Is "he's new to this" an acceptable excuse?

I have read and heard some Trumpsters saying that he didn't mean to obstruct justice, he is new to this and didn't understand what he was doing might break the law. Is this a good enough excuse for you if it is proved he tried to end the Russian probe by his actions. His actions not only include firing Comey but his request to other government head to push Comey to end the probe. SO is it a good enough excuse?

Obviously not.

The question is wrong. The correct question is, "What did voters hope to accomplish when they elected Donald Trump?"

Your world view may be "Who is the best, most honest, most intelligent and most qualified candidate to lead the nation?" If you are projecting that world view onto Trump supporters, then that is your first mistake.

I'll give you one hint: Trump supporters have been surprisingly honest and forthright about their motives in voting for Trump, and it wasn't to put the most honest, most intelligent and most qualified candidate into the Oval Office. Not by a long shot.

independentusa said:

I have read and heard some Trumpsters saying that he didn't mean to obstruct justice, he is new to this and didn't understand what he was doing might break the law. Is this a good enough excuse for you if it is proved he tried to end the Russian probe by his actions. His actions not only include firing Comey but his request to other government head to push Comey to end the probe. SO is it a good enough excuse?

Click to expand...

Ignorance can not be used as an excuse when you have so many advisors.

independentusa said:

I have read and heard some Trumpsters saying that he didn't mean to obstruct justice, he is new to this and didn't understand what he was doing might break the law. Is this a good enough excuse for you if it is proved he tried to end the Russian probe by his actions. His actions not only include firing Comey but his request to other government head to push Comey to end the probe. SO is it a good enough excuse?

Click to expand...

If trump did not intend to break the law no reasonable prosecutor would press charges

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

trouble13 said:

If trump did not intend to break the law no reasonable prosecutor would press charges

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Or...at least Comey would not, presumably, think so. :lamo

Unless it is Trump, then of course throw the book and kitchen sink at him.

independentusa said:

I have read and heard some Trumpsters saying that he didn't mean to obstruct justice, he is new to this and didn't understand what he was doing might break the law. Is this a good enough excuse for you if it is proved he tried to end the Russian probe by his actions. His actions not only include firing Comey but his request to other government head to push Comey to end the probe. SO is it a good enough excuse?

Click to expand...

Please properly source these "requests", as well as any evidence, that the president wanted Comey to "end the Russian probe" or do anything other than let up a little on the guy, a guy Comey agreed, and testified that he agreed, was a "good guy"...who we have yet to determine if he broke any laws, right?

The guy already was fired and disgraced.

independentusa said:

I have read and heard some Trumpsters saying that he didn't mean to obstruct justice, he is new to this and didn't understand what he was doing might break the law. Is this a good enough excuse for you if it is proved he tried to end the Russian probe by his actions. His actions not only include firing Comey but his request to other government head to push Comey to end the probe. SO is it a good enough excuse?

Click to expand...

What "Trumpsters" have said this? Name names or quit making **** up. :roll:

"I hope" does not obstruction make.

:lamo

independentusa said:

I have read and heard some Trumpsters saying that he didn't mean to obstruct justice, he is new to this and didn't understand what he was doing might break the law. Is this a good enough excuse for you if it is proved he tried to end the Russian probe by his actions. His actions not only include firing Comey but his request to other government head to push Comey to end the probe. SO is it a good enough excuse?

Click to expand...

I'll try that excuse if I ever get into legal trouble.

hanger4 said:

"I hope" does not obstruction make.

Click to expand...

Not in and of itself. There is what is known as 'Context'. If my boss called me into the office, kicked out everyone else that was there to have a one on one chat with me, and said "I hope that you would do x/y/z', I would be taking that as a command, not as a 'hope'. Context is everything.

Paul Ryan for one.

RAMOSS said:

Not in and of itself. There is what is known as 'Context'. If my boss called me into the office, kicked out everyone else that was there to have a one on one chat with me, and said "I hope that you would do x/y/z', I would be taking that as a command, not as a 'hope'. Context is everything.

Click to expand...

Did you believe your boss was "commanding" you to do something illegal/unethical ??

Did you report this nefarious "I hope" "command" to the proper authorities ?? Or did you sit on this nefarious information for 3 months or so then leak it when you became a disgruntled former employee ??

So far he has not be convicted of anything, so lets just stop right there.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but lets stay with the facts. Hoping that something will come to an end isn't the same as saying make it go away. I hope the sun will shine tomorrow and I will win a mil at the next lottery drawing. That doesn't mean it will happen.
Thus far we have Comey's interpretation of the events. That's it.
If facts will come about that something illegal has happened, it will be dealt with. Prancing around like small minded gossips is not very becoming.

Our fellow citizens voted for Trump because he is different. People voted for Obama because they thought he was different and would bring about change. Both are/were inexperienced, both blunder (ed). Just slow down for a minute instead of turning into a raging mob every time Trump farts.
You don't like what Trump is doing. Others didn't like what Obama was doing. Elections are over. Time to get over the woman scorned approach.

RAMOSS said:

Not in and of itself. There is what is known as 'Context'. If my boss called me into the office, kicked out everyone else that was there to have a one on one chat with me, and said "I hope that you would do x/y/z', I would be taking that as a command, not as a 'hope'. Context is everything.

Click to expand...

We, the thinking, the disassociated from the flat line brain dead accusers of the president, are supposed to believe that a guy who cannot read any criminal intent when numerous actual statutes of federal national security and freedom of information act laws, not requiring intent to be prosecutable, are broken, tens of thousands of emails are not only destroyed but bleach bitted, when illegal private servers are set up in direct contravention of known policy, then irresponsibly AND illegally sending out classified emails and documents over those unsecured servers that were undoubtedly hacked, possibly leading to loss of life and certainly giving up untold amounts of top secret information to both hacking enemies and friends and most certainly sending a message to all considering working with us in the future to question our actual determination to keep things secret... all of which she, Hillary, lied to the State department when required to turn over these emails upon exit and to Congress under oath when finally questioned ... and this shady former FBI Director could not somehow connect all those and so many more dots... but here, "hope" turns suddenly into a command somehow. sufficient to be considered a command to obstruct justice?

This with his boss, Lynch, undeniably telling, "commanding" him, to politically assist the Clinton campaign by alignment with their toned down language so as to make out that they weren't really investigating Clinton but merely what, making some initial inquiries into the "matter "?

Your side has your heads so far up the colon, be hard to see without a floodlights, steamshovel and dredge

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk

Yes. The excuse is quite plausible if you are "brain dead" and incapable of thinking for yourself.

First, there was no law or rule disallowing the use of a private server at the time Clinton was using one. The past two people in her position also used one. The rule was passed after thee GOP started the campaign to keep her from running for president. And if you ever read or listen to anything other than right wing "alternative facts" you would know that only three of the emails she received were marked classified at the time she was using the private server and even those where marked incorrectly. And she never sent out classified info at all, just received them. Keep trying to use Clinton as a red herring to draw attention away from Trump's illegal acts. And why should you worry about Trump no matter what he does, the GOP won't allow him to be impeached. Remember. their priorities are wealthy patrons first, the party second and the country a very distant third.

independentusa said:

First, there was no law or rule disallowing the use of a private server at the time Clinton was using one. The past two people in her position also used one. The rule was passed after thee GOP started the campaign to keep her from running for president. And if you ever read or listen to anything other than right wing "alternative facts" you would know that only three of the emails she received were marked classified at the time she was using the private server and even those where marked incorrectly. And she never sent out classified info at all, just received them. Keep trying to use Clinton as a red herring to draw attention away from Trump's illegal acts. And why should you worry about Trump no matter what he does, the GOP won't allow him to be impeached. Remember. their priorities are wealthy patrons first, the party second and the country a very distant third.

Click to expand...

1) "The past two people in her position also used one."

Not true, the two of which you speak didn't set up a private, off the dot gov grid to conduct SoS business on.

2) "you would know that only three of the emails she received were marked classified at the time"

Irrelevant. Markings do not classified make. Although you are making the case for her incompetence as SoS.

BTW, technically she's correct, they wouldn't be marked "classified", they'd be marked Confidential, Secret or Top Secret.

3) "And she never sent out classified info at all, just received them"

Also untrue. Comey stated in his presser HRC sent and received seven email chains classified as Top Secret SAP.

Don't know where you get your information from, but I strongly suggest you find other sources. The ones you're using are leading you astray.

Vetplus40 said:

Yes. The excuse is quite plausible if you are "brain dead" and incapable of thinking for yourself.

Click to expand...

You do realize that is what we in the biz call a weinie ***ed reply.

I mean, first, it is in direct response to my post but you appartently didn't want to alert me by quoting me? Second, an ad hom and no reasoned attack of even a single assertion made, and I have made many this thread already...but not even one counter, just a throwaway ad hom?

Besst ya got, huh?

Hell, I'd hate to be on your side of the argument as well. Be like being about to jump an unsuspecting citizen having walked into a dark alley and you confidently reach back for your trusty ol baseball bat to club the dude then grasp onto...nothingness, realize it was all a mirage the whole time...you only thought you had it right up to the time when you actually needed it.

Too funny.

I mean we haven't even scratched the surface yet on how Mueller's personal conflicts of interest, the number of personal conflicts his hired guns gave, what a special counsel an and cannot do... For example, the special counsel's focus is limited, with the scope of the investigation set by the attorney general and confined to investigating criminal matters.

As special counsel, Mueller works for the DOJ, so the attorney general has authority to fire him ...for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of DOJ policies.

Attorney General Sessions has recused himself, so authority falls to Deputy AG Rosenstein, the guy thay recommended Comey be fired AND who also appointed Mueller. And what about the standard that needs be met for there to be obstruction of justice?

This is a tragic farce, built upon a house of cards having it foundations firmly anchored in a complete fantasy.

If you wish upon a star, makes no difference how silly those wishes are...