(04-24-2019 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 09:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 08:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-23-2019 04:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-23-2019 09:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Okay, so agree with me that Mueller did not exonerate him. Thanks!

I’ll agree with you on that, if you agree that it’s irrelevant. Prosecutors and investigators don’t exonerate people. Courts don’t either by the way. Courts find defendants guilty or not guilty. Courts don’t exonerate people or find them innocent. All investigators and prosecutors can do is to find probable cause to prosecute to be present or not. So Mueller did not exonerate Trump because that was not within the scope of his assignment.

Of course...and I've already said as much.

So do you agree that it is a meaningless factoid?
I'd have been astonished if Mueller had found him innocent or exonerated him. That's simply not within the scope of Mueller's investigation. I wish he would have said that in the report, but had he done so I would have anticipated major blowback from the many democats on his team. So he threw them a fish.

Mostly. I was only rebutting the poster who said the report exonerated him when in fact it said the complete opposite.

I wouldn't say complete opposite. Complete opposite would have been finding some culpability for something. It did not do that.

I look upon the report wording as more of a scope limitation than anything else. Mueller was not tasked to exonerate Trump or to find him innocent. So he didn't. But he didn't find anything to go forward with prosecution. Legally, that's about as close as you ever get to a finding of innocent.

(04-24-2019 01:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 09:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 08:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-23-2019 04:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I’ll agree with you on that, if you agree that it’s irrelevant. Prosecutors and investigators don’t exonerate people. Courts don’t either by the way. Courts find defendants guilty or not guilty. Courts don’t exonerate people or find them innocent. All investigators and prosecutors can do is to find probable cause to prosecute to be present or not. So Mueller did not exonerate Trump because that was not within the scope of his assignment.

Of course...and I've already said as much.

So do you agree that it is a meaningless factoid?
I'd have been astonished if Mueller had found him innocent or exonerated him. That's simply not within the scope of Mueller's investigation. I wish he would have said that in the report, but had he done so I would have anticipated major blowback from the many democats on his team. So he threw them a fish.

Mostly. I was only rebutting the poster who said the report exonerated him when in fact it said the complete opposite.

I wouldn't say complete opposite. Complete opposite would have been finding some culpability for something. It did not do that.

I look upon the report wording as more of a scope limitation than anything else. Mueller was not tasked to exonerate Trump or to find him innocent. So he didn't. But he didn't find anything to go forward with prosecution. Legally, that's about as close as you ever get to a finding of innocent.

Yes, but Mueller makes it abundantly clear that it was not his duty to recommend any prosecution of the sitting president, rather leaving that to congress.

(04-24-2019 01:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 01:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 09:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 08:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Of course...and I've already said as much.

So do you agree that it is a meaningless factoid?
I'd have been astonished if Mueller had found him innocent or exonerated him. That's simply not within the scope of Mueller's investigation. I wish he would have said that in the report, but had he done so I would have anticipated major blowback from the many democats on his team. So he threw them a fish.

Mostly. I was only rebutting the poster who said the report exonerated him when in fact it said the complete opposite.

I wouldn't say complete opposite. Complete opposite would have been finding some culpability for something. It did not do that.

I look upon the report wording as more of a scope limitation than anything else. Mueller was not tasked to exonerate Trump or to find him innocent. So he didn't. But he didn't find anything to go forward with prosecution. Legally, that's about as close as you ever get to a finding of innocent.

Yes, but Mueller makes it abundantly clear that it was not his duty to recommend any prosecution of the sitting president, rather leaving that to congress.

a) is that right? I don't think so. The report was on Russian meddling and related matters. It found no meaningful evidence of collusion with Trump and co.... which is far closer to exoneration than 'the opposite'.

b) to obstruction, THAT is where he said what he said... because as he said... if he DID try to obstruct, he was ineffective/thwarted. THAT was the portion where he was neither convicted nor exonerated.

Still... NO determination (the best description of what happened) is no closer to exoneration than it is to conviction... and if you agree that you can't obstruct justice without an underlying crime (which has been noted in various places)... then 'a' makes 'b' 'not guilty' as well.

