Exclusive: First charges filed in Mueller investigation

[woolfe9998]

I agree. I took the hoax reference to be referring to the dossier...which he adamantly believes is a hoax. I don't believe he wasn't saying Russian influence in the election was a hoax, he said it was an excuse by Democrats and that he specifically stated that he wanted the investigation "absolutely done properly". And for anyone to frame this as "dead to rights on obstruction of justice" is delusional imo.

Your bizarre double negative "I don't believe he wasn't saying Russian influence in the election was a hoax" actually means you believe he was saying Russian influence in the election was a hoax. However, given the words which follow, I assume you are saying that he doesn't believe Russian influence in the election was a hoax.

If that is your assertion, I disagree. He has repeatedly called into question the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia did those hacks. And he did so against better knowledge, because we now know a campaign staffer was told by a Russian operative in March of last year that Russia had "thousands of e-mails" that would harm Clinton.

So far as the other form of influence, which was all the propaganda and fake news, who knows what he thinks. He never discusses it at all, nor has he advocated taking any steps to curb it in future elections.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm sure from the defense's position it wouldn't be but from the law's position it would be. Belief that you are the victim of a conspiracy that you are terminating does not immunize you from obstruction of justice charges. If that were the case nobody could be convicted of it ever as all they would say is 'I thought the investigation was corrupt'. If investigators find Trump fired Comey to protect himself from the investigation he's screwed, and it's obvious from the video that he did.



Mueller would definitely not have already brought an indictment. First, you likely can't indict a sitting president. Second, there's probably a lot more to bring against Trump than that and he will wait until he has it all to act.

You have my prediction now that Mueller eventually issues a report that Trump has violated a number of laws, obstruction of justice being one of them, and these statements will play a central role in that determination.

I have no problem with your prediction. It is that Trump's statements of themselves are insufficient. In any case the fine points will be worked.

One thing you mentioned is indicting a sitting President. Here's something to skim.

http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2059&context=hlr

This as well.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...-Savage-NYT-FOIA-Starr-memo-presidential.html

Lastly we have a feature of Natural Law, a strong consideration in framing the Constitution, that of "Nemo iudex in causa sua", or no man should be a judge in his own cause". A President which can exempt himself would be a violation of the principle and an argument that the Constitution never meant there to be absolute immunity from criminal behavior.

You may be right, but we've never been in this situation even with Nixon, where it came to criminal charges being levied.

Sure are interesting times and little is certain when entering uncharted waters.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Firing Comey & then trying to justify it in such a fashion was arrogant & stupid beyond belief. Trump is unfit to lead this great nation.

Absolutely no disagreement there.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, you need only intend to obstruct an investigation. It matters not where the investigation would otherwise lead. What you're claiming is a defense, is no defense at all.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice

The corrupt intent here comes from the fact that is was Trump and his associates under investigation. Even if that investigation would never have produced criminal liability - yet it already has which in an of itself negates your argument - it doesn't matter. It still benefits Trump personally by removing a political impediment for him. To use the power of office for personal benefit is corrupt.

I understand you are in law although not a prosecutor. With your knowledge of law would you feel that you would have an unassailable prosecution based on the above? Let's assume you are correct in your assessment because I have no interest in a common argument of automatic gainsay.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Your bizarre double negative "I don't believe he wasn't saying Russian influence in the election was a hoax" actually means you believe he was saying Russian influence in the election was a hoax. However, given the words which follow, I assume you are saying that he doesn't believe Russian influence in the election was a hoax.

Yep...that is a bizarre double negative. But in my defense....I'm an engineer...and English is my second language. lol

If that is your assertion, I disagree. He has repeatedly called into question the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia did those hacks. And he did so against better knowledge, because we now know a campaign staffer was told by a Russian operative in March of last year that Russia had "thousands of e-mails" that would harm Clinton.

So far as the other form of influence, which was all the propaganda and fake news, who knows what he thinks. He never discusses it at all, nor has he advocated taking any steps to curb it in future elections.

I think the bolded sums it up pretty well.

 

[woolfe9998]

Firing Comey & then trying to justify it in such a fashion was arrogant & stupid beyond belief. Trump is unfit to lead this great nation.

It quite possibly was the stupidest thing I've ever seen a politician do. In one fell swoop, he admitted that he was not following anyone else's recommendation, admitted that the reasons given by his own White House for the termination were a dishonest pretext, and quite possibly admitted to obstructing justice.

 

[jackstar7]

Even if there WAS any collusion to get Trump elected, damage is already done...it's not like the elections can be redone. And choosing between Trump and Pence...

I'll take the one not fucking around with regards to nuclear obliteration.

I can fight a theocrat.

 

[woolfe9998]

I understand you are in law although not a prosecutor. With your knowledge of law would you feel that you would have an unassailable prosecution based on the above? Let's assume you are correct in your assessment because I have no interest in a common argument of automatic gainsay.

I think it's a solid case for obstruction. There is a possible Constitutional defense which has been raised by Dershowitz and some conservative commentators, that being that the Constitution grants the POTUS the power to hire and fire within the executive branch, and that any statute purporting to criminalize the exercise of that power would therefore be unconstitutional as applied. I doubt the higher courts would side with that argument because it implies a POTUS can never obstruct justice no matter what he does, but I can't know for sure.

Otherwise, yes, I think it's a very good case for obstruction. Trump personally benefits from obstructing this investigation even if there is no crime to be discovered. He isn't suppose to use the power of office for personal (i.e. political) benefit. That's the definition of corruption. If Hillary Clinton had somehow found a way to use the power of her office to shut down the Benghazi hearings, that would have been obstruction even though she was innocent of wrongdoing because she stood to gain politically by shutting them down.

As further clarification, your argument would be a good one if Trump fired Comey because he thought Comey was pursuing a witch hunt against an innocent person, if said innocent person wasn't Trump himself or others directly connected to him. There would be no element of personal gain in this alternative scenario, and hence, no corruption.

 

[fskimospy]

I'll take the one not fucking around with regards to nuclear obliteration.

I can fight a theocrat.

It is also reasonably likely that anything that takes Trump down severely damages Pence as well, leaving him in a neutered, Gerald Ford situation where he can’t do much.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Psss....
He's called the Russian interference a hoax many times, he's even tweeted it

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/donald-trump-russia-election-meddling-claims-a-hoax/ar-AAsm5yI

If it's a hoax, why does he want it investigated? I think the root of all the confusion revolves around the ever-shifting meaning that's poured into the term 'Russian investigation'. And to be fair...it does cover many different aspects which can be conflated and construed differently.

 

[dank69]

If it's a hoax, why does he want it investigated? I think the root of all the confusion revolves around the ever-shifting meaning Trump pours into the term 'Russian investigation'. And to be fair...it does cover many different aspects which can be conflated and construed differently.

"This load of horseshit brought to you by a guy that probably thought Bill Clinton was the worst person ever for his 'definition of the word is' defense."

Jesus Christ, please just fuck off.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Maybe you should read the post from an actual lawyer above and revise your opinion about what is delusional.

The proof will be in the pudding...you can apologize to me then.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

"This load of horseshit brought to you by a guy that probably thought Bill Clinton was the worst person ever for his 'definition of the word is' defense."

Jesus Christ, please just fuck off.

So much anger! Have you tried counseling?

 

[dank69]

So much anger! Have you tried counseling?

I get it Doc, you don't give a shit if the GOP makes a complete mockery of our country, as long as you can drink liberal tears, but whoa boy will there be hell to pay if a damn dirty liberal president bows to some other world leader.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I get it Doc, you don't give a shit if the GOP makes a complete mockery of our country, as long as you can drink liberal tears, but whoa boy will there be hell to pay if a damn dirty liberal president bows to some other world leader.

Your world is full of anger...you should seriously consider seeking professional help.

 

[dank69]

Your world is full of anger...you should seriously consider seeking help.

Okay what shrink did you see to help you with your ODS?

 

[fskimospy]

The proof will be in the pudding...you can apologize to me then.

You (effectively) called me delusional, I told you to look at what a real lawyer said about it, and you want an apology for that if you turn out to be right?

wow, that's some entitlement right there, haha.

 

[emperus]

"This load of horseshit brought to you by a guy that probably thought Bill Clinton was the worst person ever for his 'definition of the word is' defense."

Jesus Christ, please just fuck off.

+1

 

[jackstar7]

Your world is full of anger...you should seriously consider seeking professional help.

Doc, heal thyself.

 

[Sunburn74]

I'm having trouble finding the quote where Trump explicitly stated that the Russia investigation into his campaign was the reason he fired Comey.

He said to Lester Holt who almost had a stroke when he heard it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlPUbTpFJEY

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well it does look like a good case for obstruction. Whether that can pass 2/3's of the Senate remains to be seen, but between flipping political plankton and financial records there should be enough sauce for the roast goose that resides in the WH.

 

[bshole]

Yep...that is a bizarre double negative. But in my defense....I'm an engineer...and English is my second language. lol

I think the bolded sums it up pretty well.

As an engineer don't you hate double negatives in software?
if (!False)
{
}

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You (effectively) called me delusional, I told you to look at what a real lawyer said about it, and you want an apology for that if you turn out to be right?

wow, that's some entitlement right there, haha.

Did the word "delusional" hurt your feelings? "Dead to rights" my ass.

But yes, I do expect an apology if I turn out to be right. Or am I being somehow delusional in thinking that you're actually capable of genuine humility?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

If it's a hoax, why does he want it investigated? I think the root of all the confusion revolves around the ever-shifting meaning that's poured into the term 'Russian investigation'. And to be fair...it does cover many different aspects which can be conflated and construed differently.

I get that, I'd simply be happier if Trump just said yes Russia attempted to change the election and here is what I plan to do about it (followed by a reasonable plan)

 

[fskimospy]

Did the word "delusional" hurt your feelings? "Dead to rights" my ass.

No, it did not. lol.

But yes, I do expect an apology if I turn out to be right. Or am I being somehow delusional in thinking that you're actually capable of genuine humility?

I'll freely admit to being wrong but you're owed no apology. That's silliness.