CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Left wing shitheads like Burro will now claim that Robert Mueller was part of the Russian collusion conspiracy.
Because the Mueller report did not produce the desired result Burro the Filth and and the rest of the nation's left wing insurgents will shout and scream;-, whitewash, liar, cheat.
They've all decided to dismiss the findings of this multi-million dollar, two year investigation as an elaborate cover up and President Trump was indeed guilty of the offences of which he has been conclusively cleared.
For two years the left wing media has been making false statements such as, ''the walls are closing in on Trump'','Impeachment is now inevitable''
We've been bombarded with a torrent of references associating Trump with Putin and Trump with Russia.
All this left wing fake news and anti-American propaganda was aimed at conditioning the public into accepting that Trump was guilty of collusion with a hostile power.
THE LEFT WINGERS, INCLUDING '' BURRO THE FILTH'' HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG AND INSTEAD OF LICKING THEIR WOUNDS IN DISGRACE THEY'RE TRYING TO CAST DOUBT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATION.
Of course he did, we all SAW it on TV. There WAS evidence of collusion, there WAS evidence of obstruction, Mueller gave the pro's and con's, the cons threw out the pro's. Two of his "appointees" decided the outcome of the evidence. Likely the second one was ordered to confirm! So be it. He is STILL a traitor! Standing in front of the cameras at Helsinki giving "aid and comfort to the enemy", while denigrating his own country's people, kissing Putin's ass, is a traitor! That's just ONE of several times! Man's gotta go! HE is evil.
Where is the evidence of the INSANITY you are told to believe AL !!!!!!!
AL saw everything it needed to know on CNN or MSLSD !!!!!
AL your Gal Hillary was a LOSER get over it and move along!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What AL really needs to be concerned with is when AOC cuts off your natural gas and your LEFTIST ASS scrambles to figure out how you will stay warm there in Road Island!
You've read the words.. I've read the words.. You conclude they mean one thing.. I conclude they mean another. Here they are:
And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said: ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story'
I say the words mean Trump FIRED Comey to OBSTRUCT the investigation.. Tell me again, what you think they mean.
In any case, congress doesn't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to impeach Trump.. They just need the VOTES..
Look.. I didn't like it when Clinton shook his finger at me and LIED through his teeth, and I don't like it when Trump does the same thing.. To me, LYING to the public IS an impeachable offense..
Oh the firing. The problem with that is that removing Comey, for any reason at all, was Trump’s prerogative. The removal of Comey did not halt, nor could be expected to halt, any of the myriad investigations going on in the FBI at that time. Were any investigations interfered with as a result of the firing? No. If they were, replacing the head of the FBI would always be catastrophic. But it’s not.
There’s a legal definition for obstruction of justice. It’s a factual matter, not an opinion, whether Trumps actions meet that definition. They don’t.
With all that said, you’re right that they don’t need Trump to technically break the law in order for them to impeach. I personally hope they do. It’s a win win for me.
Oh the firing. The problem with that is that removing Comey, for any reason at all, was Trump’s prerogative.
Hello again, A:
Nahh...
You say "for any reason at all" I say it's OBSTRUCTION if he fires him to END an investigation into himself.. But, I got it. We don't agree..
Let's look at his pardon power.. My guess is you'll say he can pardon anybody he wants to "for no reason at all".. I say, he can't accept a BRIBE in exchange for a pardon.. That would BE obstruction..
Conclusion: In my view, his UNLIMITED powers are indeed, LIMITED.
There was a bit more to my post than Trumps power to fire Comey. For example the lack of reasonable expectation that a firing would end an investigation, coupled with the fact that it didn’t end an investigation.
For example the lack of reasonable expectation that a firing would end an investigation, coupled with the fact that it didn’t end an investigation.
Hello again, A:
Couple things.. You talk about Trumps "reasonable expectation", as if you KNOW what he expected.. I say, by firing Comey, he had a "reasonable expectation" that the investigation would END.. Why is your assumption about his "expectation" any more valid than mine?
