Omni

From some of the reading I have done on the issue recently, I reckon our immigration system needs more resources, such as in increasing staff, but certainly not in such a way as to enact the Kellie Lietch version of screening.

I don't think that's what we are "arguing" at all. People who are convicted of crimes must suffer the consequences. Some consequences, based on the nature of the crime, are more severe than others. That nature in this case, is if the crime committed can be shown to have been premeditated in such a way to inflict harm on a specific group such as ethnicity, race, religion, etc.

A lot of them are having second thoughts now it seems. The mid terms will likely point that out...assuming Trump lasts that long of course.

They may not consider them but they will have to suffer them.

The idea of increased penalties for hate crimes is not an attempt to provide a lesser level of protection for anyone, but rather to serve as a deterrent to harming a larger group than the individual affected by the crime. It seems fairly obvious to most of us.

Hate crimes receive harsher penalties quite rightly because they may well have a deleterious effect on an entire community, for one thing.

Maybe you got him on a bad day.

You're allowed your opinion. Maybe send a post to Trudeau and see if he'll change it.

On this particular subject I have no argument with "what is".

Maybe not to you, but it does to Canadian law.

Bank robbing and bad driving don't threaten any specific identifiable group. Unless of course you only rob Jewish banks or only drive over Muslims. Get it?

When you hold those offices you take a pledge of loyalty to the constitution and the people of America, not any one individual. Not even the president.

I see Trump has managed to get his disapproval rating UP to 58% and his approval rating DOWN to 36% And Quinnipiac University has recentlt released the results of a poll of Americans as to what was the first word that comes to their mind when they think of Donald Trump. The first three: Idiot, incompetent, liar. And he has achieved all of that in just over 100 days.

Trump fired Comey because he wouldn't agree to an oath of loyalty to Trump at a dinner he was invited to by Trump, which Comey felt was inappropriate at best. Now to post another one if his idiotic tweets which could again be found to be obstruction of justice, yep, I'd say he's a dummy. At least he sure acts like one.

Yet another potential Obstruction attempt. When will this clown stop with the stupid tweets? http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-threatens-comey-provocative-reference-tapes

The term is a relic of the cold war days and is outdated. If India is third world them so are Sweden and Switzerland.

Wilber has explained it already above.

No they won't have to do anything, Trumop is doing it to himself.

It's called "Obstruction of Justice"

Ha ha ha, you understand you are promoting the same lame excuse Trump is trying to flog eh? Well at least one of them, I think he's got about 3 that are contradictory, and laughable. It will be interesting to see who trump picks to fill the slot. The interim won't of course be acceptable because he supports Comey's professionalism.

Independent investigator is the obvious next step. Trump won't be able to fire them.

There are legal arguments on both sides of that fence, however not much doubt about how inappropriate that question was, under the circumstances.

Either Trump is lying about having asked the question, or, at the time he asked it he was not under investigation. However I remind you, asking that question is illegal, regardless of the appropriate answer.

Who is looking more foolish every day is Trump. I think so far he is up to 3 totally contradicting stories as to why he fired Comey. But here is a question to ask yourself, if Trump was so convinced he was not under investigation, why would he invite Comey to the WH for dinner during which he asked him "am I under investigation?" Which by the way is totally illegal to do.

Nothing? NSA, CIA, FBI, and many others have evidence of collusion. Why do you think Comey was fired?