• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pelosi tells Dems she wants to see Trump in prison

Stealers Wheel said:
Trump sure seemed to think it would be obstructed when he fired Comey. At least, that's what he told the Russians.
Click to expand...

No, he thought the illigitimate witch hunt might go away. Which isnt obstruction of justice. Precisely the opposite, obstruction of injustice.
 
upsideguy said:
More than 1000 former US prosecutors, from all political persuasions, disagree with you.

Former Federal Prosecutors Renew Statement That Trump Would Have Been Indicted If he Weren’t President
President Trump argues he is above the law. A thousand prosecutors say he’s wrong - Los Angeles Times
STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS – DOJ Alumni Statement – Medium

They said that his actions rise to the standards of indictable offense by federal standards. Given federal prosecutors have a 93% conviction rate, the standard of indictable offense is pretty high....and Trump is there.

What are your credentials to make such a bold claim that is contrary to overwhelming expert opinion? Unless you have some, its pretty much a prima facie case that the President very likely obstructed justice, making you but a poorly informed voice in the woods.
Click to expand...

Too bad the article doesnt get around to presenting the prosecutors argument. Attempting to "stop limit and interfere" with the investigation isnt obstruction unless its done with a corrupt intent. If its done to "stop limit and interfere" with an illigitimate witch hunt it is not. They dont even address the issue.
 
dixon01767 said:
Too bad the article doesnt get around to presenting the prosecutors argument. Attempting to "stop limit and interfere" with the investigation isnt obstruction unless its done with a corrupt intent. If its done to "stop limit and interfere" with an illigitimate witch hunt it is not. They dont even address the issue.
Click to expand...

"The Article"? I presented three (3) cites. Apparently you did not read them, for if you did you would see the third cite is the actual prosecutor's letter.

I think you will see the prosecutors letters addresses each instance of OoJ as delineated in the Mueller Report. You should read it instead continuing to believe your own amateur-hour view of the law.

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS – DOJ Alumni Statement – Medium

From their letter: "....Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice...."

It seems you have no legal training yet you insist on making legal arguments contrary to 1000 experts. I don't know about you, but I don't take medical advice from people that have no training in medicine. I would certainly believe it exceptionally foolish if I took such a person's advice when 1000 doctors told me it was wrong. Similarly, why one should be giving legal advice when they know nothing about the law. Do you feel you are adding any value to this discussion? I think you have much to learn.

dixon01767 said:
No, he thought the illigitimate witch hunt might go away. Which isnt obstruction of justice. Precisely the opposite, obstruction of injustice.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Its not his call.
 
Last edited:
dixon01767 said:
No, he thought the illigitimate witch hunt might go away. Which isnt obstruction of justice. Precisely the opposite, obstruction of injustice.
Click to expand...

You are under the illusion that if the president disapproves of an investigation, he gets to put a stop to it. Nixon thought the same thing. It didn't turn out well for him.
 
upsideguy said:
"The Article"? I presented three (3) cites. Apparently you did not read them, for if you did you would see the third cite is the actual prosecutor's letter.
.
Click to expand...

Neither does the letter address the issue of intent when the President believes that the investigation is illigitimate. Did notice something I hadnt noticed before in their letter. They are even alleging an obstuction of justice, OF an investigation of obstruction of justice of an investigation of a crime that never happened. I think them appearing with Robert Diniro reveals there intent.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
You are under the illusion that if the president disapproves of an investigation, he gets to put a stop to it. Nixon thought the same thing. It didn't turn out well for him.
Click to expand...

Actually he can. He cant stop Congerss from investigating or impeaching, but the President is over the department of justice, FBI, CIA and anyone else in the administration who might investigate.
 
dixon01767 said:
Actually he can. He cant stop Congerss from investigating or impeaching, but the President is over the department of justice, FBI, CIA and anyone else in the administration who might investigate.
Click to expand...

Again, you need to read the history of Watergate. The president thought he could put an end to the special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, and thereby put a stop to the investigation. Nixon's AG refused and resigned, as did the deputy AG. You can read about the Saturday Night Massacre here.

After you do that, come back and tell me how the president gets to put an end to any investigation by the FBI, CIA or DOJ.
 
dixon01767 said:
Neither does the letter address the issue of intent when the President believes that the investigation is illigitimate. Did notice something I hadnt noticed before in their letter. They are even alleging an obstuction of justice, OF an investigation of obstruction of justice of an investigation of a crime that never happened. I think them appearing with Robert Diniro reveals there intent.
Click to expand...

The letter I cited said VERY CLEARLY that 1000 former federal prosecutors said the president committed acts that would have lead to obstruction of justice charges by federal standards. If you know anything about federal standards, that is a VERY high bar. 1000 former federal prosecutors believe the president committed a felony.

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS – DOJ Alumni Statement – Medium

From their letter: "....Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice...."

You only defense to this, which duly noted is only coming out of your head as thus far is completely supported by expert, let alone competent opinion, is that if the President thinks he is being wrongfully investigated, his actions to impede that investigation are somehow justified or righteous. Please tell us all where you get that idea.......

Where does it say the President gets to make that? Let me help you. No where. You are literally making stuff up in a feeble effort to defend an untenable position. The President doesn't get to make the call as to whether an investigation into his affairs, where he is the target or subject, is illegitimate. To allow such would mean that he was above the law. In America, the President is not above that law.

Article II | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
The President Is Not Above the Law - POLITICO Magazine

Please show us where we have changed the Constitution to allow for a king that is above the law. Just give us some third party evidence to support this position you seem to be carrying on with so that we understand there is some intelligence behind it, as most of us see little.
 
upsideguy said:
The letter I cited said VERY CLEARLY that 1000 former federal prosecutors said the president committed acts that would have lead to obstruction of justice charges by federal standards. If you know anything about federal standards, that is a VERY high bar. 1000 former federal prosecutors believe the president committed a felony.

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS – DOJ Alumni Statement – Medium

From their letter: "....Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice...."

You only defense to this, which duly noted is only coming out of your head as thus far is completely supported by expert, let alone competent opinion, is that if the President thinks he is being wrongfully investigated, his actions to impede that investigation are somehow justified or righteous. Please tell us all where you get that idea.......

Where does it say the President gets to make that? Let me help you. No where. You are literally making stuff up in a feeble effort to defend an untenable position. The President doesn't get to make the call as to whether an investigation into his affairs, where he is the target or subject, is illegitimate. To allow such would mean that he was above the law. In America, the President is not above that law.

Article II | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
The President Is Not Above the Law - POLITICO Magazine

Please show us where we have changed the Constitution to allow for a king that is above the law. Just give us some third party evidence to support this position you seem to be carrying on with so that we understand there is some intelligence behind it, as most of us see little.
Click to expand...

FOCUS .....focus...you cite FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS...what does that have to do with current situation?
 
upsideguy said:
The letter I cited said VERY CLEARLY that 1000 former federal prosecutors said the president committed acts that would have lead to obstruction of justice charges by federal standards. If you know anything about federal standards, that is a VERY high bar. 1000 former federal prosecutors believe the president committed a felony.

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS – DOJ Alumni Statement – Medium

From their letter: "....Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice...."

You only defense to this, which duly noted is only coming out of your head as thus far is completely supported by expert, let alone competent opinion, is that if the President thinks he is being wrongfully investigated, his actions to impede that investigation are somehow justified or righteous. Please tell us all where you get that idea.......

Where does it say the President gets to make that? Let me help you. No where. You are literally making stuff up in a feeble effort to defend an untenable position. The President doesn't get to make the call as to whether an investigation into his affairs, where he is the target or subject, is illegitimate. To allow such would mean that he was above the law. In America, the President is not above that law.

Article II | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
The President Is Not Above the Law - POLITICO Magazine

Please show us where we have changed the Constitution to allow for a king that is above the law. Just give us some third party evidence to support this position you seem to be carrying on with so that we understand there is some intelligence behind it, as most of us see little.
Click to expand...
You crack me up. Do you realize there are tens of thousands of former federal prosecutors. No one is surprised that they can find a small percentage that a partisan enough to sign a bogus letter. IT MEANS NOTHING far more did not sign the letter than signed it. :roll::lamo
 
Trump said:
FOCUS .....focus...you cite FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS...what does that have to do with current situation?
Click to expand...

Do you not understand expert opinion and what it means to the matter? I am arguing with a rank amateur who is practicing law without a license or a clue, who told us OoJ did not happen for some incoherent reason. I merely pointing out that experts say it most certainly did. What say you?

How about you? Do you seek expert opinion on matters that you are not well versed? Do you go to the Doctor for medical matters or simply go with Aunt Bessie's quackery, because she tells you what you want to hear? Do you agree that expert opinion matters or only the ill-informed opinion that makes you feel good? Do you not agree that far too many Trump supporters inhabit a world where expert opinion is merely inconvenient truth? Case in point, the guy who seems to not let go of this issue even though he is repeated faced.

SLC said:
You crack me up. Do you realize there are tens of thousands of former federal prosecutors. No one is surprised that they can find a small percentage that a partisan enough to sign a bogus letter. IT MEANS NOTHING far more did not sign the letter than signed it. :roll::lamo
Click to expand...

Great, show me a letter contains at least 1000 credible signatures that say they are wrong. Nevermind, you can't. You and I know you are talking out your A on this one as such a thing does not exist. You know as wall as I that is because most people that know such things know this letter is spot on. If there were a significant constituency that thought the 1000 got it wrong, don't you think they would say something?

Not everything that is against Trump's world view is partisan. You realize that every major US newspaper, even the most conservative ones, refused to endorse Trump in 2016 citing his lack of fitness for office. Concern about Trump's fitness is not a partisan issue, it crosses the aisle. Moreover, there was nothing partisan about the list of people on that letter. You should check it out. They are prominent US attorneys appointed by both sides of the aisle. What cracks me up is that you can't see the distorted reality that you choose to live in. No, that actually frightens me.
 
Last edited:
Stealers Wheel said:
Again, you need to read the history of Watergate. The president thought he could put an end to the special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, and thereby put a stop to the investigation. Nixon's AG refused and resigned, .
Click to expand...

Yeah, because the AG could only either follow his orders, resign, or be fired if he refuses.
 
upsideguy said:
The letter I cited said VERY CLEARLY that 1000 former federal prosecutors said the president committed acts that would have lead to obstruction of justice charges by federal standards. If you know anything about federal standards, that is a VERY high bar. .
Click to expand...

Weve seen Federal standards applied when Comey exonerated Hillary. She erased and bleach bit her server of emails AFTER they were subpoened. Not prosecuted because she wasnt aware she was comitting a crime.
 
upsideguy said:
.......
Great, show me a letter contains at least 1000 credible signatures that say they are wrong. Nevermind, you can't. You and I know you are talking out your A on this one as such a thing does not exist. You know as wall as I that is because most people that know such things know this letter is spot on. If there were a significant constituency that thought the 1000 got it wrong, don't you think they would say something?

Not everything that is against Trump's world view is partisan. You realize that every major US newspaper, even the most conservative ones, refused to endorse Trump in 2016 citing his lack of fitness for office. Concern about Trump's fitness is not a partisan issue, it crosses the aisle. Moreover, there was nothing partisan about the list of people on that letter. You should check it out. They are prominent US attorneys appointed by both sides of the aisle. What cracks me up is that you can't see the distorted reality that you choose to live in. No, that actually frightens me.
Click to expand...
The fact is that 1000 ex federal prosecutors is a small fraction of the former Federal prosecutors the vast majority are to ethical to sign such a blatantly partisan letter. The fact that you seem to put any value in it is hysterical. :lol:
 
dixon01767 said:
Yeah, because the AG could only either follow his orders, resign, or be fired if he refuses.
Click to expand...

You didn't read the link, did you? It clearly states that a court ruled the firing of the SC was illegal. Furthermore, the the special prosecutor was simply replaced by another, Leon Jawarski, and the case continued.

Why do you think Trump's lawyer argued so strongly against firing Mueller? Because he knew Trump would lose in court and it amounted to obstruction. Why do you think his lawyer prevented Trump from testifying live and under oath? Because he knew Trump was incapable of telling the truth, even under oath. Any lie, even if there is no underlying crime, becomes perjury. Just ask Bill Clinton. Trump's lawyer was not going to let him pull a Bill Clinton.

Trump's lawyer literally saved his presidency on more than one occasion.
 
upsideguy said:
Do you not understand expert opinion and what it means to the matter? I am arguing with a rank amateur who is practicing law without a license or a clue, who told us OoJ did not happen for some incoherent reason. I merely pointing out that experts say it most certainly did. What say you?

How about you? Do you seek expert opinion on matters that you are not well versed? Do you go to the Doctor for medical matters or simply go with Aunt Bessie's quackery, because she tells you what you want to hear? Do you agree that expert opinion matters or only the ill-informed opinion that makes you feel good? Do you not agree that far too many Trump supporters inhabit a world where expert opinion is merely inconvenient truth? Case in point, the guy who seems to not let go of this issue even though he is repeated faced.



Great, show me a letter contains at least 1000 credible signatures that say they are wrong. Nevermind, you can't. You and I know you are talking out your A on this one as such a thing does not exist. You know as wall as I that is because most people that know such things know this letter is spot on. If there were a significant constituency that thought the 1000 got it wrong, don't you think they would say something?

Not everything that is against Trump's world view is partisan. You realize that every major US newspaper, even the most conservative ones, refused to endorse Trump in 2016 citing his lack of fitness for office. Concern about Trump's fitness is not a partisan issue, it crosses the aisle. Moreover, there was nothing partisan about the list of people on that letter. You should check it out. They are prominent US attorneys appointed by both sides of the aisle. What cracks me up is that you can't see the distorted reality that you choose to live in. No, that actually frightens me.
Click to expand...


Only one that matters is Barr. Get over it. MOVE ON. Mueller Report was a complete failure as predicted by many.

Wake me when Trumps second cousin on his mother side is indicted for ripping off tag from some bed.:2wave:
 
Cougarbear said:
Or, Sessions was simply not going to because she has something on him. There was enough facts. The server itself was found off the grounds of the Feds. She admitted as much. I hope that if I'm ever charged with a crime that the prosecutor will let me off if I just tell him I messed up and won't do it again. But, now that we have more information, such as the bleach bit and other things, there will be enough to charge her and that there will be Probable Cause. Something missing in the Trump attacks.
Click to expand...

So I am sure you have some evidence to back this up? Or are you just speculating because if you don't say something like that, then the rest of your argument falls like sand castles before the wave?
 
j brown's body said:
View attachment 67257795

Its funny that Pelosi's comment should raise any eyebrows, except that we expect more from her than we do from Trump, about who we have no expectations of common decency. He called for jailing his own deputy attorney general.
Click to expand...

common decency from the party of Clintons? Obama spied on Trump administration! common decency? pleeeeeeease!:doh

the swamp is wide and deep
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom