ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

deathflower wrote:

Mueller didn't think the President committed a crime but Mueller probably think Trump is corrupted.

The criminal offense of corruption need to be clearly defined and passage into the law. It is up to the congress to do so. Unfortunately, your congress does not always fulfill that role.

Thank you, those are the words I was looking for and not finding.

More than anything else, the Mueller Report says that the President cannot be concluded to have broken a law, but hey guys look at all this disgusting stuff he did that I think should be illegal but it's not particularly clear if it's legal or not.

Or to put it another way, Trump has a reasonably good idea where the line is between legal and illegal behavior, and he dances right on top of that line.

I have read the Mueller Report twice now, and although Turtledove is correct that he makes a "fairness" argument about not accusing the President of a crime, my evaluation of that argument is that it's a bit of bullshit from an otherwise honest person. Obviously his job, that the American people were counting on him to do, was to say that the President committed crimes if he found evidence that the President committed crimes. The "fairness" argument is saying that Mueller can't do the job he was given to do — patently absurd. It's an unfairness to the American people to make such an argument.

Instead, Mueller found evidence that Trump did things that Mueller can't say are crimes, but that he finds absolutely repugnant. The "fairness" argument is, in my interpretation, a bit of sophistry to explain why he can't say Trump committed a crime without giving up hope of impeachment, which has different standards than indictment anyway. Impeachment in the US does invoke the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," but it's understood these needn't be crimes on the books — the Congressional power of impeachment technically doesn't use the same standards as the Justice Dept. Mueller hopes Trump's behavior is one of those "crimes."

Problem for the Trump haters is, in practice (as opposed to in theory), the people will invoke the common standards of guilt and innocence. Impeaching Trump will fail.

------

By the way, I don't mean to impune Mueller's character with any of the above. He's still am exceptionally honest man, with enough integrity to reliably report facts (and I never said he was BSing about facts, only being absurd about policy). He's probably about as honest as people come... but everybody lies.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

How can you obstruct nothing?

Like if no ones around does tree make sound falling in forest?

Anyway - nice try Trump has plenty of "issues" all y'all are doing is giving him ammo on "deep state" headed into 2020 becausemost ppl cant think past the basics. No collusion and elites are still out to get you and "me"

That's why Democrats won't do shit regarding impeachment or anything. They know that without the underlying crime (collusion), everything falls apart. Trump simply defended himself from a now confirmed political witch hunt. Some say Dems were playing 4D chess and started the hoax to make Trump do stupid shit. Maybe true, but it won't get them anywhere.

This demonstrates how badly you want to believe the lies of a pathological liar. Obstruction of Justice is prosecuted all the time without there being an underlying crime.

Martha Stewart went to jail and served time for exactly that.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/25/martha-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Thank you, those are the words I was looking for and not finding....

Perhaps the hearings this morning will make it clearer? If not then I assume that we'll have to wait until Mueller is questioned?

Thoughts on Venezuela anybody?

Should America help or watch on the side-line, thoughts on what trump will do?

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Turtledove wrote:

Obstruction of Justice is prosecuted all the time without there being an underlying crime.

Nope.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Obstruction of Justice is prosecuted all the time without there being an underlying crime.

Nope.

Since you deny that Martha Stewart served time in jail for Obstruction of Justice without there being an underlying crime, we have to conclude that your connection to reality has been severed completely and replaced with President Donald Trump's tweeter feed. I hope that you are still able to at least bath and feed yourself.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Since you deny that Martha Stewart served time in jail for Obstruction of Justice without there being an underlying crime, we have to conclude that your connection to reality has been severed completely and replaced with President Donald Trump's tweeter feed. I hope that you are still able to at least bath and feed yourself.

Try harder my dude. Martha Stewart has been found guilty of conspiracy and lying to the FBI. Is that what "no underlying crime" means to you?

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Since you deny that Martha Stewart served time in jail for Obstruction of Justice without there being an underlying crime, we have to conclude that your connection to reality has been severed completely and replaced with President Donald Trump's tweeter feed. I hope that you are still able to at least bath and feed yourself.

Try harder my dude. Martha Stewart has been found guilty of conspiracy and lying to the FBI. Is that what "no underlying crime" means to you?

Maybe then the problem is that you cannot follow the link I provided and read a little bit?

"

The highest-profile example of trying a case of obstruction without an underlying crime that our experts could think of was the prosecution of Martha Stewart, the founder of a popular lifestyle and media company. Stewart was tried on charges related to her sale of 4,000 shares of ImClone, a pharmaceutical company, one day before the company’s stock price plummeted.

The charges of securities fraud were thrown out, but prosecutors persisted with charges of obstruction of justice and lying to investigators. She was found guilty of four counts and in 2004 was sentenced to five months of prison, five months of house arrest, and two years of probation.

Stewart "surely feared reputational and business harm" even in the absence of a crime, said Robert Weisberg, co-director of Stanford University’s Criminal Justice Center.

Another notable example is the case of Scooter Libby, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, said Samuel Buell, a law professor at Duke University. Libby was charged by a special prosecutor with obstruction, perjury and false statements, but not any underlying crime related to the outing of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame. (Trump pardoned Libby.)