• 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!

Trump under investigation for obstruction of justice: report

reinoe said:
The DNC is ordering their minions to bring everything back to "The Russians!!!" and distract everyone from the fact that a liberal tried to assassinate a group of Republicans. This is the third or fourth thread started on this forum making an announcement of the Special Prosecutor Team after the assassination attempt.
Click to expand...

What an odd thing to assert. "Bring everything back to the Russians"? One might think if that were the case, Trump might STFU about it and stop tweet-weeping his way through almost every day.
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
Actually I think my thread was first.

The desperate partisans here are the Trump worshippers who continue to deny and live in their little world of Kelly Anne's alternative facts.

Obviously, Mueller thinks it's worth looking into. That is a fact. A real fact, not an alternative one.
Click to expand...

I'll also add:
The Senate Judiciary Committee is also opening an investigation into Trump’s obstruction of justice :

"The Senate Judiciary Committee is launching a wide-ranging probe into the circumstances behind James Comey’s firing as FBI director, as well as any attempts to influence FBI investigations under the Obama administration.

The committee’s chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), laid out his plan in a letter made public Wednesday in response to requests from Democrats to investigate potential obstruction of justice surrounding Comey’s dismissal by President Donald Trump last month.

“The Judiciary Committee has an obligation to fully investigate any alleged improper partisan interference in law enforcement investigations,” Grassley wrote to his Democratic counterpart, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. “It is my view that fully investigating the facts, circumstances, and rationale for Mr. Comey’s removal will provide us the opportunity to do that on a cooperative, bipartisan basis.”

Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate Comey firing, Clinton email probe - POLITICO
 
Captain Adverse said:
Three threads on this same topic, one answer for them all:

The only evidence this occurred is the statement of Mr. Comey, and his "memo's."

Trump has denied the Flynn comment. Trump says he did not ask Comey to end investigation - CNNPolitics.com

They were the only two people present. Mr. Trump and Mr. Comey.

Currently there is no evidence that either conversation was "taped." Secret Service says it has no tapes, recordings of Trump conversations in White House - CBS News

The burden of proof in a criminal investigation is on the accuser, not the accused.

When it is one person's word against another, and no "legal evidence" one of the parties has lied under oath, then the defendant "wins."

The "memos" do not matter. They remain one person's written perceptions of a conversation, and are neither telling, nor dispositive evidence.

IMO, Mueller will end up clearing Trump of this allegation too. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...
WaPo is recently reporting Trump has been leaning on others, as well.

"President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.

Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.

Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president."

Source: Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence

If the article is to be believed, Trump's actions were documented in an internal NSA memo:

"Trump’s conversation with Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA official, according to the officials. It is unclear if a similar memo was prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to document Trump’s conversation with Coats. Officials said such memos could be made available to both the special counsel now overseeing the Russia investigation and congressional investigators, who might explore whether Trump sought to impede the FBI’s work."

Now obviously there's a lot of open ends here. But if accurate, this could be showing a pattern of abuse of power. Individual actions that may be held in lower regard, may mean something quite different when seen in totality. Remember, obstruction of justice does not require a crime to have been committed. The affirmation of the charge itself results in criminal guilt.
 
Chomsky said:
WaPo is recently reporting Trump has been leaning on others, as well.

"President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.

Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.

Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president."

Source: Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence

If the article is to be believed, Trump's actions were documented in an internal NSA memo:

"Trump’s conversation with Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA official, according to the officials. It is unclear if a similar memo was prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to document Trump’s conversation with Coats. Officials said such memos could be made available to both the special counsel now overseeing the Russia investigation and congressional investigators, who might explore whether Trump sought to impede the FBI’s work."

Now obviously there's a lot of open ends here. But if accurate, this could be showing a pattern of abuse of power. Individual actions that may be held in lower regard, may mean something quite different when seen in totality. Remember, obstruction of justice does not require a crime to have been committed. The affirmation of the charge itself results in criminal guilt.
Click to expand...


well, I guess they will have to get the orchestra out to the deck of the Titanic so, they can keep playing the music until which time the ship sinks ...............

I wonder how many rats will scurry off the deck into the frigid waters before the fat lady sings?
 
cuban smokes said:
well, I guess they will have to get the orchestra out to the deck of the Titanic so, they can keep playing the music until which time the ship sinks ...............

I wonder how many rats will scurry off the deck into the frigid waters before the fat lady sings?
Click to expand...
I may be getting duped here, but it does appear that Mueller may be making a credible attempt at this despite having been appointed by a Trump appointee.

I hope we're not being conned.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Three threads on this same topic, one answer for them all:

The only evidence this occurred is the statement of Mr. Comey, and his "memo's."

Trump has denied the Flynn comment. Trump says he did not ask Comey to end investigation - CNNPolitics.com

They were the only two people present. Mr. Trump and Mr. Comey.

Currently there is no evidence that either conversation was "taped." Secret Service says it has no tapes, recordings of Trump conversations in White House - CBS News

The burden of proof in a criminal investigation is on the accuser, not the accused.

When it is one person's word against another, and no "legal evidence" one of the parties has lied under oath, then the defendant "wins."

The "memos" do not matter. They remain one person's written perceptions of a conversation, and are neither telling, nor dispositive evidence.

IMO, Mueller will end up clearing Trump of this allegation too. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

Trump was caught bragging to the Russians that he fired Comey....


"I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job," Trump said, according to the Times. "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."

NYT: Trump brags to Russians about firing 'nut job' Comey - CNNPolitics.com​


If that's not an admission that he obstructed the investigation, then what is?
 
I wonder if anyone in this thread actually knows what the elements of obstruction of justice are under the US Code, and if they can construct a credible case for it from the fact pattern in question. This, I would be quite curious to see.
 
Harshaw said:
I wonder if anyone in this thread actually knows what the elements of obstruction of justice are under the US Code, and if they can construct a credible case for it from the fact pattern in question. This, I would be quite curious to see.
Click to expand...

Show us the US Code.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
So far as I can tell, it's working out quite well.

The investigations proceed, several of the prominent players have been caught lying, under oath, about their contacts with the Russians and one of them has publicly requested immunity.

All sorts of things tie into that, including potential financial crimes, but no goalposts are being moved.
Click to expand...

Which prominent players have been caught lying under oath?
 
rocket88 said:
Sorry, I know you were hoping for 8 more years of Benghazi hearings.
Click to expand...

That's not what I ever hoped for. What I did and do hope for is for all the truth to come out and for those responsible for the deaths of Glenn Doherty, Sean Smith, Ty Woods, and Ambassador Stevens to be held accountable, at least in the historical record.
 
nota bene said:
That's not what I ever hoped for. What I did and do hope for is for all the truth to come out and for those responsible for the deaths of Glenn Doherty, Sean Smith, Ty Woods, and Ambassador Stevens to be held accountable, at least in the historical record.
Click to expand...

No one is denying the fact that four people died.
 
Harshaw said:
:shrug: You don't. That's fine.
Click to expand...

I don't think you do, either. It just looked like you were trying to get other people to do your research for you. :mrgreen:
 
Tanngrisnir said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/jared-kushner-russians-security-clearance.html?_r=1

I haven't seen the forms, but his lawyer admits he did, couched more in terms of an 'oopsie'.
Click to expand...

From The Hill link I cited above:

Kushner's attorney said in a statement that he doesn't recall the conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and has requested information from the news service Reuters, which originally broke the story on Friday.

"Mr Kushner participated in thousands of calls in this time period. He has no recollection of the calls as described. We have asked (Reuters) for the dates of such alleged calls so we may look into it and respond, but we have not received such information," Kushner's attorney Jamie Gorelick said. [Personal aside: I think "Eeeeeek!" every time I read her name.]

Kushner's conversations with the Russian envoy before the election were related to fighting terrorism and improving economic relations with Russia, sources told Reuters, which reported on two calls between Kushner and Kislyak between April and November last year. Kushner's attorney said in a statement that he doesn't recall the conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and has requested information from the news service Reuters, which originally broke the story on Friday.

Dem: Kushner 'should be prosecuted for lying' on security form | TheHill
 
Moot said:
I don't think you do, either. It just looked like you were trying to get other people to do your research for you. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

You'd be wrong. But even if you were right, it doesn't matter to the question.

Bye, now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom