Yes... because when determining when someone is lying or not, one of the things we consider is their motivation.  Generally, confessing to serious crimes is not in one's best interest to lie about, so in most (not all) circumstance, I would tend to believe a freely given confession of guilt.  

It wasn't illegal to fire Comey or do those other things per se, but it was illegal if he did so with corrupt motivation.  Right?  Just checking because "totally in the clear" sends the wrong message to me. 

I can't believe I actually even opened the article since it's based on 'fact checking', LOL, but the fact that there is somebody watching every single thing Trump says and is pointing out any tiny flaw to try and make him look as bad as possible, just solidifies the reason why he became President in the first place.

I missed the part of the article where it talks about what he said that's truthful and how often that occurs... maybe in the fine print? I'm sure it's there somewhere...

Good point. Except for the point that he didn't need this position, had no reason to accept it, let alone chase it in the first place, spent millions of his own money to campaign for the  opportunity, and yet if he admitted he lied and should be fired, you think that would obviously mean it's the truth and should be taken as gospel?

Their motivation? So Trump spends millions of his own money and wastes a tonne of his time, losing millions he could be making at his business, to win the position and then screws himself over once it's all his? You should re-think your determination process.

Ummmmmm... yeah.  I think you're agreeing with me?  There is no benefit I can see to him lying, so it wouldn't really make sense for him to lie in this situation.  Isn't that what you just said?

I bet if Trump's words were 'I did it, I'm guilty, and I should be impeached', his words would suddenly be extremely meaningful because they would magically become nothing but truth after years of lie's and everyone on the left would want it used against him.

I can't believe I actually even opened the article since it's based on 'fact checking', LOL, but the fact that there is somebody watching every single thing Trump says and is pointing out any tiny flaw to try and make him look as bad as possible, just solidifies the reason why he became President in the first place.

I missed the part of the article where it talks about what he said that's truthful and how often that occurs... maybe in the fine print? I'm sure it's there somewhere...

Good point. Except for the point that he didn't need this position, had no reason to accept it, let alone chase it in the first place, spent millions of his own money to campaign for the  opportunity, and yet if he admitted he lied and should be fired, you think that would obviously mean it's the truth and should be taken as gospel?

Their motivation? So Trump spends millions of his own money and wastes a tonne of his time, losing millions he could be making at his business, to win the position and then screws himself over once it's all his? You should re-think your determination process.

Ummmmmm... yeah.  I think you're agreeing with me?  There is no benefit I can see to him lying, so it wouldn't really make sense for him to lie in this situation.  Isn't that what you just said?

"I would tend to believe a freely given confession of guilt."  Isn't that what you said?

Your stated position was that even if Trump fired Comey for corrupt reasons, it still wouldn't be illegal.  I think this is wrong based on a plain reading of the quoted law.  (I think it would be quite ridiculous to claim that Trump did not attempt to "influence" an official proceeding by firing Comey, or even asking him to go easy on Flynn.)  If you still disagree, how do you think I am wrong? 

Yes... because when determining when someone is lying or not, one of the things we consider is their motivation.  Generally, confessing to serious crimes is not in one's best interest to lie about, so in most (not all) circumstance, I would tend to believe a freely given confession of guilt.  

Ummmmmm... yeah.  I think you're agreeing with me?  There is no benefit I can see to him lying, so it wouldn't really make sense for him to lie in this situation.  Isn't that what you just said?

"I would tend to believe a freely given confession of guilt."  Isn't that what you said?

No. That's part of what I said.  But you didn't even quote the whole sentence, which makes me seriously question your interest in honest discussion.  

Better now?

The full sentence, where I put qualifiers in front of the part you pulled out, would have been fine.

You wanted honesty. No point in hiding anything in that case.