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
"It's not obstruction of justice if a POTUS acted...
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 31
| visibility 735

"It's not obstruction of justice if a POTUS acted...


Apr 27, 2019, 10:55 PM

within his authority."

Felix, I'll see your judge and raise you one Harvard constitutional law professor. Same network and none of you dems cried about Felix posting a link on Fox with Napilitano saying Trump obstructed justice.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6030522131001/#sp=show-clips





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

Did you ponder this while refining leather?***


Apr 27, 2019, 11:09 PM



2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-beeksteak-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

yeah c'mon***


Apr 28, 2019, 12:45 AM



badge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

yacmon tbalm!***


Apr 28, 2019, 12:51 AM



2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-beeksteak-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I pondered it while sober.


Apr 28, 2019, 12:14 PM [ in reply to Did you ponder this while refining leather?*** ]

It's a strange feeling. I don't recommend it to anyone.

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

Napilitano has always been a trump hater


Apr 28, 2019, 5:41 AM

He's been wrong on all his trump law opinions so far

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg2005_majors_champ.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-xtiger.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: "It's not obstruction of justice if a POTUS acted...


Apr 28, 2019, 8:26 AM

Wow. You’ve totally changed my mind. Trump is the greatest POTUS of all time and totally legit. Probably the most honest person on the history of the planet. No way he’s ever done anything wrong. And It’s amazing that he’s already built a wall between US and Mexico and already started the Canada border wall. Isn’t cool how he got Mexico to pay for it?so glad his hand picked AG just locked Crooked Hillary up too. Where can I buy one of those awesome red hats?

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Why didn't the Mueller report change your mind.


Apr 28, 2019, 12:17 PM

Why didn't Mueller charge Trump with obstruction of justice?

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

Re: Why didn't the Mueller report change your mind.


Apr 28, 2019, 12:31 PM

"This Office accepted (an internal Justice Department) legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction," Mueller wrote, citing the Office of Legal Counsel policy. Even setting OLC aside, Mueller added, "We recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern
and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct”

Mueller put the ball in Congress’s court. It is on them to bring charges thru the impeachment process. Trump obstructed justice in ten separate document acts. He is not above the law.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Why didn't Mueller Subpoena Trump?


Apr 28, 2019, 2:33 PM

There was only one way to discover Trump's motive. That's the goods, the smoking gun, blood on the hands, DNA and any other form of evidence needed for a guilty version. That evidence had to come from Trump's mouth. Without Trump's motive for all the things he's done which are considered evidence that he obstructed justice the only one that matters to the law is missing.

Trump considered firing/almost/nearly firing Mueller and/or his team, Trump fired Comey and talked a lot of BS but without Trump saying his actions were to stop the investigation no one can know his motive. Maybe you can believe he did but you can't prove it in court.

Mueller didn't subpoena Trump because there was no underlying crime of conspiracy and no judge in the land would fairly consider Trump acting within the bounds of his office obstruction of justice nor would one make him testify against himself. That's the fifth amendment. If you don't understand the constitution, get someone to explain it to you.

So in essence Trump pleaded the 5th to avoid being interviewed/interrogated by Mueller.

So now you ask why Mueller didn't say Trump wasn't guilty of obstruction of justice, to which I reply, 'Because he hadn't and couldn't discover Trump's motive which is the only evidence which matter in court, or to a reasonable man when there is no underlying crime.

Now ask me why they haven't impeached Trump?


Message was edited by: ClemsonTiger1988®


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

Re: Why didn't Mueller Subpoena Trump?


Apr 28, 2019, 2:39 PM

You not only believe your leader, you follow his principles. If someone disagrees with you or provides contrary evidence to your own beliefs, you insult their intelligence. Do you want to call me UnHinged Tiger? I guess I “need to go find someone to explain it to me.”

Impeachment may come in due time, but not before more facts are known. The intelligence committee will get the full unredacted report and Mueller and Barr will testify before Congress, as will others once the courts fight the Administrations refusal of subpoenas.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Why didn't Mueller Subpoena Trump?


Apr 28, 2019, 2:42 PM

Another tidbit for you on motive

Mueller made another important point in noting that person's motives in hindering an investigation may also be based upon "avoiding financial liability or preventing personal embarrassment," If President Trump were interfering with the Special Counsel's investigation for fear of disclosure of Trump organization business dealings or unethical behavior of him or his associates, rather than because of any conspiracy being investigated, that would still be a crime.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Prove the motive.


Apr 28, 2019, 7:23 PM

Best of luck showing evidence of obstruction of justice without an underlying crime.

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

Re: Why didn't Mueller Subpoena Trump?


Apr 28, 2019, 2:44 PM [ in reply to Re: Why didn't Mueller Subpoena Trump? ]

Mueller wrote, "We recognize that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting president would place burdens on the president's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential conduct."


What constitutional process is that exactly? The footnote following that sentence said "discussing the relationship between impeachment and the criminal prosecution of a sitting president."

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


I've told you why Mueller didn't subpoena Trump.


Apr 28, 2019, 4:27 PM

He didn't have the grounds to convince a judge that Trump obstructed justice. That's also exactly why congress won't impeach.

Dems are going to keep trying this on cable, twitter and in session among themselves with pubs but that's going to cost you guys dearly in 2020.

I have no idea how old you are but those of us who remember Clinton's impeachment remember how tired the public was of the congressional cat fight. The voters took it out on congress when they reelected Clinton. "IT'S ABOUT THE ECONOMY, STUPID!"

That's the finest campaign slogan I've heard.

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

That wasn't meant to insult you.


Apr 28, 2019, 4:21 PM [ in reply to Re: Why didn't Mueller Subpoena Trump? ]

That was to steer you to someone you trust that understands constitutional law.

Barr will have no trouble testifying before congress. Don't hold your breath if you think he's going to ruin his career lying to congress over a job that probably won't last two years. He'll tell the truth.

All the dems have to do is convince the SCOTUS that there's evidence that Trump obstructed justice and they'll order him to testify. How the dems will get his testimony to prove that is beyond human imagination.

Part of the intelligence committee will get the full unredacted version but there's no evidence in the redactions against Trump. There may be some testimony of those who weren't charged with a crime but if there were impeachment worthy evidence it wouldn't be redacted.

Remember, Mueller assisted with selecting the redactions and so did Rosenstein. There's no help in sight for the impeachment squad.

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

Re: That wasn't meant to insult you.


Apr 28, 2019, 4:50 PM

I don't think this is an issue anyone will convince the other. Even former prosecutors, judges, etc, can't agree.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: That wasn't meant to insult you.


Apr 28, 2019, 5:16 PM [ in reply to That wasn't meant to insult you. ]


That was to steer you to someone you trust that understands constitutional law.

Barr will have no trouble testifying before congress. Don't hold your breath if you think he's going to ruin his career lying to congress over a job that probably won't last two years. He'll tell the truth.

All the dems have to do is convince the SCOTUS that there's evidence that Trump obstructed justice and they'll order him to testify. How the dems will get his testimony to prove that is beyond human imagination.

Part of the intelligence committee will get the full unredacted version but there's no evidence in the redactions against Trump. There may be some testimony of those who weren't charged with a crime but if there were impeachment worthy evidence it wouldn't be redacted.

Remember, Mueller assisted with selecting the redactions and so did Rosenstein. There's no help in sight for the impeachment squad.


Someone who understands Constitutional law?

Like Alan Dershowitz?


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/28/dershowitz_napolitano_is_wrong_about_obstruction_of_justice_not_even_a_close_case.html

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Why didn't Mueller Subpoena Trump?


Apr 28, 2019, 6:38 PM [ in reply to Why didn't Mueller Subpoena Trump? ]


There was only one way to discover Trump's motive. That's the goods, the smoking gun, blood on the hands, DNA and any other form of evidence needed for a guilty version. That evidence had to come from Trump's mouth. Without Trump's motive for all the things he's done which are considered evidence that he obstructed justice the only one that matters to the law is missing.

Trump considered firing/almost/nearly firing Mueller and/or his team, Trump fired Comey and talked a lot of BS but without Trump saying his actions were to stop the investigation no one can know his motive. Maybe you can believe he did but you can't prove it in court.

Mueller didn't subpoena Trump because there was no underlying crime of conspiracy and no judge in the land would fairly consider Trump acting within the bounds of his office obstruction of justice nor would one make him testify against himself. That's the fifth amendment. If you don't understand the constitution, get someone to explain it to you.

So in essence Trump pleaded the 5th to avoid being interviewed/interrogated by Mueller.

So now you ask why Mueller didn't say Trump wasn't guilty of obstruction of justice, to which I reply, 'Because he hadn't and couldn't discover Trump's motive which is the only evidence which matter in court, or to a reasonable man when there is no underlying crime.

Now ask me why they haven't impeached Trump?


Message was edited by: ClemsonTiger1988®


You have to be under oath in a court or grand jury proceeding to plead the 5th.

None of the above apply to Trump.

As usual, you libs keep citing your personal fantasies and pretend they are factual.

They obviously are not

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

That's not accurate.


Apr 28, 2019, 7:10 PM

Here's a simple google search:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Does+a+citizen+have+the+right+to+not+speak+to+FBI&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS773US773&oq=Does+a+citizen+have+the+right+to+not+speak+to+FBI&aqs=chrome..69i57.29700j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

First link on the page...

https://rightsanddissent.org/news/know-rights-fbi-knocks/

"(1) You are NOT REQUIRED to answer any questions from law enforcement, and you have the right to consult with an attorney. You always have the right to remain silent and not talk to police or the FBI if you do not want to. You should write down the name, agency, and phone number of the person who calls or visits you."

A Following link...

http://www.patriotnetwork.info/member_area/FBI_rights.htm

"No. The FBI does not have the authority to make anyone answer questions (other than name and address [see errata]), to permit a search without a warrant, or to otherwise cooperate with an investigation. Agents are usually lawyers, and they are always trained as investigators; they have learned the power of persuasion, the ability to make a person feel scared, guilty, or impolite for refusing their requests for information. So remember, they have no legal authority to force people to do anything -- unless they have obtained an arrest or search warrant. Even when agents do have warrants, you still don't have to answer their question."


The POTUS is, as is everyone in this country, innocent until proven guilty.

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

Re: That's not accurate.


Apr 28, 2019, 9:22 PM


Here's a simple google search:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Does+a+citizen+have+the+right+to+not+speak+to+FBI&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS773US773&oq=Does+a+citizen+have+the+right+to+not+speak+to+FBI&aqs=chrome..69i57.29700j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

First link on the page...

https://rightsanddissent.org/news/know-rights-fbi-knocks/

"(1) You are NOT REQUIRED to answer any questions from law enforcement, and you have the right to consult with an attorney. You always have the right to remain silent and not talk to police or the FBI if you do not want to. You should write down the name, agency, and phone number of the person who calls or visits you."

A Following link...

http://www.patriotnetwork.info/member_area/FBI_rights.htm

"No. The FBI does not have the authority to make anyone answer questions (other than name and address [see errata]), to permit a search without a warrant, or to otherwise cooperate with an investigation. Agents are usually lawyers, and they are always trained as investigators; they have learned the power of persuasion, the ability to make a person feel scared, guilty, or impolite for refusing their requests for information. So remember, they have no legal authority to force people to do anything -- unless they have obtained an arrest or search warrant. Even when agents do have warrants, you still don't have to answer their question."


The POTUS is, as is everyone in this country, innocent until proven guilty.


You claimed it was like taking the 5th.

It clearly wasn't, your follow-up deflection notwithstanding.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Not to argue with someone who I fundamentally agree with...


Apr 28, 2019, 9:48 PM

but where do you think the 'Right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law,' comes from? Sorry but it's straight from the 5th amendment.

That's the foundation of the Miranda Law.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/miranda-rights-and-the-fifth-amendment.html

Fifth Amendment Miranda Rights at a Glance

'Miranda rights are rooted in the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. Petitioner Ernesto Miranda confessed to a violent crime after two hours of police interrogation and signed a statement that he confessed "with the full knowledge of [my] legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me." However, he was never explained these rights...'

I can't believe I'm having to prove Trump's testimony can't be forced. That's not to say he'd claim the 5th in congress.

There was no underlying crime. The only evidence which could convict your or me of obstruction of justice without an underlying crime being proven beyond a reasonable doubt is to prove that we did something to prevent or side track the investigation into that crime with malicious intent.

That leaves the courts with a dilemma. Should they make Trump testify without an underlying crime or any evidence that he had malintent? It's impossible to know his intent without him admitting to obstruct justice.

That's why I wish the dems here best of luck proving he did anything outside the constitutional authority of a POTUS which obstructed the investigation. He could fire everyone in an office who answers to the office of president without cause or giving reason.

That's Dershowitz' point. Talking on twitter or firing Mueller or his team is within the constitutional authority of his office.

That's why no subpoena and that's why they don't impeach him. The most they can hope for is to set up a perjury trap and I don't think that helped pubs when they went after Clinton.

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

Re: "It's not obstruction of justice if a POTUS acted...


Apr 28, 2019, 5:46 PM

I like Alan Dershowitz, he's a very good lawyer. But he's been pandering for Trump for some time now. He argued way back of now that if a President uses his presidential powers to obstruct justice then it's not obstruction of justice. It's sort of bizarre interpretation of the statute and completely ignores obstruction for corrupt or 'self interested' reasons.

But it's ok to have his opinion out there in the ring. There is plenty of room in the marketplace of ideas.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: "It's not obstruction of justice if a POTUS acted...


Apr 28, 2019, 6:40 PM

Felix2 said:

I like Alan Dershowitz, he's a very good lawyer. But he's been pandering for Trump for some time now. He argued way back of now that if a President uses his presidential powers to obstruct justice then it's not obstruction of justice. It's sort of bizarre interpretation of the statute and completely ignores obstruction for corrupt or 'self interested' reasons.

But it's ok to have his opinion out there in the ring. There is plenty of room in the marketplace of ideas.


Dershowitz has never pandered for Trump.

He applies Constitutional law to the facts.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

He was a regular on CNN until a couple months ago.


Apr 28, 2019, 7:25 PM

When he dug in on his opinion about the collusion investigation CNN dumped him and hired Avanetti to fill his spot. That worked out well for CNN. Fake news on roids.

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

He's more a civil libertarian than a republican.


Apr 28, 2019, 7:18 PM [ in reply to Re: "It's not obstruction of justice if a POTUS acted... ]

If Dershowitz isn't a civil libertarian he's a dem. He claims to be a democrat. He addressed only this issue in favor of Trump because he finds the entire mess a mess which will go nowhere.

He doesn't show up anywhere and go along with anyone rhetoric. The man speaks from a position of extreme familiarity with our constitution and was a professor at one of the top ten law schools in the world.

You can't pay the man to say something he doesn't believe.

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

Re: He's more a civil libertarian than a republican.


Apr 29, 2019, 12:16 AM

That's the problem. He actually believes that a sitting President can't be obstructing justice if he uses the power of the Presidency to...obstruct justice.

He had the right and the power to fire Comey. But when he did it he actually said that it was to stop the Russia investigation.

Mueller lists 10 examples of obstruction and turned it over to Congress. Barr intercepted it.

The point being is that you can't pay Dershowitz to say something that he doesn't believe. The problem is what he believes is arguable at worst and folly at best.

I've seen him on CNN a few times in the last year. But he's been on Fox News 3 times more often.
Fox loves him. His libertarian views suit Fox's agenda to protect Trump.

At any rate, I think it's a good thing to have him out there making his arguments. Everyone has a right to their opinion and there is certainly no shortage of those willing to express them.

Ultimately the only one that matters is mine. 'Cause I'm way smart and have the best words. :)

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


How is exercising his constitutional power obstruction?


Apr 29, 2019, 10:09 AM

Even Comey said he has the power to fire me with or without cause. Comey handled and intentionally leaked classified materials. Knowing that half of America approved of what he did does not make his actions legal or lawful, Felix.

Trump, like it or not, is the head of America's justice department which is charged with all federal law enforcement. If you're half a smart as you and I think you will consider how Trump might ignore lawlessness within his realm of authority and therefor responsibility. when it's the very one obligated to the constitution to enforce law.

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

Re: How is exercising his constitutional power obstruction?


Apr 29, 2019, 11:20 AM

Hold your taters my friend, you are repeating another Hannity talking point that is simply not true. Comey did not 'handle and leaked classified material. He may have broken Justice Dept. policy but he did not leak classified material. He published his notes from a meeting with Trump when Trump asked him to lay off of Flynn. For any patriotic American, the idea that the President would ask the FBI to stop investigating the National Security Advisor is deeply, deeply disturbing.

Paradoxically, for Trump supporters, the worse sin is the FBI Director actually telling the American people what the President asked. You just can't make this stuff up.

Even further, Trump supporters can't seem to explain to anyone why NONE of all the people they say broke the law never seem to be indicted. History will show that Fox News was a cancer on our Democratic way of life.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Talking about jumping the gun.


Apr 29, 2019, 12:47 PM

The IG's investigation into the lawlessness of the previous administration's justice department employees and intelligence community in particular hasn't been delivered to this justice department yet. The Senate intelligence oversight committee just submitted its findings to Barr a week or so ago.

The Justice dept has just begun its investigation and you probably should expect nearly as man leaks about these proceedings as you got from those surrounding Obama's justice dept. They leaked information which lead many Americans to think Trump has and is working for Russia and together they fixed the 2016 election. It's fairly obvious now that Mueller's report shows no collusion between Trump, his team and Russia's efforts to dally in our election process.

All along dems have shot the messengers who delivered accurate assessments of this witch hunt.

Since Flynn wasn't charged with Russia collusion there was no predicate for investigating him. He and every other American charged in crimes due to this witch hunt were exonerated of the very predicate which the witch hunt sought to reveal.

I believe Comey committed crimes, I believe he leaked, I believe his name is on a couple of list to be charged including the IG's, the senate oversight committee's and will be if it isn't already on Barr's. I believe leaking privileged information is a crime. That will be settled when Comey faces a judge.

Dems had two years to investigate and found no American conspired with Russia. Can we get a couple months or something?

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

Re: Talking about jumping the gun.


Apr 29, 2019, 1:18 PM

"Since Flynn wasn't charged with collussion there was no underlying predicate for investigating him"? Really? In what new America is it that people are charged with a crime before they're investigated?

And again. You original statement of fact that Comey had "leaked classified information' you admit is false. Going to be investigated by the IG, report isn't in. You 'believe' he did something wrong is not FACT.

I get you'll defend Trump et al as vigorously as I'll attack them. But it is deeply troubling that Trump supporters, obviously taking their ques from the Fox News-Trump Propaganda echo chamber seem to insist on using talking points, suspicion and supposition and delivering them as facts.

That don't go around here law-dog. ;)

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Talking about jumping the gun.


Apr 29, 2019, 4:03 PM

Be reasonable. The predicate for investigation, spying on and interviewing every American Mueller charged was conspiracy to collude with Russia to hack, fix, corrupt the process of or in some manner foul the 2016 POTUS election. No American was even charged with anything related to that predicate.

Saying the investigation of Flynn and the others is without predicate is fair, honest and truthful. I appreciate that Flynn was charged with a crime but process crimes would not have occurred without the investigation. The investigation should not have happened. It was a witch hunt which turned up no witches.

Maybe a few corrupt people who had defrauded banks and lobbied for foreign powers without proper notifications to government but that is seldom prosecuted. Cohen and Manifort are the exceptions. I'm delighted they are going to jail.

What I believe about Comey is that he passed out information which is privileged to the executive office. That alone is justification for his dismissal from the FBI. That ends a major factor of the obstruction charge. It's the only action Trump actually took that anyone could misconstrue as obstructing a crime.

It would take a first semester law student five minutes to have that charged dropped in by a judge. The prosecutor would probably get fired and laughed at the rest of his/her/its life.

Comey's lawlessness is yet to be revealed. Like I said with the collusion investigation, don't hold your breath in hopes that I'm wrong.

Yes, I confess to lying but as George Kantstandya says, "It's not a lie if you believe it!"

Now I gotta go shoot some 111$/qt dye on some leather seats. We'll take this up later, pal.

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

Replies: 31
| visibility 735
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic