31 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I asked a question you refuse to answer and I am being dishonest, indeed.

So according to you, his crime is interfering with an investigation of a crime he didn’t commit.

If there was no crime, how is there obstruction?

 

You were being disingenuous for sure. 

 

Where did the "he didn't commit" come from? That has yet to be proven, although as you should have seen from earlier posts, 700 lawyers are convinced that there is evidence of criminal obstruction.

You were being disingenuous for sure. 
 
Where did the "he didn't commit" come from? That has yet to be proven, although as you should have seen from earlier posts, 700 lawyers are convinced that there is evidence of criminal obstruction.

How was I being disingenuous?

What crime (obstruction aside) are you convinced he committed that was being investigated when the alleged obstruction was committed?

There are easily as many attorneys that believe without an underlying crime, there is no obstruction of justice.

Was he not under investigation for being an agent of Russia working against the interest of the United States? Do you believe he is guilty of that crime and but for his “obstruction” Mueller would have proven that?

Has not Mueller indicated Trump significantly hinder his investigation?

With over a million lawyers in the US, I’ve got $50 says the Times can find 700 lawyers that claim President Obama was born in Kenya, does that prove it?

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

How is he obstructing Congress, by not voluntarily leaving office?

 

 

24 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

How was I being disingenuous?

What crime (obstruction aside) are you convinced he committed that was being investigated when the alleged obstruction was committed?

There are easily as many attorneys that believe without an underlying crime, there is no obstruction of justice.

Was he not under investigation for being an agent of Russia working against the interest of the United States? Do you believe he is guilty of that crime and but for his “obstruction” Mueller would have proven that?

Has not Mueller indicated Trump significantly hinder his investigation?

With over a million lawyers in the US, I’ve got $50 says the Times can find 700 lawyers that claim President Obama was born in Kenya, does that prove it?

 

 

There you go again. It's the "obstruction aside" that's disingenuous. Clearly.

5 hours ago, mogandave said:

I asked a question you refuse to answer and I am being dishonest, indeed.

So according to you, his crime is interfering with an investigation of a crime he didn’t commit.

If there was no crime, how is there obstruction?

 

 

I don't know how to make this any clearer.  Obstruction of justice is, itself, a crime.  I am perfectly willing to cite the relevant statute and list the examples of the different kinds of obstruction that Trump has committed, but I believe you're not interested in understanding the law.  You are tossing out a lot of "gotcha" questions, hoping that nobody has an answer.

 

I answered you.  Do not keep saying that I refused to answer you, because I did.  Here, I'll answer again:  The crime is obstruction of justice.  Now I've answered you twice.  You don't think that's a crime?  Well you're wrong; simple as that.  Here's an example of how wrong you are.  From a former federal prosecutor:
 

 

People get charged and convicted of obstruction of justice even when there's no underlying crime.  If you can't understand why witness tampering and asking federal employees to lie to conceal your misdeeds (among other things) is obstruction of justice, then you simply do not understand the law.

And if that wasn't enough, listen to Barr himself describe what obstruction of justice is:
 

Klobuchar: A president persuading a person to commit perjury would be obstruction, yes?

Barr: Yes.

 

Klobuchar: A president or any person convincing a witness to change testimony would be obstruction.  Is that right?

Barr: Yes.

 

Klobuchar: A president deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence would be obstruction, is that correct?

Barr: Yes.

 

His answers were unconditional.  He didn't say "as long as there is an underlying crime".

Need more?  Try this:

 

Three days ago the Justice Department - William Barr's Justice Department - brought an obstruction of justice charge against a former FBI agent with no underlying crime.

 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/former-fbi-linguist-arrested-and-indicted-obstruction-charges

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

Need more?  Try this:

 

Three days ago the Justice Department - William Barr's Justice Department - brought an obstruction of justice charge against a former FBI agent with no underlying crime.

 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/former-fbi-linguist-arrested-and-indicted-obstruction-charges

Who are you comparing this fbi guy to 

They are scared of Barr and the contempt thing is laughable. No shatz were given.

Off-topic posts and replies removed.  

 

22 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

They are scared of Barr and the contempt thing is laughable. No shatz were given.

See the fear

 

Nixon's AG...just sayin'

 

 

Need more?  Try this:
 
Three days ago the Justice Department - William Barr's Justice Department - brought an obstruction of justice charge against a former FBI agent with no underlying crime.
 
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/former-fbi-linguist-arrested-and-indicted-obstruction-charges

He is being charged with making false statements and obstruction. The obstruction charge could (and is likely) related to the terrorist he was investigating/colluding with.

16 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

I asked a question you refuse to answer and I am being dishonest, indeed.

So according to you, his crime is interfering with an investigation of a crime he didn’t commit.

If there was no crime, how is there obstruction?

 

It should be painfully obvious why there could be a charge of obstruction. Let me spell it out for you. If someone either threatens witnesses if they cooperate with a prosecution or gives them a reason to hope for a reward such as a pardon if they don't, he or she may well succeed in thwarting the investigation. That's why. 

 
I don't know how to make this any clearer.  Obstruction of justice is, itself, a crime.  I am perfectly willing to cite the relevant statute and list the examples of the different kinds of obstruction that Trump has committed, but I believe you're not interested in understanding the law.

Thank you for the clarification. I am very much interested in understanding the law and would appreciate your listing the actual obstruction offenses Trump should be charged with.

10 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Thank you for the clarification. I am very much interested in understanding the law and would appreciate your listing the actual obstruction offenses Trump should be charged with.

 

I think that the Mueller report made that pretty clear when it explicitly stated the the report did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice charges. Which is why it went to such lengths to record in detail all the instances.

It should be painfully obvious why there could be a charge of obstruction. Let me spell it out for you. If someone either threatens witnesses if they cooperate with a prosecution or gives them a reason to hope for a reward such as a pardon if they don't, he or she may well succeed in thwarting the investigation. That's why. 

I would think it pertains to threatening witnesses for either the prosecution or the defense, but in any event, if someone is threatening or offering a reward to a witness for the prosecution (or defense) it would absolutely be obstruction of justice. To be clear, I do not now, nor have I ever meant to imply it would not be.

That said, to interfere with a prosecution, does there not have to be a case to interfere with?

Just now, mogandave said:

 

I would think it pertains to threatening witnesses for either the prosecution or the defense, but in any event, if someone is threatening or offering a reward to a witness for the prosecution (or defense) it would absolutely be obstruction of justice. To be clear, I do not now, nor have I ever meant to imply it would not be.

That said, to interfere with a prosecution, does there not have to be a case to interfere with?

 

No. Interfering with an investigation is grounds enough.

I think that the Mueller report made that pretty clear when it explicitly stated the the report did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice charges. Which is why it went to such lengths to record in detail all the instances.

I assumed as much, but given the report is (apparently) over 300 pages I fount the offer of a quick summary attractive.

13 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

I assumed as much, but given the report is (apparently) over 300 pages I fount the offer of a quick summary attractive.

 

That's what Barr was counting on.

That's what Barr was counting on.

I thought he was counting on a pardon and a golden parachute, no?