8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm confused. Far as I know, Trump has the right to fire any political appointee to the Justice department, but some are saying he doesn't have that right.

Anyone know for sure?

" The law that created the position of special counsel allows only the attorney general of the United States or someone else with the authority of that position to fire Mueller, Wine-Banks noted. The president cannot do it. "   https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/can-trump-fire-special-counsel-mueller-heres-what-could-happen-if-he-tries.html

7 hours ago, Ahab said:

Mueller has actually stated that he had no issues with the accuracy of Barr's statement, but had issues because it did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of the investigation. Which is probably why the press and members of the Democratic party don't understand that obstruction of justice (for a crime that did not exist) didn't occur. For over two years these same idiots have been screaming like spoiled children that Trump was an agent of Russia, or that he committed treason, or he was colluding with Russia to win the election. All these claims have been completely debunked by the Mueller report, but these ignorant politicians and news agencies won't admit they have been completely wrong for the last two plus years. It would be nice if they would admit they made mistakes and apologize for their erroneous new stories over course of the investigation. I don't think I will be holding my breath waiting for that scenario to unfold.

 

Maybe someone on this forum can explain to me exactly how can someone obstruct "justice" when the underlying crime being investigated has been determined to never have occurred? So while I agree it might be possible to "obstruct" an investigation, if there was no crime in the first place was "justice" really obstructed in any meaningful way? 

" Which is probably why the press and members of the Democratic party don't understand that obstruction of justice (for a crime that did not exist) didn't occur. "

 

No, the reason you don't understand that obstruction of justice didn't occur is because you have made no attempt to read or understand the Mueller report.

 

"Maybe someone on this forum can explain to me exactly how can someone obstruct "justice" when the underlying crime being investigated has been determined to never have occurred?"

 

It's been explained many times:

 

" Three elements are generally required for a conviction on obstruction of justice: the existence of a pending federal judicial proceeding; the defendant’s knowledge of this proceeding; and the defendant’s corrupt intent to interfere with, or attempt to interfere with, the proceeding. "  https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/25/martha-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/

 

All three elements have clearly been met.

Edited May 1, 20197 yr by heybruce

13 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

This sentence is nonsense.  Obstruction of justice is, itself, a crime.

 

 

Yes.  Obstruction of justice is, itself, a crime.  Would you argue that bank robbers committed no crime as long as they didn't get away with any money?  You know, they didn't actually steal anything?

 

Hie thee to Findlaw, where you'll learn that 

 

"Obstruction of justice is defined by federal statute as any "interference with the orderly administration of law and justice" and governed by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1521. Federal code identifies more than 20 specific types of obstruction, including "Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees" (18 U.S.C. § 1505), the specific code section cited in the Nixon and Clinton articles of impeachment."

 

Other ways an individual may commit this offense include, but are not limited to, the following acts:

 

• Influencing or injuring an officer or juror generally
• Obstruction of criminal investigations
• Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
• Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant
• Destruction of corporate audit records

 

 

 

It seems you forgot the elements required in order to get a conviction. Number one and two are easy to establish, the problem is with element number three.

 

Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that someone has "corrupt intent to interfere" with the proceeding investigating a crime (which the person being investigated knows did not occur) it a high bar. Your example above involving bank robbery would be applicable except in this case there was no bank robbery in the first place, so there was no money to not get away with. It is highly likely that proving the allegations of corrupt intent beyond a reasonable doubt is a bar that is too high to bring the case to trial.  It was in this case anyway.

 

Elements of an Obstruction of Justice Charge

The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge differ slightly by code section. For instance, prosecutors must prove the following elements for a conviction under section 1503 of the federal statute (influencing or injuring an officer or juror):

1. There was a pending federal judicial proceeding;
2. The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
3. The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.

Well just watched Barr before Congress no doubt any longer mr Barr is ag in name only plane as day he is Donald’s boy who is representing the USA ? Certainly not mr Barr 

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

It seems you forgot the elements required in order to get a conviction. Number one and two are easy to establish, the problem is with element number three.

