It appears Trump is offically under investigation for obstruction

[mark kennedy]

They hacked the state polls? What does that mean?

I forget how many state polls, seems like it was 13. They got into the computers but apparently couldn't do anything to effect the count. Its clear internation espionage and a growing threat. The sanctions and expulsion of diplomats is just the beginning of counter measures. Congress is sending new measures to the white house, can't wait to see if he vetos it.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't think there is anything to expose that hasn't already been addressed in his testimony. I do agree that it would be hard to bring charges of obstruction based on Trump's 'I hope' statement and Comey's response to that. I don't think Comey has suggested that there is evidence for obstruction based on this.

Clearly there is evidence of obstruction but whether or not it actually meets the standard of proof will be a matter of fact that will have to be determined during an empeachment trial, if it comes to that.

 

[camille70]

Are you claiming that voter registration data was obtained or altered through hacking?

If so, where is your proof for this claim?

If not, what are you claiming?

Election Hackers Altered Voter Rolls, Stole Private Data: Officials


We actually don't know the extent. I think the intelligence community is holding back info on purpose, to assess damage more fully or to avoid scaring people. Until Reality Winner got arrested for leaking information on the hack, the story was the systems weren't breached at all. I recall people getting thrown off voter rolls during election season because of cross check, and if they even changed something as small as a middle initial that would do it, leading to voter suppression. See also Fighting against Hackable EVMs, Gerrymandering and Crosscheck

 

[KCfromNC]

playing devils advocate, comey himself acknowledged trump told him it would be good to know if anyone on his campain colluded with russia.

If he wasn't lying about that, why fire one of the people leading an investigation into it?

 

[bhsmte]

If he wasn't lying about that, why fire one of the people leading an investigation into it?

Because he is entitled to fire the fbi director, whenever he pleases. IMO, trump fired him, because he just didnt like comey and wouldnt go public with saying trump was not under investigation. I will say again, one could piece together a case for obstruction. I also think, it wouldnt take much to dismantle that case, from a defense standpoint.

 

[NotreDame]

If you want to make the argument that Trump didn't obstruct anything based on the criminal code then do that. This show me in the thread stuff is some pretty pointless rhetoric. Trumps association with Russia is inappropriate at best and you ask me people are going to jail over this. But that's ok, you don't see any obstruction of justice here that's fine, but own it. I don't think I would care except for the chants LOCK HER UP! and the fact that this email scandal likely cost here the Presidency. Where's all that outrage and indignation when Trump does worse? Flynn lies about contact with Russia, Sessions lies about contact with Russia and Trump denies there is any proof Russia hacked the election.

That perfectly fine but own it when the indictments start coming down.

This show me in the thread stuff is some pretty pointless rhetoric.

The "pointless rhetoric" is when you, and others, assume or claim Trump violated an obstruction of justice statute and make no effort to support your assumption or claim. It is your burden to support your assumptions with facts and evidence. It is your burden to support your claims.

If you want to make the argument that Trump didn't obstruct anything based on the criminal code then do that.

I will follow this advice as quickly as you adhere to your own suggestion, which would necessitate you demonstrate which obstruction of justice statute Trump violated.

But that's ok, you don't see any obstruction of justice here that's fine, but own it.

I don't think I would care except for the chants LOCK HER UP!

This has nothing to do with me. This has nothing to do with what I've said, and absolutely is not germane to the dialogue between you and I.

Own what? Your strawman argument? I never asserted Trump could not have violated an obstruction of justice statute. Follow along man!

That perfectly fine but own it when the indictments start coming down

Are you now the pythia in the temple?

 

[NotreDame]

You may have had some difficulty with the opening words of my question.....again, for your benefit...I am NOT familiar with the vagaries of your legal system....got that?

Good....that said, here's what seems to be presented:

Trump fires the man leading investigations into possible collusion between a foreign adversary and the Trump organisation, with regard to your federal elections.

Despite an array of alternative explanations being offered for that firing by his lackeys, Trump brushes them aside and confirms that he fired Comey because of his continued efforts to move the investigation forward.

