I wouldn't call it "obstruction of justice" without looking at a specific obstruction of justice statute. That's all I'm saying, counselor. You must realize that obstruction of justice is a statutory offense.
OT: Politics & News... Have at it.
- Thread starter lapin
- Start date
I wouldn't call it "obstruction of justice" without looking at a specific obstruction of justice statute. That's all I'm saying, counselor. You must realize that obstruction of justice is a statutory offense.
BKerr
Banned
You already said that ordering someone to stop an investigation would be obstruction.
I'm saying that if the person you "asked" felt threatened, and felt the need to document everything about that ask, because he felt threatened; and then it turned out his fears were justified as he was fired at the first opportunity when he refused to obey the request. There is a heck of a lot there to suggest it never was an "ask" and was indeed an "order."
Habsy
Not playing around anymore.
Saying "can you see your way clear to end this" is in no way obstruction of justice. If that is indeed what he said.
Habsy
Not playing around anymore.
Re: OT: Politics & News... Have at it.
Comey wasn't fired because of the Russia investigation. The Russia investigation is not even a criminal investigation, it's a counterintelligence investigation. People are frothing at the mouth over the stupidest things. It truly is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
3 months is shortly?
Comey wasn't fired because of the Russia investigation. The Russia investigation is not even a criminal investigation, it's a counterintelligence investigation. People are frothing at the mouth over the stupidest things. It truly is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
BKerr
Banned
While the investigation is still going, and citing in interviews that one of the reasons for the firing is that you want that investigation to be wrapped up... yes.
The President can't control what happens in an investigation into his associates.
Oh and again... remember this is impeachment, so through congress....
A dem president and a republican controlled house and senate.... impeachment on this set of facts is happening. Same with vice-versa.
Its the nature of the current political environment. The fact that the "jury" is stacked plays in Trumps favour tonight. If it was the other way around, you'd have enough or obstruction here.
The President can't control what happens in an investigation into his associates.
Oh and again... remember this is impeachment, so through congress....
A dem president and a republican controlled house and senate.... impeachment on this set of facts is happening. Same with vice-versa.
Its the nature of the current political environment. The fact that the "jury" is stacked plays in Trumps favour tonight. If it was the other way around, you'd have enough or obstruction here.
Last edited:
I did not say that it would be. I said that it could or probably would be but it really depends on what the relevant statute says, which you seem not to want to acknowledge. The other point is that Trump did not obstruct justice, even if that was his desire. The investigation of Flynn is ongoing. I do not believe that just attempting to obstruct justice is an offense under most obstruction of justice statutes. I think you have to be successful.
BKerr
Banned
The words "or attempts to do so" are littered throughout the statute. You don't have to be successful.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-73
What Trump allegedly did does not seem to fall under the definitions of obstruction, successful or not, in the statute. It was just dumb.
Rolex
Canadiens Moderator
If he's still in office by fall, I think Trump will have finally surrounded himself with ''good'' politicians, instead of just doing like Bergy and hiring his friends who are clueless...
Trump will have to realize that at some point, he needs this circus show to stop, and he needs to govern.....or else his legacy won't be what he imagined it going into office. And make no mistake, Trump cares very much about his legacy (as every President does)....
People need to take a chill pill....by year 2, Trump will have figured things out.....heck, it took Obama 8 years to ''somewhat'' figure things out
Trump will have to realize that at some point, he needs this circus show to stop, and he needs to govern.....or else his legacy won't be what he imagined it going into office. And make no mistake, Trump cares very much about his legacy (as every President does)....
People need to take a chill pill....by year 2, Trump will have figured things out.....heck, it took Obama 8 years to ''somewhat'' figure things out
Habsy
Not playing around anymore.
And yet Clinton needed intent?
Try reading the statutes she violated too.
In any event, what Trump asked was not obstruction. Yet another freak out by the left that simply can't deal with the fact they lost to a moron.
Habsy
Not playing around anymore.
Re: OT: Politics & News... Have at it.
Lost in all this is the fact that the Democrats have zero interest in governing. More OTOF Syndrome. On the other foot.
I agree that he'll still be in office. Not so sure about the surrounding himself with good people part though.
Lost in all this is the fact that the Democrats have zero interest in governing. More OTOF Syndrome. On the other foot.
BKerr
Banned
Are really saying that Intent and Attempt are analogous.
They aren't the same thing.
You still need intent to attempt something.
Habsy
Not playing around anymore.
Re: OT: Politics & News... Have at it.
It's okay to see the light Count, the truth shall set you free.
Habsy
Not playing around anymore.
If you violate a statute as written, it's illegal. Intent is not part of that statute. That's the point. The left interprets differently than the right. Fact of life.
BKerr
Banned
Mens Rea is different than "attempt".
Mens Rea is necessary for their to be a crime.
Intent doesn't need to be part of the statute. It already is well codified and necessary for any criminal prosecution. You could have a statuatory offence where the statute expressly states that intent isn't necessary, but even that is going to need to stand up to challenge.
But if the statute is silent as to intent, then intent is necessary for it to be a crime.
You can't treat Mens Rea, the same way you treat things like "attempt", its just not the same. Once again you are playing the false equivalency game. Attempts needed to be in one statute to apply. Proving intent almost always applies, (unless excluded expressly).
And even when excluded that changes things from a crime to a statuatory offence, which would be something liek a fine, it doesn't raise to the level of jail time.
Altair
Well-known member
Re: OT: Politics & News... Have at it.
I keep trying to bring that up on the leaf board.
For all of the disruptions, all of the madness, all of the leaks, the stupidity, the utter incompetence, the Democrats have not yet presented an alternative, they are stuck on obstruction mode, they aren't reaping the rewards of the horrible numbers trump is dragging around.
It's not as simple as a lot of people hate trump and the GOP so they must love democrats now, it's simply people hating everyone involved now, and that leave open the possibility of a 2 term trump.
I keep trying to bring that up on the leaf board.
For all of the disruptions, all of the madness, all of the leaks, the stupidity, the utter incompetence, the Democrats have not yet presented an alternative, they are stuck on obstruction mode, they aren't reaping the rewards of the horrible numbers trump is dragging around.
It's not as simple as a lot of people hate trump and the GOP so they must love democrats now, it's simply people hating everyone involved now, and that leave open the possibility of a 2 term trump.