When he fired Comey, Trump didn't know that the investigation would continue. Nobody knew that a special council would be appointed.. Trump, like you, thought he could FIRE Comey for any reason.. And, since he had absolute authority to do it, both you and he were surprised when people took exception to it..
Let's talk about a branch of government that DOES have the authority to IMPEACH the president for ANY REASON AT ALL. Certainly, nobody knows what the hell high crimes and misdemeanors are.. Do you? That's on purpose, of course. It's a FEATURE of our Constitution - not a bug..
You talk about Trumps "reasonable expectation", as if you KNOW what he expected..
I didn’t say a word about Trumps expectation. I said there is no reasonable expectation. You cannot reasonably assume a person’s intentions are other than what a given action could reasonably be expected produce. The firing of Comey could not reasonably be expected to produce an end to any given investigation. Furthermore, there were good reasons to fire Comey. So with good reasons to fire Comey, and no reasonable expectation that a firing would halt an investigation, where did you arrive at the conclusion that Trump was not acting on good cause for firing; but was rather acting with the unreasonable expectation that firing would impede investigation? Whose mind did you read?
When he fired Comey, Trump didn't know that the investigation would continue.
All investigations continued. There is literally no reason to think that a change in management would halt day to day operations. No one would reasonably think so.
And, since he had absolute authority to do it, both you and he were surprised when people took exception to it
I wasn’t surprised. We live in a pretty insane world lately. People will take exception to whatever stupid political topic they are told they should take exception to, whether it’s gay marriage or a decade old tweet. This is like that. It’s stupid to take exception, but I am not surprised. You do realize that Comey probably got Trump elected when he went way out of bounds, later out the laws which Hillary broke, and then “recommended” not to pursue legal action. He should have been fired long before.
Let's talk about a branch of government that DOES have the authority to IMPEACH the president for ANY REASON AT ALL. Certainly, nobody knows what the hell high crimes and misdemeanors are.. Do you? That's on purpose, of course. It's a FEATURE of our Constitution - not a bug..
I don’t dispute you on this at all. Let them impeach. It’s a win win for me.
You cannot reasonably assume a person’s intentions are other than what a given action could reasonably be expected produce.
So we can reasonably assume Trump fired Comey because he was getting too close to the truth?
The firing of Comey could not reasonably be expected to produce an end to any given investigation.
It certainly could be expected to produce an end to being investigated by Comey. As per usual, you are using lopsided logic to arrive at false conclusions. Trump didn't know firing Comey wouldn't end the investigation, and hence by your very own fallacious reasoning you cannot say there was no "reasonable expectation" on his part to do so.
Basically Amarel, you are a liar who perpetually twists and turns language in order to disguise your own intellectual dishonesty and shocking double standards.
You say "for any reason at all" I say it's OBSTRUCTION
Obstruction of justice is defined in USC 18 Chapter 73, and none of these provisions mention one govenment official firing another government official.
The US statute for obstruction of justice is layed out in USC 18 Chapter 73:
•§ 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigations
•§ 1511. Obstruction of State or local law enforcement
•§ 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
•§ 1513. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant
•§ 1514. Civil action to restrain harassment of a victim or witness
•§ 1514A. Civil action to protect against retaliation in fraud cases
•§ 1515. Definitions for certain provisions; general provision
•§ 1516. Obstruction of Federal audit
•§ 1517. Obstructing examination of financial institution
•§ 1518. Obstruction of criminal investigations of health care offenses
•§ 1519. Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
•§ 1520. Destruction of corporate audit records
Of these 10, only section 1510 subsection "a" could technically have been be applied in Donald Trump's case. It reads:
(a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Nobody has proven that during the course of Mueller's investigation, Donald Trump "willfully endeavored by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator".
Strange how last night you are a Russian who doesn't understand English
I never said that you moron. I said that I had made one mistake in my English. This doesn't mean that I "don;t understand English". Nor does it mean that I don't understand law.