If one removes the person responsible for conducting an investigation, this must, at the very least, cause that investigation to be interrupted or delayed.

So again I ask...how can such actions not be viewed as an obstruction of that investigation...?

So again I ask...how can such actions not be viewed as an obstruction of that investigation

So, here is why I'm mystified by your retort. You are "NOT familiar with the vagaries of" the U.S. "legal system." Yet, your lack of familiarity with the U.S. legal system is no deterrent to you assuming Trump has violated an obstruction of justice statute. Rather than take some time to conduct some research in an effort to support your assumption Trump has violated an obstruction of justice statute, you instead invoke your lack of familiarity with the U.S. legal system as an excuse to do no research, indeed to make no effort at all to support your assumption Trump has violated an obstruction of justice statute, but request other people establish how Trump hasn't obstructed justice.

Here's my point. It's apparent you, and many others, are inclined to believe Trump obstructed justice, have a desire to believe Trump obstructed justice, but really have no idea as to whether Trump did or didn't obstruct justice. You, and many others, just want to believe and assert Trump obstructed justice and whether you have an informed belief, a correct, belief, is irrelevant.

Which explains why you have no difficulty assuming Trump obstructed justice but are derelict in your responsibility to substantiate your assumption, while denouncing any notion you should substantiate your assumption because you "lack familiarity" with the U.S. legal system.

I'll say the following, the obstruction of justice statute, that best fits these facts, has a particular element which, legally, is very problematic in its application to these facts. Another element of the statute, while less problematic in its application to these facts, is difficult to satisfy because the facts do not easily or clearly establish the element.

If you have access to Google, you can very likely identify the most applicable statute and discover, there has been a lot of proverbial ink spilled on the legal and factual nightmare of applying the statute to these facts.

 

[NotreDame]

Clearly there is evidence of obstruction but whether or not it actually meets the standard of proof will be a matter of fact that will have to be determined during an empeachment trial, if it comes to that.

Clearly there is evidence of obstruction

If only you knew the elements of the applicable obstruction of justice statute, then you'd be more inclined to cease with the word "clearly."

The phrase of "Clearly there is evidence of obstruction" is not an accurate statement. There are very compelling, rational arguments of how and why these facts do not satisfy the obstruction of justice statute. Whether these facts satisfy each element of the obstruction statue is not as "clear" as you suggest.

You'd more likely know this, if you actually had read the applicable statute.

I am not suggesting a simple reading of the statute will immediately or automatically result a sufficient understanding of how the statute may or may not apply to these facts. To be sure, one would also have to possess a knowledge of the relevant case law interpreting the statute.

But, a reading of the statute, and its elements, can increase the likelihood of realizing the applicability of the obstruction statute, to these facts, is not as "clear" as you profess.

But none of this conforms to your desire to believe Trump obstructed justice, to your proclivity that Trump obstructed justice, which explains why you have no reservations with claiming, without evidence and argument, and assuming, without argument and evidence, Trump has obstructed justice.

An uninformed opinion is a problem.

 

[mark kennedy]

The "pointless rhetoric" is when you, and others, assume or claim Trump violated an obstruction of justice statute and make no effort to support your assumption or claim. It is your burden to support your assumptions with facts and evidence. It is your burden to support your claims.

Like 8 said, if you want to make the argument that there is no obstruction based on you understand the statutes, then make the argument. Don't tell me to go fishing in the thread, not 8nterested in chasing rhetorical ploys in circles.

I will follow this advice as quickly as you adhere to your own suggestion, which would necessitate you demonstrate which obstruction of justice statute Trump violated.

Not interested although it was interesting to read the statutes. If you want them reviewed and analyzed try Google or do it yourself.

his has nothing to do with me. This has nothing to do with what I've said, and absolutely is not germane to the dialogue between you and I.

Own what? Your strawman argument? I never asserted Trump could not have violated an obstruction of justice statute. Follow along man!



Are you now the pythia in the temple?

You circling the drain quick, fallacious reasoning will do that to you. The question is what Trump did to interfere with or influence the outcome of an investigation. So until you start taking actual facts into consideration some nebulous reference to the statutory law is pointless.

