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

[LangfordBarrow]

"attempted" being the keyword, though (if it was true).

The Dems, however, are saying he DID Obstruct.

How can they say that someone obstructed when the actual act ultimately never occurred?



I said this before and I'll say it again :

A President has Advisors to save him from making bad choices by putting their foot down in the face of the POTUS.

And if what is stated is true, he was indeed saved from those bad choices.

Otherwise, the case of Obstruction WOULD be true, hands down.

Maybe one of the lawyers that post here can clarify with the specific letter of the law but as I understand it the crime is in the intent. That's why Trump is now on the attack against McGahn.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Trump tried to obstruct justice countless times.

Only dingbats love this level of criminality.

And if Mueller said less press charges that would’ve been the new standard going forward.

Now the precedent has been set that presidents can engage in all sorts of criminality because of some memo (not some constitutional footnote) from the justice department.

 

[andnowweknow]

No, he didn't and that's why he decided not to recommend an obstruction charge be brought. Had he brought such a charge it would not have gone anywhere.

The Russian collusion case was so poorly founded that it is embarrassing the special investigator was ever given this much power to look into it and that it took so long to realize there was nothing to it. Recently the NYT ran an article speculating that the Steele files were themselves a Russian plant. It's embarrassing, but rather than do some soul searching to figure out why they could have got it all so wrong, people are trying to cling onto flimsy process charges the special investigator himself didn't use to recommend charges.

I recommend going after Trump on the economy, trade, foreign affairs, deregulation and this sort of thing rather than the Mueller Report. There's no there there. But if not, and if you somehow really think Trump obstructed justice or was hiding some untoward cooperation with the Russians that Mueller failed to expose, then I think you should call your Congressional representative and push for impeachment.

Dishonesty from a Trumper. Shocking. Read no further than this lie.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Your response is exactly the short sightedness I am talking about. I say Russia investigation and you are focused on “no collusion”. Thanks Trump. Plain English. The Russians meddled in our election and are going to do so again. Their goal is not to get an R in office but to destabilize our form of democracy. Trump has no desire to put measures into place to stop future instances because it legitimizes the idea Russia helped him win.

yes but a couple corrections. The Russians are doing it now. 24/7, 365 days a year. They are trying to sow division by polarizing the population. They will also favour Trump in the next election and try to help him again as he is the one who will not tackle the problem and let them do their thing as long as they benefit him.

Trump doing something to tackle it both delegitimizes his prior win but also hurts an ally who wants him to win again and who will help any way they can.

 

[MikeMcMann]

"attempted" being the keyword, though (if it was true).

The Dems, however, are saying he DID Obstruct.

How can they say that someone obstructed when the actual act ultimately never occurred?



I said this before and I'll say it again :

A President has Advisors to save him from making bad choices by putting their foot down in the face of the POTUS.

And if what is stated is true, he was indeed saved from those bad choices.

Otherwise, the case of Obstruction WOULD be true, hands down.

Since you ask here is Fox top legal expert answering your exact question and showing you that you are wrong.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Oh OK. Who else? You mentioned people, as if there were several examples.

Do you believe the perjury trap defense was valid?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Do you believe the perjury trap defense was valid?

How is your question related to or an answer to the factual question I asked you about your claims?

As far as your new question, do I think the perjury trap defense was valid when who employed it?

I feel like we are talking past each other a bit here, and I'm sorry for whatever extent that is my fault.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Sure. I've previously agreed that nothing in a prosecutor's behavior excuses perjury by a witness and that those who lied to Mueller deserve the jail sentences they received. That is of course not the question, but whether it is a prosecutor's job to create process crimes, which is the only place Mueller found success.

He didn't create those crimes though as you would in a "trap". If Trump acted that way he should be held accountable.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Maybe one of the lawyers that post here can clarify with the specific letter of the law but as I understand it the crime is in the intent. That's why Trump is now on the attack against McGahn.

see the above video I posted if you want the crystal clear answer. There is no question Trump committed obstruction of justice.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Dishonesty from a Trumper. Shocking. Read no further than this lie.

Explain. Do you think Mueller did recommend that obstruction charges be brought?

 

[andnowweknow]

Explain. Do you think Mueller did recommend that obstruction charges be brought?

Do you know what DOJ policy is regarding indicting a sitting president? Did you know Mueller brought this up numerous times in his report while discussing the MOUNTAIN of evidence of clear obstruction as he told Congress it would have to be on them?

Last, how'd Barr's lies about was in the report sit with you?