Which was a laughably weak lie you invented to cover up why you didn't know the difference between a subscript and a superscript. I also proved you were lying, so shut your fucking stupid mouth you idiot.
Quote me saying that "I can't understand English". If you can't then you're a lying bitch.
Which was a laughably weak lie
It could only be a "lie" in the sense that Gestapo or NKVD would call everything that triggers them a lie. Same goes for "cover up". You have exposed yourself as pompous idiot with 0 credibility in science. My minor English mistake does not change that fact.
The US statute for obstruction of justice is layed out in USC 18 Chapter 73:
•§ 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigations
•§ 1511. Obstruction of State or local law enforcement
•§ 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
•§ 1513. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant
•§ 1514. Civil action to restrain harassment of a victim or witness
•§ 1514A. Civil action to protect against retaliation in fraud cases
•§ 1515. Definitions for certain provisions; general provision
•§ 1516. Obstruction of Federal audit
•§ 1517. Obstructing examination of financial institution
•§ 1518. Obstruction of criminal investigations of health care offenses
•§ 1519. Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
•§ 1520. Destruction of corporate audit records
Of these 10, only section 1510 subsection "a" could technically have been be applied in Donald Trump's case. It reads:
(a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Nobody has proven that during the course of Mueller's investigation, Donald Trump "willfully endeavored by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator".
He's done none of the above. He is free and clear. He was never officially charged with anything and, therefore, does not need to be officially exonerated. Case closed, let's move on.
SUPER STUPID i do believe that there were 60 million RUSSIANS that voted for TRUMP so what is the APPROPRIATE penalty for those that oppose the TOTALITARIAN STATE ?????
If you understand that Trump didn’t collude, then surely he understood that too. Since he knew he didn’t collude, what would he have to obstruct?
Hello again, A:
I suggest there does NOT have to be an underlying crime in order to seek an obstruction of justice conviction..
To wit. This is what findlaw says:
The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge differ slightly by code section. For instance, prosecutors must prove the following elements for a conviction under section 1503 of the federal statute (influencing or injuring an officer or juror):
There was a pending federal judicial proceeding;
The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.
But regardless of the specific section of federal law (1501 through 1521) cited in a particular case, the prosecution need not prove any actual obstruction -- the defendant's attempt to obstruct is enough. The element of intent, which is central to such cases, is also usually the most difficult to prove; although memos, phone calls, and recorded conversations may be used as evidence to establish this.
If you knew you were innocent, would you obstruct the investigation?
Hello again, A:
I would do everything I could to defend myself, but I would NOT obstruct justice....
Maybe we're talking about two different things.. DEFENDING yourself is GOOD... OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE is NOT..
Would THREATENING witness's against me BE obstruction? It would. Would FIRING the prosecutor (if I could) to END the investigation BE obstruction? It WOULD. Would DANGLING pardons (if I could dangle 'em) in front of witness's against me BE obstruction?? It WOULD.
Would hiring a good lawyer and obeying the law BE obstruction?? No, it wouldn't..
Would THREATENING witness's against me BE obstruction? It would. Would FIRING the prosecutor (if I could) to END the investigation BE obstruction? It WOULD. Would DANGLING pardons (if I could dangle 'em) in front of witness's against me BE obstruction?? It WOULD.
He didn’t do any of those things (the last is up for interpretation). And again, would you threaten those who were witnesses to something you know did not happen? Would there be any reason to pardon a cover up of a non-crime?
If you were told by the Chief of Police that you were not being investigated by the local police, and you somehow had the power to fire the Chief, you could not expect that a firing would make the nonexistent investigation go away. Furthermore, if the Chief of Police refused to tell the local paper that you were not being investigated, and had additionally done piss poor work in his current capacity, it would be stupid and weird to NOT fire him. Also, Comey wasn’t a prosecutor, but no matter.
