clinton case, without question, but by the same token the obstruction of justice case is he is, i m not saying that it s clear-cut, but the obstruction of justice case is he was trying to stop an investigation and when he couldn t get what he wanted, he fired the guy heading the investigation. but again, we re friends here, that s conflating two different standards under obstruction of justice. so you cannot use the comparison. the president has the constitutional authority to deal with those that are subordinates within an administration. that is as clear as the constitution itself. that is a power vested in the president of the united states. that s number one. number two, there is no ongoing investigation of the president regarding any of this. james comey has said that. the only basis of the report is what came out of the washington post leaked information. and let s talk about activity. the fact of the matter is, you have a former fbi director think about this for a moment
deputy attorney general that james comey should not be leading the fbi. it s ironic based on the action they recommended and that he took in consultation with others he s now being investigated by the agencies that told him to take that very action, removing the fbi director. so this idea, this is the threshold constitutional issue that has to be addressed before anything starts. when we talk about investigations before you can get to investigation, you got to determine does the constitution allow for a prosecution or an investigation even of this type of matter, and there s been memorandums going back to the office of legal counsel in the 1970s, in the 2000s but also the fundamental concept within the constitution itself so i think the constitutional issue here is raised first, if there is an investigation, right now there s not, you would of course raise the constitutional issues, any lawyer especially those that do it at the supreme court of the united states like i do, you raise th
with this situation. this is not a situation of witness tampering. this is not a situation of bribery. no, it s firing the guy in charge of the investigation. look, the constitution is i mean, this is constitution 101 here. the president has the authority as the chief executive to make those kind of determinations. james comey, by the way, stated at his hearing. he did. that he understands that he servelz at the pleasure of the president. so this is not some complicated case and by the way, the fact, jake, that the president consulted with his attorney general and office of deputy attorney general and others, that s called the deliberative process, that s what. s do when they make decisions that are significant. sure. i m just saying their recommendations were irrelevant according to the president but i hear what you re saying, but james comey was fired according to the president, when he made the decision, he was thinking about the russia investigation, according to comey,
already admitted he d already made his decision long before rod rosenstein issued the memo, so whether or not rosenstein made that recommendation, it was irrelevant, according to the president, about his decision but in terms of whether or not the president can obstruct justice by telling people under him what to do or firing them, i lived through the 90s and i m old enough to remember people on the right saying that president clinton obstructed justice by telling people who worked for him what to do and threatening the investigation into him, and i recall a completely different point of view as to the president s powers. well you re conflating witness tampering which was some of the concern there, with telling witnesses what to do with this situation. this is not a situation of witness tampering. this is not a situation of bribery. no, it s firing the guy in charge of the investigation. look, the constitution is i mean, this is constitution 101 here. the president has the aut
management and budget you want after him for writing muslims do not know god and that they stand condemned. it is indefensible, hateful, islamaphobic and insult to over a billion muslims throughout the world. senator, are you saying someone is necessarily hateful and islamaphobic if they believe in their private life and express the only path to god is through jesus christ? no, absolutely not. look, what our constitution, one of the great parts of our constitution is to protect freedom of religion. you practice what religion you want, i do, mr. vote does, that s what it s about, but at a time when we are dealing with islamaphobia in this country, 1.2 billion people who are muslims around the world, to have a high-ranking member of the united states government essentially say oh, islam is a second class religion, and this