I understand not everyone agrees with this... but I also understand that many who don't agree with it, DID agree with it when they 'passed' on prosecuting Hillary.

Remember that unlike Trump, Hillary was found to have broken the law... Comey merely didn't think he could prove 'intent'.

(04-24-2019 03:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 01:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 01:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 09:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So do you agree that it is a meaningless factoid?
I'd have been astonished if Mueller had found him innocent or exonerated him. That's simply not within the scope of Mueller's investigation. I wish he would have said that in the report, but had he done so I would have anticipated major blowback from the many democats on his team. So he threw them a fish.

Mostly. I was only rebutting the poster who said the report exonerated him when in fact it said the complete opposite.

I wouldn't say complete opposite. Complete opposite would have been finding some culpability for something. It did not do that.

I look upon the report wording as more of a scope limitation than anything else. Mueller was not tasked to exonerate Trump or to find him innocent. So he didn't. But he didn't find anything to go forward with prosecution. Legally, that's about as close as you ever get to a finding of innocent.

Yes, but Mueller makes it abundantly clear that it was not his duty to recommend any prosecution of the sitting president, rather leaving that to congress.

a) is that right? I don't think so. The report was on Russian meddling and related matters. It found no meaningful evidence of collusion with Trump and co.... which is far closer to exoneration than 'the opposite'.

b) to obstruction, THAT is where he said what he said... because as he said... if he DID try to obstruct, he was ineffective/thwarted. THAT was the portion where he was neither convicted nor exonerated.

Still... NO determination (the best description of what happened) is no closer to exoneration than it is to conviction... and if you agree that you can't obstruct justice without an underlying crime (which has been noted in various places)... then 'a' makes 'b' 'not guilty' as well.

I understand not everyone agrees with this... but I also understand that many who don't agree with it, DID agree with it when they 'passed' on prosecuting Hillary.

Remember that unlike Trump, Hillary was found to have broken the law... Comey merely didn't think he could prove 'intent'.

Yes, but if you think that trump was not trying to obstruct the justice department investigation, you're incredibly naive. There's little doubt he was. Now, whether what he attempted was a crime is certainly debatable...mostly because thankfully for him his minions were just smart enough to ignore him.

I personally think HRC's breaking of laws was merely her grandiose-ness in believing she was above it and didn't have to follow it...thinking she new best. I don't believe she was doing it to be intentional...and Comey agreed. IMHO trump was clearly trying to shut down the investigation to save his presidency, as evidenced by his reported quote “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m ******.”

(04-24-2019 03:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Yes, but if you think that trump was not trying to obstruct the justice department investigation, you're incredibly naive. There's little doubt he was. Now, whether what he attempted was a crime is certainly debatable...mostly because thankfully for him his minions were just smart enough to ignore him.

You're conflating arguments.

The only 'obstruction' that matters is the LEGAL definition of obstruction. I absolutely agree that he tried to thwart what he saw as an UNjust investigation. That's not (under the legal definition of the word as you admit' obstruction. You and the left keep using a word that has a real legal meaning in a way that tries to conflate that.

Nearly every 'defendant' obstructs the prosecutor.

Quote:I personally think HRC's breaking of laws was merely her grandiose-ness in believing she was above it and didn't have to follow it...thinking she new best. I don't believe she was doing it to be intentional...and Comey agreed. IMHO trump was clearly trying to shut down the investigation to save his presidency, as evidenced by his reported quote “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m ******.”

Because he knew he HADN'T broken the law and the investigation was a sham that would only detract from his presidency... and Mueller agreed.

The clear difference being that Hillary DID break the law and Trump DIDN'T (the acts under investigation)

Essentially what you're saying is....

Hillary broke the law, but she gets away with it because she honestly thinks she's above the law
Trump DIDN"T break the law, but he should go down anyway because he actively fought the 'fake' investigation.

That makes zero sense to me

(04-24-2019 03:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Yes, but if you think that trump was not trying to obstruct the justice department investigation, you're incredibly naive. There's little doubt he was. Now, whether what he attempted was a crime is certainly debatable...mostly because thankfully for him his minions were just smart enough to ignore him.

I see nothing wrong with doing everything that you can do legally to obstruct an unwarranted or improper investigation. Trump did nothing that he lacked the legal authority to do, absent criminal intent on his part. And proof of the criminal intent element gets very difficult once there is no underlying crime. That's how this differs from Watergate. Watergate started with a crime (the break-in) and was an investigation of how the crime occurred, and who new what and when about it. This was a search for a crime, and it never found one. That is a huge distinction legally.

Quote:I personally think HRC's breaking of laws was merely her grandiose-ness in believing she was above it and didn't have to follow it...thinking she new best. I don't believe she was doing it to be intentional...and Comey agreed. IMHO trump was clearly trying to shut down the investigation to save his presidency, as evidenced by his reported quote “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m ******.”

The difference between Trump and Hillary is that Hillary committed crimes that do not require intent. You are entrusted with classified information, you hazard such information for any reason, that's a crime. Grandiose-ness and believing you are above it and don't have to comply are criminal states of mind when dealing with classified information. No intent is required. Moreover, some primary indicia off criminal intent--destroying evidence, lying to congress--were present with Hillary.

You are entitled to your personal opinion regarding Hillary's motivation. I tend to agree with you. That motivation means she should be doing 20 to 40 in Leavenworth. That's what so many fail to grasp.

So the difference between Trump and Hillary is that for anything Trump is accused of doing, the act (and it must be an act, "thought about doing it," is meaningless) must be accompanied by a criminal state of mind, whereas for Hillary no such showing of intent was required. And the difference between Trump and Nixon is that in Nixon's case the existence of a crime known to him leads to a conclusion regarding intent, whereas in Trump's case the absence of an underlying crime makes proof of criminal intent well nigh impossible.

Thee Judge weighs in on this. Anything sound familiar?

Quote:Mueller laid out at least a half-dozen crimes of obstruction committed by Trump -- from asking former Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter about the reason for Flynn's chat with Kislyak, to asking Corey Lewandowski and then-former White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn to lie about it, to firing Comey to impede the FBI's investigations, to dangling a pardon in front of Michael Cohen to stay silent, to ordering his aides to hide and delete records.

The essence of obstruction is deception or diversion -- to prevent the government from finding the truth. To Mueller, the issue was not if Trump committed crimes of obstruction. Rather, it was if Trump could be charged successfully with those crimes.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Did President Trump obstruct justice?

(04-25-2019 08:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Thee Judge weighs in on this. Anything sound familiar?

Quote:Mueller laid out at least a half-dozen crimes of obstruction committed by Trump -- from asking former Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter about the reason for Flynn's chat with Kislyak, to asking Corey Lewandowski and then-former White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn to lie about it, to firing Comey to impede the FBI's investigations, to dangling a pardon in front of Michael Cohen to stay silent, to ordering his aides to hide and delete records.
The essence of obstruction is deception or diversion -- to prevent the government from finding the truth. To Mueller, the issue was not if Trump committed crimes of obstruction. Rather, it was if Trump could be charged successfully with those crimes.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Did President Trump obstruct justice?

The crime of obstruction requires 1) an obstructive act, 2) with nexus to an actual or possible investigation, and 3) criminal or corrupt intent. It's part 3) that's the problem.

The things cited by the judge could fit element 1), and some possibly element 2), but none of them that show the requisite intent. And proving that intent would be extremely difficult, quite probably impossible, particularly with the finding of no collusion or conspiracy with "the Russians."

Again, I see nothing wrong with doing everything you can to obstruct an unwarranted and unjustified investigation. Our system of adversary jurisprudence sort of depends on it.

(04-25-2019 08:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Thee Judge weighs in on this. Anything sound familiar?

Quote:Mueller laid out at least a half-dozen crimes of obstruction committed by Trump -- from asking former Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter about the reason for Flynn's chat with Kislyak, to asking Corey Lewandowski and then-former White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn to lie about it, to firing Comey to impede the FBI's investigations, to dangling a pardon in front of Michael Cohen to stay silent, to ordering his aides to hide and delete records.

