Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Opinions & Editorials
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Opinions & Editorials Discuss Trump Criminal Investigation at the General Forum; Before the Sloth has a chance.....

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 06-11-2019, 08:24 AM
Lollie's Avatar
Partisan de Trump
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Northern Ohio
Gender: Female
Posts: 18,243
Thanks: 14,913
Thanked 13,985 Times in 8,586 Posts
Default Re: Trump Criminal Investigation

Before the Sloth has a chance..
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 06-11-2019, 08:26 AM
Constant_Slothrop's Avatar
Counselor
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 759
Thanks: 4
Thanked 143 Times in 127 Posts
Default Re: Trump Criminal Investigation

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Article 2 of the Constitution gives the President the power to dismiss members of the executive branch including special counsel. Oh wait, this power only applies to Democrat Presidents.

The statute requires a demonstration of corrupt intent. As AG Barr pointedly explained there is no evidence President Trump intended to stop the investigation by firing Mueller, another special counsel would be appointed in his place. Of course Resistance Democrats having already pronounced Trump guilty simply impute corrupt intent.
That argument completely fails basic logic, since there is clear evidence that Trump wanted to limit the investigation to protect the subjects of the investigation and no evidence or reasonable argument that there were any non-corrupt bases for Trump to fire Mueller. Moreover, the fact that the Archibald Cox firing was one element to the judiciary committee’s articles of impeachment of Nixon defeats the argument that it can’t be obstruction if he knows that someone else would have taken Mueller’s place.

All that said, none of your arguments explain how Trump’s efforts to have Sessions limit the Mueller inquiry into future election interference, in order to prevent him from investigating any of the Russian interference in 2016, was not textbook obstruction of justice.
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:42 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 17,251
Thanks: 10,444
Thanked 10,992 Times in 6,613 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Trump Criminal Investigation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Constant_Slothrop View Post
That argument completely fails basic logic, since there is clear evidence that Trump wanted to limit the investigation to protect the subjects of the investigation and no evidence or reasonable argument that there were any non-corrupt bases for Trump to fire Mueller. Moreover, the fact that the Archibald Cox firing was one element to the judiciary committee’s articles of impeachment of Nixon defeats the argument that it can’t be obstruction if he knows that someone else would have taken Mueller’s place.

All that said, none of your arguments explain how Trump’s efforts to have Sessions limit the Mueller inquiry into future election interference, in order to prevent him from investigating any of the Russian interference in 2016, was not textbook obstruction of justice.
What fails basic logic is your attempt to insert a guilty until proven innocent standard into the analysis of corrupt intent. The law requires proof of corrupt intent not the absence of subjective non corrupt intent. It's typical of the Resistance blind hatred of Trump to follow Mueller's press conference lead where a failure to exonerate means guilt after all the ends justify the means.

I note the absence of any attempt to address the issue of prosecuting or impeaching the President for nearly exercising his article 2. Gee, the President wanted to limit the special counsel's investigation after watching his rampage of prosecutions for unrelated offenses and process crimes using abusive tactics. It defies logic to claim any President should sit passively while a political appointee Carrie's out such a campaign against him.
__________________
What is a 30 something year old single man with a rock in one hand and a Honduran flag in the other?

An asylum seeker.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 06-11-2019, 10:59 AM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,530
Thanks: 8,653
Thanked 11,897 Times in 6,624 Posts
Default Re: Trump Criminal Investigation

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
What fails basic logic is your attempt to insert a guilty until proven innocent standard into the analysis of corrupt intent. The law requires proof of corrupt intent not the absence of subjective non corrupt intent. It's typical of the Resistance blind hatred of Trump to follow Mueller's press conference lead where a failure to exonerate means guilt after all the ends justify the means.

I note the absence of any attempt to address the issue of prosecuting or impeaching the President for nearly exercising his article 2. Gee, the President wanted to limit the special counsel's investigation after watching his rampage of prosecutions for unrelated offenses and process crimes using abusive tactics. It defies logic to claim any President should sit passively while a political appointee Carrie's out such a campaign against him.


"Please leave my associates out of this. You are after me, I am innocent" is not obstruction.
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 06-12-2019, 10:30 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,068
Thanks: 1,480
Thanked 2,290 Times in 1,825 Posts
Default Re: Trump Criminal Investigation

I wasn't able to watch the House Judiciary Committee's hearing on the Mueller Report but did catch some of the testimony later in the evening. Since the Trump administration is obstructing the House investigation the Judiciary Committee brought in experts that were not directly related to the investigation but instead had to rely on the Mueller Report for their evaluation of the evidence.

They pointed out that Volume One and the decision to not seek indictments didn't mean that there wasn't evidence of a conspiracy. They pointed to many parts of Volume One that reflected a conspiracy as well as the obstruction of the investigation by members of the Trump campaign where evidence was destroyed, where testimony was unreliable, and cases where witnesses committed perjury to obstruct the investigation.

President Trump and his campaign have not been cleared of "collusion" according to the legal experts that testified.

They went on to address Volume Two that addressed Obstruction of Justice by Donald Trump where the Mueller Investigation refused to make any determination on whether Trump obstructed justice because of DOJ policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted or prosecuted. The expert opinion was that the evidence clearly establishes obstruction of justice and anyone, other than a sitting president, would have faced at least three different Obstruction of Justice indictments and that the evidence was sufficient to obtain a conviction.

But that's not really news to anyone that's taken the time to read the Mueller Report. Here's the real news.

Apparently none of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee even tried to dispute the conclusions of the expert witnesses. None of them came to the aid of Donald Trump to claim "No collusion" and "No obstruction" because the Mueller Report provides evidence of both. Instead they went off on distractions such as the following:

One Republican asked the expert legal witness what the Democratic Presidential candidates' plans were to fund "Medicare" for all. WTF? Talk about a completely off topic question to ask in the Judiciary committee from a witness that has nothing to do with and no expertise in funding of government medical programs.

Another Republican asked about the Steele Dossier that had nothing to do with Mueller's Report Volume One on why the FBI counter-intelligence investigation into Russian intervention in our election began or why the Trump campaign came under suspicion during that investigation by withholding information from the FBI on it's Russian contacts.

So the Republicans on the committee didn't deny any of the legal conclusions by experts of evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians or the multiple counts of Obstruction of Justice by Donald Trump contained in Mueller's Report. Instead it was about the Republican members distracting from the facts and it didn't go over very well with me, to say the least, and I don't believe it went over very well with anyone that's seriously interested in the criminal conduct by Trump and his campaign.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 06-12-2019, 10:46 AM
Hairy Jello's Avatar
Deplorable
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,942
Thanks: 1,936
Thanked 12,734 Times in 8,003 Posts
Default Re: Trump Criminal Investigation

Page 5 and still no lib can do something simple like filling in the blank.

Trump should be impeached on the charge of _____________.
__________________

Not an accurate representation of a white person.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Hairy Jello For This Useful Post:
  #47 (permalink)  
Old 06-13-2019, 08:38 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 17,251
Thanks: 10,444
Thanked 10,992 Times in 6,613 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Trump Criminal Investigation

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
I wasn't able to watch the House Judiciary Committee's hearing on the Mueller Report but did catch some of the testimony later in the evening. Since the Trump administration is obstructing the House investigation the Judiciary Committee brought in experts that were not directly related to the investigation but instead had to rely on the Mueller Report for their evaluation of the evidence.

They pointed out that Volume One and the decision to not seek indictments didn't mean that there wasn't evidence of a conspiracy. They pointed to many parts of Volume One that reflected a conspiracy as well as the obstruction of the investigation by members of the Trump campaign where evidence was destroyed, where testimony was unreliable, and cases where witnesses committed perjury to obstruct the investigation.

President Trump and his campaign have not been cleared of "collusion" according to the legal experts that testified.

They went on to address Volume Two that addressed Obstruction of Justice by Donald Trump where the Mueller Investigation refused to make any determination on whether Trump obstructed justice because of DOJ policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted or prosecuted. The expert opinion was that the evidence clearly establishes obstruction of justice and anyone, other than a sitting president, would have faced at least three different Obstruction of Justice indictments and that the evidence was sufficient to obtain a conviction.

But that's not really news to anyone that's taken the time to read the Mueller Report. Here's the real news.

Apparently none of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee even tried to dispute the conclusions of the expert witnesses. None of them came to the aid of Donald Trump to claim "No collusion" and "No obstruction" because the Mueller Report provides evidence of both. Instead they went off on distractions such as the following:

One Republican asked the expert legal witness what the Democratic Presidential candidates' plans were to fund "Medicare" for all. WTF? Talk about a completely off topic question to ask in the Judiciary committee from a witness that has nothing to do with and no expertise in funding of government medical programs.

Another Republican asked about the Steele Dossier that had nothing to do with Mueller's Report Volume One on why the FBI counter-intelligence investigation into Russian intervention in our election began or why the Trump campaign came under suspicion during that investigation by withholding information from the FBI on it's Russian contacts.

So the Republicans on the committee didn't deny any of the legal conclusions by experts of evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians or the multiple counts of Obstruction of Justice by Donald Trump contained in Mueller's Report. Instead it was about the Republican members distracting from the facts and it didn't go over very well with me, to say the least, and I don't believe it went over very well with anyone that's seriously interested in the criminal conduct by Trump and his campaign.
Do you mean John Dean and another bat crazy CNN hack when you write "legal experts"? That's funny.

John Dean announced early on he wasn't a fact witness meaning he was just there to give his opinion. Gee, what a surprise he condemned Trump's conduct as worse than Watergate just as he had characterized every Republican since Nixon. Never mind that Dean is a convicted felon for obstruction of justice and is on CNN'S payroll he is a legal expert.

Resistance Democrats can't bring the impeachment proceedings they have wanted from the day Trump won the election so in another publicity stunt masquerading as a Congressional committee hearing they invite CNN hacks to waste time giving their opinions. What's next, eating fried chicken in the committee room? Oh wait.
__________________
What is a 30 something year old single man with a rock in one hand and a Honduran flag in the other?

An asylum seeker.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
criminal, investigation, trump

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0