When Is It Obstruction Of Justice?

[Waddy]

Department of Justice policy and the Civil Service Reform Act prevent Mueller from considering political affiliation when hiring. Go ahead and boo-hoo '12 Angry Democrats' all you want. If the facts are on Trump's side then he will be cleared.

Well, he obviously did consider their political affiliation. And he picked Trump haters. I believe Mueller detests Trump. And Trump is pretty detestable. Problem is, IMO he's better than the alternatives. You are soooo naive.... I almost envy your innocence. NOTHING in the courts is about facts or the truth. It's an adversary system. You do EVERYTHING you can to win and so will your opponent. Prosecutors routinely with hold evidence (facts) that would clear the accused. They oppose DNA testing if that might clear the accused. Understand, we don't have, and NEVER had, a system of "truth". We have a system where making the other side LOOK guilty is all that counts. Having the investigation stacked with your political opponents will not produce any truth, especially so if that isn't the goal in the first place.

 

[plutonium]

Where did you come up with the above ....wait... a debunk Buzzfeed story?:lamo CNN or MSNBC fell all over themselves for this debunk story and you seem to be caught hook line and sinker?

I know trump think americans are ignorant but do you too.... trump dam well tried to influence his fired attorneys cohens testimony on feb 9 in front of blue congress that loves this country and not Putin!!!

 

[Nickyjo]

Beg to differ on the court case. Corporations have long been considered "individuals" with the rights and responsibilities of individuals. The SC was upholding a strong precedent. And there are good reasons for viewing corporations as individuals. You wouldn't have contracts, how would you sue a corporation; you would have to sue each member and each stockholder individually. Without corporations holding "person" status, the whole system falls apart.

But you are right about how the federal government got sooooo big. When you can't get justice "locally", or convince locals to join with you on an issue, federalizing it is often the way to go. And I'm not arguing that that is even the wrong course of action. I'm just saying that the more you "nationalize" and federalize issues the more important national politics becomes. And everything around national politics. Even journalists will become obsessed with "national" news and end up taking sides themselves. And the more money it attracts. And then that huge amount of power goes up for bids. Then people behind the scenes take over and that's the end of your democracy. Now you live in a world controlled by a "deep state".

Good points, but on the corporate individual issue -- Fine as far as it goes to shield its personnel from certain liability. But there is no contradiction between that and forbidding them from making limitless donations, in many cases secret donations. Corporations don't think and don't feel pain. If they are individuals, let them pay taxes at the same rates and play by the same rules as individuals who do.

 

[Waddy]

Good points, but on the corporate individual issue -- Fine as far as it goes to shield its personnel from certain liability. But there is no contradiction between that and forbidding them from making limitless donations, in many cases secret donations. Corporations don't think and don't feel pain. If they are individuals, let them pay taxes at the same rates and play by the same rules as individuals who do.

They are limited by the same rules as other individuals. I, you, and corporations, are limited in how much they can contribute DIRECTLY to any one campaign. It's somewhat complicated, as you can see here;

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates...-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/

Where there are virtually NO restrictions is either individuals or corporations contributing to a PAC or other third party. They can be limitless, and secret. Usually are. That's where the real money goes. And then those PAC's spend vast millions on behalf of their candidate. To me, it's difficult to distinguish between a candidates spending on TV ads and a PAC spending on his/her behalf.

PAC's are also where it's at on what's called the ground game. That means registration efforts, phone banks, getting voters to the polls, paying for events and just inviting the candidate to speak at that event, etc. There are lots of ways to make an election one sided. And EVERY candidate uses these things to maximum effect. Most paid for with PAC money. So, you gonna ban special interest groups. too?

 

[Nickyjo]

They are limited by the same rules as other individuals. I, you, and corporations, are limited in how much they can contribute DIRECTLY to any one campaign. It's somewhat complicated, as you can see here;

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates...-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/

Where there are virtually NO restrictions is either individuals or corporations contributing to a PAC or other third party. They can be limitless, and secret. Usually are. That's where the real money goes. And then those PAC's spend vast millions on behalf of their candidate. To me, it's difficult to distinguish between a candidates spending on TV ads and a PAC spending on his/her behalf.

PAC's are also where it's at on what's called the ground game. That means registration efforts, phone banks, getting voters to the polls, paying for events and just inviting the candidate to speak at that event, etc. There are lots of ways to make an election one sided. And EVERY candidate uses these things to maximum effect. Most paid for with PAC money. So, you gonna ban special interest groups. too?

Yes, ideally public financing of campaigns, a likely unconstitutional restriction. Years ago, my girlfriend and I were hosts to an Aussie Senator (one of ten, I believe) from Western Australia who had been in DC to testify on the killings in West Timor and wanted to stay overnight with some US citizens in SF. I asked him what his campaign cost. $1,000. I expressed dismay at our system where money rules. He said that actually his campaign rode on the coattails of another, more prominent Senator. What did his campaign cost? $3,000. Friend of mine was at the time running for supervisor in a San Francisco district. His budget dwarfed both of theirs combined to represent a fraction of the number of people he did. We have an approximation of democracy, sort of a Plato’s cave of shadows of the real thing. Still, we get stuff done from time to time.

 

[Waddy]

Yes, ideally public financing of campaigns, a likely unconstitutional restriction. Years ago, my girlfriend and I were hosts to an Aussie Senator (one of ten, I believe) from Western Australia who had been in DC to testify on the killings in West Timor and wanted to stay overnight with some US citizens in SF. I asked him what his campaign cost. $1,000. I expressed dismay at our system where money rules. He said that actually his campaign rode on the coattails of another, more prominent Senator. What did his campaign cost? $3,000. Friend of mine was at the time running for supervisor in a San Francisco district. His budget dwarfed both of theirs combined to represent a fraction of the number of people he did. We have an approximation of democracy, sort of a Plato’s cave of shadows of the real thing. Still, we get stuff done from time to time.

Oddly enough, despite their apparently successful controls on campaign spending, Australia has their share of corruption, graft and greed. Maybe it isn't just about the money, although money sure does play some role. Don't kid yourself; we don't even have Plato's Cave analogy kind of democracy. It is clear that any candidate who makes it to the top has run all the hurdles to gain the approval of the behind the scenes power brokers who really put them in power. In this I think Trump is an outlier; he wasn't supposed to happen.