Jump to content

Russia, the U.S.A., and the White House Administration


Dad
 Share

Recommended Posts

How exactly do you obstruct justice on a crime that was determined to hot have happened in the first place? 

 

Wanted to single out this question.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/03/26/barr-is-wrong-obstruction-justice-doesnt-require-another-underlying-crime/

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/25/martha-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/

 

You can still be charged with obstruction of justice even if you are found not guilty of the crime on which you could have been obstructing, because the attempts to obstruct justice are a crime in and of themselves, regardless of whether or not you committed the underlying crime. This makes for a massive error in Barr's judgment, since he's of the mind that if Trump is not guilty of conspiracy, then he cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice. This is conflating two separate crimes, and shows either ineptitude or malice on Barr's part if he could not distinguish the two.

 

So to answer your question, you obstruct justice on a crime that was determined to have not happened by burying evidence that could have been used to determine whether or not another party was guilty. Such as Nunes refusing to release transcripts. You claimed that the government based their investigation on everything they could get their hands on, except we know that Republicans refused to allow the release of documents that could have been used in the investigation. It's disingenuous to claim that this investigation was conducted with as much evidence as possible when the Republicans prevented Congress from accessing that evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. that's a clean win as far being able to get arrested for obstruction of justice, but in that same vein, what exactly has trump done that counts? Hiring barr? That was well within his rights to do, and we have zero evidence that he actually told barr to obstruct. All we have so far are tweets that say this investigation is a waste of time, which we've arguably seen to be true so far. 

 

As for barr and the republicans, they got everything they needed from them so far as we know. The FBI has more than enough power to demand whatever they deem necessary, and we will likely find out that they did so once the report comes out. But once again, the investigation has zero indictments. It's over as far as i'm concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call hiring Barr obstruction of justice. While it was scummy and very blatantly designed to clear Trump, ultimately it's something that's unethical, but not necessarily illegal. James Comey has said that getting fired by Trump could be potential obstruction of justice, and I'm inclined to agree with him on that. Trump himself even admitted that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation. Firing the guy because he's investigating you should count as obstruction of justice as far I'm concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call hiring Barr obstruction of justice. While it was scummy and very blatantly designed to clear Trump, ultimately it's something that's unethical, but not necessarily illegal. James Comey has said that getting fired by Trump could be potential obstruction of justice, and I'm inclined to agree with him on that. Trump himself even admitted that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation. Firing the guy because he's investigating you should count as obstruction of justice as far I'm concerned.

Comey also said the president has a right to fire the FBI director for any reason

 

So the question remains, is the golden goose here to nail him on obstructing a crime he didn't do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comey also said the president has a right to fire the FBI director for any reason

 

So the question remains, is the golden goose here to nail him on obstructing a crime he didn't do?

 

It would still be obstruction of justice. Whether you think he didn't commit a crime doesn't change that it's already been established that obstruction of justice is a crime unto itself, regardless of whether there is another underlying crime. Barr's weak summary hinges entirely on the idea that if Trump did not commit collusion, then he could not have committed obstruction of justice. Even putting aside the question of collusion, all that needs to be proven is whether Trump committed obstruction of justice, and Barr couldn't even be bothered to exonerate him on that. Do you honestly believe that firing a man because he was investigating you does not count as obstruction of justice?

 

In other words, Barr thinks you need to do A to be guilty of B, and that if A does not exist, then neither can B. What he's ignoring is that B is its own separate crime, and can still exist by itself, regardless of A.

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/153384/yes-trump-obstructed-justice-william-barr-helping-cover-up

 

Given how several of Trump's associates committed perjury, it's highly likely that Trump suborned that perjury. While BuzzFeed's report about Michael Cohen was disputed by Mueller, it does not rule out that other associates lied because they expected rewards from Trump, or because Trump encouraged them to. Despite vla1ne's claims that the charges against Roger Stone were debunked, "This language doesn’t even bother to exonerate Trump’s associate Roger Stone, who during the campaign was in cahoots with WikiLeaks as it dumped Russian-hacked emails that damaged Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Barr’s statements only pertain to the Russian government, not Russian individuals or WikiLeaks or anyone else. This is a crucial distinction, given that we know the Trump campaign knew of and encouraged Stone’s coordination with WikiLeaks."

 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/03/28/adam-schiff-house-republicans-resign-sot-trump-ath-vpx.cnn

 

Meanwhile, Adam Schiff ripped the GOP to shred after the Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee made a weak attempt demanding that he step down. Schiff laid out the evidence, and condemns the GOP's complacency in letting Trump get away with it.

 

EDIT:

Seems like people already forgot the events from the long lost epoch of last month when Matt Gaetz publicly committed witness intimidation. And that was in direct response to this investigation, when he threatened Michael Cohen.

 

But no, let's please continue to pretend that the GOP is perfectly innocent and absolutely none of them attempted to obstruct justice, because any and all crimes actually occurred before meeting Trump, and not once happened as a result of this investigation. Just make a shallow argument that the Democrats hate Trump just because he's Trump, refuse to consider any possible explanation such as how what Trump and accomplices have done is wrong, and ignore when Republicans commit crimes to protect Trump in full view of the entire world.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not great politics to try to go after a man for "obstructing" a justice of a crime he didn't commit

 

If he obstructed justice, then that is its own crime. Congress could agree that he would be not guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States, but still find him guilty of obstruction of justice], and that would be a perfectly reasonable charge. It's not "great politics" for the GOP to aid in obstruction of justice, perjury, spoliation of evidence, and witness tampering, so what's the issue in going after them for the crimes that they committed?

 

https://psmag.com/social-justice/barry-bonds-martha-stewart-and-donald-trump-obstructing-what

 

"An obstruction of justice charge only requires three elements. First, there must be an attempt to thwart a "proceeding"—which can be an open case, a grand jury hearing, or even an investigation that never leads to any other charges. Second, the obstructive act must be done out of "corrupt intent." And third, the obstructive act also must be something that is reasonably foreseeable as affecting the investigatory proceeding. None of these requirements hold that there must be an underlying crime.

 

So you can keep repeating "of a crime he didn't commit", but it doesn't change anything. Even in Barr's letter, he acknowledges those three elements, but he makes the mistake of assuming that the presence of an underlying crime is required to prove the corrupt intent. I don't think that's necessarily true, because that association seems to be made entirely to mislead people. Republicans don't want Trump to be guilty of collusion, but it's hard to deny that he is guilty of obstruction, so they need to make up some rule that Trump can only be guilty of obstruction if he is also guilty of collusion, so disproving the collusion would automatically disprove obstruction. That gaslighting isn't going to work, and pursuing Trump on charges of obstruction is well within reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the obstruction claim, Gottta say, him firing james, who was already rather unpopular on both sides of the fence, wouldn't be enough. especially considering that muller has been praised for his investigation thus far. if the complaint comes two years after the fact, then it really isn't worth digging into.

 

also, getting him on obstruction for a crime he didn't commit would literally be the most petty thing they could possibly hit him on. Obstruction is generally pinned onto things people are found guilty of, or on things there's true evidence proving. I'd like to hear what exactly in your opinion would justify bringing somebody in on a crime they have already been cleared on, under the claim of 'obstruction'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the obstruction claim, Gottta say, him firing james, who was already rather unpopular on both sides of the fence, wouldn't be enough. especially considering that muller has been praised for his investigation thus far. if the complaint comes two years after the fact, then it really isn't worth digging into.

 

also, getting him on obstruction for a crime he didn't commit would literally be the most petty thing they could possibly hit him on. Obstruction is generally pinned onto things people are found guilty of, or on things there's true evidence proving. I'd like to hear what exactly in your opinion would justify bringing somebody in on a crime they have already been cleared on, under the claim of 'obstruction'.

 

If someone is truly as innocent as the person who they hired for the specific purpose of clearing them claims they are, why bother going to the effort of concealing it? Why influence your associates to lie to FBI and Congress? Why fire the man who was investigating you? It's the same problem as why men like Manafort, Stone, or Cohen all lied in the investigation.

 

You both seem to believe that the "on a crime he didn't commit" part actually means anything. Putting aside that Congress has yet to actually clear them because they haven't seen the Mueller report, what matters is that Trump used underhanded tactics to end this investigation. Those tactics are more than enough to warrant a reasonable charge of obstruction against him. In my mind, if you're supposedly innocent (Because they guy you hired to tell everybody that you're innocent told everybody that you're innocent, except even he couldn't agree that Trump should be exonerated for obstruction of justice), and yet you still commit crimes anyway, then you should be charged for those crimes on their own merits.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/barr-letter-mueller-report-footnote-russia-coordination.html

 

Incidentally, here's some good analysis on why Barr's language choice is highly suspect. I don't want to misrepresent what the article says, just add that it's yet another reason why I refuse to agree that Trump was well and truly cleared unless the proper Mueller report establishes as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone is truly as innocent as the person who they hired for the specific purpose of clearing them claims they are, why bother going to the effort of concealing it? Why influence your associates to lie to FBI and Congress? Why fire the man who was investigating you? It's the same problem as why men like Manafort, Stone, or Cohen all lied in the investigation.

 

You both seem to believe that the "on a crime he didn't commit" part actually means anything. Putting aside that Congress has yet to actually clear them because they haven't seen the Mueller report, what matters is that Trump used underhanded tactics to end this investigation. Those tactics are more than enough to warrant a reasonable charge of obstruction against him. In my mind, if you're supposedly innocent (Because they guy you hired to tell everybody that you're innocent told everybody that you're innocent, except even he couldn't agree that Trump should be exonerated for obstruction of justice), and yet you still commit crimes anyway, then you should be charged for those crimes on their own merits.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/barr-letter-mueller-report-footnote-russia-coordination.html

 

Incidentally, here's some good analysis on why Barr's language choice is highly suspect. I don't want to misrepresent what the article says, just add that it's yet another reason why I refuse to agree that Trump was well and truly cleared unless the proper Mueller report establishes as such.

What exactly has he used to conceal himself? He has been hands off since almost the start of the investigation. ridiculing it, but never actually stopping it. there's zero evidence of him actually coercing anybody to lie, and some of the 'lies' wre about things that would actually exonerate him or his associates. why would he instruct them for that? he fired comey because everybody at the time wanted him gone. seriously, look back then, and you'd see that till he went aganst trump, damn near everybody hated him. People sung praises of muller, AKA the current leading investigator, for the past few years, so i don't really see what the problem is here. you conveniently forget that they all lied about things that had no effect overall. One was a mortgage fraud lie, the other lied about a discussion that proved he didn't collude, the third lied about a discussion that was about trump, but did not involve trump, and never actually amounted to anything of any substance. and got hit for things he did before ever meeting trump, and never actually connected any of those things to him.

 

It does. obstruction generally doesn't come into play when no crime is proven to have been committed. it can come into play, but at that point, it's effectively the same as arresting an innocent man for blocking details about a crime that never happened (aka collusion). which is why obstruction is a pointless arrest. it would be trying to pin him for blocking news on a crime he was proven to have never committed. he let it go on for 2 years. It was arguably the most in depth investigation into any politician ever, what tactics did he use? Because by those standards, it was a bad tactic. the merit is that he stopped investigation into a crime that never happened. in your mind that might be a good charge, but it's still a net loss considering you would be arresting somebody who never actually did the thing you started the investigation to find out about. 

 

How's this; going by everything we have right now, i'm right. it's that simple. but there's information that we still do not have. I will wait for the report in full, because in a few days it will drop. when it drops, we'll see people scampering all over it to find all the juicy details. I'm willing to bet once more, that they will get nothing to convict him on. If they do, no matter how small a conviction, i will grant you a full apology. If they don't, you will grant myself and winter a full apology. Agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How's this; going by everything we have right now, i'm right.

 

Yeah, see, this right here? This is why I'm not going to agree to your demand that I apologize to you and Winter. It's a hollow "compromise" because you don't expect to be proven wrong, but somehow I can't help but smile. I don't know why, but it amuses me.

 

I've explained time and again how he and his associates tried to bury this investigation in full view of the public, and you honestly do not care. People hated Comey because of his role regarding Clinton's emails. The left thought he should have stopped bothering with it, and the right thought he should have done more. He was either doing too much or not enough.

 

Sure, there are people who have praised Mueller, and there are just as many who attacked him because he was the leading investigator.

 

I didn't forget about the lies. It's just that when the lies actually do reflect on Trump, such as Roger Stone meeting with WikiLeaks, you disregard how that does connect to Trump, and how it did happen during the campaign.

 

Trump has attempted Nixon's tactics of attacking anyone who investigated him, which reminds me a bit about the Watergate scandal, which I dare say was even more in-depth than this investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, see, this right here? This is why I'm not going to agree to your demand that I apologize to you and Winter. It's a hollow "compromise" because you don't expect to be proven wrong, but somehow I can't help but smile. I don't know why, but it amuses me.

 

I've explained time and again how he and his associates tried to bury this investigation in full view of the public, and you honestly do not care. People hated Comey because of his role regarding Clinton's emails. The left thought he should have stopped bothering with it, and the right thought he should have done more. He was either doing too much or not enough.

 

Sure, there are people who have praised Mueller, and there are just as many who attacked him because he was the leading investigator.

 

I didn't forget about the lies. It's just that when the lies actually do reflect on Trump, such as Roger Stone meeting with WikiLeaks, you disregard how that does connect to Trump, and how it did happen during the campaign.

 

Trump has attempted Nixon's tactics of attacking anyone who investigated him, which reminds me a bit about the Watergate scandal, which I dare say was even more in-depth than this investigation.

I made that statement before, well before i was shown to be correct. My expectations are irrelevant. you are wrong, i have explained to you why your points are wrong, and i have absolute confidence in my explanations, as so far, i have been right every time. you, by your current statement, have doubts about your own position. i decided to place those doubts in the open, because things are already wrapping up on the muller probe. I i'm wrong i'd sit back, laugh, and hand it to you for being the winner of that bet. It's only hollow to you because you don't hae enough faith in your argument. like you said, they might get him on obstruction, and then you'd get to make me look like an arrogant idiot instead of an arrogant ass. It's a shot at an absolute win for you. Why not take it? I'm pretty sure winter would be delighted to get in on the bet too. have a little fun with us.

 

And i have explained how you were wrong. report will come out in a few days, we'll see who's argument holds up then.

 

Many of the same people attacking him are people who praised him at the start. seriously, CNN, MSNBC, TYT, ect, they all praised muller for the investigations. as have many democrats in the past few years. calling each new angle he looked into "the beginning of the end for trump" now look at them. Many of them now consider him to be worthless at the conclusion. these are their own words and actions. It tells me much of what i need to know about how they see trump.

 

And how he didn't get indited on anything that connects to trump?

The target of the investigation: Did trump, or anybody in his inner circle, collude with russia to steal the 2016 elections.

The conclusion (as far as we know): Nope. 

I rest my case for now. but again, we'll see when the full report comes out just how much more we've got to work with.

 

He talked sheet on twitter. sure. real sinister stuff there. the entire article you cite boils down to this: President Trump has publicly criticized federal investigations, opening him up to possible obstruction of justice charges. the entire article is grasping at straws. it atempts to make an argument based upon twitter tweets and things that with the conclussion of the muller probe, we can say (as far as we currently know) are not the case at all. probes over, nobody got nailed for collusion, and even the people caught got hit with unrelated charges in the end. the article is a flop right now. maybe it'll gain something once the report's public, but so far it has nothing but aggressive tweets and trump wondering, well before the probe was a thing, who he should appoint to offices that he already has the right to appoint people to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have faith in my argument, but I'm not so arrogant as to claim "I'm right and you're wrong" as though that were an objective fact.

 

I have no intention of "having a little fun" when you claim that everything I'm criticizing is irrelevant, but everything you focus on is totally relevant. This is not some game to bet on where you decide which cards can be played and every card I bring in should be thrown out.

 

What I don't have faith in is whether you would actually apologize. You've openly claimed time and again that you are right. You have turned this from a discussion about whether or not Trump is guilty of collusion into your own personal game where you're the winner and I'm the loser. You're trying to goad me into staking my ego on this, and I'd rather not agree to that.

 

This should be about what happens next regarding the report. Get over your pride and stop trying to score points.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently, my claim of being correct is a fact. there was no collusion as far as we know objectively.

 

That's why it's fun, you can disagree with me, and you might be proven right. I explain myself whenever i say such things. and i tend to only use character when i tell you that democrats will block everything trump does, which is something they themselves have already admitted to, and i have backed with ample past examples.

 

I would gladly do so. And you would have all rights to call me out were i wrong on the case. so far, i haven't had to do so, because the case has backed my claims, but were that not the case, what reason would i have not to? my ego's already staked, whether or not you agree with the little bet, i'll still go through with the apology, because i've already said i would, even before the results came in.

 

i will tell you exactly what i see happening next regarding the report. the report will come out in full, there will be nothing to stick on trump, there will be no obstruction of justice charges, CNN and the like will first declare further corruption, demanding more investigations as their ratings fall, and they will eventually find some small thing trump says after the report to latch onto, declaring a new report needs to be opened up (likely on his tax returns). all the while, I will sit back laughing as my predictions come true. That's my prediction. Now let's see what happens next. My ego is waiting patiently.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do not have the report, so your claim of being correct is not a fact. It is confirmation bias. For example, Barr explicitly declined to exonerate Trump on charges of obstruction, but you still claim that charging him for it would be no different than charging an innocent man. Your readiness to claim that Trump is entirely innocent of obstruction has already been contradicted by the summary. So no, you don't get to claim that you're objectively correct..

 

Again you make a full-fledged prediction, and anticipate to gloat. So yeah, I don't expect an apology. I fully expect that if Congress were to find sufficient evidence to advocate for further indictments, you will call them petty, claim that the evidence they cite is irrelevant, and insist that you're still entirely right.

 

If the report showed that there was no collusion, why is it taking so long to reveal the report? If it would exonerate Trump, we should have seen it by now. I understand that there are some legal restrictions, but to have the release blocked by McConnell tells me that he and perhaps others among the GOP are afraid of what the real report contains.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Buzzfeed lied about Mueller's findings, he corrected them within a half an hour

 

But sure, he's just going to let his best friend, who he attends church with lie about his findings all while working with said friend to redact the report of Nat Sec + Grand Jury details

 

Totally. Barr Truthers who are like "Barr is Trump's hand picked clean up man" are bananas 

 

As for the obstruction case, I guess certain people like Roxas must have seen the report and had information that Mueller does not, because while mueller said he does not exonerate on obstruction he also says he did not convict. 

 

This was quoted from the report. All Barr said was his decision to not indict on obstruction was NOT based on the DoJ rules about not indicting sitting presidents. 

 

The reaches here are kinda sad to watch


Can you guys act like civilized people for a change? Demanding apologies is not what civilized people do. Furthermore, prematurely claiming victory without the report is idiotic at best, and that goes for both sides. Debate intelligently or leave.

??

 

Slandering people of treason for 2 years and then patronizing people who voted for said 'traitor' that they were suckered into voting for said 'traitor' by bad memes also isn't what decent people do. Imagine my shock - my utter shock - when the decent moral police, many of whom comment in this thread made those accusations all the same. 

 

You lost the right to speak about decency when your side engaged in this coup. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/house-judiciary-subpoena-full-muller-report/index.html

 

The House Judiciary Committee will vote on Wednesday to subpoena for the full Mueller report, as well as subpoenas towards former White House staffers. Jerry Nadler argues that William Barr should work with Congress to provide the full report, as well as to help authorize the public release of grand jury material, which is the primary obstacle in making the report 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/house-judiciary-subpoena-full-muller-report/index.html

 

The House Judiciary Committee will vote on Wednesday to subpoena for the full Mueller report, as well as subpoenas towards former White House staffers. Jerry Nadler argues that William Barr should work with Congress to provide the full report, as well as to help authorize the public release of grand jury material, which is the primary obstacle in making the report 

Jesus Christ, he already said he will release it mid april. What a grandstand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...