It is not so cut-n-dry. In fact there are arguments on both sides about what constitutes obstruction of justice and how it can be punished.
See here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/us/politics/obstruction-of-justice-trump-explained.html
Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon
- Thread starter kithnou
- Start date
- Status
It is not so cut-n-dry. In fact there are arguments on both sides about what constitutes obstruction of justice and how it can be punished.
See here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/us/politics/obstruction-of-justice-trump-explained.html
longers
Parcheggia l'autobus
Has he actually been found guilty of being a pedo ? I thought it was accusations and that he had yet to go to trial or even have charges pressed against him ?
Truly making America great again
I suppose there's oil in them there hills
I suppose there's oil in them there hills
Nah...going after Alaska wildlife refuge for oil
Edit: This was just to undo what Obama did.
Last edited:
McCain just tweeted that he's 74 follows off 3m on twitter (because that's what's important)
Funny reaction, you can watch people unfollow him live here
Funny reaction, you can watch people unfollow him live here
That isn't my understanding from the reading I have done, for example this conservative lawyer, particularly the bit in bold.
http://amp.nationalreview.com/corne...itutionally-immune-obstruction-justice-charge
As the head of the executive branch of government, Trump has the power to fire an FBI director. He has the power to exercise the prosecutorial discretion to order federal law enforcement agencies to drop an investigation. He possesses an immense pardon power. He does not, however, possess the power to order any federal agency to reach a specific conclusion in its investigation. In other words, he does not have the constitutional authority to “corruptly” put his thumb on the scales of an investigation to dictate that the investigation vindicate him or his associates.
Thus, if Trump isn’t just seeking the end of the investigation but rather the total vindication of his campaign, he is barred from “corruptly” influencing the relevant proceeding (or Congressional investigation.) For example – and to hearken back to both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment counts – he can’t manipulate witnesses into giving false testimony (for example, Clinton allegedly provided grand jury witnesses with false information knowing that they’d transmit that false information to the grand jury). There are limits to his ability to conceal evidence. He obviously can’t direct subordinates to lie to the FBI.
But what about his decision to terminate Comey? Clearly, if he terminated Comey because Comey failed to follow a lawful presidential directive – even if that directive was foolish or self-serving – then it’s specious to argue that a federal statute can criminalize the exercise of a constitutional power for a constitutionally-acceptable purpose. For example, if Trump truly fired Comey for refusing to publicly declare the fact that Trump wasn’t personally under investigation, then that action may be unwise, but it is lawful.
If, however, Trump fired Comey for not clearing Flynn because Trump wanted the FBI to vindicate his senior team, then Trump would have used his constitutional power as part of an effort to deceive the American people. Given the scope of the president’s constitutional authority over Comey, I still do not believe the firing alone can meet the legal definition of obstruction of justice. However, since impeachment is a political process – not a legal adjudication of violations of federal statutes – evidence of malign intent could certainly transform the termination into an abuse of power sufficient to support an article of impeachment. In fact, given the various legal and constitutional complications involved in prosecuting president, I agree with Andy. The likely course of action even if Mueller believes Trump violated criminal law isn’t a criminal indictment but rather a report articulating the grounds for impeachment. In such a case, however, the legal argument over an alleged statutory violation would be just as important as the political, historic, and constitutional arguments over the definition of high crimes or misdemeanors.
My own view is that there is yet insufficient evidence to bring an obstruction claim against Trump – either as an article of impeachment or as a count in a federal indictment. The Comey firing, however, should not be viewed in isolation. It may represent one key component of a comprehensive effort to corruptly influence relevant proceedings or investigations.
Let’s not forget, Trump didn’t just fire Comey, he misled the American people about his reason for firing the FBI director. Judging from his tweet this weekend, he also misled the American people about his reasons for forcing out Flynn. He also was reportedly directly involved in drafting a misleading statement about his son’s meeting with purported Russian operatives during the campaign. His administration has time and again made false public statements about its Russian contacts.
As the Flynn guilty plea demonstrates, it’s one thing to mislead the American people, it’s another thing to lie to the FBI. As we’ve watched the administration get caught in falsehood after falsehood over the Trump campaign and transition team’s numerous contacts with Russian officials or purported operatives, it’s premature for any person to definitively declare that there exists insufficient evidence that Trump violated the law. Any person making that declaration now is, at best, offering an educated guess. But there is one thing that we can definitively declare. Trump is not above the law, and that law includes statutes prohibiting obstruction of justice.
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
What do you read???
Presidential pardons only apply to federal crimes, and Flynn and his failson are almost certainly guilty of violating Pennsylvania law for plotting to kidnap Gulen (still can't type that with a straight face), which Trump would be unable to pardon. If Trump pardons Flynn for the federal allegations, it is a certainty that Flynn would be charged immediately with these unpardonable state crimes. Mueller has no doubt explained this to Flynn, and Flynn understands that he has no choice but to co-operate with Mueller.
No, the reason why Flynn has been indicted on such a minor charge is because he is co-operating fully with the Mueller investigation in exchange for leniency on much his more serious crimes. Mueller is obviously interested in even more important figures in the administration than Flynn, and will use Flynn's testimony to build cases against them.
Mueller was selected by Trump's own D.A.G. appointee, and his investigation has substantial bipartisan support. In the unlikely event that you actually care about the politicisation of the civil service, read about what has been done to the EPA.
dude was banned from a mall for bothering young girls. Not convicted yet but he reeks of yewtree
And your point being?
Hes guilty of lying, the evidence is a slam dunk. No one disputes it. Why would he drag it out in court risking a tougher sentence.
DanEFC92
Player Valuation: £90m
He’s certainly a liar and that is on top of his bigotry and homophobia.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/woman-shares-new-evidence-of-relationship-with-roy-moore-when-she-was-17/2017/12/04/0c3d1cde-d903-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name:homepage/story&utm_term=.1e0dbf0fa598
Shortly after the allegations first surfaced, Moore said in a radio interview with Sean Hannity that he did not know Corfman, but that he remembered Gibson as well as Gloria Thacker Deason, who had told The Post that she dated Moore when she was 18. He called each one “a good girl,” and said that he did not remember dating them. But at two campaign events in recent days, Moore has backtracked.
At a Nov. 27 campaign event in the north Alabama town of Henagar, Moore said, “The allegations are completely false. They are malicious. Specifically, I do not know any of these women.”
At a Nov. 29 rally at a church in the south Alabama town of Theodore, Moore said, “Let me state once again: I do not know any of these women, did not date any of these women and have not engaged in any sexual misconduct with anyone.”
Gibson said that after finding the scrapbook, she was not sure whether to make it public given the threats she received after publication of the original story. Then she heard what Moore said last week, she said, and contacted The Post.
“He called me a liar,” said Gibson, who says she not only openly dated Moore when she was 17 but later joined him in passing out fliers during his campaign for circuit court judge in 1982 and exchanged Christmas cards with him over the years. “Roy Moore made an egregious mistake to attack that one thing — my integrity.”
Last edited:
For supposedly entirely innocent discussions these guys sure did a hell of a lot of lying about them.
As part of the confirmation process, Ms. McFarland testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July. After the hearing, Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, asked her in writing: “Did you ever discuss any of General Flynn’s contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak directly with General Flynn?”
“I am not aware of any of the issues or events as described above,” Ms. McFarland replied.
Mr. Booker said in a statement on Monday that the newly surfaced emails were disconcerting.“Recent developments suggest that Ms. McFarland gave false testimony to the United States Senate on a matter as significant as communications between the Russian government and the Trump transition team,” he said. “If this is the case, this is an alarming development, and another example of a pattern of deception on the part of Trump’s closest associates regarding their connections and communications to Russian government officials.”
As part of the confirmation process, Ms. McFarland testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July. After the hearing, Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, asked her in writing: “Did you ever discuss any of General Flynn’s contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak directly with General Flynn?”
“I am not aware of any of the issues or events as described above,” Ms. McFarland replied.
Mr. Booker said in a statement on Monday that the newly surfaced emails were disconcerting.“Recent developments suggest that Ms. McFarland gave false testimony to the United States Senate on a matter as significant as communications between the Russian government and the Trump transition team,” he said. “If this is the case, this is an alarming development, and another example of a pattern of deception on the part of Trump’s closest associates regarding their connections and communications to Russian government officials.”
What exactly does the kidnapping case have to do with Russia, it was nothing more than a fishing expedition plus its probably not true and there's no way a president couldn't pardon him for crimes he did while a federal official.
Everything else is speculation and after 18 months given that the whole Russia story was concocted by the Clinton campaign in the first place I suspect there's nothing there.
There's a huge difference between state employees who are supposed to carry out the will if the elected officials and people appointed by the administration to carry out the political will of the administration.
I have no problem with Mueller's appointment. It means no one can accuse anyone if a whitewash.
- Status