ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

Reminder that in one hour (+24 hours, whoops) Mueller's report will be presented by Barr and Rosenstein. The tears and the salt will be delicious.

Leftists on Reddit are already realizing that despite having the House, they can't do shit. The House can subpoena all they want, Trump doesn't have to deliver.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Reminder that in one hour (+24 hours, whoops) Mueller's report will be presented by Barr and Rosenstein. The tears and the salt will be delicious.

Leftists on Reddit are already realizing that despite having the House, they can't do shit. The House can subpoena all they want, Trump doesn't have to deliver.

In the sense "Trump has no legal obligation" or in the sense "Trump doesn't have to care about legal obligations"? Because those are two very different scenarios, and if it's the latter and you're glad about the latter, you need to spend some serious time thinking about what you're celebrating.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

Reminder that in one hour (+24 hours, whoops) Mueller's report will be presented by Barr and Rosenstein. The tears and the salt will be delicious.

Leftists on Reddit are already realizing that despite having the House, they can't do shit. The House can subpoena all they want, Trump doesn't have to deliver.

In the sense "Trump has no legal obligation" or in the sense "Trump doesn't have to care about legal obligations"? Because those are two very different scenarios, and if it's the latter and you're glad about the latter, you need to spend some serious time thinking about what you're celebrating.

Trump is just stalling. And William Barr is doing PR for his 'boss'.

The Full Mueller report could be accessible to The House Intelligence Committee but not to the public. If Democrats want The Full Mueller report available to the public, Democrats need to win the president election and have their president declassify it. Do you see why winning election is important? Unless you think Trump is willing? :P

"The president have 'the ability to declassify anything at any time'."

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

Reminder that in one hour (+24 hours, whoops) Mueller's report will be presented by Barr and Rosenstein. The tears and the salt will be delicious.

Leftists on Reddit are already realizing that despite having the House, they can't do shit. The House can subpoena all they want, Trump doesn't have to deliver.

In the sense "Trump has no legal obligation" or in the sense "Trump doesn't have to care about legal obligations"? Because those are two very different scenarios, and if it's the latter and you're glad about the latter, you need to spend some serious time thinking about what you're celebrating.

In this specific case I'm fine with both since the Russian collusion hoax was basically a soft coup attempt. Fuck them.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

Reminder that in one hour (+24 hours, whoops) Mueller's report will be presented by Barr and Rosenstein. The tears and the salt will be delicious.

Leftists on Reddit are already realizing that despite having the House, they can't do shit. The House can subpoena all they want, Trump doesn't have to deliver.

In the sense "Trump has no legal obligation" or in the sense "Trump doesn't have to care about legal obligations"? Because those are two very different scenarios, and if it's the latter and you're glad about the latter, you need to spend some serious time thinking about what you're celebrating.

In this specific case I'm fine with both since the Russian collusion hoax was basically a soft coup attempt. Fuck them.

Well so long as we're being totally candid about the breakdown of the rule of law...

Very telling that the fake news media is only focusing on potential obstruction now. Just like that, the entire Russian collusion narrative collapsed. Now they're pushing the obstruction angle, which is a bold strategy, considering that it makes no sense to obstruct an investigation into a crime which didn't happen, which means it's basically impossible to prove criminal intent. Good luck with that. The rabid left will probably eat the narrative up but everyone else with common sense will see through the bullshit.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Now they're pushing the obstruction angle, which is a bold strategy, considering that it makes no sense to obstruct an investigation into a crime which didn't happen, which means it's basically impossible to prove criminal intent.

Any legal scholar worth their salt will tell you that this ain't true. When you're under investigation and you obstruct justice, it doesn't matter if you're innocent of the crime or not, obstruction of justice is its own crime. Case in point:

"

Must a court case be pending for obstruction to occur?

No. An official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense. This was illustrated in the Martha Stewart case; her alleged obstruction occurred very early in the investigation. Furthermore, she ended up not being charged with the underlying crime that was being investigated.

Hell, you can be accused of obstruction of justice for obstructing an investigation into someone else's alleged crimes.

"

That conclusion is questionable for reasons beyond its haste. It’s black letter law that a defendant can satisfy the corrupt intent criterion for obstruction even if the defendant himself committed no underlying crime. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit recently ruled that a defendant could be convicted of obstruction “even if [his] primary motivation was to extricate the sister of his childhood friend from a troubled situation.” A court in Utah held in 2013 that a defendant could be liable for obstruction where his only apparent motive was to protect a friend from a criminal charge.

And from further down in the article...

"

Former Detroit mayor Kwame M. Kilpatrick went to jail for obstructing justice in 2008 after he lied under oath about an extramarital affair. And in January, a Navy captain in Florida was indicted on a charge of obstruction of justice after he allegedly misled investigators about his extramarital affair with a civilian employee’s spouse. Of course, adultery is not a crime. But interfering with an investigation to cover up adultery certainly is.

It's like how breaking out of prison is still a crime even if you're then later found innocent of the crime they sent you to prison for - you're still not allowed to break out of prison.

"

Good luck with that. The rabid left will probably eat the narrative up but everyone else with common sense will see through the bullshit.

Does common sense magically give someone legal expertise?

As we see here: no. No it does not.

What do we put the odds that Xav doubles down instead of recognizing that this common Trump talking point (they literally sent Rudy Giuliani out to parrot it) is transparently wrong?

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

snip

Do you realize that in all of your examples an actual crime happened, usually perjury among other stuff? Trump didn't commit any crimes. That's where the entire narrative falls apart. It's impossible to prove criminal intent when no crimes happened.

Report is online:

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

I'm not bored enough to go through it right now, maybe I'll use it as a bedtime story.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

snip

Do you realize that in all of your examples an actual crime happened, usually perjury among other stuff? Trump didn't commit any crimes. That's where the entire narrative falls apart. It's impossible to prove criminal intent when no crimes happened.

Yep, I figured. Note the lack of any source that disagrees with my claim, just the raw claim that "you cannot prove criminal intent when no crimes happened", which is patently false. It doesn't matter - Trump says it, Xav believes it, and no amount of legal expertise or sources can change his mind.

But in case you're interested, here's federal prosecutor Elie Honig on just one of Trump's recent foibles: "I've charged and tried obstruction of justice cases. If this isn't an attempt to obstruct, then I don't know what is."

Here's two law professors: Even if the coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia didn’t break any laws, it still would be a proper topic for the special counsel’s probe. If Trump sought to impede that inquiry, then he obstructed (or attempted to obstruct) an official proceeding. The question then would be whether he did so “corruptly”—which is a question about Trump’s state of mind, upon which an “interrogation” of the president would shed light.

Xav, I really hope you never end up accused of a crime. Because if you do, the lessons you have picked up from the Trump administration are going to serve you incredibly poorly. You're not as rich as he is.