The essence of obstruction is deception or diversion -- to prevent the government from finding the truth. To Mueller, the issue was not if Trump committed crimes of obstruction. Rather, it was if Trump could be charged successfully with those crimes.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Did President Trump obstruct justice?

Well yeah... You've got your talking points down. He hasn't been a judge in 25 years and was only a judge for 8 that I see.

he ALSO believes the ACA is Unconstitutional.

You still want to trot him out as the deciding opinion?

I think he understands legal issues... I also think he now sells books/hits.

Even if you agree with the interpretation of what he thinks Mueller thinks (which I believe is a stretch but whatever) ... Jomes Comey very CLEARLY said that same thing about Hillary so she walked.

The OLC (whom unlike Naplitano is charged with determining such things) ALSO said you can't prosecute a sitting President... so you know, there's always THAT to fall back on, even if he's right.

In the court of public opinion...
I think the never Trumpers agree with you regardless of the facts and the Trumbots disagree for the same reasons....

but the swing voters, ESPECIALLY those who swung from Hillary to Trump CARE about an unjust system and don't want to see someone prosecuted for fighting an unjust system. Including a lot of minorities and idealistic young voters. Not saying they'll vote for Trump.... but they won't vote for those who are attacking him either...

hence Pelosi et al's reticence to support impeachment. Far easier to control the message through the media than the courts/congress

(04-25-2019 08:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 08:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Thee Judge weighs in on this. Anything sound familiar?

Quote:Mueller laid out at least a half-dozen crimes of obstruction committed by Trump -- from asking former Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter about the reason for Flynn's chat with Kislyak, to asking Corey Lewandowski and then-former White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn to lie about it, to firing Comey to impede the FBI's investigations, to dangling a pardon in front of Michael Cohen to stay silent, to ordering his aides to hide and delete records.
The essence of obstruction is deception or diversion -- to prevent the government from finding the truth. To Mueller, the issue was not if Trump committed crimes of obstruction. Rather, it was if Trump could be charged successfully with those crimes.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Did President Trump obstruct justice?

The crime of obstruction requires 1) an obstructive act, 2) with nexus to an actual or possible investigation, and 3) criminal or corrupt intent. It's part 3) that's the problem.

The things cited by the judge could fit element 1), and some possibly element 2), but none of them that show the requisite intent. And proving that intent would be extremely difficult, quite probably impossible, particularly with the finding of no collusion or conspiracy with "the Russians."

Again, I see nothing wrong with doing everything you can to obstruct an unwarranted and unjustified investigation. Our system of adversary jurisprudence sort of depends on it.

Sure, but this wasn't that.

(04-25-2019 10:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 08:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Thee Judge weighs in on this. Anything sound familiar?

Quote:Mueller laid out at least a half-dozen crimes of obstruction committed by Trump -- from asking former Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter about the reason for Flynn's chat with Kislyak, to asking Corey Lewandowski and then-former White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn to lie about it, to firing Comey to impede the FBI's investigations, to dangling a pardon in front of Michael Cohen to stay silent, to ordering his aides to hide and delete records.

The essence of obstruction is deception or diversion -- to prevent the government from finding the truth. To Mueller, the issue was not if Trump committed crimes of obstruction. Rather, it was if Trump could be charged successfully with those crimes.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Did President Trump obstruct justice?

Well yeah... You've got your talking points down. He hasn't been a judge in 25 years and was only a judge for 8 that I see.

he ALSO believes the ACA is Unconstitutional.

You still want to trot him out as the deciding opinion?

I think he understands legal issues... I also think he now sells books/hits.

Even if you agree with the interpretation of what he thinks Mueller thinks (which I believe is a stretch but whatever) ... Jomes Comey very CLEARLY said that same thing about Hillary so she walked.

The OLC (whom unlike Naplitano is charged with determining such things) ALSO said you can't prosecute a sitting President... so you know, there's always THAT to fall back on, even if he's right.

In the court of public opinion...
I think the never Trumpers agree with you regardless of the facts and the Trumbots disagree for the same reasons....

but the swing voters, ESPECIALLY those who swung from Hillary to Trump CARE about an unjust system and don't want to see someone prosecuted for fighting an unjust system. Including a lot of minorities and idealistic young voters. Not saying they'll vote for Trump.... but they won't vote for those who are attacking him either...

hence Pelosi et al's reticence to support impeachment. Far easier to control the message through the media than the courts/congress

I "trotted" him out as just an opinion. My emphasis of THEE merely refers to his presence on Fox News. I knew full well that his opinion would basically be dismissed. Carry on.

The Obama-Russia accountability survey just came out.

(04-25-2019 12:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 08:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 08:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Thee Judge weighs in on this. Anything sound familiar?

Quote:Mueller laid out at least a half-dozen crimes of obstruction committed by Trump -- from asking former Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter about the reason for Flynn's chat with Kislyak, to asking Corey Lewandowski and then-former White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn to lie about it, to firing Comey to impede the FBI's investigations, to dangling a pardon in front of Michael Cohen to stay silent, to ordering his aides to hide and delete records.
The essence of obstruction is deception or diversion -- to prevent the government from finding the truth. To Mueller, the issue was not if Trump committed crimes of obstruction. Rather, it was if Trump could be charged successfully with those crimes.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Did President Trump obstruct justice?

The crime of obstruction requires 1) an obstructive act, 2) with nexus to an actual or possible investigation, and 3) criminal or corrupt intent. It's part 3) that's the problem.
The things cited by the judge could fit element 1), and some possibly element 2), but none of them that show the requisite intent. And proving that intent would be extremely difficult, quite probably impossible, particularly with the finding of no collusion or conspiracy with "the Russians."
Again, I see nothing wrong with doing everything you can to obstruct an unwarranted and unjustified investigation. Our system of adversary jurisprudence sort of depends on it.

Sure, but this wasn't that.

At this point, that's a matter of opinion, not fact. Depending upon what Strzok meant by "insurance policy," and what happened with the FISA court, among other matters, your opinion may turn out to be incorrect.

(04-25-2019 10:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 08:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Thee Judge weighs in on this. Anything sound familiar?

Quote:Mueller laid out at least a half-dozen crimes of obstruction committed by Trump -- from asking former Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter about the reason for Flynn's chat with Kislyak, to asking Corey Lewandowski and then-former White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn to lie about it, to firing Comey to impede the FBI's investigations, to dangling a pardon in front of Michael Cohen to stay silent, to ordering his aides to hide and delete records.

The essence of obstruction is deception or diversion -- to prevent the government from finding the truth. To Mueller, the issue was not if Trump committed crimes of obstruction. Rather, it was if Trump could be charged successfully with those crimes.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Did President Trump obstruct justice?

Well yeah... You've got your talking points down. He hasn't been a judge in 25 years and was only a judge for 8 that I see.

he ALSO believes the ACA is Unconstitutional.

You still want to trot him out as the deciding opinion?

I think he understands legal issues... I also think he now sells books/hits.

Even if you agree with the interpretation of what he thinks Mueller thinks (which I believe is a stretch but whatever) ... Jomes Comey very CLEARLY said that same thing about Hillary so she walked.

The OLC (whom unlike Naplitano is charged with determining such things) ALSO said you can't prosecute a sitting President... so you know, there's always THAT to fall back on, even if he's right.

In the court of public opinion...
I think the never Trumpers agree with you regardless of the facts and the Trumbots disagree for the same reasons....

but the swing voters, ESPECIALLY those who swung from Hillary to Trump CARE about an unjust system and don't want to see someone prosecuted for fighting an unjust system. Including a lot of minorities and idealistic young voters. Not saying they'll vote for Trump.... but they won't vote for those who are attacking him either...

hence Pelosi et al's reticence to support impeachment. Far easier to control the message through the media than the courts/congress

nappy or droopy is about as hem-haw wishy/washy as it gets relative to "interpretation"....he's nothing more than another daytime goon making 'bank' on the opine o' day...

(04-25-2019 05:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 12:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 08:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 08:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Thee Judge weighs in on this. Anything sound familiar?

Quote:Mueller laid out at least a half-dozen crimes of obstruction committed by Trump -- from asking former Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter about the reason for Flynn's chat with Kislyak, to asking Corey Lewandowski and then-former White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn to lie about it, to firing Comey to impede the FBI's investigations, to dangling a pardon in front of Michael Cohen to stay silent, to ordering his aides to hide and delete records.
The essence of obstruction is deception or diversion -- to prevent the government from finding the truth. To Mueller, the issue was not if Trump committed crimes of obstruction. Rather, it was if Trump could be charged successfully with those crimes.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Did President Trump obstruct justice?

The crime of obstruction requires 1) an obstructive act, 2) with nexus to an actual or possible investigation, and 3) criminal or corrupt intent. It's part 3) that's the problem.
The things cited by the judge could fit element 1), and some possibly element 2), but none of them that show the requisite intent. And proving that intent would be extremely difficult, quite probably impossible, particularly with the finding of no collusion or conspiracy with "the Russians."
Again, I see nothing wrong with doing everything you can to obstruct an unwarranted and unjustified investigation. Our system of adversary jurisprudence sort of depends on it.

Sure, but this wasn't that.

At this point, that's a matter of opinion, not fact. Depending upon what Strzok meant by "insurance policy," and what happened with the FISA court, among other matters, your opinion may turn out to be incorrect.

Obviously this was that since not one scintilla of evidence of even ONE SINGLE AMERICAN colluding with the Russians was found.

(04-25-2019 06:14 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 05:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 12:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 08:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-25-2019 08:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Thee Judge weighs in on this. Anything sound familiar?
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Did President Trump obstruct justice?

The crime of obstruction requires 1) an obstructive act, 2) with nexus to an actual or possible investigation, and 3) criminal or corrupt intent. It's part 3) that's the problem.
The things cited by the judge could fit element 1), and some possibly element 2), but none of them that show the requisite intent. And proving that intent would be extremely difficult, quite probably impossible, particularly with the finding of no collusion or conspiracy with "the Russians."
Again, I see nothing wrong with doing everything you can to obstruct an unwarranted and unjustified investigation. Our system of adversary jurisprudence sort of depends on it.

Sure, but this wasn't that.

At this point, that's a matter of opinion, not fact. Depending upon what Strzok meant by "insurance policy," and what happened with the FISA court, among other matters, your opinion may turn out to be incorrect.

Obviously this was that since not one scintilla of evidence of even ONE SINGLE AMERICAN colluding with the Russians was found.

I've been reading all the 'chicken littles' to 'wait and see passive aggressive fagoos' over the last few years....

ya had/have to be(en) a damned idiot to think DJT had the russians in his back pocket in the game of 'in it to win it'....

however, hill-lair-liar(s) is an easy one....

(04-25-2019 12:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I "trotted" him out as just an opinion. My emphasis of THEE merely refers to his presence on Fox News. I knew full well that his opinion would basically be dismissed. Carry on.

I didn't dismiss him any more than you just did. He's just an opinion.

As to his presence on Fox... Whether one agrees with them or not, Fox's claim has always been 'fair and balanced'... meaning that they TRY to present at least a controlled version of the 'other' side. In this case, he pulled the short straw (or perhaps actually holds the opinion). Either way, a good debater can argue either side of any position.

In my opinion, the last comment was a direct corollary to what happened with Hillary and Comey. Even if you agree with the left's position (what he's presented of it) all you have is a Comey/Hillary situation. IMO, this is intentional because although it presents much of the left's case, it gives them almost nowhere to go that they haven't already declined to go, which is what you'd expect a right leaning network to do while claiming to be balanced.

Even Clapper admitted there was no basis for an investigation of the Trump campaign-before Mueller was even appointed.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/24/jam...sion-2016/