No more questions out of you, but go for it in answering the above. The playing dumb routine is par, but at some point you're gonna have to let it go if you enjoy honest discourse.

 

[Strychnine]

Since you ask here is Fox top legal expert answering your exact question and showing you that you are wrong.

Strange that he didn't make that video while inside the Fox News room...

<puh-lease75>

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Do you know what DOJ policy is regarding indicting a sitting president? Did you know Mueller brought this up numerous times in his report while discussing the MOUNTAIN of evidence of clear obstruction as he told Congress it would have to be on them?

Last, how'd Barr's lies about was in the report sit with you?

No more questions out of you, but go for it in answering the above. The playing dumb routine is par, but at some point you're gonna have to let it go if you enjoy honest discourse.

1. I'm not sure what you are going on about here, but I said nothing about Mueller indicting anyone. I asked why he made no recommendation either way if he felt the case was so certain.
2. Exactly what lies by Barr are you referring to? Overall, Barr's handling of the matter seemed quite straightforward to me and it sat well with me. I don't buy into the attacks on Barr.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

How is your question related to or an answer to the factual question I asked you about your claims?

As far as your new question, do I think the perjury trap defense was valid when who employed it?

I feel like we are talking past each other a bit here, and I'm sorry for whatever extent that is my fault.

Your response to my claim was "Oh OK". Does that mean you do agree the whole idea of a perjury trap is an excuse to avoid testifying? That Mueller had plenty of relevant questions he could ask without inducing a lie? You also asked how many others I could name but that is a moot point and seemed like a deflection.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Your response to my claim was "Oh OK". Does that mean you do agree the whole idea of a perjury trap is an excuse to avoid testifying? That Mueller had plenty of relevant questions he could ask without inducing a lie? You also asked how many others I could name but that is a moot point and seemed like a deflection.

I asked you to name the "several people" you were talking about. You said Trump. I said, Ok, who else? It might have helped had I stated from the beginning I figured you were talking about Trump and that my question was aimed at who else you were talking about. It's not a deflection, I was specifically asking for clarification about a claim you made. If you didn't mean several people, you could have responded, well, I only really mean Trump and then we'd go from there.

As far as Trump and Muller, Trump clearly ducked him. We can at least agree on that I hope. I think Trump had nothing to gain from answering Mueller's questions and I assume his lawyers agreed. The collusion case was dead in the water already and there was nothing left for Mueller to gain but a process charge and nothing left for Trump to gain but to avoid it.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

The only thing keeping trump from impeachment is a piece of a post it note sitting in a justice department desk saying “you can’t indict a sitting president”

This new precedent will further destroy American democracy moving forward. But republicans hate democracy. Just look at the powerful Mitch Mconnell in the senate. The man simply hates democracy and the entire democratic process.

 

[glenwo2]

But that’s not what I am talking about. You understand Russia meddled in our election in 2016, 18 and looks like 20?

I say Russia
You say No Collusion
She lost get over it

You are correct on one thing : "Get over it"

 

[glenwo2]

No, he didn't and that's why he decided not to recommend an obstruction charge be brought. Had he brought such a charge it would not have gone anywhere.

The Russian collusion case was so poorly founded that it is embarrassing the special investigator was ever given this much power to look into it and that it took so long to realize there was nothing to it. Recently the NYT ran an article speculating that the Steele files were themselves a Russian plant. It's embarrassing, but rather than do some soul searching to figure out why they could have got it all so wrong, people are trying to cling onto flimsy process charges the special investigator himself didn't use to recommend charges.

I recommend going after Trump on the economy, trade, foreign affairs, deregulation and this sort of thing rather than the Mueller Report. There's no there there. But if not, and if you somehow really think Trump obstructed justice or was hiding some untoward cooperation with the Russians that Mueller failed to expose, then I think you should call your Congressional representative and push for impeachment.

Going after Trump on the Economy? <[analyzed}>

 

[glenwo2]

Maybe one of the lawyers that post here can clarify with the specific letter of the law but as I understand it the crime is in the intent. That's why Trump is now on the attack against McGahn.

I don't believe that is the case at all but, like you, I'm not a lawyer.


However, like you, I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

 

[glenwo2]

Trump tried to obstruct justice countless times.

Only dingbats love this level of criminality.

And if Mueller said less press charges that would’ve been the new standard going forward.

Now the precedent has been set that presidents can engage in all sorts of criminality because of some memo (not some constitutional footnote) from the justice department.

Oh shut up, Meathead.