Subject: Re: OT: They all agree: obstructing justice is wrong...
On 2017-12-04 3:40 PM, BK@Onramp.net wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:01:57 -0800, Alan Baker<firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> '[the] Senator said, “The facts are disturbing and compelling on the
>> President's intent to obstruct justice."'
>> '[he also] said, “The chief law officer of the land, whose oath of
>> office calls on him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,
>> crossed the line and failed to defend the law, and, in fact, attacked
>> the law and the rights of a fellow citizen...Under our Constitution,
>> equal justice requires that he forfeit his office.”'
>> '[another] wholeheartedly agreed that obstruction of justice was a high
>> crime, saying that [the president] was "in violation of the federal
>> obstruction of justice law." He also expressed frustration with anyone
>> who disagreed. “I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue
>> that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and
>> Oh, did I fail to mention: this was when Clinton lied about getting a
>> blow-job. THAT was utterly critical to the nation.
>> 'Sessions wasn't just following the letter of the law - he was also
>> considering the importance of an ethical and moral compass that our
>> country must maintain. "Of course, none of us are perfect and we often
>> fail in our personal affairs, but when it comes to going to court, and
>> its comes to our justice system, a great nation must insist on honesty
>> and lawfulness...Our country must insist upon that for every citizen.”'
> Not all Alan. There are several legal professors who disagree because
> of his constitutional right to voice an opinion.
I was referring to "all" as the Republicans who completely agreed when
it was Clinton.
> It may not be illegal but its damn sure detrimental politically.
Instructing your FBI director to drop an investigation when you know
there is grounds is not voicing an opinion.