Anyway, if influencing an investigation leads to obstruction of justice, a president is not allowed to do that. Nixon was charged on obstruction of justice because he tried to use the CIA to interfere with the FBI's investigation. It was his attempts to cover up the crime that got him, rather than the crime itself.
Genuine question: How do you quote individual lines?
Nixon was never actually charged with anything.
And, yes, using one government agency to interfere with another's investigation would indeed be obstruction of justice. But Trump didn't do that. His methods were so straightforward that it was perfectly legal. He's the president. He's allowed to make his desires known to his subordinates. It's shady, but perfectly legal.
Information that leads to your opponent losing a presidential race would be worth more than the millions in campaign money you use to run negative adds against them. It would be of incredible value.
I'm sure it would. But information is strictly free in a legal sense. Otherwise, anyone that offered a candidate good advise that they take and see an uptick in their polls would be violating campaign finance laws because that advise was worth more than $2,700.
Every court shot down Trump's travel ban until June this year, after it had been redrafted multiple times. So it doesn't look like she was mistaken in her decision.
That is factually incorrect. The travel restrictions were upheld in several courts. And those courts that issued injunctions found them overturned by the Supreme Court long before June. Furthermore, the notion that they had to be redrafted many times is incorrect. The original travel restrictions were indeed flawed as they could be interpreted to restrict travel for people who already had legal access to the United States, even green card holders. However, instructions quickly went out stating not to interpret the orders that way. The travel restrictions then had a single major renovation about a month later which stood in courts and was allowed to remain in effect until it expired on its own. Once the temporary restrictions expired, Trump then issued the presidential proclamation that is currently in effect.
The notion that the travel restrictions had to be re-written several times is a false narrative. The truth is that there was only one significant revision, and that was issued barely a month later.
No matter what the case, though, Yellen went into business for herself and was appropriately fired. Again, every single president would have done the same. Yellen wished to make herself a martyr by putting herself above elected officials. Frankly, she and any other public servant who attempts to use their position to undermine the policies of elected officials are of low moral character and have no place of trust to be a member of government.
It's that according to the law, Michael Cohen violated campaign finance laws. It was tested by the prosecution. And it was agreed upon by all parties to have been accurate.
That's not the way precedent works.
And the fact that a jury already agreed that this broke campaign finance laws, and a judge passed down a sentence on it, sets a precedence for this case.
Ah, so that's the disconnect. There was no jury. Cohen plead guilty. That stopped there from being any "actual controversy" for the court to decide. Hence, no judge ever ruled on it and there is no precedent to be had.
So the onus is still on the prosecution for any future cases to prove that their interpretation of the law is correct.
When it comes to Trump however, it's revolving around a federal laws being broken
I'm not sure how federal laws would make it worse. Personally, I think that perjury is the bigger crime as it comes to being a president. If this were firmly law, I might think they were equal, but the stretched interpretation needed to charge Trump seems a lesser crime than the bright line that Clinton crossed.
And, like I said, I haven't seen anything that makes me think the Russia stuff is anything more than a dry well.
As for perjury, Trump seems like he would perjure himself within the first 10 seconds even after being coached by his lawyers on what to say. I would definitely be interested to see how he handles himself under oath.
Well, Trump hasn't said anything under oath so far, so you're literally projecting a future crime. Though I don't disagree and I expect that's why Trump will never answer any questions under oath. The guy is a B.S. artist by birth and can't help himself.
Either way, until he actually is placed under oath he certainly hasn't committed perjury, so it doesn't matter as to this discussion.
Though the same could be said for this payment just a couple of months ago. The situation changed drastically recently, as it was being taken to court.
It's possible. But the whole thing really feels like a fishing expedition to me. Since the start I thought that it would follow the typical presidential investigative course and come up empty on the original charge, but morph into catching people on process charges or other completely unrelated items. See Clinton's investigation starting with Whitewater or the Valarie Plame investigation hitting Scooter Libby, not the leaker, on perjury.
I frankly find the hubbub about Russia itself to be a lot of wishful thinking.