• 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!

The President just committed another crime this morning

Cardinal said:
By the way, for any of you wondering why the Mueller investigation is taking longer than you'd like, it's probably because Trump and his associates keep committing new crimes.
Click to expand...

Another reason, imo, is that everyone in Trump's orbit -- Trump included, obviously -- is a serial liar. I cannot think of anyone associated with Trump who does not lie.

Hard to suss out the truth of the matter when you can't tell what the truth is.
 
Cardinal said:
I know the President's criminality is downright boring at this point, but it's probably worth it to put this here anyway since by lunch there will be more news that buries this.

“I will never testify against Trump.” This statement was recently made by Roger Stone, essentially stating that he will not be forced by a rogue and out of control prosecutor to make up lies and stories about “President Trump.” Nice to know that some people still have “guts!”
-Donald Trump
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1069619316319035392

George Conway, lawyer, responds:
"File under “18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512”
https://twitter.com/gtconway3d

Neal Katyal, (Supreme Court lawyer; law professor, former acting Solicitor General of United States) responds to Conway:
"George is right. This is genuinely looking like witness tampering. DOJ (at least with a nonfake AG) prosecutes cases like these all the time. The fact it's done out in the open is no defense. Trump is genuinely melting down, and no good lawyer can represent him under these circumstances."
https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1069626379484975106

The criminal code that addresses Trump's crime appears to be 18 U.S. Code § 1512(b) and 5013, which deal with witness tampering, precisely as George Conway says:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1503

Norm Eisen (Senior Fellow at Brooking and Former White House Ethics Czar), confirms 1512)b:
"This is witness tampering under 18 USC 1512(b), which makes it illegal to “cause or induce any person to withhold testimony.”
https://twitter.com/NormEisen/status/1069634040934785025

More "process crimes," I guess.
Click to expand...

Today's TDS Madeup Bull**** "Create a Crime".

The POTUS is allowed to express his opinion of other peoples' actions and words.


To pretend that = "witness tampering" requires the asinine reality disconnect that DEFINES the Fake News/TDS left...
 
Cardinal said:
I know the President's criminality is downright boring at this point, but it's probably worth it to put this here anyway since by lunch there will be more news that buries this.

“I will never testify against Trump.” This statement was recently made by Roger Stone, essentially stating that he will not be forced by a rogue and out of control prosecutor to make up lies and stories about “President Trump.” Nice to know that some people still have “guts!”
-Donald Trump
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1069619316319035392

George Conway, lawyer, responds:
"File under “18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512”
https://twitter.com/gtconway3d

Neal Katyal, (Supreme Court lawyer; law professor, former acting Solicitor General of United States) responds to Conway:
"George is right. This is genuinely looking like witness tampering. DOJ (at least with a nonfake AG) prosecutes cases like these all the time. The fact it's done out in the open is no defense. Trump is genuinely melting down, and no good lawyer can represent him under these circumstances."
https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1069626379484975106

The criminal code that addresses Trump's crime appears to be 18 U.S. Code § 1512(b) and 5013, which deal with witness tampering, precisely as George Conway says:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1503

Norm Eisen (Senior Fellow at Brooking and Former White House Ethics Czar), confirms 1512)b:
"This is witness tampering under 18 USC 1512(b), which makes it illegal to “cause or induce any person to withhold testimony.”
https://twitter.com/NormEisen/status/1069634040934785025

More "process crimes," I guess.
Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:
Has Trump Pardoned anyone that Mueller has prosecuted so far? No? Then assuming that Trump is going to pardon anyone involved in this investigation is just that...assuming. Last I knew no one can be convicted for a major crimes like Trump is accused of based on assumptions.
Click to expand...

You really do seem to overuse that word, "assuming".

This is a debate site. And on debate sites, people make things called "arguments". Arguments rely on facts plus logic. Every time you see an argument melding facts and logic that you do not like, you call it an "assumption" when in reality it is facts + deduction + induction or some blend thereof. Inductions and deductions aren't assumptions, nor are inferences. That's just how logic works.

Calling an argument an "assumption" really isn't the jab you seem to think it is.




It's particularly obnoxious in this thread where Cardinal has quoted people who actually DO have legal experience - a lot of it, and infinitely more than you - who are saying that in their experience, this is something that would be prosecuted as witness tampering.

That's not an "assumption." That's not Joe the Plumber saying "I have no basis for saying this, but I don't think it's witness tampering because <blather>" The first, for example, was a "Supreme Court lawyer; law professor, former acting Solicitor General of United States" and this person is speaking on training and experience you do not have, and will never have. All Cardinal said was that Trump's criminality is "boring" and that this would likely get quickly buried in our news cycle.

That is not an "assumption."

That's the first point.





The second point is more of a question: why the hell are you talking about pardoning? Neither Cardinal nor the people he quoted use the word "pardon" or "pardoning" or "<will be> pardoned" or any such word. He quoted a tweet by Trump that publicly cheered on someone for stating they won't testify about him, then he quoted a bunch of people saying that's witness tampering in my experience.

So....there are no "assumptions" or talk of pardons in his post. And besides, Trump can't pardon himself for witness tampering. Pence could on the federal level, I suppose, if he steps down.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Why? Has he?
Click to expand...

Review my question more carefully:

"What will you conclude if Trump does pardon anyone that Mueller is prosecuting?"

I boldfaced the operative condition in that question.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Crimes require acts. Not assumptions based on anything that doesn't outright say "I'm going to......" Even obstruction charges require something to be done. Attempted robbery (or anything "attempted") is an act, not an assumption. "Attempted" literally means that you tried to do an act.
Click to expand...

The law of attempt crimes vary by state. In general, an attempt crime is when an individual has the specific intent to commit a crime, and takes direct action towards accomplishing that goal.

To prove that, prosecutors argue to juries based on what the defendant must have been thinking in light of the acts he committed and, if he's a particularly stupid defendant, the facebook post he made about the crime he wanted to commit. But just about everything a prosecutor says to a jury in closing argument in an attempt case is something you would mislabel an "assumption."

You'd probably also end up calling the prosecutor's argument about whether or not the act the defendant took really was "towards accomplishing that goal" an assumption.

(In contrast, conspiracies need not go much at all beyond planning. There's generally a vague "overt step" requirement that is easy to meet under the caselaw).



PS: You now talk of obstruction. The OP is about witness tampering. But by the by, saying words can be the "something to be done" you refer to......not that you're even using the terms of the actual statute and caselaw applying it, of course.

There are some free, if hard to use, legal research services. Why don't you look up the witness tampering statute, then do a whole bunch of searches and read a whole bunch of federal appellate cases to see whether you can find something like a defendant making some post on social media - or sending a letter, or talking to someone, etc - where that post actively cheers on a person the defendant knows to be a potential or actual witness in his own case for a prior statement that person made to the effect that they aren't going to snitch.

That would make your remarks meaningful.






______________
If I had one wish, it probably wouldn't be this, but if I had more it would probably be included: that every single person who thinks that they are capable of making a coherent legal argument by reading a statute (or more likely, an article from biased media about an accusation of violation of a statute), deciding what the words should mean, and then making a purely verbal argument about what is and is not against the law....

...that those people represent themselves at trial and on appeal. I suspect they'd be utterly baffled by the results, since that's not how law works. Law is about fitting the facts of your case into the facts of all like cases, then applying the same result. It's not just about announcing personal opinions as declarative statements.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
I know the President's criminality is downright boring at this point, but it's probably worth it to put this here anyway since by lunch there will be more news that buries this.

“I will never testify against Trump.” This statement was recently made by Roger Stone, essentially stating that he will not be forced by a rogue and out of control prosecutor to make up lies and stories about “President Trump.” Nice to know that some people still have “guts!”
-Donald Trump
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1069619316319035392

George Conway, lawyer, responds:
"File under “18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512”
https://twitter.com/gtconway3d

Neal Katyal, (Supreme Court lawyer; law professor, former acting Solicitor General of United States) responds to Conway:
"George is right. This is genuinely looking like witness tampering. DOJ (at least with a nonfake AG) prosecutes cases like these all the time. The fact it's done out in the open is no defense. Trump is genuinely melting down, and no good lawyer can represent him under these circumstances."
https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1069626379484975106

The criminal code that addresses Trump's crime appears to be 18 U.S. Code § 1512(b) and 5013, which deal with witness tampering, precisely as George Conway says:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1503

Norm Eisen (Senior Fellow at Brooking and Former White House Ethics Czar), confirms 1512)b:
"This is witness tampering under 18 USC 1512(b), which makes it illegal to “cause or induce any person to withhold testimony.”
https://twitter.com/NormEisen/status/1069634040934785025

More "process crimes," I guess.
Click to expand...

LOL. You guys have an active fantasy life. Has Trump been found guilty of any crime? You act like he adds more and more onto the list every day but I have yet to see him be found guilty of even one.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Crimes require acts. Not assumptions based on anything that doesn't outright say "I'm going to......" Even obstruction charges require something to be done. Attempted robbery (or anything "attempted") is an act, not an assumption. "Attempted" literally means that you tried to do an act.
Click to expand...
Oh lordy, you really don't understand. Sorry, I thought you were kidding.

Pardon dangling is an act.
 
Mach said:
Oh lordy, you really don't understand. Sorry, I thought you were kidding.

Pardon dangling is an act.
Click to expand...

Has Trump even mentioned pardoning any one of them? If not then you're going off of assumptions.
 
Superfly said:
Either that, or he will resign, and blame it on the evil Democrats being out to get him, and fabricating evidence, much like he and his base do now.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt Republicans will force from office.

The only thing that can force him from office is knowing a sealed indictment is waiting for him upon completion of his term, and needing a pardon from another president for it, which would put Pence in the catbirds seat for the last year or so of the WH.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Has Trump even mentioned pardoning any one of them? If not then you're going off of assumptions.
Click to expand...

Again, what will you think if Trump pardons any of them?
 
Airyaman said:
Another reason, imo, is that everyone in Trump's orbit -- Trump included, obviously -- is a serial liar. I cannot think of anyone associated with Trump who does not lie.

Hard to suss out the truth of the matter when you can't tell what the truth is.
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba]

what have kelly and mattis lied about?
 
justabubba said:
[emphasis added by bubba]

what have kelly and mattis lied about?
Click to expand...

Mattis?

He just lied about Khashoggi in front of Congress.

Kelly?

He lied about Rob Porter, bigly.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Has Trump even mentioned pardoning any one of them? If not then you're going off of assumptions.
Click to expand...

His tweet in regards to Stone was clearly hinting that he'd pardon him for some quid pro quo. He doesn't have to come right out and say it.
 
Airyaman said:
Mattis?

He just lied about Khashoggi in front of Congress.
Click to expand...
what lie did he tell the congress?

Kelly?

He lied about Rob Porter, bigly.
Click to expand...
Nearly a month after Rob Porter, the White House staff secretary, resigned amid accusations of domestic abuse, John F. Kelly, the president’s chief of staff, acknowledged on Friday that he had stumbled in response to initial reports of the allegations.
... Mr. Kelly’s timeline still does not explain why Mr. Porter returned to the White House the next day, or why the White House said the next day that Mr. Porter would remain on staff for a time before leaving. But Mr. Kelly said he would take the blame.

“I should have collected everyone that works here,” Mr. Kelly said when asked about the fuzziness in the hours after the first report of abuse. “All 1,100 people.”
Click to expand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/us/politics/john-kelly-rob-porter.html

to me, it appears kelly acknowledged his error
 
Airyaman said:
That there was "no smoking gun" with the Khashoggi ordeal. Seems almost every GOP Senator who listened to Gina Haspel heartily disagrees.
Click to expand...
appears to be enough room for plausible deniability by the saudis/msb:
The CIA has assessed that Crown Prince bin Salman, known as MBS, ordered Khashoggi’s killing, based mainly on an understanding of how the kingdom operates and the proximity of several members of the team involved to the prince, officials told CBS News.
Click to expand...
no smoking gun, there. a high degree of likelihood, but not absolute proof
https://kbzk.com/national/2018/12/0...ing-on-khashoggi-murder-theres-a-smoking-saw/



It is way deeper than this. You must not have been paying attention at the time, almost everything Kelly said about the event proved to be a lie.
Click to expand...
kelly acknowledged his mistake. does not mean he lied. could well mean he commented without adequate information
 
Sure, "justbubba".

(do you not know how that username forces me to try much harder to take you seriously on a political forum? Typically being a "bubba" is not conducive towards implication of intelligence. But we shall set that aside. Maybe.)

Yes, if you want to stretch things, we could pretend there is a level of "plausible deniability" in the CIA's assessments. That is intended. The CIA is an investigative branch of the government. They do not make conclusions. Just like the FBI does (should) not make any conclusions. That's what the legal system is for.

Almost everyone who has viewed the provided intelligence has concluded that MBS ordered the killing. It has not been proven in a court of law, but the evidence that even we (the public) have is rather unambiguous.

So let's step back then. The evidence looks like MBS ordered the killing of Khashoggi. Should the US initiate legal action against MBS? We have damning evidence, a very good case.

Agree to proceed?

Mattis was wrong to say there was "no smoking gun".

As to Kelly, he appears to have taken some blame, but not the blame he is actually guilty of.
 
Cardinal said:
I know the President's criminality is downright boring at this point, but it's probably worth it to put this here anyway since by lunch there will be more news that buries this.

“I will never testify against Trump.” This statement was recently made by Roger Stone, essentially stating that he will not be forced by a rogue and out of control prosecutor to make up lies and stories about “President Trump.” Nice to know that some people still have “guts!”
-Donald Trump
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1069619316319035392

George Conway, lawyer, responds:
"File under “18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512”
https://twitter.com/gtconway3d

Neal Katyal, (Supreme Court lawyer; law professor, former acting Solicitor General of United States) responds to Conway:
"George is right. This is genuinely looking like witness tampering. DOJ (at least with a nonfake AG) prosecutes cases like these all the time. The fact it's done out in the open is no defense. Trump is genuinely melting down, and no good lawyer can represent him under these circumstances."
https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1069626379484975106

The criminal code that addresses Trump's crime appears to be 18 U.S. Code § 1512(b) and 5013, which deal with witness tampering, precisely as George Conway says:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1503

Norm Eisen (Senior Fellow at Brooking and Former White House Ethics Czar), confirms 1512)b:
"This is witness tampering under 18 USC 1512(b), which makes it illegal to “cause or induce any person to withhold testimony.”
https://twitter.com/NormEisen/status/1069634040934785025

More "process crimes," I guess.
Click to expand...

I can see this is the new line of attack since Russia went nowhere.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Crimes require acts. Not assumptions based on anything that doesn't outright say "I'm going to......" Even obstruction charges require something to be done. Attempted robbery (or anything "attempted") is an act, not an assumption. "Attempted" literally means that you tried to do an act.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, conspiracy to commit crimes is also a crime.
If I gather a bunch of people together and draw up plans to rob a bunch of banks, and word gets out to the cops, I/we can be arrested for conspiracy to commit armed robbery, even if we never walked into a single bank

Try it sometime.
 
justabubba said:
semantic point. i saw no "encouraging" a witness to not cooperate
instead, by tRump's tweet, i saw "celebrating" the witness' refusal to cooperate
the decision not to cooperate was already articulated by the prospective witness


that the president uniquely holds the power of pardon would make this an even more challenging case to make
why would someone with that capacity attempt to undermine the testimony of the prospective witness when he holds the ability to pardon him for any outcome resulting from the testimony or refusal to testify


and if you are seeking precedent to establishment tampering then make sure that precedent setting party also holds the power of the pardon, otherwise such comparison is apples and oatmeal
Click to expand...

If the witness has testimony that would implicate Trump in a crime he really can't benefit from granting a pardon. If Stone is "pardoned" for his own crimes he can be compelled to testify against Trump. If Trump pardons him for charges that he is obstructing the investigation, Mueller can just recall him and charge him again.
 
Superfly said:
I think it's hilarious what Conway is doing. You have to wonder what life is like around the Conway dinner table at night. :lol:
Click to expand...

Dinner might be a fun time for both of them. Reminds me of James Carville and Mary Matalin.
 
Cardinal said:
From Renato Mariotti (former Federal Prosecutor):

"George Conway, Neal Katyal and other highly respected attorneys quickly noted that Trump’s tweet looks a lot like witness tampering. They’re right—it does. But proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it’s witness tampering is more challenging than it might seem at first glance.

I’ve included the relevant jury instruction below. Mueller would need to prove, among other things, that Trump had “corrupt” intent and acted with the intent to cause Stone to withhold testimony."

"Because of the challenges of proving “corrupt” intent, and the legal challenges Trump could bring, I think the best way for a prosecutor to charge today’s tweet would be as part of a larger conspiracy to obstruct justice, instead of as a stand-alone crime. I’ve been convinced since January that Trump obstructed justice for the reasons I explained in the piece linked earlier in the thread. That larger scheme would be easier to prove than a case based on a single tweet."

https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1069671987918835713

So a broader legal consensus appears to be shaping that proving criminal intent on this one tweet alone would be extremely difficult. However, as part of the larger context of obstruction of justice, Trump's tweet would be considered as strong evidence of that crime.
Click to expand...

It is quite amazing that the President of the United States encourages his administration to NOT cooperate with government agencies. The POTUS says having guts means lie to the FBI. POTUS says don't be a rat! And the right wingers are fine with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom