25 Mar 19
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/doj-conclusion-trump-committed-crime-exoneration-190324191510949.html
The article states that obstruction of justice can't be charged against Trump because there was no proof of the crime he's alleged to have obstructed the investigation of.
Does this mean that as long as obstruction of an investigation against me is successful, that I can't be charged with obstruction of justice...no matter the evidence for it?
If I threaten a prosecutor with the loss of his job if he doesn't drop the case against me (and have the power to do so), then I get away with it if my obstruction if no proof of wrongdoing is found as a result?
@vivify saidWhat the right is missing thru all this is that Barr's opinion means almost nothing, considering the proximity of his nose to Trump's ass.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/doj-conclusion-trump-committed-crime-exoneration-190324191510949.html
The article states that obstruction of justice can't be charged against Trump because there was no proof of the crime he's alleged to have obstructed the investigation of.
Does this mean that as long as obstruction of an investigation against me is successful, ...[text shortened]... to do so), then I get away with it if my obstruction if no proof of wrongdoing is found as a result?
#ReleaseTheReport
25 Mar 19
@vivify saidI've found very little support for such an argument in my review of lawyers commenting on Barr's "summary". For example:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/doj-conclusion-trump-committed-crime-exoneration-190324191510949.html
The article states that obstruction of justice can't be charged against Trump because there was no proof of the crime he's alleged to have obstructed the investigation of.
Does this mean that as long as obstruction of an investigation against me is successful, ...[text shortened]... to do so), then I get away with it if my obstruction if no proof of wrongdoing is found as a result?
Barr’s argument thus suggests that if a subject of a criminal investigation avoids indictment for the underlying offense—whether it be insider trading, burglary, or election interference—he should not be charged with criminal liability for efforts to obstruct the investigation of the potential offense, either.
That is simply not the law. Proof of an underlying crime is not an element of an obstruction charge, and individuals are regularly charged with obstruction without facing criminal liability for an underlying offense.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/william-barr-doesnt-get-to-exonerate-donald-trump.html
26 Mar 19
@vivify saidnot the case at all. Comey was fired for incompetence...the US constitution grants the authority to the US president. Comey also violated FBI rules and stole govt property when he leaked info (supposed memo). Your dem politicians are misleading you, it is not a crime for a president to exercise his constitutional authority.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/doj-conclusion-trump-committed-crime-exoneration-190324191510949.html
The article states that obstruction of justice can't be charged against Trump because there was no proof of the crime he's alleged to have obstructed the investigation of.
Does this mean that as long as obstruction of an investigation against me is successful, ...[text shortened]... to do so), then I get away with it if my obstruction if no proof of wrongdoing is found as a result?
26 Mar 19
@kazetnagorra saidJust who is blocking a report?
With Trump's lackeys blocking release of the report (which for some bizarre reason they have the ability to do), it doesn't look like we'll see anything of it until maybe 2020. Way to banana republic, folks!
26 Mar 19
@mott-the-hoople saidAG Barr could release it in its entirety at any time.
Just who is blocking a report?
@mott-the-hoople saidThat's not what the Donald said:
not the case at all. Comey was fired for incompetence...the US constitution grants the authority to the US president. Comey also violated FBI rules and stole govt property when he leaked info (supposed memo). Your dem politicians are misleading you, it is not a crime for a president to exercise his constitutional authority.
Comey had been leading an investigation into possible collusion between Trump advisers and Russian officials when he was dismissed by the president. Defending that decision in an interview on NBC News on Thursday, Trump said: “And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said: ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.’”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/11/donald-trump-james-comey-firing-russia-investigation
The US Constitution does not grant the President the authority to use his legitimate powers to obstruct justice; just ask Richard Nixon.
26 Mar 19
@mott-the-hoople saidAnd:
not the case at all. Comey was fired for incompetence...the US constitution grants the authority to the US president. Comey also violated FBI rules and stole govt property when he leaked info (supposed memo). Your dem politicians are misleading you, it is not a crime for a president to exercise his constitutional authority.
"I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job," Trump told the Russian foreign minister and U.S. ambassador on May 10 during an Oval Office meeting, according to a transcript of the meeting read to The Times by a U.S. official. "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."
https://www.npr.org/2017/05/19/529171249/report-trump-told-russians-he-fired-nut-job-comey-because-of-investigation
26 Mar 19
@no1marauder saidAre you defending Comey? he wasn't a nut job? Even democrats wanted Comey fired.
And:
"I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job," Trump told the Russian foreign minister and U.S. ambassador on May 10 during an Oval Office meeting, according to a transcript of the meeting read to The Times by a U.S. official. "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."
https://www.npr.org/2017/05/19/529171249/report-trump-told-russians-he-fired-nut-job-comey-because-of-investigation
Trump said Comey was a "nut job" is the reason he fired him. One of his "nut job" decisions created the (now proven false) Russia investigation. Trump DID NOT say he fired Comey BECAUSE of the Russia investigation. Just another of your lies.
@mott-the-hoople saidTrump: And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said: ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.’”
Are you defending Comey? he wasn't a nut job? Even democrats wanted Comey fired.
Trump said Comey was a "nut job" is the reason he fired him. One of his "nut job" decisions created the (now proven false) Russia investigation. Trump DID NOT say he fired Comey BECAUSE of the Russia investigation. Just another of your lies.
Right wingers live in a FantasyWorld.
Even AG Barr now admits Russian interference in the election and there were numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians. The investigation was legitimate and we still don't know what Mueller's report says. But Barr can't keep hiding it forever.
I read Comey's book; he was and is hardly a "nut job", he served in numerous government positions with distinction off and on for 30 years. He's a bit self-righteous and overly confident in his own judgment for my taste, but no he wasn't a "nut job" just because a narcissistic a**hole called him one for having the temerity to investigate Russian interference in US elections.
26 Mar 19
@mott-the-hoople saidBarr is blocking its release; McConnell blocked a motion to force him to release it. Clearly they are worried about the damaging content of the report.
Just who is blocking a report?
26 Mar 19
@kazetnagorra saidTrump won the election, legally, without any coordination with Russia. You see, Russia may have indeed tried to influence it, one way or another,, but Trump has not been found to have been connected with that goings-on. That is the gist. And do you know that collusion is not a crime?
Barr is blocking its release; McConnell blocked a motion to force him to release it. Clearly they are worried about the damaging content of the report.
Secondly, when one is the target of an investigation, and no evidence is found, the fact that no charge is brought, due to lack of evidence, is the same thing as being 'exonerated'. That word is being confused, maybe improperly applied here. How about, "Not Guilty"?
With a mountain of evidence against Mail-Frauder Smollette, ole Jussie is let go. With no such Real evidence against Trump, (you are fantasizing), they and you will continue the attack?!?? What is the difference?? I wonder, if the judge were the same in both cases, how he could keep a straight face while letting Jussie go, but Not Donald? Can we not let Trump go after 2 years and get on with getting all of your govt entitlements lined up. One of your candidates is promising shorter school days to the 16 year olds. That ensures a million new votes at least.
26 Mar 19
@averagejoe1 saidWe already know Trump was "connected" to it - he hired a Russian asset as his campaign manager and national security adviser, and his own son and close advisers were caught red-handed asking the Russian military for aid attacking the United States in order to help them win the election. Of course, that is only one of the many things that, in a civilized society, would cause him to be ineligible for public office.
Trump won the election, legally, without any coordination with Russia. You see, Russia may have indeed tried to influence it, one way or another,, but Trump has not been found to have been connected with that goings-on. That is the gist. And do you know that collusion is not a crime?
Secondly, when one is the target of an investigation, and no evidence is found, the f ...[text shortened]... es is promising shorter school days to the 16 year olds. That ensures a million new votes at least.
We cannot know the report "exonerates" Trump until we see it. The mere word of a man who played an important role in letting numerous dirty war criminals responsible for the deaths of thousands get away with it scot-free is, by itself, less than convincing.