ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Xavderion wrote:

lmao

Spoiler

Biden is the obvious mainstream corporate choice so there's a very good chance that he'll win the nomination. The memes will be nasty.

Kinda related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUto5LJ2AmY

I remember when this was a "slippery slope argument" made by "homophobes". I wonder what the backlash to this will look like (I don't).

Related: https://youtu.be/-agsyUShmcs. Not that I'm saying YouTube censored Biden; I've got a less conspiratorial explanation.

The incompetence of the Biden campaign at anything other than raising money is utterly breathtaking. I have every confidence their confidential emails will be vulnerable to extraction at some point in the campaign. If the DNC rigs the primary for Sloppy Joe it'll be 2016 all over again.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

lmao

Spoiler

Whatever the far right/Putin team manage to manufacture, there's no way they can make anyone appear worse than Trump actually is.

.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

You love Kellyanne Conway, right? Here's a short read from her lawyer husband

Her husband's biggest accomplishment is that Kellyanne hasn't kicked him to the curb yet. He's a mouth foaming tool with emotional control issues.

Does resisting arrest require the reason for the arrest to be valid? Nope.
Does obstructing justice require that the reason for prosecuting be valid? Nope.
Does robbery depend on whether or not the subject 'deserves' to be robbed? Nope.

To Xavderion's point -

Can resisting arrest be thrown out if the arrest was invalid Yes.
Can robbery charges be thrown out if the property actually legally belonged to the person charged? Yes.
Can obstruction be thrown out when there was no underlying crime? Yes.

Here's an example (No lawyer husband of a celebrity needed!): http://northamericantruckingalerts.com/obstruction-of-justice-charges-dismissed-with-help-from-sbtc/


The "Obstruction" is imaginary. If Trump did anything less than roll over and resign from the presidency, the Democrats would consider him to be obstructing. The DNC is terrified of Barr right now, with many of them wondering what it is going to be like to see the same sort of prosecutorial tactics turned against them this time.

Secret FISA warrants for Kamala Harris, Beto and Joe Biden for possible Chinese collusion? Having their campaigns spied upon and all their donors subject to being interrogated? Threatening to arrest family members of DNC candidates?

The Democrats have used all of these tactics against the GOP and President Trump. If they think they aren't going under the legal microscope they are sadly mistaken.

The question now is Which CNN star will go to jail first?

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

You love Kellyanne Conway, right? Here's a short read from her lawyer husband on how Obstruction of Justice doesn't require and underlying crime. (He sites the criminal code manual)

https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1124334597951643648

As I said, it's like a theoretical physicist talking about parallel universes.

And if I like Kellyanne, why would I listen to her loser TDS husband? What kind of logic is that lmao.

Rudy is 100% right when he calls the obstruction case "questionable". I really hope the Democrats keep chasing that nothingburger though, it will only make Trump's win in 2020 even more of a landslide.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Obstruction of Justice doesn't require an underlying crime. (However, in the Trump/Putin campaign there was loads of underlying criminal activity)

rip rational logic.

If there is no need for justice(absence of crime) how does one obstruct justice.

Peace,

-Boem-

You don't know what you're talking about.

Obstruction of justice requires a couple of things. First an attempted interference with a legal process, meaning an investigation or trial. Second, corrupt intent when doing that interference. In other words if the interference is an accident or an innocent mistake then it is not obstruction of justice. When someone says that no underlying crime is required, it means that the person obstructing justice need not commit any other crime other than the obstruction of justice.

Notice how i say "rip rational logic" not "rip law"?

I wan't to see a judge follow up on an obstruction where no initial crime was commited.

It's non-sensical from a logics point of view, i'm not really interested in the law when i am saying "nope, no logic to be found here".

Your logic, if i got this right, is like this.

"well you can obstruct justice when no initial crime is commited by hindering the process of law" And at the same time "obstruction requires corrupt intent"

I hope you realise it's imposible to read corrupt intent in the hindering of the law when the person is not at risk for any crime. In the absence of an initial crime the person in question can just plead "wrong hairday" all day any day and get released from charges.

Unless the aim is beyond law and justice and "righteous", in that case any means are justified to reach the desired outcome even trivializing rules and laws and twisting definitions to suit goals.

Democrats initiated the precedent know, i'm curious if the republicans will actually sink as low as the dems when they get a president in office or if they will have some respect for the democratic process and the presidency.
Republicans faith in the presidency was at an all time low with Obama and they didn't pull this stuff on him, not to this stupendous amount.

Peace,

-Boem-

Weren't there a lot of crimes uncovered during the russia investigation? I seem to remember a lot of people going to jail...