• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It’s Now Likely Mueller Thinks Trump Obstructed Justice

What the F did Trump obstruct, investigation is still going, Mueller still witch hunting.
It’s all fixing to come to a head anyway, and this is one deplorable redneck that can’t wait, get y’alls crayons ready.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ob·struct

law

commit the offense of intentionally hindering (a legal process).


The attempt of Obstruction of Justice is just as serious offense as actually obstructing in the eyes of the law.

You may go back to you crayons until naptime.
 
I agree. This congress isn't going to do a damn thing. The next congress might; we'll have to see come November.

I think a lot of us thought that the GOP sold its soul for short-term gains and encouraging the sins of the masses.

Now we are setting ourselves up for a second experiment about how the dominant party reacts when its party leader, now President, will get treated in corruption scandals and criminal matters. The Johnson administration was unique in that Johnson was part of the majority party, but almost entirely distanced from it and seen as a member purely by desperate circumstance. The House, therefore, had no true compulsion to keep in the good graces of Johnson and his base, what it were. Therefore, when Johnson went toe-to-toe with the Republican Party in the House and Senate, he was treated as if a member of the other party and they successfully neutralized his administration.

With Nixon, the President's party was in a compromised position in the legislative branch. Last night, for the hell of it, I decided to watch an old Firing Line episode with William Buckley's brother, Senator James Buckley. Senator Buckley was in a unique position as being a strong advocate for the President's resignation in the midst of Watergate. In this exchange, which was wonderful, Senator Buckley had to discuss his controversial move, and it underlined that his patriotism, as it were, was not viewed favorably among the conservative movement because Nixon was their guy---even if Nixon was seen as not much of a doctrinaire movement conservative (something that ought to strike contemporary viewers as noteworthy, given the current office holder). They had come to argue, basically, that the Republican legislators had eventually grew to embody their role and step in when they must. Thinking about it through contemporary lenses, I couldn't help but think that was largely because they hadn't had the same position that they do now and if they had, Nixon may very well have gotten away with it all.



It's a good reminder that each potential impeachment scenario is going to have substantially unique political environments that will shape the course of events.
 
Last edited:
I think a lot of us thought that the GOP sold its soul for short-term gains and encouraging the sins of the masses.

Now we are setting ourselves up for a second experiment about how the dominant party reacts when its party leader, now President, will get treated in corruption scandals and criminal matters. The Johnson administration was unique in that Johnson was part of the majority party, but almost entirely distanced from it and seen as a member purely by desperate circumstance. The House, therefore, had no true compulsion to keep in the good graces of Johnson and his base, what it were. Therefore, when Johnson went toe-to-toe with the Republican Party in the House and Senate, he was treated as if a member of the other party and they successfully neutralized his administration.

With Nixon, the President's party was in a compromised position in the legislative branch. Last night, for the hell of it, I decided to watch an old Firing Line episode with William Buckley's brother, Senator James Buckley. Senator Buckley was in a unique position as being a strong advocate for the President's resignation in the midst of Watergate. In this exchange, which was wonderful, Senator Buckley had to discuss his controversial move, and it underlined that his patriotism, as it were, was not viewed favorably among the conservative movement because Nixon was their guy---even if Nixon was seen as not much of a doctrinaire movement conservative (something that ought to strike contemporary viewers as noteworthy, given the current office holder). They had come to argue, basically, that the Republican legislators had eventually grew to embody their role and step in when the must. Thinking about it through contemporary lenses, I couldn't help but think that was largely because they hadn't had the same position that they do now and if they had, Nixon may very well have gotten away with it all.



It's a good reminder that each potential impeachment scenario is going to have substantially unique political environments that will shape the course of events.


Thanks so much for that. I will definitely watch it when I have an hour to watch the whole thing at once. I appreciate your comments and observations. Excellent post.
 
Mueller wouldn’t recommend impeachment. The most he would do is issue a report that lays out facts that support findings of wrongdoing. It would be left solely to Congress to deal with the findings.

Actually, I'm fairly certain that recommending impeachment is something that's within his purview. A quick google search turns up this:

While the odds that Mueller will recommend impeachment charges have greatly increased, removal by the Senate remains a long shot. That means that for Trump, but also for the rule of law, we're not even at the midpoint of a very long winter.

Note the wording, and the article is written by a former U.S. attorney and deputy assistant attorney general, and teaches at UCLA Law School and practices law at Constantine Cannon.

The odds Mueller will recommend impeachment have increased, but Trump's exit remains a long shot
 
Last edited:
Actually, I'm fairly certain that recommending impeachment is something that's within his purview. A quick google search turns up this:



Not the wording, and the article is written by a former U.S. attorney and deputy assistant attorney general, and teaches at UCLA Law School and practices law at Constantine Cannon.

The odds Mueller will recommend impeachment have increased, but Trump's exit remains a long shot

And when the HATCHET MAN gets there, I assume that almost all us know that he will, that was the full point after all, what share of the country is willing to throw in with him will make all the difference,.
 
Mueller wouldn’t recommend impeachment. The most he would do is issue a report that lays out facts that support findings of wrongdoing. It would be left solely to Congress to deal with the findings.

And there is a distinct possibility a Dem House would draft Articles of Impeachment.
 
Actually, I'm fairly certain that recommending impeachment is something that's within his purview. A quick google search turns up this:



Note the wording, and the article is written by a former U.S. attorney and deputy assistant attorney general, and teaches at UCLA Law School and practices law at Constantine Cannon.

The odds Mueller will recommend impeachment have increased, but Trump's exit remains a long shot

Once again you're quoting from the LA Times, which is Fake News. To repeat, you have to do better than gossip, hearsay and Fake News.
 
Once again you're quoting from the LA Times, which is Fake News. To repeat, you have to do better than gossip, hearsay and Fake News.
Once again nobody gives two ****s if these sources meet your standards, or what in your cultish mindset is regarded as "fake news" at all.
 
Once again you're quoting from the LA Times, which is Fake News. To repeat, you have to do better than gossip, hearsay and Fake News.

Shh. Quiet.
 
Actually, I'm fairly certain that recommending impeachment is something that's within his purview. A quick google search turns up this:



Note the wording, and the article is written by a former U.S. attorney and deputy assistant attorney general, and teaches at UCLA Law School and practices law at Constantine Cannon.

The odds Mueller will recommend impeachment have increased, but Trump's exit remains a long shot

Maybe. But it strikes me as impertinent and completely unnecessary for Mueller to tell Congress what it should do. I found this this morning on the history of special prosecutors:

“Recently, an intense controversy regarding the independent counsel law has focused on Kenneth Starr’s investigation of President Clinton. In his report to Congress, Starr declared that “there is substantial and credible information that President Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.” Starr appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to testify about the findings of his investigation.

Sam Dash, Starr’s ethics advisor, supported the independent counsel’s legal strategies until Starr testified before the House Judiciary Committee. Dash immediately resigned and wrote Starr a letter. “You have violated your obligations under the independent counsel law,” he wrote, “and have unlawfully intruded on the power of impeachment, which the Constitution gives solely to the House.”

Starr responded to Dash’s letter by explaining that his testimony was not an argument for impeachment but a “general status report on the state of the overall investigation.” This controversy, whether Starr overstepped the boundaries of his office, bowed to the pressure of partisan politics, or violated constitutional law by making impeachment recommendations to Congress, raises further questions about the Independent Counsel Statute.”

Independent Counsel - Constitutional Rights Foundation
 
Last edited:
I don’t know if Trump did or not. But obstruction of justice can involve you doing something that you would normally be allowed to do under normal circumstances. I am completely within my rights to shred my bank and client records. They are my records. But if I do it to avoid accountability in an ongoing investigation then the situation changes.

A President is completely within his right to hire and fire who he wants in the DOJ. But if the reason he is doing it is to avoid accountability in an investigation, then the situation changes.
Which is why proof of collusion is essential. Good luck proving criminal intent in the Comey firing if Trump was not under investigation and no wrongdoing with regard to Russia is ever proven.
 
The mountain of evidence showing that criminal intent was present in leading up to a charge for obstruction of justice seems persuasive to all but the most unreasoning and intractable of people. If Mueller does indeed believe he has enough evidence, then developments over the next few weeks should be interesting.

Great OP except for the tiny fact that there is ZERO evidence of criminal intent. Zero.
 
Great OP except for the tiny fact that there is ZERO evidence of criminal intent. Zero.

yep
tRump slipped and fell and fired Comey as a result
no intent whatsoever
 
yep
tRump slipped and fell and fired Comey as a result
no intent whatsoever

Of course there was intent. The key word here is criminal. Not sure how or why you missed that.
 
Great OP except for the tiny fact that there is ZERO evidence of criminal intent. Zero.

Read the article. Or don't. It's fine by me either way.
 
Not finding anything re Trump and the Russians the Hatchet Man for the FAILED INTELLIGENTSIA! certainly does seem to be headed for the back-up plan.

Trump's core supporters Ma and Pa Kettle continue to hold out against the G-Men closing in on Trump. Poor Ma and Pa ain't ever won one over generations of 'em. The sorehead couple follow the yellow brick road each time, every time. Then poof. Sad but true
 
How did DJT obstruct justice when he could fire anyone under his authority? If Mueller does somehow charge DJT with obstruction, that would more than likely cause a constitutional crisis. Which is probably a-ok with leftists, cause as much chaos as possible. Right?

The president cannot be charged with a crime and he's not going to be removed by constitutional means with the economy soaring.

67 Senators are going to be screaming for Obama's economy back?

More fairy tales of the delusional left.
 
Of course there was intent. The key word here is criminal. Not sure how or why you missed that.

Why would the statute include "criminally", when criminality is determined by the courts AFTER trial and successful conviction?

Please see the actual code:
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede

Corruptly. Corrupt intent. Not criminal intent as you claimed.

Trump was under investigation and did not want to be.
He fired Comey (and a host of other threats, influences to other people at other time) in an attempt to stop that investigation.

That's corrupt intent, and Trump admitted to as much.
 
Why would the statute include "criminally", when criminality is determined by the courts AFTER trial and successful conviction?

Please see the actual code:


Corruptly. Corrupt intent. Not criminal intent as you claimed.

Trump was under investigation and did not want to be.
He fired Comey (and a host of other threats, influences to other people at other time) in an attempt to stop that investigation.

That's corrupt intent, and Trump admitted to as much.
No, if you watch the entire clip, which I posted, you will see that he said multiple times that he wanted the investigation to continue.
 
No, if you watch the entire clip, which I posted, you will see that he said multiple times that he wanted the investigation to continue.
So you agree it's "Corrupt" intent, and not criminal? Good!

As to your new defense, how is saying something else after he committed obstruction, going to somehow "cancel out" a crime? You're funny.

They need to teach that at criminal school. Steal from them, but then say you didn't want to, and didn't meant it. It's 100% foolproof!
 
So you agree it's "Corrupt" intent, and not criminal? Good!
I didn't say that. Why don't you just respond to what I say rather than making things up.

As to your new defense, how is saying something else after he committed obstruction, going to somehow "cancel out" a crime? You're funny.

They need to teach that at criminal school. Steal from them, but then say you didn't want to, and didn't meant it. It's 100% foolproof!
Says someone who hasn't spent 5 seconds studying law. :roll: Excuse me if I don't take you seriously. Not that I have in the past...
 
I didn't say that.
vs
Fletch said:
Of course there was intent. The key word here is criminal. Not sure how or why you missed that.

Not sure how or why you missed that. So it's corrupt intent, not criminal, you're welcome.

Says someone who hasn't spent 5 seconds studying law. :roll: Excuse me if I don't take you seriously. Not that I have in the past...
What you take seriously isn't in question, and is irrelevant.

There is no studying needed, you read words, you comprehend them. Criminal != corrupt. You don't need a law degree to understand that...do you?

Have you ever been involved in legal matters? You appear to put them on a pedestal, which is an indication you have not.
 
Back
Top Bottom