What's new
By:
Filters

Four oil tankers sabotaged

fishonjazz said:
I'm sure you are cool with obstruction of justice.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

Trump’s obstruction of Justice is discussed in great detail in vol II. Yet, Carbon hasn’t bothered to read vol I yet. Or any of the summaries. Nor does he seem to care that 800 federal prosecutors have signed on that trump obstructed justice.

Some people are just blind in their own partisanship. Either that, or he’s just trolling for fun.
 
fishonjazz said:
I'm sure you are cool with obstruction of justice.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
I’m not actually. It’s funny how the conversation changed from collusion to obstruction of justice once main stream media realized their revenue stream was about to dry up. I would not be surprised if Trump obstructed justice. I would also like to see his tax returns. I still can’t believe he gloated about his ability to evade taxes. Government is comedy now.
 
The Thriller said:
Trump’s obstruction of Justice is discussed in great detail in vol II. Yet, Carbon hasn’t bothered to read vol I yet. Or any of the summaries. Nor does he seem to care that 800 federal prosecutors have signed on that trump obstructed justice.

Some people are just blind in their own partisanship. Either that, or he’s just trolling for fun.
Click to expand...
Let me know when you get to the part where they indict Americans. Make sure you tell Mueller about it too.
 
The Mueller report showed that Trump and Russia were friends with benefits:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/na...-camp-were-friends-benefits-collusion-n996101

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/18/18484965/mueller-report-trump-no-collusion

....Although Attorney General William Barr said that there was “no collusion” in his press conference before the report’s release, Mueller is actually quite explicit that he did not address the question of “collusion.” This is because, to his mind, the term is not precise enough, nor does it fall within the ambit of what was essentially a criminal investigation.

“Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law,” Mueller writes. “For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.”

So when Mueller concludes that he “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” he is not saying that there is no evidence of “collusion” at all, in any sense. What he is saying is that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Trump administration was directly involved in Russian crimes like stealing Clinton’s emails.

But did the Trump campaign actively work with the Russian government to improve its electoral chances? If that’s the standard, then the report provides plenty of evidence to suggest the answer is yes.
 
I’d also like to point out the we seem to be coming to a fork in the road and I want to be clear.

Collusion: no evidence and Trump is cleared

Obstruction: I am in agreement with the rest of the board

General shadiness: I am in agreement with the rest of the board

Trump is a piece of ****: I am in agreement with the rest of the board
 
Red said:
The Mueller report showed that Trump and Russia were friends with benefits:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/na...-camp-were-friends-benefits-collusion-n996101

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/18/18484965/mueller-report-trump-no-collusion

....Although Attorney General William Barr said that there was “no collusion” in his press conference before the report’s release, Mueller is actually quite explicit that he did not address the question of “collusion.” This is because, to his mind, the term is not precise enough, nor does it fall within the ambit of what was essentially a criminal investigation.

“Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law,” Mueller writes. “For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.”

So when Mueller concludes that he “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” he is not saying that there is no evidence of “collusion” at all, in any sense. What he is saying is that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Trump administration was directly involved in Russian crimes like stealing Clinton’s emails.

But did the Trump campaign actively work with the Russian government to improve its electoral chances? If that’s the standard, then the report provides plenty of evidence to suggest the answer is yes.
Click to expand...
Ok...

I don’t disagree that trump is unethical, but what he did was not illegal. There is a difference.
 
In his press conference prior to releasing the redacted version of the Mueller report, Barr, acting more like Trump's defense attorney, argued that the president was angry at being accused of a crime he did not commit, and that that explains his acts that would otherwise appear to be "obstruction of justice". Of course, the AG of the United States has no business weighing in with personal interpretations like that.

Mueller made it clear he expected Congress to examine the obstruction of justice component of the report. Barr had already used the false argument that there can be no obstruction if there was no underlying crime, specifically, the crime being in this case Trump coordinating or conspiring with Russia.

Since then AG Barr has issued a warning to Democrats, suggesting that they are attacking his credibility because they fear the conclusions that will be forthcoming from Barr's investigation of the investigators. It is extraordinary to see what should be an independent AG actually warn an entire political party that they will not like the conclusions of a report that is still ongoing, and that has not yet reached any conclusion at all. Barr has even said, if he were the president, he would likely use the term "witch hunt" as well to describe the Mueller probe. This is the AG of the United States acting as a defense council of the president.

As to the seriousness of obstruction of justice, whether or not it obstructs any underlying crime, correct me if I am mistaken, but committing obstruction of justice under either scenario demonstrates that a president is attempting to derail the rule of law. And that is why no underlying crime need to have occurred. The report showed several instances where more then 900 former prosecutors found obstruction of justice did occur. Obstruction of justice by a president is attempting to overrule the rule of law, in a nation founded on the rule of law. That is a criminal offense.

The president and his supporters within the GOP and conservative media have erected an entire Deep State conspiracy theory to discredit the Mueller report and suggest it should never have been launched. All this by a man who claims innocence of collusion and obstruction.
 
Carbon13 said:
Ok...

I don’t disagree that trump is unethical, but what he did was not illegal. There is a difference.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have understood this from the start, I believe. And this is one reason the use of the "no collusion" mantra, by Trump, by Barr, by the media, has helped gloss over the fact that Trump was glad to get any help Russia had to offer his campaign for president.
 
Red said:
In his press conference prior to releasing the redacted version of the Mueller report, Barr, acting more like Trump's defense attorney, argued that the president was angry at being accused of a crime he did not commit, and that that explains his acts that would otherwise appear to be "obstruction of justice". Of course, the AG of the United States has no business weighing in with personal interpretations like that.

Mueller made it clear he expected Congress to examine the obstruction of justice component of the report. Barr had already used the false argument that there can be no obstruction if there was no underlying crime, specifically, the crime being in this case Trump coordinating or conspiring with Russia.

Since then AG Barr has issued a warning to Democrats, suggesting that they are attacking his credibility because they fear the conclusions that will be forthcoming from Barr's investigation of the investigators. It is extraordinary to see what should be an independent AG actually warn an entire political party that they will not like the conclusions of a report that is still ongoing, and that has not yet reached any conclusion at all. Barr has even said, if he were the president, he would likely use the term "witch hunt" as well to describe the Mueller probe. This is the AG of the United States acting as a defense council of the president.

As to the seriousness of obstruction of justice, whether or not it obstructs any underlying crime, correct me if I am mistaken, but committing obstruction of justice under either scenario demonstrates that a president is attempting to derail the rule of law. And that is why no underlying crime need to have occurred. The report showed several instances where more then 900 former prosecutors found obstruction of justice did occur. Obstruction of justice by a president is attempting to overrule the rule of law, in a nation founded on the rule of law. That is a criminal offense.

The president and his supporters within the GOP and conservative media have erected an entire Deep State conspiracy theory to discredit the Mueller report and suggest it should never have been launched. All this by a man who claims innocence of collusion and obstruction.
Click to expand...

Do I think he obstructed? Probably.

Gonna be hard to prove intent though, when in the eyes of the law, there was no underlying crime to obstruct.
 
Carbon13 said:
Ok...

I don’t disagree that trump is unethical, but what he did was not illegal. There is a difference.
Click to expand...
You mean what he did (obstruction of justice) is illegal but because he is president he can't be indicted for it.
It's amazing how many times this has to be brought up and you still can't grasp it

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
You mean what he did (obstruction of justice) is illegal but because he is president he can't be indicted for it.
It's amazing how many times this has to be brought up and you still can't grasp it

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

I e seen this posted at least twice in this thread so far. His comeback will be something like... “I’m not a trump defender but where are all the indictments?” To which someone will list a bunch of them. And he’ll continue in his circular logic, “it was a waste of time because trump didn’t collude!”

One thing that cannot he emphasized enough. Republicans didn’t believe you needed to be convicted of any crime to be impeached. Impeachment was the cleansing of the office:

 
Carbon13 said:
Do I think he obstructed? Probably.

Gonna be hard to prove intent though, when in the eyes of the law, there was no underlying crime to obstruct.
Click to expand...

900+ former prosecutors, serving in both Republican and Democratic administrations felt the case for obstruction was solid enough to warrant charges, were Trump a civilian. At least 5 of the 10 potential instances of obstruction of justice cited by Mueller, satisfied all 3 conditions to prove obstruction, the third condition being "intent".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top