 

Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that someone has "corrupt intent to interfere" with the proceeding investigating a crime (which the person being investigated knows did not occur) it a high bar. Your example above involving bank robbery would be applicable except in this case there was no bank robbery in the first place, so there was no money to not get away with. It is highly likely that proving the allegations of corrupt intent beyond a reasonable doubt is a bar that is too high to bring the case to trial.  It was in this case anyway.

 

Elements of an Obstruction of Justice Charge

The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge differ slightly by code section. For instance, prosecutors must prove the following elements for a conviction under section 1503 of the federal statute (influencing or injuring an officer or juror):

1. There was a pending federal judicial proceeding;
2. The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
3. The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.

Nonsense. Your post assumes that the interference with the investigation was unsuccessful. Who knows if Trump's repeated attempts to witness intimidation succeeded or not? That's why it's a crime to engage in such behavior regardless of the outcome of an investigation.

4 hours ago, Tug said:

Well just watched Barr before Congress no doubt any longer mr Barr is ag in name only plane as day he is Donald’s boy who is representing the USA ? Certainly not mr Barr 

Slight correction, Barr was before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

He’s announced he’s bailing out on his appearance before the House. He will of course be compelled to show up but after watching Kamala Harris destroy Barr’s credibility in 5 minutes I can understand entirely why Barr does not wish to face the House.

 

The part Barr is playing in handing Trump control over the judiciary is in plain sight, I shudder to think where Trump’s power grab would be heading now if Democrats had not won the house at the mid-terms.

 

Edited May 2, 20197 yr by Chomper Higgot

14 hours ago, heybruce said:

" Which is probably why the press and members of the Democratic party don't understand that obstruction of justice (for a crime that did not exist) didn't occur. "

 

No, the reason you don't understand that obstruction of justice didn't occur is because you have made no attempt to read or understand the Mueller report.

 

"Maybe someone on this forum can explain to me exactly how can someone obstruct "justice" when the underlying crime being investigated has been determined to never have occurred?"

 

It's been explained many times:

 

" Three elements are generally required for a conviction on obstruction of justice: the existence of a pending federal judicial proceeding; the defendant’s knowledge of this proceeding; and the defendant’s corrupt intent to interfere with, or attempt to interfere with, the proceeding. "  https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/25/martha-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/

 

All three elements have clearly been met.

the defendant’s corrupt intent to interfere with, or attempt to interfere with, the proceeding. " 

Unless a CREDIBLE eye witness that heard Trump actually say he intended to interfere for some corrupt reason can be produced, that's not going to stand.

Just saying to someone that he wanted to get rid of Mueller would not be "corrupt" in a legal sense.

Unless such a witness is forthcoming, don't expect any joy from that.

Edited May 2, 20197 yr by thaibeachlovers

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Slight correction, Barr was before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

He’s announced he’s bailing out on his appearance before the House. He will of course be compelled to show up but after watching Kamala Harris destroy Barr’s credibility in 5 minutes I can understand entirely why Barr does not wish to face the House.

 

The part Barr is playing in handing Trump control over the judiciary is in plain sight, I shudder to think where Trump’s power grab would be heading now if Democrats had not won the house at the mid-terms.

 

If Barr turns up I would not be surprised if he refused to answer on the advice of his attorney.

Edited May 2, 20197 yr by thaibeachlovers

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If Barr turns up I expect him to refuse to answer on the advice of his attorney.

That would make great optics for an administration claiming it has nothing to hide.

 

And might also be a little late given the evidence that Barr has already committed perjury.

59 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

the defendant’s corrupt intent to interfere with, or attempt to interfere with, the proceeding. " 

Unless a CREDIBLE eye witness that heard Trump actually say he intended to interfere for some corrupt reason can be produced, that's not going to stand.

Just saying to someone that he wanted to get rid of Mueller would not be "corrupt" in a legal sense.

Unless such a witness is forthcoming, don't expect any joy from that.

Right.  And if a pimp tells his women to go out and make money without saying, on record, to make money corruptly, he can just claim to be an innocent matchmaker.

Just now, heybruce said:

Right.  And if a pimp tells his women to go out and make money without saying, on record, to make money corruptly, he can just claim to be an innocent matchmaker.

Can we keep this thread above the waist line, puleese.

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Can we keep this thread above the waist line, puleese.

No.  If President Clinton had said he never had corrupt intentions with Monica Lewinski, would you and others have let it go with that?

 

Will you at least acknowledge how ridiculous your "corrupt intentions" standard is?  Is a bank robber just an honest person in need of money unless he says, in front of witnesses, that he robbed the band for corrupt reasons?

 

Trump wanted to shut down the investigation for self-serving reasons.  He didn't care about rule of law and the integrity of US elections.  That is corrupt enough for me.

*Deleted post edited out*

Common law has always rested on precedent, and that the main task of common lawyers has always been to locate and cite previous judicial opinions. Lower courts will typically follow the opinions of higher courts. 

Edited May 2, 20197 yr by Scott

On 4/4/2019 at 10:48 AM, roobaa01 said:

the usual dem and hoax media propaganda.

 

wbr

roobaa01

Hoax media propaganda? Really? So Mueller and his team are 100% on board with Mueller's findings?

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Hoax media propaganda? Really? So Mueller and his team are 100% on board with Mueller's findings?

The only thing I'm surprised at, is that Mueller and his team of Democrat supporters, couldn't manufacture enough evidence to prosecute Trump. I guess they didn't get paid enough.

They had to dig pretty hard and deep to get what they did, on Manafort, etc. I hope(actually I hope they rot in jail) Comey, Brennan, and the others can withstand that scrutiny.

4 minutes ago, beechguy said:

The only thing I'm surprised at, is that Mueller and his team of Democrat supporters, couldn't manufacture enough evidence to prosecute Trump. I guess they didn't get paid enough.

They had to dig pretty hard and deep to get what they did, on Manafort, etc. I hope(actually I hope they rot in jail) Comey, Brennan, and the others can withstand that scrutiny.

You can't grasp the concept of Mueller doing a thorough unbiased investigation, can you?  In your mind the only way to conduct an investigation is to draw the desired conclusion and gather or invent evidence to support it.

*Deleted post edited out*

 

In fact, it is a matter of settled law that evidence to convict for obstruction of justice is sufficient when not just one, but  a series of acts are clearly shown to have a similar influence on the course of justice. It's ridiculous to assert that you need an eye witness to testify that the person accused of obstructing justice actually revealed his motives.

19 minutes ago, beechguy said:

I grasp concepts very well, I base my opinions on past performance. As to Hillary, her testimony before Congress provided enough information to indict, but she had the head of the FBI, and an AG covering for her. Fact.

Did you find factual errors in the Mueller report?  Did you read it?

 

What testimony provided sufficient information to indict Hillary?

26 minutes ago, beechguy said:

I grasp concepts very well, I base my opinions on past performance. As to Hillary, her testimony before Congress provided enough information to indict, but she had the head of the FBI, and an AG covering for her. Fact.

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Did you find factual errors in the Mueller report?  Did you read it?

 

What testimony provided sufficient information to indict Hillary?

Hey, if he says his opinion is a fact. who are we to quarrel with him?

 

 

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

 

On 4/23/2019 at 2:55 AM, lannarebirth said:

 

He's not someone you'd want to have a beer with and then catch a game. No, not at all.

Yes he is someone you'd want to have a beer with and then catch a game. Yes he is as a true Patriot draining the swamp.

 

Muller found nothing so as Trump was not guilty of this political circus, no wonder he didn't want to co operate what innocent person would assist his enemies in their Whitchurch hunt.

 

The Dems fired their powder too early and now just look bitter and twisted.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Patriot1066 said:

Yes he is someone you'd want to have a beer with and then catch a game. Yes he is as a true Patriot draining the swamp.

 

Muller found nothing so as Trump was not guilty of this political circus, no wonder he didn't want to co operate what innocent person would assist his enemies in their Whitchurch hunt.

 

The Dems fired their powder too early and now just look bitter and twisted.

 

 

You are watching coverage of this scandal aren’t you?and something other than Fox News or brietbart?you are aware that muller called Barr out for misrepresenting his report correct??mr Barr is in contempt and is actively stone walling with the trump adm.he is supposed to be the ag for the USA not donald

2 hours ago, Patriot1066 said:

Yes he is someone you'd want to have a beer with and then catch a game. Yes he is as a true Patriot draining the swamp.

 

Muller found nothing so as Trump was not guilty of this political circus, no wonder he didn't want to co operate what innocent person would assist his enemies in their Whitchurch hunt.

 

The Dems fired their powder too early and now just look bitter and twisted.

 

 

Wow, you had to go back to April 22 to find a post you thought you could reply to, then you got everything wrong.

 

Trump isn't draining the swamp.  Anyone paying attention to the lobbyists and industry toads he's appointing can see he is putting foxes in charge of the hen houses.  They're not even clever foxes, they make their intentions obvious.

 

Mueller concluded he had insufficient evidence to prosecute for conspiracy, though it was clearly a close call (read the report).  He also concluded he shouldn't charge the President with obstruction because he couldn't be indicted and defend himself in court, not because there was insufficient evidence to indict.  "found nothing" and "not guilty" is definitely wrong.

 

What innocent person would cooperate with the Justice Department and prove his innocence?  The ones with any brains at all.

3 hours ago, Tug said:

You are watching coverage of this scandal aren’t you?and something other than Fox News or brietbart?

"While they continue to pathetically and pointlessly stamp their feet and scream blue murder at not getting what they want, like toddlers who’ve had their rattles taken away, Trump’s laughing all the way to the electoral bank."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6989713/Dumb-deluded-Democrats-screech-impeachment-Trumps-firing-economy-landslide.html

29 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

"While they continue to pathetically and pointlessly stamp their feet and scream blue murder at not getting what they want, like toddlers who’ve had their rattles taken away, Trump’s laughing all the way to the electoral bank."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6989713/Dumb-deluded-Democrats-screech-impeachment-Trumps-firing-economy-landslide.html

The Daily Mail -really you couldn't make this up.

 

As repeatedly factually stated Mueller could not bring criminal charges against trump as he is a sitting President. Impossible to impeach due to current Republican majority in the Senate (putting aside the additional damage trump would attempt to cause to the Rule of Law if he were to be subject to impeachment process). In other words in the USA you have an individual who is currently above the law. a view supported by a thoroughly compromised AG. Surely the current situation should trigger a review of relevant Constitutional and legal frameworks as major architectural flaws in governance / oversight enforcement

Edited May 3, 20197 yr by simple1

2 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

"While they continue to pathetically and pointlessly stamp their feet and scream blue murder at not getting what they want, like toddlers who’ve had their rattles taken away, Trump’s laughing all the way to the electoral bank."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6989713/Dumb-deluded-Democrats-screech-impeachment-Trumps-firing-economy-landslide.html

Remember when the economy was climbing out of a deep hole from the time of the Bush administration and all the conservatives could talk about was how big the deficit was? 

 

I wonder why these conservatives aren't concerned by Trump driving the country to trillion dollar annual deficits while the economy is strong.  Surely they know that when the next recession hits even more deficit spending will be needed, which could drive the US to "point of no return" national debt levels.

 

Are conservatives that stupid?  Or are they only concerned about deficit spending when a Democrat is in the White House?

Awww don’t be to hard on them their boy probably won’t be running against a woman plus now Donald is exposed for what he is

Troll post removed.

 

14 hours ago, Tug said:

Awww don’t be to hard on them their boy probably won’t be running against a woman plus now Donald is exposed for what he is

He will be reelected, and you'll still be moaning. 

14 hours ago, heybruce said:

Remember when the economy was climbing out of a deep hole from the time of the Bush administration and all the conservatives could talk about was how big the deficit was? 

 

I wonder why these conservatives aren't concerned by Trump driving the country to trillion dollar annual deficits while the economy is strong.  Surely they know that when the next recession hits even more deficit spending will be needed, which could drive the US to "point of no return" national debt levels.

 

Are conservatives that stupid?  Or are they only concerned about deficit spending when a Democrat is in the White House?

I wonder why these liberals were never concerned about the 9 TRILLION in debt amassed by the previous administration