• 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!

Obstruction of justice bombshell will explode before midterms

MrWonka said:
You should try reading the full article. It contains some text from Richard Nixon's impeachment trial that is very applicable. Trump doesn't have to actually shut down the investigation. He just has to undermine its credibility. Threaten the investigators and or make false statements regarding the nature of the investigation. He has done all of those things without question.

And that's just what he has done publically on Twitter. We don't even know what additional evidence Mueller might have on Cohen's tapes or what other testimony has been offered.
Click to expand...

Doesnt pass muster, will never with the American people. But go ahead, keep pushing the ludicrous... makes your team look feeble. But only because they are feeble.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Doesnt pass muster, will never with the American people. But go ahead, keep pushing the ludicrous... makes your team look feeble. But only because they are feeble.
Click to expand...

The legal definition of obstruction of justice will never pass muster? Uh. Ok buddy.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Dull blades just dont cut it, bro.

Yanno, just not quite a valid assessment of what I was asserting...wanna try again?
Click to expand...

Then you weren't clear enough with your post, bro. What doesn't pass muster?
 
MrWonka said:
You should try reading the full article. It contains some text from Richard Nixon's impeachment trial that is very applicable. Trump doesn't have to actually shut down the investigation. He just has to undermine its credibility. Threaten the investigators and or make false statements regarding the nature of the investigation. He has done all of those things without question.

And that's just what he has done publically on Twitter. We don't even know what additional evidence Mueller might have on Cohen's tapes or what other testimony has been offered.
Click to expand...

Nixon was not impeached. He resigned.

As for the rest: As president, Trump is head of the executive dept, which means he is in charge of the Judiciary dept. He swears an oath to enforce the laws of the USA which means that, yes, he is allowed to opine on pending legal issues, to stick his nose in them ect ect ect
 
MrWonka said:
Trump's Twitter field alone proved enough evidence to justify an Obstruction of Justice charge.

I'll remind you that The Hill is generally considered to be a somewhat Right-leaning news source if anything.
Click to expand...

No more or less than Mr. Strzok texts proved bias in his investigation of Mrs. Clinton.
 
Athanasius68 said:
No more or less than Mr. Strzok texts proved bias in his investigation of Mrs. Clinton.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what crime you think those texts prove. It's not illegal to hold political opinions. It is illegal to abuse your power to obstruct an investigation.
 
JacksinPA said:
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...ustice-bombshell-will-explode-before-midterms

Why is President Trump escalating his attacks against special counsel counsel Robert Mueller, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Department of Justice, the FBI and the free press to a fever pitch in recent days?

The reason is that the odds are very high that Mueller will offer a declarative public statement before the midterm elections, and very likely before Labor Day, that the president is guilty of obstruction of justice.
=======================================================
Asking Comey to drop his investigation into Flynn & then firing him for not complying while telling the Russians & Lester Holt that he had the Russia probe in in mind while doing so are just part of this story.

Obstruction of justice

Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.

A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.
Click to expand...

So...based on spin, speculation, innuendo and hyperbole, you think Mueller is going to declare obstruction of justice against Trump. All without no real evidence.

Okay. I'm sure you believe that. I don't.
 
The conventional wisdom is that THE HATCHET MAN needs to make his claims by just after Labor Day, either that or wait till after the election, in order not not weaken his case by seeming to be playing politics.

I think that is right, with the exception that I say mid Aug is a late as he should go, but I have no confidence in Mueller.
 
Winston said:
I have no idea what crime you think those texts prove. It's not illegal to hold political opinions. It is illegal to abuse your power to obstruct an investigation.
Click to expand...

As far as has been determined by the DOJ, no crime.
Similiarly, it’s not clear why tweets should be evidence of a crime,
 
Athanasius68 said:
Nixon was not impeached. He resigned.

As for the rest: As president, Trump is head of the executive dept, which means he is in charge of the Judiciary dept. He swears an oath to enforce the laws of the USA which means that, yes, he is allowed to opine on pending legal issues, to stick his nose in them ect ect ect
Click to expand...

He is allowed to command the military, but dropping chemical weapons on civilians is still a war crime. A core founding principle of this nation is that nobody is above the law. A president's authority over legal investigations does not cover obstruction of justice. "Opine on pending legal issues" is a red herring.
 
JacksinPA said:
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...ustice-bombshell-will-explode-before-midterms

Why is President Trump escalating his attacks against special counsel counsel Robert Mueller, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Department of Justice, the FBI and the free press to a fever pitch in recent days?

The reason is that the odds are very high that Mueller will offer a declarative public statement before the midterm elections, and very likely before Labor Day, that the president is guilty of obstruction of justice.
=======================================================
Asking Comey to drop his investigation into Flynn & then firing him for not complying while telling the Russians & Lester Holt that he had the Russia probe in in mind while doing so are just part of this story.

Obstruction of justice

Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.

A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.
Click to expand...

I disagree, Mueller will not present any case on trump until he had completed his investigation, and that will probably be next year.
 
Deuce said:
He is allowed to command the military, but dropping chemical weapons on civilians is still a war crime. A core founding principle of this nation is that nobody is above the law. A president's authority over legal investigations does not cover obstruction of justice. "Opine on pending legal issues" is a red herring.
Click to expand...

Various laws have been passed, treaties have been signed, that would limit the authority to launch chemical attacks upon civilians. This is justified as Congress has authority in governing the military and can of course ratify any treaties the president agrees to while exercising his lawful authority as head of state.
However, there are no laws limiting the right of the president to comment upon how the justice department is conducting its operations. Indeed, it’s no different than the president expressing his opinion as to how the state department would be negotiating a treaty with a foreign power banning chemical bombing of civilians.

In other words, expressing his opinion about how the Justice department is conducting its business can’t be obstruction.
It’s more akin to him doing his job.
 
Deuce said:
Then you weren't clear enough with your post, bro. What doesn't pass muster?
Click to expand...
Huh?

I was addressing the parts of the post specifically addressing Trump. Yano?

Matter of fact he didnt even mention the law. Yano? Here is what Wonka said: "Trump doesn't have to actually shut down the investigation. He just has to undermine its credibility. Threaten the investigators and or make false statements regarding the nature of the investigation. He has done all of those things without question.

And that's just what he has done publically on Twitter. We don't even know what additional evidence Mueller might have on Cohen's tapes or what other testimony has been offered. "

We clear here?

If the dim dems dare impeach a president making so much headway in the economy, domestic and international events with such flimsy fluff, well, that will only hasten the party going the way of the dinosaur and the Whig party.

We crystal clear here?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
So where are the REAL applicable elements of the crime?

Trump asked only if they could go easy on Flynn as he was, and Comey agreed, a good man. Comey, apparently from his own testimony, was not inclined to prosecute... it was only after the Muel got involved and put the full court press squeeze on did they come after Flynn... so that premise flies out the window.

Besides, there were no moves made to shut down the " "investigation" "... which was really a counterintelligence effort inspired, we now know, by slenderman himself, according to Clapper.
Click to expand...

The "good man" defense. Right there with, "Sorry, I forgot it was a crime".

The investigation was "inspired" not by Obama's inventive imagination but by evidence of illegal Russian efforts to elect Trump.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
So where are the REAL applicable elements of the crime?

Trump asked only if they could go easy on Flynn as he was, and Comey agreed, a good man. Comey, apparently from his own testimony, was not inclined to prosecute... it was only after the Muel got involved and put the full court press squeeze on did they come after Flynn... so that premise flies out the window.

Besides, there were no moves made to shut down the " "investigation" "... which was really a counterintelligence effort inspired, we now know, by slenderman himself, according to Clapper.
Click to expand...

The "good man defense". Right there with, "Sorry, I forgot it was a crime".

The investigation was "inspired not by Obama's fine imagination but by evidence of Russian efforts to elect Trump.
 
JacksinPA said:
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...ustice-bombshell-will-explode-before-midterms

Why is President Trump escalating his attacks against special counsel counsel Robert Mueller, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Department of Justice, the FBI and the free press to a fever pitch in recent days?

The reason is that the odds are very high that Mueller will offer a declarative public statement before the midterm elections, and very likely before Labor Day, that the president is guilty of obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...
I am sure you do not realize it, but this report is exactly why you should not be listening to anything coming from this source.
Mueller will not be making any "declarative public statement" regarding guilt. He actually can't do that.
He can certainly make an allegation, but he can not declare guilt.


JacksinPA said:
Asking Comey to drop his investigation into Flynn & then firing him for not complying while telling the Russians & Lester Holt that he had the Russia probe in in mind while doing so are just part of this story.
Click to expand...
iLOL Your personal opinion is nonsense.
1. Trump did not ask Comey to "drop" any investigation.
2. Of course a president would consider whether or not he wanted someone who has already shown bad judgement investigating Russia.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The conventional wisdom is that THE HATCHET MAN needs to make his claims by just after Labor Day, either that or wait till after the election, in order not not weaken his case by seeming to be playing politics.

I think that is right, with the exception that I say mid Aug is a late as he should go, but I have no confidence in Mueller.
Click to expand...



I have a lot of faith in Mueller, he has proven to be nothing but professional.

He announced one time he would be done by September and I have no reason to doubt it.

I suspect there will be residual charges that carry on afterwards as trump has proven he surrounds himself with criminals. However unless new evidence comes to light extending the investigation I believe he will make any pertinent announcements far enough in advance of the elections (60 days) to have a minimum impact.
 
GDViking said:
I have a lot of faith in Mueller, he has proven to be nothing but professional.

He announced one time he would be done by September and I have no reason to doubt it.

I suspect there will be residual charges that carry on afterwards as trump has proven he surrounds himself with criminals. However unless new evidence comes to light extending the investigation I believe he will make any pertinent announcements far enough in advance of the elections (60 days) to have a minimum impact.
Click to expand...

CounterPoint:

Mueller’s dubious appointment was compounded by his astonishing tin ear in recruiting investigators. Trump’s talking point about “17 angry Democrats” (up from 13!) is hyperbole. Yet the special counsel did bring aboard the now-infamous pair of FBI officials — agent Peter Strzok and counsel Lisa Page — whose loathing of Trump was hardly a state secret. And not only are many of the lawyers he recruited partisan Democrats; several worked for the Obama Justice Department when it began investigating the Trump campaign. Mueller tabbed as his deputy Andrew Weissmann, a former top Obama DOJ official with a reputation for bending rules, who attended Hillary Clinton’s campaign “victory” party and later gushed, “I am so proud. And in awe. Thank you so much,” in praise of acting Attorney General (and Obama holdover) Sally Yates when she insubordinately defied President Trump’s so-called travel ban. (And Sessions is the one with the conflict?)

Add to that: The cases Mueller has brought against Trump associates have nothing to do with a Russian espionage attack on the 2016 election, while the cases he has brought against Russians engaged in an espionage attack on the 2016 election have nothing to do with the Trump campaign.
Click to expand...
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/trump-versus-mueller-bill-clinton-starr-strategy/
 
Josie said:
Gotta time it strategically, right?
Click to expand...

Before labor day is the traditional cut-off. That means they are doing the right thing. It's not backwards day in reality.

See, this is UNLIKE how Comey did the right thing for Trump by keeping the Russia investigation quiet during the election.
Oops, he actually turned around and at the height of the election, torpedo'd Hillary. So much for that.
 
Casper said:
I disagree, Mueller will not present any case on trump until he had completed his investigation, and that will probably be next year.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I've seen reporting on obstruction being next to tee up, and it's been brewing for a while. The thing about obstruction is you want to nip it in the bud, so it doesn't do more damage.
The investigation is being obstructed...that needs to stop. And yes, the remainder of the investigation can then continue, which we suspect is the juicy stuff on Americans who betrayed the nation.

But yeah, it's entirely possible they will wait and do it all at once. I thought they would originally, but I saw a lot saying they want to get obstruction resolved, and then focus on the last leg which will be the doozie.
 
Mach said:
Maybe, but I've seen reporting on obstruction being next to tee up, and it's been brewing for a while. The thing about obstruction is you want to nip it in the bud, so it doesn't do more damage.
The investigation is being obstructed...that needs to stop. And yes, the remainder of the investigation can then continue, which we suspect is the juicy stuff on Americans who betrayed the nation.

But yeah, it's entirely possible they will wait and do it all at once. I thought they would originally, but I saw a lot saying they want to get obstruction resolved, and then focus on the last leg which will be the doozie.
Click to expand...

Keep dreaming. If Mueller comes up with nothing on Trump regarding collusion, then there is no way in hell he will push some flimsy obstruction charge. You will know that Mueller is pursuing obstruction on the day Rosenstein recuses himself. He cannot oversee an investigation in which he is a key witness.
 
Barnacle said:
"... The reason is that the odds are very high that Mueller will offer a declarative public statement before the midterm elections, and very likely before Labor Day, that the president is guilty of obstruction of justice. ..."


Man, the left is gullible ... :lol:
Click to expand...

Coming from someone that voted for tRump, believes his daily lies and continues to support him.

ROFLMAO :crazy3: :
 
JacksinPA said:
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...ustice-bombshell-will-explode-before-midterms

Why is President Trump escalating his attacks against special counsel counsel Robert Mueller, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Department of Justice, the FBI and the free press to a fever pitch in recent days?

The reason is that the odds are very high that Mueller will offer a declarative public statement before the midterm elections, and very likely before Labor Day, that the president is guilty of obstruction of justice.
=======================================================
Asking Comey to drop his investigation into Flynn & then firing him for not complying while telling the Russians & Lester Holt that he had the Russia probe in in mind while doing so are just part of this story.

Obstruction of justice

Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.

A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.
Click to expand...

I don’t think this opinion is far-fetched at all. Even though it’s pure speculation, it makes sense. I think Mueller is going to give us something else before Midterms, but it’ll have to be now through end of September. And it’s funny you posted this, because I was talking to my father the other day and he is basically predicting the same thing you just spelled out. He believes Mueller is going to wrap up the Obstruction part of this probe and submit the report well in advance of the midterms and then continue the other parts of the investigation. Sounds plausible to me. Should be interesting. If we don’t hear anything by End of September I’ll assume it’ll come after midterms or next year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom