|
Replies: 35
| visibility 742
|
Oculus Spirit [93580]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95370
Joined: 12/25/09
|
How I view the obstruction of justice allegations.
Apr 23, 2019, 10:15 AM
|
|
There are ten particular incidents which are suspected of being obstructive. Neither of them are accompanied with motive. We all know that the motive behind an act of obstruction must be a real criminal intent.
Walking down the isle toward a product you've visited a store to find might be in someone's way and that person might feel like you obstructed their path to the product they are trying to find but was your intent to prevent them from reaching the location of what they seek?
If anyone wants to bring forth each one of the 10 or so incidents which are submitted as possible obstruction and provide motive for them we'll exhaust the discussion. To date many have claimed so much evidence but none has broached the element of criminal intent required to prove obstruction.
If you don't understand or refuse to accept that proving obstruction of justice is impossible in this instant to prove then I compare you to Alabama fans who boast about Bama's running game.
Bama marched down the field on 7-10 drives and brought the mighty Alabama, SEC rushing game to display inside Clemson's 10 yard line several times. Pounding away down after down with their mighty SEC running backs and trying every trick in the book to pound the rock across the goal line and score just one more of the many touchdowns Bama fans enjoyed over the last 14 games.
Alabama never crossed Clemson's goal line on the ground, never got in the endzone even one time with their mighty SEC running game. They got bi1chslapped back to the stone age in front of God and everybody.
Claiming obstruction of justice without proof of malicious motive is exactly like Bama's running game, plenty of show but no points on the board.
Democrats should pass the ball like they did in with the collusion allegations. Oh, wait, they did. They passed that on to Mueller along with the collusion charge, that was Mueller's job and he couldn't reach the endzone either.
Now you're just bragging about how many yards Bama gained while Clemson is sitting on a 28 point lead and possession of the ball with 10 minutes on the clock in the 4th quarter.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: How I view the obstruction of justice allegations.
Apr 23, 2019, 10:17 AM
|
|
If he wasn't obstructing, he was sure acting as odd as it gets. He must be nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93580]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95370
Joined: 12/25/09
|
If you think Trump got out of hand after being the...
Apr 23, 2019, 10:27 AM
|
|
subject of a witchhunt you don't want to falsely accuse me of a crime.
The only thing I'm confused about is why he kept Rosenstein after discovering Rosenstein's roll in getting those FISA warrants. A reasonable person would jump to the conclusion that though Rosenstein participated in the collusion hoax he somehow insulated himself from being fired. I suspect he's going to turn out to be the prosecutor's best witness in finding guilty those who leaked, lied on FISA warrants and conspired to remove a sitting POTUS with not justification.
Now that's nuts. Comey's, Brennen's, Lynch's, Clapper's, Strzok's, Page's and a dozen other's nuts others nuts in a vice.
Shall we discuss the obstruction of justice incidents one at a time? I'm at your disposal to go through all ten.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: If you think Trump got out of hand after being the...
Apr 23, 2019, 12:31 PM
|
|
Hannity and Pirro are really in your head dude. You're repeating their talking points.
1.) There is no evidence that the Fisa Court was mislead, quite the contrary, the application a)wasnt based solely on the dossier, b)the court was told the dossier was paid for by a political opponent. c.) you are repeating fake news as if it were fact...it's nothing more than propaganda of the right.
2.) Read the Mueller report, he makes clear that an underlying "crime" is not necessary for an obstruction charge. Mere "personal or political' benefit would suffice.
3.) There is clear and convincing evidence for the need for this investigation. One need only look at the fact that the Russians did interfere in our election and there existed over many, many suspicious contacts between Trump camp and Russian operatives. To not have investigated would have been investigative malpractice. I think it interesting that the man who appointed the special counsel still has his job.
It was no witch hunt my friend. You gotta get away from Fox News my friend, you're losing your objectivity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17999]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30143
Joined: 9/9/06
|
I'd like to know if CT88 even thinks Russia interfered***
Apr 23, 2019, 3:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
None of the things I read about in the Mueller report
Apr 23, 2019, 10:18 AM
|
|
surprised me. I don't think they surprised anyone. We all knew that the President probably did those things it said he did. So I had already accounted for that behavior in my judgment of him. But whether it rises to criminality is above my paygrade. If investigating authorities say it does not, then I agree with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: None of the things I read about in the Mueller report
Apr 23, 2019, 10:27 AM
|
|
Exactly how I feel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93580]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95370
Joined: 12/25/09
|
It's not that complicated.
Apr 23, 2019, 10:33 AM
[ in reply to None of the things I read about in the Mueller report ] |
|
'Criminal intent,' is simple and easy to prove when there's an underlying crime. He bleachbit his computer's and server's hard drives, he deleted 30K emails, he crushed his hard drives and beat his other devices with a hammer to destroy evidence.
See, it's simple to provide examples of obstruction of justice. Firing a man who hired people who might have been involved in the collusion hoax when he and they are all working for you is part of your job definition if you're the head of the executive branch. The POTUS is responsible to see that all investigations are unbias and investigators do not favor one over another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2685]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3398
Joined: 7/3/07
|
Disingenuous, it is shady conduct for a president
Apr 23, 2019, 10:34 AM
|
|
And you know it is bad when even his own people admitted they refused to carry out his directives.
If you hated Clinton’s lies and deception, why do you give Trump a free pass?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93580]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95370
Joined: 12/25/09
|
He had every right and authority to fire Comey and...
Apr 23, 2019, 1:10 PM
|
|
Muller. He's the head of the executive branch of gov under which the justice department falls. Imo, Mueller's selections for staff made it impossible to truly seek justice due to their political affiliations and activism with Trump's one competitor for the 2016 election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97634]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64771
Joined: 7/13/02
|
I'll simplify this.
Apr 23, 2019, 10:37 AM
|
|
It's hard to obstruct justice when there's nothing to obstruct against. Now, had they found Russian collusion, Mueller probably would have said Trump obstructed justice. In this case he didn't, and didn't impact the investigation either. But at the end of the day there was no crime to obstruct.
Imagine you're Trump, and you see all these allegations, a phony dossier, and other things being said about you that YOU KNOW TO BE FALSE. Now do you just sit back and let it go? That's not Trump's style. Most of what he did was in response to allegations, and a subsequent investigation that he already knew was nothing.
Where he erred is in not letting his lawyers do the talking and work for him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
There are indictments and guilty pleas that show
Apr 23, 2019, 10:44 AM
|
|
there were crimes committed, first of all. Just none by the President. So there was an investigation of actual crimes, that was possible to obstruct. But it should be logically obvious that even if there weren't crimes committed, you can still obstruct justice.
"Imagine you're Trump, and you see all these allegations, a phony dossier, and other things being said about you that YOU KNOW TO BE FALSE. Now do you just sit back and let it go? That's not Trump's style. Most of what he did was in response to allegations, and a subsequent investigation that he already knew was nothing."
Yes, this is the entire point. Of course the President reacted the way he did, that's his MO. It's part of the reason that I didn't vote for him, and probably won't again.
Doesn't mean he committed a crime, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7168]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9374
Joined: 12/18/13
|
Re: I'll simplify this.
Apr 23, 2019, 10:45 AM
[ in reply to I'll simplify this. ] |
|
I'll be sure to cite this in case I ever punch a police officer in the face to prevent him from searching my vehicle when there aren't even any open containers in there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97634]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64771
Joined: 7/13/02
|
That's assaulting an officer...hth***
Apr 23, 2019, 10:58 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7168]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9374
Joined: 12/18/13
|
Re: That's assaulting an officer...hth***
Apr 23, 2019, 12:08 PM
|
|
You're so close to getting the point. How can I assault a police officer of there's nothing there for him to be policing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3673
Joined: 11/18/00
|
Re: I'll simplify this.
Apr 23, 2019, 12:33 PM
[ in reply to I'll simplify this. ] |
|
You can't be found guilty of collusion. "Collusion" is not a crime.
When is Collusion a Crime?
We know that collusion has a few different definitions and that "collusion" is not an actual criminal charge, but when are acts that can be characterized as collusion considered crimes? Even though collusion is not a legal term of art, quite a few offenses are characterized by collusive acts. Similarly, the simple act of lying is not itself a crime, but it becomes a crime in specific situations, like when lies are told under oath (perjury) or to gain something of value (fraud).
The following are examples of situations where acts of collusion amount to crimes:
Conspiracy
The legal definition of conspiracy, which is a criminal charge, perhaps most closely mirrors the various definitions of collusion. The term is defined as "an agreement between two or more people to commit an act prohibited by law or to commit a lawful act by means prohibited by law." The underlying crime is not as important as the intent to commit a crime and acts taken to plan for the crime. For instance, you and your co-conspirators can be charged with conspiracy to rob a bank even if the robbery is never actually attempted.
Treason
To commit treason is to "levy war against" the United States, "adhere to its enemies," or give its enemies "aid and comfort." This doesn't necessarily require an act of collusion, since an individual may choose to commit treason on their own, but traitors often work directly (or "collude") with the enemy. For example, U.S. citizen Mildred Gillars (aka "Axis Sally") colluded with the Third Reich by broadcasting Nazi propaganda during World War II. She was convicted of treason and served a prison sentence.
Racketeering
Racketeering activity is broadly defined under federal law, including such crimes as murder, kidnapping, gambling, robbery, bribery, and extortion. The "racket," therefore, is much larger than any one of the specific crimes or operations it may encompass.
Rackets, or criminal organizations, often utilize legitimate businesses to launder (or hide the source of) money received from illegal operations. Since rackets typically require the coordination of multiple players (often including corrupt insiders), they almost invariably involve collusion. These crimes are prosecuted at the federal level under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (or "RICO") Act, which enables prosecutors to more easily connect the dots of such rackets.
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/is-collusion-a-crime.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [41898]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38103
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I'll simplify this.
Apr 23, 2019, 1:13 PM
[ in reply to I'll simplify this. ] |
|
It's hard to obstruct justice when there's nothing to obstruct against.
This is completely wrong and something you Trump folks keep hanging your hat on. Under law, you can still be convicted for obstruction even if you are innocent of the crime in which you are being investigated for if you intentionally obstructed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7168]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9374
Joined: 12/18/13
|
He had benevolent intent stop anyone from investigating him.
Apr 23, 2019, 10:42 AM
|
|
You see, Trump supporters and Fox News TV people get real sad when they have to admit that the President is a criminal/moron. He just wanted to stop them from getting their feelings hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93580]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95370
Joined: 12/25/09
|
If I've told you once I've told you a million times...
Apr 23, 2019, 1:12 PM
|
|
don't exaggerate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2618]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1869
Joined: 8/13/02
|
Re: How I view the obstruction of justice allegations.
Apr 23, 2019, 12:14 PM
|
|
My 2 cents.
1. Remember this whole thing started because of Russian collusion. That was not proven.
2. I hear a lot of smart people (a lot smarter than me) who can’t agree on obstruction. Do you really think the idiots in Congress can honestly agree?
3. I’ll say it again. I did not and will not vote for Trump. Please Dems, PLEASE get your collective heads out of your ##### and give an Independent voter like myself someone to vote for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93580]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95370
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Relax.
Apr 23, 2019, 1:15 PM
|
|
Hillary won't run and the early campaigning for the dem nomination will cull through the leftwing trash. I expect ole Joe to get the nod unless someone else who can sell him/her/itsself as the most moderate.
If not, a mod might enter the race as a third party. I hope that happens and you have someone to vote for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2618]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1869
Joined: 8/13/02
|
Re: Relax.
Apr 23, 2019, 1:30 PM
|
|
You are probably right but if Ole Joe gets the nod then I will definitely go third party again.
I wish Tulsi Gabbard could get more traction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93580]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95370
Joined: 12/25/09
|
At just a glance I'd say she could beat Trump.
Apr 23, 2019, 1:33 PM
|
|
I wonder how she would handle the economy and growth we're enjoying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2618]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1869
Joined: 8/13/02
|
Re: At just a glance I'd say she could beat Trump.
Apr 23, 2019, 1:58 PM
|
|
Not sure but good question. I will give Trump a thumbs up for that. I left a job after over 23 years. Making a good bit more, had 2 bonuses and looking for my first yearly pay raise in a couple of months. Life’s good!
And football will be here before we know it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3673
Joined: 11/18/00
|
Re: How I view the obstruction of justice allegations.
Apr 23, 2019, 12:26 PM
|
|
How you view obstruction of justice is irrelevant. Here is how federal law defines it...
Obstruction of justice
Definition
18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."
Overview
Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection.
§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal administrative agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3673
Joined: 11/18/00
|
Re: How I view the obstruction of justice allegations.
Apr 23, 2019, 12:29 PM
|
|
Important to note in this is that whether you were successful in obstructing is irrelevant, simply "endeavoring" is a crime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3673
Joined: 11/18/00
|
Re: How I view the obstruction of justice allegations.
Apr 23, 2019, 12:45 PM
|
|
And don't take my word on it. Here's Lindsey Graham on if obstruction is an impeachable offense circa 1999...
"He encouraged people to lie for him. He lied. I think he obstructed justice. I think there's a compelling case that he has engaged in conduct that would be better for him to leave office than to stay in office."
“He doesn’t have to say ‘go lie for me,’ for it to be a crime. You don’t have to say ‘let’s obstruct justice’ for it to be a crime. You judge people on their conduct, not magic phrases”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2618]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1869
Joined: 8/13/02
|
Re: How I view the obstruction of justice allegations.
Apr 23, 2019, 12:58 PM
|
|
Pelosi wanted the Starr report to be released a week early so Clinton and has team could review it before it went public but does not want it released early for Trump. Both are hypocrites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3673
Joined: 11/18/00
|
Re: How I view the obstruction of justice allegations.
Apr 23, 2019, 1:03 PM
|
|
Did Clinton's AG release a 4 page "summary" of the report 2 weeks before releasing a redacted version of the full report? And did he/she hold a press conference before releasing it to say "No Collusion, No Obstruction"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2618]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1869
Joined: 8/13/02
|
Re: How I view the obstruction of justice allegations.
Apr 23, 2019, 1:24 PM
|
|
What does that have to do with both Graham and Pelosi playing politics and flip flopping to suit their political needs/wants?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93580]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95370
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Yeah, I've read it.
Apr 23, 2019, 1:25 PM
[ in reply to Re: How I view the obstruction of justice allegations. ] |
|
Now tell us specifically one time that Trump took action which impeded the investigation. Remember, Trump ordered his staff to destroy nothing, notes, memos, tweets or emails. He also provided 1.4 million documents to Mueller upon request. Furthermore, Trump instructed his staff to fully cooperate with Mueller and respond to all questions truthfully.
To a judge, jury or in any criminal proceedings regarding intent those examples are considered exculpatory evidence. Did you find a list of them in Mueller's report?
Here's a new definition for you to mull over. Exculpatory evidence:
"The legal term exculpatory describes evidence in a criminal matter that is favorable to, or tends to absolve, the defendant. This type of evidence may justify or excuse the defendant’s actions, or show that the defendant is not guilty at all. Exculpatory evidence is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which incriminates the defendant, or proves his guilt. To explore this concept, consider the following exculpatory definition.
Definition of Exculpatory
Pronounced
ik-skuhl-puh-tohr-ee
Adjective
Having a tendency to clear from a charge of fault or guilt.
Serving to exculpate, or to absolve.
https://legaldictionary.net/exculpatory/
You are welcome to site Harvard Law or any other top law school to contradict the legal dictionary but I've yet to find it in err.
Go back to work now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3673
Joined: 11/18/00
|
Re: Yeah, I've read it.
Apr 23, 2019, 6:34 PM
|
|
There are 10 instances of obstruction noted in the Mueller report, not just one. Read it for yourself. Or would you also like me to post links to the 100s of Trump tweets bashing Mueller, his team, and folks like Michael Cohen.
As for exculpatory evidence. Prosecutors do not look for exculpatory evidence, as Mueller admits in the report. I guess we will have to wait on Rudy G to issue a rebuttal to the report. I’ll start counting the blades of grass in my yard while I wait on that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [41898]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38103
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Well, of course they would have to prove it.
Apr 23, 2019, 1:12 PM
|
|
I don't want a system where they can punish a president without proof. And I don't know that they can prove it. So if they can, great; if they can't, he must be cleared. What's the debate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93580]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95370
Joined: 12/25/09
|
The Mueller report cleared Trump.
Apr 23, 2019, 1:31 PM
|
|
Having a prosecutor claim he can't exonerate is not the legal standard for innocence. The legal standard is innocent until proven guilty. Mueller failed to meet our constitutional standard and Trump, after two years of opposition research and investigation by Mueller and 13+ Hillary supporters nothing proving Trump's guilt has been discovered.
Again, daily the media covers another congressional witchhunt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [41898]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38103
Joined: 11/30/98
|
It did not clear him of obstruction.
Apr 23, 2019, 2:08 PM
|
|
The door is still open on that. Whether or not someone chooses to pursue it or can prove it is another matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 35
| visibility 742
|
|
|
50
