Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Got a few minutes? Enjoy well-written legal minutiae,
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 11
| visibility 474

Got a few minutes? Enjoy well-written legal minutiae,


May 2, 2019, 1:59 PM

with a hint of conspiracy? Enjoy---good article--written with a conservative slant from a conservative source, but it doesn't pretend to white knight Trump either.

https://humanevents.com/2019/05/01/checkmate/


2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Trump had the better lawyers.


May 2, 2019, 4:41 PM

"...No judge ever ruled on who was right about the meaning of this obstruction statute. No formal decision was ever rendered..."

I can't refute that being a novice at law and dumber than a rock. However, Andy Weissmann has been down this road and found the SCOTUS blocking his path.

"In a 9-0 opinion, the justices concluded that "jury instructions at issue simply failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing." Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion, saying, "Indeed, it is striking how little culpability the instructions required."

Further:

"The ruling is a major defeat for the federal government in its aggressive efforts to fight corporate wrongdoing, although some experts said it wouldn't significantly hamper future prosecutions."

https://money.cnn.com/2005/05/31/news/midcaps/scandal_andersen_scotus/


Had their been an underlying crime for which he would have had the one tool to present to the court which probably would have forced Trump to submit to an interrogation/interview/questioning.

Trump responded to written questions which were relative to the time previous to his inauguration. He responded to none asked about his time in office. Executive privilege without having to say the words?

According to the SCOTUS ruling proving malicious intent to obstruct must be addressed. Mueller could not meet the standard. Weissmann was so very aware of exactly what was required. He had the ruling read to him from the SCOTUS bench.

Barr addressed this when questioned why he decided to not further the obstruction charge. I don't remember the exact words but he said that firing Mueller wasn't what Trump said to the white house lawyer. Trump, he said, instructed McGahn to contact Rosenstein and bring up Mueller's conflict of interest. He interviewed for the director of the FBI the day before he was named special counsel. That gave Trump the excuse of an alternate reason to have him removed. Flimsy? It worked.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/13/politics/trump-robert-mueller-fbi-director-interview/index.html

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Lutz?


May 2, 2019, 4:44 PM



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Got a few minutes? Enjoy well-written legal minutiae,


May 2, 2019, 5:03 PM

I found this is really interesting in reference to another investigation...


(c) Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or


2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Hilldawg May be up Chit Creek


May 2, 2019, 5:25 PM

Without a paddle...,

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Why?***


May 2, 2019, 7:21 PM



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-jospehg.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Graham asked Barr a few quick one answer questions...


May 2, 2019, 8:08 PM

which included 'Do you thing the Clinton's server/email investigation was done right.' Barr, "No." Graham, 'Are you interested in reviewing it?' Barr, "Yes."

That's paraphrased for drama but from an old man's memory.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Okay, thought Bengal was responding


May 2, 2019, 8:35 PM

to Chamberlains article above.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-jospehg.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


You wanted him to respond?


May 3, 2019, 8:35 AM

Sorry, didn't mean to butt in, I had the answer to a question about an article which featured a picture of Barr. It was kinda natural to believe you wanted to know since you asked.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Good read. A lot of guess work


May 2, 2019, 7:20 PM

with very few facts but I enjoyed the read.

Still, I thought Wilt Chamberlain was dead.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-jospehg.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Marks the death of the Take Care clause


May 3, 2019, 10:34 AM

The way I read this, Barr is suggesting a President can fire anyone who is a threat, whether they are justified in investigating him or not, and this kind of leverage comes at the expense of the "Take Care" clause.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

But you never responded to my text.***


May 3, 2019, 10:52 AM



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg2011_pickem_champ.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-soccerkrzy.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Cole @ Beach Cole w/ Clemson Hat


Replies: 11
| visibility 474
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic