THE REPORT, buttoned up (SCO Thread v. 33)

[glenwo2]

I'm not so certain about overwhelming. Republicans shouldn't be feeling overconfident. But yes, I see him as the favorite and in a stronger situation than last election by a lot.

Agreed.

The other republicans, as far as both the Senate and the House in 2020, I'm not sure of.

But I'm damn sure about Trump getting another 4 years.

 

[glenwo2]

Oh, the obstruction case is extremely weak. I can see a valid point that the items laid out in the report are embarrassing and not proper things a president should say/request

The funny thing is that the report is essentially saying we think Trump might have tried to obstruct an investigation that found him innocent of what his administration was being investigated of

My brain just melted.

But you're right.

I keep saying it and others keep refusing to acknowledge it :

If there was no crime committed(No collusion or Conspiracy), how the fuck could there have been Obstruction of Justice when there's no need for any "Justice" in the first place?

 

[vengeful]

My brain just melted.

But you're right.

I keep saying it and others keep refusing to acknowledge it :

If there was no crime committed(No collusion or Conspiracy), how the fuck could there have been Obstruction of Justice when there's no need for any "Justice" in the first place?

Because an investigation needs to reach its conclusion without regards to guilt or innocence. If you impede (obstruct) the investigation from completing then you're obstructing justice. Justice is served when an investigation is completed and people are cleared or charged. Clearing an innocent person = justice served. Indicting a guilty person = justice served. Impeding either of those is obstructing justice.

You're welcome.

 

[bobgeese]

Because an investigation needs to reach its conclusion without regards to guilt or innocence. If you impede (obstruct) the investigation from completing then you're obstructing justice. Justice is served when an investigation is completed and people are cleared or charged. Clearing an innocent person = justice served. Indicting a guilty person = justice served. Impeding either of those is obstructing justice.

You're welcome.

There was no hint of “justice” to be found anywhere remotely near the Russia investigation.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

My gut feeling is Mueller did not actually write the obstruction part of the report. I have a strong sense who did on his team

Spill it then.

 

[SBJJ]

Spill it then.

A.W.

 

[SBJJ]

Because an investigation needs to reach its conclusion without regards to guilt or innocence. If you impede (obstruct) the investigation from completing then you're obstructing justice. Justice is served when an investigation is completed and people are cleared or charged. Clearing an innocent person = justice served. Indicting a guilty person = justice served. Impeding either of those is obstructing justice.

You're welcome.

Imagine you are investigated for murder. After 2 years you are cleared and it is found out the investigation was started by your arch enemy and that enemy actually paid a murderer to frame you.

After you are cleared of said murder you are prosecuted for obstructing the investigation that was started from information paid to an actual murderer.

Sounds crazy right? Like it would never happen in real life right? I mean would authorities really prosecute you obstructing a cleared investigation that was formed from a complete sham?

 

[SBJJ]

Let's try this.

A black man is accused of raping a prostitute. That black man is the son of a prominent politician. The investigation clears the black man of the rape and shows it was the cop who arrested him that committed the rape. After the investigation clears the black man the prosecutor prosecutes the man for obstruction because the black man asked his father if he could get the DA fired because he felt he was being railroaded.

That sound legit? Did that man actually OBSTRUCT JUSTICE? How did he obstruct justice when the actual justice was him being cleared

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

I'm shocked that honest and open Barr is balking at being open and honest.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Interesting tidbit I found on wiki :

Napolitano told friends in 2017 that President Donald Trump has told him he was considering Napolitano for a United States Supreme Court appointment should there be a second vacancy.[4] Ultimately, Judge Brett Kavanaugh was chosen instead.

I'd imagine Mr. Napolitano wasn't too thrilled to be passed over for Kavanaugh. #AxeToGrindAnyone?



BTW, FOX does have another "Judge". A Jeanine Pirro as well.

She's a former judge and prosecutor from what I hear.

Yet she more or less says the exact opposite of what Judge CNN says. Imagine that.





EDIT : Well what do you know.... @SBJJ just torpedoed your whole argument for Judge CNN :



(begins at 2:40 of the vid provided in the link, btw, if you don't feel like reading)

CHECKMATE.

Yep.

OH and once again, for Mike's benefit, go to 2:40 of the video and listen to the glorious KO provided.

You don't have to quote or link to anything pro Trump from Dershowitz. Anytime someone in the legal arena says anything negative towards Trump you can simply say "I can quote Dershowitz defending him' and even if you have never heard it you are safe. He has spun something.

And even Dershowitz generally admits when defending everything Trump that his opinion is in the minority if not the extreme minority within legal circles but he says he does not care,he is right.

You cannot say the same about Napolitano. He has not been an consistent anti Trump voice. He will defend when he thinks its appropriate. BUt I know that with Trumpsters if you are not 100% on the side of Dear Leader then you are the enemy. LOL.

Napolitano was correct in his assessment.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Let's try this.

A black man is accused of raping a prostitute. That black man is the son of a prominent politician. The investigation clears the black man of the rape and shows it was the cop who arrested him that committed the rape. After the investigation clears the black man the prosecutor prosecutes the man for obstruction because the black man asked his father if he could get the DA fired because he felt he was being railroaded.

That sound legit? Did that man actually OBSTRUCT JUSTICE? How did he obstruct justice when the actual justice was him being cleared

Sympathy for the accused or the accused being innocent does not protect one from obstructing justice. You are using a 'what about the children' type example to try and illicit an emotional response to over ride peoples logical one. That said sympathy might keep a prosecutor from pressing charges.

But no, if you are wrongly accused and in defending yourself you merely say to officials 'I am being railroaded you should fire X' and you have no power that is not an attempt to obstruct. Its an appeal but you have no power. Now if I change your example and instead make the accused the BOSS of a prominent politician and he was PRESSURING and PUSHING the prosecutor to lie and obscure and hide information and change evidence and testimony that WOULD be obstruction of justice.

 

[cincymma79]

Look at all these legal experts arguing what their favorite tv Persona tweeted

 

[Andy Capp]

...but it shouldn't be hard to find a regulation that was axed which was actually pretty helpful and flog him with it.

Agreed, because the list is very, very long.
https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/biggest-regulations-donald-trump-cut-affect.html/
https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/tracking-deregulation-in-the-trump-era/

 

[SBJJ]

Sympathy for the accused or the accused being innocent does not protect one from obstructing justice. You are using a 'what about the children' type example to try and illicit an emotional response to over ride peoples logical one. That said sympathy might keep a prosecutor from pressing charges.

But no, if you are wrongly accused and in defending yourself you merely say to officials 'I am being railroaded you should fire X' and you have no power that is not an attempt to obstruct. Its an appeal but you have no power. Now if I change your example and instead make the accused the BOSS of a prominent politician and he was PRESSURING and PUSHING the prosecutor to lie and obscure and hide information and change evidence and testimony that WOULD be obstruction of justice.

The president could have actual fired Mueller, Rosenstein or Barr for that matter. That is his right and fully legal.

 

[SBJJ]

You don't have to quote or link to anything pro Trump from Dershowitz. Anytime someone in the legal arena says anything negative towards Trump you can simply say "I can quote Dershowitz defending him' and even if you have never heard it you are safe. He has spun something.

And even Dershowitz generally admits when defending everything Trump that his opinion is in the minority if not the extreme minority within legal circles but he says he does not care,he is right.

You cannot say the same about Napolitano. He has not been an consistent anti Trump voice. He will defend when he thinks its appropriate. BUt I know that with Trumpsters if you are not 100% on the side of Dear Leader then you are the enemy. LOL.

Napolitano was correct in his assessment.

So Trump will be prosecuted once he leaves office, right?

Since the vast majority of legal minds think this is such a slam dunk, right?

 

[bobgeese]

Remember when liberals pretended Jeff Sessions was a secret Russian?

I remember.

 

[vengeful]

Let's try this.

A black man is accused of raping a prostitute. That black man is the son of a prominent politician. The investigation clears the black man of the rape and shows it was the cop who arrested him that committed the rape. After the investigation clears the black man the prosecutor prosecutes the man for obstruction because the black man asked his father if he could get the DA fired because he felt he was being railroaded.

That sound legit? Did that man actually OBSTRUCT JUSTICE? How did he obstruct justice when the actual justice was him being cleared

A D.A. is an elected official, bruh. You can't get a politician to fire an elected official, sounds like some dumb fantasy you're coming up with.

 

[SBJJ]

Remember when Judge Napolitano said he had multiple sources that stated Obama used the Brits to spy on Trump......




I remember

 

[MikeMcMann]

The president could have actual fired Mueller, Rosenstein or Barr for that matter. That is his right and fully legal.

And he could be charged with obstruction or Impeached for doing so in terms of Rosenstein and Mueller.

I know you guys now must treat McGhan like he is a discredited enemy since he was not willing to risk jail for Daddy Trump but he was the lawyer for the Office of the POTUS and not Trump, and he knew that Trump was directing him to commit obstruction of justice.

 

[glenwo2]

There was no hint of “justice” to be found anywhere remotely near the Russia investigation.

@vengeful , bob says "You're Welcome."


EDIT : Notice, @bobgeese , how he never disputed your post.