• 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!

Did Lewandowski's testimony today suggest Trump attempted to obstruct justice?

HumblePi said:
Why are you bringing in this new argument now about 'separation of powers'. What does my comment have to do with that? Do you even understand what separation of powers means? Congress has the power of the subpoena, period. Congress also has the power to hold someone in contempt if they fail to obey a subpoena. This authority was recognized by the US Supreme court in 1821 in Anderson V Dunn, and later formally added to the US criminal code in 1857.

What Congress has failed to do is to move ahead with punishment and fines for anyone that defies a subpoena.
Click to expand...

Cori didnt defy the subpoena. He showed up and answered their questions. Youre just pissed that he made your side look like the fools that they are.
 
independentusa said:
Obstruction Of Justice Legal Definition | Merriam-Webster Law Dictionary

Lewandowski admitted that the president sent him with a message to Sessions that he either limit or stop the investigation or Sessions would be fired. It would seem that such a request and the actions that followed would suggest that Trump was attempting to control or even halt the investigation. Would that constitute obstruction of justice or not in your opinion?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is one of the instances cited in Mueller’s report.
 
Fletch said:
Cori didnt defy the subpoena. He showed up and answered their questions. Youre just pissed that he made your side look like the fools that they are.
Click to expand...

You immediately assumed that I was talking about Corey Lewandowski and accused me of claiming that he defied a subpoena? DUH. He was there, I saw him, you saw him, the television cameras saw him, the world saw him if they were tuned in, so obviously Corey Lewandowski did not defy a subpoena.

Fletch you're so anxious to jump into this conversation and it's usually mine that you take issue with in order to appear to be knowledgeable on the subject and you're miles behind the comments on the thread. You should read them all before making accusations against me of something I never said.

Do you know, or have the slightest idea of the numbers of subpoenas and the numbers of people subpoenaed from Trump's administration that have brazenly just refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas and several who have been found in contempt of Congress?

Come on Fletch, you can do better than that.
 
independentusa said:
Obstruction Of Justice Legal Definition | Merriam-Webster Law Dictionary

Lewandowski admitted that the president sent him with a message to Sessions that he either limit or stop the investigation or Sessions would be fired. It would seem that such a request and the actions that followed would suggest that Trump was attempting to control or even halt the investigation. Would that constitute obstruction of justice or not in your opinion?
Click to expand...

It's OK that Trump did this. Laws need to be ignored when you have a president that hates the same people you do.
 
HumblePi said:
You immediately assumed that I was talking about Corey Lewandowski and accused me of claiming that he defied a subpoena? DUH. He was there, I saw him, you saw him, the television cameras saw him, the world saw him if they were tuned in, so obviously Corey Lewandowski did not defy a subpoena.

Fletch you're so anxious to jump into this conversation and it's usually mine that you take issue with in order to appear to be knowledgeable on the subject and you're miles behind the comments on the thread. You should read them all before making accusations against me of something I never said.

Do you know, or have the slightest idea of the numbers of subpoenas and the numbers of people subpoenaed from Trump's administration that have brazenly just refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas and several who have been found in contempt of Congress?

Come on Fletch, you can do better than that.
Click to expand...

You are right. My mistake:kissy:
 
independentusa said:
Obstruction Of Justice Legal Definition | Merriam-Webster Law Dictionary

Lewandowski admitted that the president sent him with a message to Sessions that he either limit or stop the investigation or Sessions would be fired. It would seem that such a request and the actions that followed would suggest that Trump was attempting to control or even halt the investigation. Would that constitute obstruction of justice or not in your opinion?
Click to expand...

At this point this is not a legal trial. If it was, you would be perfectly correct- there is no question this is a clear case of obstruction of justice- not just on the president's part but also now on Lewandowski's part as well. But the problem the democrats face is that this is a political issue at this point, and they are trying to make a case to the American public, the court of public opinion- not a judge. That's a much harder case to make, and has more to do with theater and appearances. It's hard to compete with a former reality TV star in that arena.
 
Corey says one thing to the Media, and the opposite to Special Counsel (under risk of perjury or false statements).

smallvoice said:
What EXACTLY did he say that you "think" was an admission of lying?
Click to expand...

Why don't you already know, it's been widely publicized.

Ari:
TheBeat w/Ari Melber on Twitter: ""I think I would have remembered that conversation"

Fmr. Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski refutes report Trump asked him to help oust Jeff Sessions:… https://t.co/MDiN4IXHOG"

Trump called Lewandowski to pressure sessions to resign, accoreing to reporting.
Lewandowski feigns ignorance:
Look, I talk to POTUS all the time..I don't ever remember the president ever asking me to get involved with Jeff Session or the department of justice in in any way or form... etc.
Click to expand...

Lewandowski told Special Counsel under penalty of crime if caught lying:
Mueller report:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
Page 90 starts
1. President asks Corey to deliver message to sessions to curtail special counsel investigation

President follows up with Lewandowski (regarding his delivery of the message to Jeff)


The message, dictated by Trump and recorded by Lewandowski
The President directed that Sessions should give a speech publicly announcing: I know that I recused myself from certain things having to do with specific areas. But ourPOTUS . . . is being treated very unfairly. He shouldn’t have a Special Prosecutor/Counsel b/c he hasn’t done anything wrong. Iwas on the campaign w/ himfor nine months, there were no Russians involved with him. Iknow it for a fact b/c Iwasthere. Hedidn’tdo anything wrong except he ran the greatest campaign in American history.609

See footnotes, all of this comes from Lewandowski...

When questioned by the House attorney on this, Lewandowski said he was under no obligation not to engage in "hyperbole" when on Fox/MSNBC...
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Wrong. At least one staff lawyer, Barry Berke, questioned Lewandowski yesterday.
Click to expand...
Which was a rule violation and the Democrats were soundly scolded for it.
 
Overitall said:
It takes 3 years and who knows how much taxpayer's money and yet still nothing. I don't have the answers. If you accuse someone of a crime I just think it behooves you to have the evidence supporting your accusation. The Dems have none but that doesn't stop them from continuing to make the accusation while wasting time and money looking.
Click to expand...

You can use this thread as a cry-safe-space any time, let it out Overitall, cry all you like.
 
Cougarbear said:
Obstruction of Justice: "the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process"

So, did Sessions receive any notification by Trump or anyone associated with Trump? No. So, Session was never threatened, harmed. The investigation by Mueller was not impeded in any way and Mueller testified to that before Congress. So, by definition, no Obstruction of Justice. Trump may have wanted to obstruct but it never happened. Now, if Sessions were to say he did receive a letter or other communication from Trump that told him to stop the investigation then there may be a case. However, it never happened.
Click to expand...

Attemtping to rob a bank is still a crime.

Attempting to obstruct Justice is the same.
 
Mach said:
Quote Originally Posted by Overitall View Post
It takes 3 years and who knows how much taxpayer's money and yet still nothing. I don't have the answers. If you accuse someone of a crime I just think it behooves you to have the evidence supporting your accusation. The Dems have none but that doesn't stop them from continuing to make the accusation while wasting time and money looking.
Click to expand...

You can use this thread as a cry-safe-space any time, let it out Overitall, cry all you like.
Click to expand...


The answers are all there. There is no question at this point that there has been obstruction of justice and the law has been broken. The only reason Trump is not in jail is, as Mueller pointed out, that you cannot bring criminal changes against a sitting president. Impeachment is a purely political, not legal, proceeding. So the dems are left having to fight this propaganda war with Fox News and with a corrupt senate over whether we have a criminal in the whitehouse. Fox News is clearly winning. But that does not mean that we don't have the answers.
 
HumblePi said:
Why are you bringing in this new argument now about 'separation of powers'. What does my comment have to do with that? Do you even understand what separation of powers means? Congress has the power of the subpoena, period. Congress also has the power to hold someone in contempt if they fail to obey a subpoena. This authority was recognized by the US Supreme court in 1821 in Anderson V Dunn, and later formally added to the US criminal code in 1857.

What Congress has failed to do is to move ahead with punishment and fines for anyone that defies a subpoena.
Click to expand...
This is not new. Separation of powers is why they are the subpoenas are invalid. With respect to punishment, note the invalid part. To actually enforce the subpoenas, the House would have to prove to a Judge that they were valid, which they cannot do.

The House committee writes a subpoena and claims the WH is defying it. What is actually happening is that the subpoena is invalid and the WH is properly disposing of it. The media reports the House version of the events without covering the validity detail.
 
Obscurity said:
Attemtping to rob a bank is still a crime. Attempting to obstruct Justice is the same.
Click to expand...
Talking about robbing a bank is not a crime, nor is talking about obstruction. Only if there is an attempt is the talking relevant.
 
Jay59 said:
Talking about robbing a bank is not a crime, nor is talking about obstruction. Only if there is an attempt is the talking relevant.
Click to expand...

Nope. Intent is enough for obstruction of justice charges. And even as far as attempts: the president clearly attempted multiple times: through McGahn, Lewandowsky, Sessions, etc, etc... the fact that they refused to follow his express orders is not because he wasn't attempting.

And even robbing a bank: if someone confides their plans to an undercover agent, or it becomes clear that they ordered it to their underlings, they are going to be in a whole heap of trouble.

The only reason Trump is not in jail right now is, as Mueller pointed out, because you cannot criminally indict a sitting president. That's OK. Trump is going to jail. And after his performance yesterday, Lewandowsky will likely join him there to keep him company. The law may be slow. But it's not stupid.
 
Last edited:
Jay59 said:
Talking about robbing a bank is not a crime, nor is talking about obstruction. Only if there is an attempt is the talking relevant.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy is a crime. Talking about and planning to do something illegal is illegal.

Republican logic is so childish. You guys cherry pick constantly.

Yes, conspiring to commit a crime -is- a crime.
 
ataraxia said:
Nope. Intent is enough for obstruction of justice charges.

And even robbing a bank: if someone confides their plans to an undercover agent, they are going to be in a whole heap of trouble.
Click to expand...

Not to republicans. They have literally thrown their morals out the window with this president. They have become insufferable in their hypocrisy and their diversions.

2020 has to go to the dems, or a different republican, or this country is thoroughly ****ed.
 
ataraxia said:
The answers are all there. There is no question at this point that there has been obstruction of justice and the law has been broken. The only reason Trump is not in jail is, as Mueller pointed out, that you cannot bring criminal changes against a sitting president. Impeachment is a purely political, not legal, proceeding. So the dems are left having to fight this propaganda war with Fox News and with a corrupt senate over whether we have a criminal in the whitehouse. Fox News is clearly winning. But that does not mean that we don't have the answers.
Click to expand...

Preaching to the choir. The nutters in this thread I'm responding to can't even accept basic, black and white facts..what makes you think they want to? I don't think they do, I think they are trolling, just like Corey and Trump and all his devotee staff, just like Rudy, Hannity, Lou...just like Meadows and Jordan, etc. After all, what penalty is there for lying if they think it's fine? They are gonna enrage non-Trump supporters? They relish that.
 
ataraxia said:
Nope. Intent is enough for obstruction of justice charges. And even as far as attempts: the president clearly attempted multiple times: through McGahn, Lewandowsky, etc... the fact that they refused to follow his express orders is not because he wasn't attempting.

And even robbing a bank: if someone confides their plans to an undercover agent, or it becomes clear that they ordered it to their underlings, they are going to be in a whole heap of trouble.
Click to expand...
If intent is enough, cite the statutory language.

You reference orders, which is a different thing. It is also a point of fact that is not proven.
 
Cougarbear said:
Obstruction of Justice: "the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process"

So, did Sessions receive any notification by Trump or anyone associated with Trump? No. So, Session was never threatened, harmed. The investigation by Mueller was not impeded in any way and Mueller testified to that before Congress. So, by definition, no Obstruction of Justice. Trump may have wanted to obstruct but it never happened. Now, if Sessions were to say he did receive a letter or other communication from Trump that told him to stop the investigation then there may be a case. However, it never happened.
Click to expand...

The justice department including Jeff Sessions and Robert Mueller all far under the purview of the executive branch and hence the President.

Donald Trump would have been totally his rights to fire either Sessions or Mueller and halted any investigation had he wanted to. In fact he doesn't even need a reason as all of these people serve at the pleasure of the president.

But no....President Trump actually gave this witch hunt headed by Robert Mueller unprecedented access.

Frankly....Lowendowski who voluntarily agreed to testify yesterday should have just told Nadler and the other Dem kooks to go piss up a rope!
 
Jay59 said:
If intent is enough, cite the statutory language.

You reference orders, which is a different thing. It is also a point of fact that is not proven.
Click to expand...

Lewandowski himself said so yesterday.

Mueller's report shows similar orders to McGahn and Sessions.

What more proof do you want?
 
Jay59 said:
If intent is enough, cite the statutory language.

You reference orders, which is a different thing. It is also a point of fact that is not proven.
Click to expand...

If you conspire to break the law generally you are acting illegally. Then again, impeachment is a political, not legal, process. So frankly, it doesn't matter if you believe it's illegal, or not. Hell, it doesn't even matter if it's legal. Why?

Because our founders KNEW some things would be unsavory and unpalletable to the public, unethical or amoral; and that is why impeachment is a political process and not a legal one.
 
Jay59 said:
Which was a rule violation and the Democrats were soundly scolded for it.
Click to expand...
How do you know that it was a violation of rules? Do you have actual proof of your belief? If so, post it. Your word alone does not suffice.

Also, is it a scolding when the people on the receiving end ignore it and continue on anyway? I’m guessing from their perspective it was just whining by the minority group.
 
Did Lewandowski's testimony today suggest Trump attempted to obstruct justice?

No, it suggested that Nadler is a moron for keeping up this stupid game. Does he ever do anything to improve his district, or is TDS all he does? What a loser.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom