The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (10 Viewers)

[Biff84]

Damn. I'd never heard about this Long stuff.  If this is indeed Pelosi's rationale for not bringing the hammer down, then I will retract my statements calling her a coward in violation of her oath of office.

Also, SiD, since my last post regarding this was deleted, well done posting this without responding to certain posters who are only here to stir the pot, be jerks, report people, and waste you and others' time. You are a credit to this forum.

I think her strategy is to use Trump’s behavior to build more of consensus for impeachment before she publicly talks about it. I think that she knows impeachment is the way to go but doesn’t want that to be her public position until it’s clear there is no other option.

Start too early and it’s written off as a partisan play. Wait until Trump makes the case stronger and it will look much better. And that time is coming up quickly.

 

[Don't Noonan]

I haven't posted in here much recently but i'll take a crack.

There's a large number of crimes under investigation.  

First the Mueller report investigated Russian "collusion" or whatever you want to call it.  Mueller was unable to conclusively show coordination between the activities, but did show activities between Russia and the trump campaign that appear to have been timed to benefit both parties.  

This is relevant because the Mueller report clearly shows evidence of obstruction of justice.  Whether that's enough to convict is a separate conversation - there's no question that there's substantial evidence.  If that obstruction prevented Mueller from getting evidence of coordination, that's a really big deal.  I understand that you give Trump the benefit of the doubt, but there is a good reason that "obstruction" is being taken so seriously in this case. At minimum there were attempts to delay or disrupt the investigation.  That's a big deal in and of itself.  But if it was done to prevent discovery of underlying crimes, that may be the biggest cover up in US history.  

As for financial records, a number of crimes have been alleged and/or charged related to his finances.  I'm sure you're familiar with the stormy daniels campaign finance allegations.  You're also aware that Cohen provided information about other possible crimes such as fraudulently reporting the value of assets when paying taxes and acquiring loans using those assets.  His tax returns and financial records provide evidence of possible crimes before and after he was in office.  They may also provide evidence of inappropriate payments - from foreign governments, or campaign finance violations, or for pay to play politics, or emoluments.  

And emoluments are constitutionally prohibited.  That's absolutely something Congress should be looking at.  We're already seeing examples of inappropriate relationships including a bank CEO who gave Manafort huge loans to get political access. We've also seen millions and millions of dollars spent at mar a lago and the trump hotels, some of which may not be legally appropriate.  

Considering that trump just implied that a meeting on infrastructure would be canceled until the cancellation of a congressional investigation into himself, there's a clear pattern of him using his political power for personal gain.  

And at least one of is attempts to tie up investigative requests in the courts have been dismissed as frivolous - not illegal, but an attempt to make it more difficult to investigate.  

So I think it's reasonable to say that continued investigation is warranted, and that trump continues to attempt to make it difficult to do so.  That is literally the definition of a cover up.  

I don't expect a response, but thought your question deserved an answer. 

Thanks for your response.  I obviously disagree that continued investigations are warranted.  We waited 2 years for the results of the Mueller investigation and I am of the opinion we need to adhere to it.  No collusion, possible obstruction which our Attorney General ruled no obstruction.  More importantly, with no underlying crime what exactly can Trump be obstructing?  He gave Mueller everything he asked for and now the Dems want a do over.

 

[-fish-]

Thanks for your response.  I obviously disagree that continued investigations are warranted.  We waited 2 years for the results of the Mueller investigation and I am of the opinion we need to adhere to it.  No collusion, possible obstruction which our Attorney General ruled no obstruction.  More importantly, with no underlying crime what exactly can Trump be obstructing?  He gave Mueller everything he asked for and now the Dems want a do over.

Let's say I kill someone.   I've disposed of the body and done a really good job of getting rid of the evidence.   There's not enough evidence for the DA to believe he or she can convict me of the murder, but plenty of suspicion that I did it.   If I intimidate witnesses not to testify and have all of my friends lie to the police, I am still guilty of obstructing justice even though I'm not charged with an underlying crime.

 

[timschochet]

She clearly got influenced by the extreme left and made a fool of herself yesterday.  Up until then she was holding her own.  Cover up, 

Well, she’s certainly making a fool of somebody...

 

[Don't Noonan]

Let's say I kill someone.   I've disposed of the body and done a really good job of getting rid of the evidence.   There's not enough evidence for the DA to believe he or she can convict me of the murder, but plenty of suspicion that I did it.   If I intimidate witnesses not to testify and have all of my friends lie to the police, I am still guilty of obstructing justice even though I'm not charged with an underlying crime.

Mueller was the jury and it was a not guilty.  What you are describing is double jeopardy.

 

[Sinn Fein]

No collusion, possible obstruction which our Attorney General ruled no obstruction. 

Lets start here.

Since the DOJ itself considers that Congress is the appropriate body to determine the malfeasance of the President - don't you think Congress should make that determination?

And, since I am optimistically guessing you would side with the DOJ on this - shouldn't Congress have access to all of the evidence, from which they can make an informed decision?  (And, even if you disagree with the DOJ on this - given that the DOJ itself acknowledges it is not the proper entity to assess the criminal conduct of the President - don't you want someone to hold the President accountable - or are you more of a President-can-do-no-wrong-no-matter-the-party kind of guy?) 

 

[zoonation]

Sorry, I was busy and unable to answer more clearly earlier.  Your argument so I understand is that Trump is trying to cover up the publically available Mueller report?  Do you not believe Mueller did a good job and somehow Congress is going to unearth some wrongdoing?

No.  I am not saying that he wants to cover up the publically available Mueller Report.  either you struggle with reading comprehension or are being disingenuous.  Not sure why I bothered.

Hint:  there is lots of wrongdoing set out by Mueller in the report.  If you read it, you would not be able to come to any other conclusion.  Calling in the witnesses to expound on the wrongdoing along with obtaining the underlying evidence (that is only summarized in the Mueller report) will blow up Trump's bogus narrative on what the Mueller report says about obstruction.  So he want to cover all that up.  This isn't complicated.  

But for the fact that Trump is the President, he would have been indicted on obstruction of justice charges.  A thousand prosecutors have said so.  That is not "no obstruction".

 

[Don't Noonan]

Lets start here.

Since the DOJ itself considers that Congress is the appropriate body to determine the malfeasance of the President - don't you think Congress should make that determination?

And, since I am optimistically guessing you would side with the DOJ on this - shouldn't Congress have access to all of the evidence, from which they can make an informed decision?  (And, even if you disagree with the DOJ on this - given that the DOJ itself acknowledges it is not the proper entity to assess the criminal conduct of the President - don't you want someone to hold the President accountable - or are you more of a President-can-do-no-wrong-no-matter-the-party kind of guy?) 

Congress does have access to the Mueller report.

 

[bostonfred]

1 No collusion, possible obstruction which our Attorney General ruled no obstruction. 

2 More importantly, with no underlying crime what exactly can Trump be obstructing?  

1 And the attorney general is not prosecuting him or investigating him further, so you're absolutely right about that.

Congress is now deciding whether to proceed with impeachment.  Further investigation is necessary to make that decision. 

2 If you're unable to find evidence of a crime, but the investigation was obstructed, that doesn't mean there was no underlying crime.  

For example, if i ask my son if he ate the last cookie, and he runs away and finished chewing it before i could see it in his mouth,  he would be guilty of obstructing justice, even though I didn't have enough evidence to prove he ate the cookie.  And if i saw crumbs on the counter and on his shirt, well, i might not have direct evidence of the crime, but i see the motive necessary for the legal definition of obstruction.  

 Barr's made the decision on behalf of the AG's office and the decision is now with congress on how or whether to proceed. 

 

[urbanhack]

Congress does have access to the Mueller report.

the redacted version, correct?  Most transparent president & administration evah...amirite?

 

[zoonation]

Thanks for your response.  I obviously disagree that continued investigations are warranted.  We waited 2 years for the results of the Mueller investigation and I am of the opinion we need to adhere to it.  No collusion, possible obstruction which our Attorney General ruled no obstruction.  More importantly, with no underlying crime what exactly can Trump be obstructing?  He gave Mueller everything he asked for and now the Dems want a do over.

This is answer reads as if Trump wrote it himself.

 

[Don't Noonan]

No.  I am not saying that he wants to cover up the publically available Mueller Report.  either you struggle with reading comprehension or are being disingenuous.  Not sure why I bothered.

Hint:  there is lots of wrongdoing set out by Mueller in the report.  If you read it, you would not be able to come to any other conclusion.  Calling in the witnesses to expound on the wrongdoing along with obtaining the underlying evidence (that is only summarized in the Mueller report) will blow up Trump's bogus narrative on what the Mueller report says about obstruction.  So he want to cover all that up.  This isn't complicated.  

But for the fact that Trump is the President, he would have been indicted on obstruction of justice charges.  A thousand prosecutors have said so.  That is not "no obstruction".

Any reasonable person who read the Mueller report would not conclude obstruction unless they are partisan.  Additional testimony from people interviewed over 30 hours is just political circus.

 

[Don't Noonan]

1 And the attorney general is not prosecuting him or investigating him further, so you're absolutely right about that.

Congress is now deciding whether to proceed with impeachment.  Further investigation is necessary to make that decision. 

2 If you're unable to find evidence of a crime, but the investigation was obstructed, that doesn't mean there was no underlying crime.  

For example, if i ask my son if he ate the last cookie, and he runs away and finished chewing it before i could see it in his mouth,  he would be guilty of obstructing justice, even though I didn't have enough evidence to prove he ate the cookie.  And if i saw crumbs on the counter and on his shirt, well, i might not have direct evidence 

I know you've chosen not to read the report

I stopped reading here.  I feel like I might be the only one here who has read the report.

 

[bostonfred]

Mueller was the jury and it was a not guilty.  What you are describing is double jeopardy.

I genuinely hope you're not serious.  

 

[Don't Noonan]

This is answer reads as if Trump wrote it himself.

Thanks, I am flattered. 

 

[Don't Noonan]

I genuinely hope you're not serious.  

Sure I am.  They can decide to impeach if they are foolish enough to do so.

 

[bostonfred]

I stopped reading here.  I feel like I might be the only one here who has read the report.

When did you read it?  I haven't been following the thread, but i swear you used to proudly say you weren't reading it.  Comment withdrawn.

 

[zoonation]

Any reasonable person who read the Mueller report would not conclude obstruction unless they are partisan.  Additional testimony from people interviewed over 30 hours is just political circus.

So, you are suggesting that 1000 prosecutors, republican and democrats alike, from every state in america, all who have concluded that Trump would be indicted for obstruction, are not reasonable people?  Okie dokie.

I think any "reasonable" person would conclude that asking your attorney to lie and fabricate evidence to both justify and then deny that you tried to fire the Special Counsel is obstruction of justice.  You disagree?

It is so obvious that you didn't read the report.  

 

[zoonation]

I genuinely hope you're not serious.  

jesus christ.  why are we wasting our time?

 

[bostonfred]

Sure I am.  They can decide to impeach if they are foolish enough to do so.

Exactly.  And that's why congress needs to be able to investigate.  

 

[Sinn Fein]

Congress does have access to the Mueller report.

Would you be comfortable if we allowed juries (or prosecutors) to determine guilt based solely on the police report?

Or, do you think we should let juries see the underlying evidence, and hear from witnesses?

If we rely simply on the Mueller report - Trump is on the hook for obstruction of justice.  So, I would think you want Congress to hear from witnesses - who could sway opinion based on first-hand knowledge of events.

This notion that the entity responsible for Presidential accountability should not be able to examine the evidence - not the conclusion - the actual evidence, and interview witnesses seems a bit odd.

 

[yak651]

When did you read it?  I haven't been following the thread, but i swear you used to proudly say you weren't reading it.  Comment withdrawn.

Hint - He didn't read it

 

[timschochet]

Any reasonable person who read the Mueller report would not conclude obstruction unless they are partisan. 

What about all of those prosecutors, many of them conservative, that disagree with you on this? Are they all partisan? 

 

[Don't Noonan]

So, you are suggesting that 1000 prosecutors, republican and democrats alike, from every state in america, all who have concluded that Trump would be indicted for obstruction, are not reasonable people?  Okie dokie.

I think any "reasonable" person would conclude that asking your attorney to lie and fabricate evidence to both justify and then deny that you tried to fire the Special Counsel is obstruction of justice.  You disagree?

It is so obvious that you didn't read the report.  

My point is people read what they want to read.  Nobody is changing their minds on this.  Not sure why you can't understand this.

 

[tonydead]

jesus christ.  why are we wasting our time?

  Should be focusing on the issues that might help in 2020.

 

[Don't Noonan]

Would you be comfortable if we allowed juries (or prosecutors) to determine guilt based solely on the police report?

Or, do you think we should let juries see the underlying evidence, and hear from witnesses?

If we rely simply on the Mueller report - Trump is on the hook for obstruction of justice.  So, I would think you want Congress to hear from witnesses - who could sway opinion bast on first-hand knowledge of events.

This notion that the entity responsible for Presidential accountability should not be able to examine the evidence - not the conclusion - the actual evidence, and interview witnesses seems a bit odd.

They have access to the testimony from Mueller report.

 

[Rove!]

I am good thanks, although it is tough trying to make you guys understand how wrong you are all of the time.  

over two thousand pages of wrongness and still going strong

 

[Don't Noonan]

What about all of those prosecutors, many of them conservative, that disagree with you on this? Are they all partisan? 

No, it is not a white/black issue that you guys seem to think it is.  No obstruction, like Barr stated and Mueller didn't disagree with is good for me after reading it.

 

[Don't Noonan]

When did you read it?  I haven't been following the thread, but i swear you used to proudly say you weren't reading it.  Comment withdrawn.

Thanks.  There have been a number of dense folks in this thread that have incorrectly said I didn't read the report.  I am glad to know you are not one of them.

 

[zoonation]

My point is people read what they want to read.  Nobody is changing their minds on this.  Not sure why you can't understand this.

Why are you in this thread then?  If you can't answer simple questions that you are asked and instead choose to move the goalposts, why even bother?

I don't care if anyone is "changing their minds" (whatever  that refers to)  I simply asked if:

1. 1000 prosecutors who say Trump would be indicted for obstruction are not reasonable people (as you implied); and

2.  whether asking your counsel to lie and fabricate evidence to fire the special counsel is obstruction of justice?

Easy questions.

I agree no one is changing their mind on whether Trump should be impeached.  But if you won't even engage, wtf are you even doing here?

 

[Don't Noonan]

Why are you in this thread then?  If you can't answer simple questions that you are asked and instead choose to move the goalposts, why even bother?

I don't care if anyone is "changing their minds" (whatever  that refers to)  I simply asked if:

1. 1000 prosecutors who say Trump would be indicted for obstruction are not reasonable people (as you implied); and

2.  whether asking your counsel to lie and fabricate evidence to fire the special counsel is obstruction of justice?

Easy questions.

I agree no one is changing their mind on whether Trump should be impeached.  But if you won't even engage, wtf are you even doing here?

No reasonable person would think impeachment is the route to go based on the report.

The counsel gave three different versions of his story.  You choose to believe one, I choose another.

 

[Rove!]

Let's say I kill someone.   I've disposed of the body and done a really good job of getting rid of the evidence.   There's not enough evidence for the DA to believe he or she can convict me of the murder, but plenty of suspicion that I did it.   If I intimidate witnesses not to testify and have all of my friends lie to the police, I am still guilty of obstructing justice even though I'm not charged with an underlying crime.

all of the President's actions were facially lawful.  There are specific statutes that address witness tampering, including murder of witnesses, threatening witness and physically harming witnesses so they cannot appear.

Here you have facially lawful acts with no underlying crime.

Is hiring a lawyer Obstruction?  Is publicly stating your innocence obstruction? is filing a legal motion for dismissal obstruction?

 

[squistion]

No, it is not a white/black issue that you guys seem to think it is.  No obstruction, like Barr stated and Mueller didn't disagree with is good for me after reading it.

Mueller has made no public statements since issuing the report so you can't conclude that he doesn't disagree with Barr's claim that he found no obstruction. Let's wait for Mueller to testify before Congress and then we will see if he agrees with Barr on the obstruction issue.

 

[zoonation]

No reasonable person would think impeachment is the route to go based on the report.

The counsel gave three different versions of his story.  You choose to believe one, I choose another.

He did?  I was unaware of that.  Can you point me to the two I am unaware of?

 

[Rove!]

Mueller has made no public statements since issuing the report so you can't conclude that he doesn't disagree with Barr's claim that he found no obstruction. Let's wait for Mueller to testify before Congress and then we will see if he agrees with Barr on the obstruction issue.

We may never know, because Mueller may never testify...

 

[zoonation]

all of the President's actions were facially lawful.  There are specific statutes that address witness tampering, including murder of witnesses, threatening witness and physically harming witnesses so they cannot appear.

Here you have facially lawful acts with no underlying crime.

Is hiring a lawyer Obstruction?  Is publicly stating your innocence obstruction? is filing a legal motion for dismissal obstruction?

1000 prosecutors disagree with you.  But they are just career lawyers.  What do they know about lawful stuff?

 

[squistion]

We may never know, because Mueller may never testify...

Only if Trump can legally block or stop him from testifying. 

However, be assured that his testimony about how he really feels about Barr's characterization of his report will come out one way or another.

 

[Rove!]

1000 prosecutors disagree with you.  But they are just career lawyers.  What do they know about lawful stuff?

they signed a politically motivated petition, but none of those guys could make the case, because there is none.   No such case has ever been brought.

 

[lazyike]

@lazyike and others are proving my point.  When asked why Trump is corrupt I get articles of alleged stuff Trump has done before he was elected.  These are the same people who hated Trump before he was elected and support impeachment for a cover up but can't identify what he is covering up.  It is all lies because they hate Trump.

This is the equivalent of the birther conspiracy for Obama and it is very embarrassing for the Dems.  Trump is playing chess and Pelosi is playing checkers.

The mental gymnastics you all go thru to keep convincing yourself to continue to support Trump is laughable. It's all lies because I hate Trump. You must be double jointed to contort yourself into a position like that. ( or maybe just smoking a joint) Mommy they hate me at school, everyone keeps making up lies about me.

 

[zoonation]

they signed a politically motivated petition, but none of those guys could make the case, because there is none.   No such case has ever been brought.

What was the political motivation?  There were hundreds of republicans and democrats who signed the letter.  The case hasn't been brought because, as the legally trained prosecutors correctly note, you cannot indict a sitting president.  But for that fact, Trump would be indicted on obstruction.   

Which of course brings us full circle to why Congress has the constitutionally mandated responsibility to conduct oversight.  So Trump can't be the King he so desperately wants to be.

This is not complicated stuff.

 

[-fish-]

Mueller was the jury and it was a not guilty.  What you are describing is double jeopardy.

Obstruction does not require that someone be charged with an underlying crime.   

This is nothing at all like double jeopardy, Mueller wasn't a jury, and he did not make a finding of "not guilty."   He did not find sufficient evidence of a crime upon which to recommend a charge.   That's not the same as a finding that no crime was committed. 

Look at my example.   There's a dead body (or at least a missing person presumed to be dead).   An investigation of whether there was a crime committed is certainly appropriate.   After an investigation, there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge me.   That doesn't mean I'm not guilty, and it doesn't have anything to do with whether I obstructed the investigation of whether there was a crime.  In fact, I did obstruct justice and I should be charged for it.

 

[2Squirrels1Nut]

Why are you in this thread then?  If you can't answer simple questions that you are asked and instead choose to move the goalposts, why even bother?

Hhmmm, I wonder. 

 

[Henry Ford]

Obstruction does not require that someone be charged with an underlying crime.   

This is nothing at all like double jeopardy, Mueller wasn't a jury, and he did not make a finding of "not guilty."   He did not find sufficient evidence of a crime upon which to recommend a charge.   That's not the same as a finding that no crime was committed. 

Look at my example.   There's a dead body (or at least a missing person presumed to be dead).   An investigation of whether there was a crime committed is certainly appropriate.   After an investigation, there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge me.   That doesn't mean I'm not guilty, and it doesn't have anything to do with whether I obstructed the investigation of whether there was a crime.  In fact, I did obstruct justice and I should be charged for it.

Including this sentence in a public statement is probably the best way to create a comparison to Trump.

 

[urbanhack]

#THE-NEW-AI

 

[Skoo]

What was the political motivation?  There were hundreds of republicans and democrats who signed the letter.  The case hasn't been brought because, as the legally trained prosecutors correctly note, you cannot indict a sitting president.  But for that fact, Trump would be indicted on obstruction.   

Which of course brings us full circle to why Congress has the constitutionally mandated responsibility to conduct oversight.  So Trump can't be the King he so desperately wants to be.

This is not complicated stuff.

It's a feature, not a bug.

Rule #1 of trolling: Never, under any circumstance, engage in honest discussion.

It's never going to happen man.

 

[roadkill1292]

Hhmmm, I wonder. 

[samkinnison]

Say it. SAY IT!

[/samkinnison]

 

[Slapdash]

[samkinnison]

Say it. SAY IT!

[/samkinnison]

Given the rate posts disappear when they call that out, probably best not to.  

 

[Jackstraw]

  More importantly, with no underlying crime what exactly can Trump be obstructing?  

That's not a thing. You know it.  

 

[Rove!]

What was the political motivation?  There were hundreds of republicans and democrats who signed the letter.  The case hasn't been brought because, as the legally trained prosecutors correctly note, you cannot indict a sitting president.  But for that fact, Trump would be indicted on obstruction.   

Which of course brings us full circle to why Congress has the constitutionally mandated responsibility to conduct oversight.  So Trump can't be the King he so desperately wants to be.

This is not complicated stuff.

there are plenty of never-trumper Republicans

A legal determination was already made that even if you remove the restriction on indicting a sitting President,  there is still no obstruction.

Using USC 1512 (c)(2) is a dubious legal theory.  Granting this theory credibility in public discourse is huge disservice to liberty and civil rights.  It gives the prosecutors way too much power. Another impact is that it gives the DOJ power over elected officials.  You can never exercise oversight over them, because they can always claim that you are interfering with some investigation, whether it be a friend or a donor or political crony or whoever.  That is very dangerous.

Even granting credence to this untested legal theory, there is no case because there is not corrupt intent

 

[Rove!]

Obstruction does not require that someone be charged with an underlying crime.   

This is nothing at all like double jeopardy, Mueller wasn't a jury, and he did not make a finding of "not guilty."   He did not find sufficient evidence of a crime upon which to recommend a charge.   That's not the same as a finding that no crime was committed. 

Look at my example.   There's a dead body (or at least a missing person presumed to be dead).   An investigation of whether there was a crime committed is certainly appropriate.   After an investigation, there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge me.   That doesn't mean I'm not guilty, and it doesn't have anything to do with whether I obstructed the investigation of whether there was a crime.  In fact, I did obstruct justice and I should be charged for it.

There are Obstruction statutes that SPECIFICALLY address the behavior your describe

1512 b 1 

(b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—

(1)

influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

1512 d 1,2

(d)Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—

(1)

attending or testifying in an official proceeding;

(2)

reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation 1 supervised release,,1 parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

etc.