Trump, an entity which is controlled by Donald Trump is not the appropriate entity to investigate, and the case should be dropped regardless of its validity.

Why?  Are you saying police should never investigate city hall?  Or that law enforcement agencies shouldn't investigate their officers who commit crimes?  I am not sure what ethical position you are taking.  I have already conceded that there are issues with prosecuting the president, but I have no idea what your position is which makes conversing with you somewhat fruitless.

[Tom Bishop]

Or that law enforcement agencies shouldn't investigate their officers who commit crimes?

The police do not investigate themselves because of conflict of interest. Have you never heard of Internal Affairs?

[Rama Set]

Or that law enforcement agencies shouldn't investigate their officers who commit crimes?

They don't investigate themselves because of conflict of interest. Have you never heard of Internal Affairs?

I have, they are a branch of a law enforcement agency specifically tasked with investigating their own.  They are most assuredly not a separate entity.

[Tom Bishop]

Or that law enforcement agencies shouldn't investigate their officers who commit crimes?

They don't investigate themselves because of conflict of interest. Have you never heard of Internal Affairs?

I have, they are a branch of a law enforcement agency specifically tasked with investigating their own.  They are most assuredly not a separate entity.

The reason it is a separate branch is to avoid the conflict of interest created by officers investigating their coworkers and superiors.

The Standards and Guidelines for Internal Affairs even says that if the agency head or Internal Affairs commander is the subject of investigation, that constitutes a conflict of interest, which impedes an objective and unbiased investigation.

From https://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p164-pub.pdf

Internal Affairs should be the guarantor that every investigation
undertaken by its agency of its own personnel fulfills its investigative
mission. All reasonable steps should be taken to assure that every
investigation is free from conflict of interest, bias, prejudice, or selfinterest.
Accordingly, investigations should, where reasonable and
feasible, be conducted by an Internal Affairs unit that reports directly
to the agency head or designated immediate subordinate deputy or
assistant agency head. Agencies should have a policy to address any
instance where Internal Affairs confronts a conflict of interest or believes
that it cannot conduct an objective and unbiased investigation, such as
when the agency head or Internal Affairs commander is the subject of
the complaint.

The President is the FBI director's superior, is he not?

[Rama Set]

Or that law enforcement agencies shouldn't investigate their officers who commit crimes?

They don't investigate themselves because of conflict of interest. Have you never heard of Internal Affairs?

I have, they are a branch of a law enforcement agency specifically tasked with investigating their own.  They are most assuredly not a separate entity.

The reason it is a separate branch is to avoid the conflict of interest created by officers investigating their coworkers and superiors.

The Standards and Guidelines for Internal Affairs even says that if the agency head or Internal Affairs commander is the subject of investigation, that constitutes a conflict of interest, which impedes an objective and unbiased investigation.

From https://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p164-pub.pdf

Internal Affairs should be the guarantor that every investigation
undertaken by its agency of its own personnel fulfills its investigative
mission. All reasonable steps should be taken to assure that every
investigation is free from conflict of interest, bias, prejudice, or selfinterest.
Accordingly, investigations should, where reasonable and
feasible, be conducted by an Internal Affairs unit that reports directly
to the agency head or designated immediate subordinate deputy or
assistant agency head. Agencies should have a policy to address any
instance where Internal Affairs confronts a conflict of interest or believes
that it cannot conduct an objective and unbiased investigation, such as
when the agency head or Internal Affairs commander is the subject of
the complaint.

The President is the FBI director's superior, is he not?

I am really not sure what you are arguing except that it is problematic that the president has power over the FBI. Of course Trump being the head of the FBI can represent a conflict of interest, but this investigation does not align with his interests, it is contrary to them. Surely the risk in Trump calling off the FBI is not because he wants justice to be done, but the opposite.

[Tom Bishop]

I am really not sure what you are arguing except that it is problematic that the president has power over the FBI. Of course Trump being the head of the FBI can represent a conflict of interest, but this investigation does not align with his interests, it is contrary to them. Surely the risk in Trump calling off the FBI is not because he wants justice to be done, but the opposite.

The risk is also that the people Trump has hired, and is expecting loyalty from, such as the head of the FBI, are tasked with investigating him. I don't see how anyone would WANT the FBI to continue with the investigation. Why are you complaining?

[Rama Set]

I am really not sure what you are arguing except that it is problematic that the president has power over the FBI. Of course Trump being the head of the FBI can represent a conflict of interest, but this investigation does not align with his interests, it is contrary to them. Surely the risk in Trump calling off the FBI is not because he wants justice to be done, but the opposite.

The risk is also that the people Trump has hired, and is expecting loyalty from, such as the head of the FBI, are tasked with investigating him. I don't see how anyone would WANT the FBI to continue with the investigation. Why are you complaining?

I wasn’t complaining. In fact, I pointed out that the impeachment process is the appropriate avenue to pursue these sorts of allegations. I was just pointing out how incoherent your argument was and continues to be. You started off by saying “The president can’t be corrupt! He is exercising his rights!” and have now meandered in to vaguely accusing the FBI of being at risk of being corrupt.

[Lord Dave]

Question:
Why are you talking about the FBI investigating Trump?  The issue was a direct subbordinate of Trump, Michael Flynn.  A man who isnot,  nor ever was, the head of the FBI or even in the chain of command for it.


This is about Trump using his political power to influence an FBI investigation into a member of his administration.  Trump himself was not being investigated.

[garygreen]

Who cares if Benjamin Wittes has "Five questions for Alan Dershowitz"? Alan Dershowitz is a lawyer and former Harvard Law Professor who specialized in constitutional and criminal law, and Benjamin Wittes is a civil liberties journalist who is too embarrassed to list what subject his degree was in from Oberlin College on his biography.

sick burn.  if only that were a legal argument.

you and dershowitz are both doing the same thing: endlessly repeating that the president has the power to fire the fbi director.  no one disagrees with that.  the statute, however, is quite clear: "Whoever corruptly[...]impedes or endeavors to[...]impede the due and proper administration of the law[...]" is guilt of obstruction of justice.  it doesn't make an "unless the action is otherwise legal" exemption.  that firing the fbi director is within the president's purview only makes obstruction difficult to prove; it does not make the president less culpable.

and lol at the continuing "hurr investigating himself" nonsense.  by that logic supreme court justices should be immune from any prosecution because lmao what are they gonna do judge themselves?!?!?!

[Lord Dave]

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/9/16755742/trump-cnn-wikileaks-twitter-correction

I like how CNN corrects a news story the same day and Trump is like "You all suck".
If anything, this proves that CNN is willing to correct errors it finds while Trump is happy to burn them no matter what.  Makes me think what they say is more likely true if they don't correct it.

[Rama Set]

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/9/16755742/trump-cnn-wikileaks-twitter-correction

I like how CNN corrects a news story the same day and Trump is like "You all suck".
If anything, this proves that CNN is willing to correct errors it finds while Trump is happy to burn them no matter what.  Makes me think what they say is more likely true if they don't correct it.

Cmon CNN fucked this one up big time. They fact-checked their story so poorly that they misreported the date on their primary source. They then made a giant hype machine because they knew that a “Trump is a Russian Colluder” story would blow up. The Washington Post reporter their error and then CNN retracted. If CNN has preemptively retracted then you may have a point but I would still wonder how this easy and rookie mistake made it to air.

Does the president have better things to do? Yes. Was he right? In this instance, and in many others regarding CNN, he was absolutely correct. The big news outlets need to do a better job in this day and age.

[Lord Dave]

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/9/16755742/trump-cnn-wikileaks-twitter-correction

I like how CNN corrects a news story the same day and Trump is like "You all suck".
If anything, this proves that CNN is willing to correct errors it finds while Trump is happy to burn them no matter what.  Makes me think what they say is more likely true if they don't correct it.

Cmon CNN fucked this one up big time. They fact-checked their story so poorly that they misreported the date on their primary source. They then made a giant hype machine because they knew that a “Trump is a Russian Colluder” story would blow up. The Washington Post reporter their error and then CNN retracted. If CNN has preemptively retracted then you may have a point but I would still wonder how this easy and rookie mistake made it to air.

Does the president have better things to do? Yes. Was he right? In this instance, and in many others regarding CNN, he was absolutely correct. The big news outlets need to do a better job in this day and age.

In fairness, they didn't have the e-mail and their source, obviously, failed to notice the 1 infront of the 4.  Not exactly a difficult error to make.
Yes, they screwed up.  And they're eating crow.  But shit does happen.  Granted, this could have been planted but I doubt it.  Especially when the real e-mails surfaced after the fact.

[Rama Set]

The Washington post reported on CNN’s error hours after CNN went to air. I don’t trust that CNN did not have the email or if indeed they didn’t that they tried particularly hard to get it. Nothing about CNNs actions seems worthy of an upvote in the integrity department.

[Lord Dave]

The Washington post reported on CNN’s error hours after CNN went to air. I don’t trust that CNN did not have the email or if indeed they didn’t that they tried particularly hard to get it. Nothing about CNNs actions seems worthy of an upvote in the integrity department.

Fair enough.

[Rama Set]

To boot, CNN edited their original story to match the facts instead of doing the ethical thing and letting it stand with the correction appended.

[garygreen]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/940588025964265472

if the economy is doing great, then we don't need your tax bill, idiot.

[Lord Dave]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/940588025964265472



if the economy is doing great, then we don't need your tax bill, idiot.

Better question:
Why is he using fake numbers for unemployment!
He said so in 2016 that the Unemployment numbers were fake!
SHOW THE REAL NUMBERS!

[honk]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/us/politics/trump-blames-democrats-for-false-accusations-from-women.html

[Lord Dave]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/us/politics/trump-blames-democrats-for-false-accusations-from-women.html

See, I'm signed up for the Republican AND democratic party e-mails.

I get tons of "donate to me" trump e-mails.  Haven't got a democratic one since before the election.  Like my god, every week it's "Hey, give me money.  Hey, here's a survey about how I'm doing: Great, amazing, good, fair, other...." because I don't want you to think I could be doing poorly. hahahaha."