 

[NotreDame]

You circling the drain quick, fallacious reasoning will do that to you. The question is what Trump did to interfere with or influence the outcome of an investigation. So until you start taking actual facts into consideration some nebulous reference to the statutory law is pointless.

Like 8 said, if you want to make the argument that there is no obstruction based on you understand the statutes, then make the argument. Don't tell me to go fishing in the thread, not 8nterested in chasing rhetorical ploys in circles.

The only "circles" is your continued assertion Trump obstructed justice and repeated failure to actually make any argument of how Trump violated the statute.

Not interested although it was interesting to read the statutes. If you want them reviewed and analyzed try Google or do it yourself.

I've already researched the applicable statute and conducted other research in relation to the statute. This is why I can confidently claim that your assertion Trump "clearly" violated the statute is mistaken. An indication you have not read the statute is your repeated erroneous assertion Trump "clearly" violated the statute. I am doubtful anyone who has sufficiently researched this issue will arrive to the conclusion Trump "clearly" violated the obstruction statute.

You circling the drain quick, fallacious reasoning will do that to you.

You can allege fallacious reasoning, just as you allege Trump "clearly" violated the obstruction statute, but allegations do not constitute as statements of fact or truth. I have not engaged in any "fallacious reasoning" in my dialogue with you.

You resorted to a strawman argument. You invoked an irrelevant theme. You relied upon a statement that has absolutely nothing to do with me or my position. The only "circling the drain" is your vacuous position.

question is what Trump did to interfere with or influence the outcome of an investigation. So until you start taking actual facts into consideration some nebulous reference to the statutory law is pointless

You are referencing "some nebulous...statutory law" by invoking, without citing, an obstruction statute Trump has implicated.

And, just an FYI, "interfere with or influence the outcome of an investigation" does not, without more, constitute as obstruction of justice, as you allege. You'd know this if you took the time to read the statute and engage in other research on this very question.

 

[NotreDame]

If simply firing the investigators in order to stop/slow the investigation isn't enough, how about a practical example, then, @NotreDame -- hypothetically speaking, of course, could you give an example of something Trump could have said or done which would be a clear case of obstruction under any of the federal statutes?

I will under two in particular.

1. A grand jury is convened to investigate some alleged and suspected criminal conduct.
2. Trump tells the target of the grand jury to destroy the evidence.
3. Trump tells the target that after destroying the evidence, the target is to respond he is not in possession of and never had possession of any of the evidence (it was destroyed) requested by subpoena issued the grand jury
4. Trump also destroys evidence.
5. Trump asserts he is not in possession of and never had possession of any of the evidence requested by a subpoena issued by the grand jury

Those facts would satisfy the statutory elements of two obstruction of justice statutes.

There are some very compelling reasons that explain why my example did not reference an FBI investigation. The reason is because under one particular statute, an FBI investigation does not constitute as a "pending judicial proceeding," and there is very much uncertainty whether an FBI investigation satisfies a specific and particular element of the other obstruction of justice statute.

 

[bhsmte]

It appears ideology is taking priority over; innocent until proven guilty.

 

[KCfromNC]

Because he is entitled to fire the fbi director, whenever he pleases. IMO, trump fired him, because he just didnt like comey and wouldnt go public with saying trump was not under investigation.

Donnie didn't use that as his first two contradictory excuses for the firing for some reason.

 

[bhsmte]

Donnie didn't use that as his first two contradictory excuses for the firing for some reason.

Of course not, did you expect him to?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Donnie didn't use that as his first two contradictory excuses for the firing for some reason.

Nor was it his excuse to lie about the existence of tapes in an attempt to influence Comey's testimony before Congress.

 

[bhsmte]

Nor was it his excuse to lie about the existence of tapes in an attempt to influence Comey's testimony before Congress.

Do you think the potential tapes influenced comey to be honest, or to lie?

 

[mark kennedy]

The only "circles" is your continued assertion Trump obstructed justice and repeated failure to actually make any argument of how Trump violated the statute.

No you wanted me to show you from the thread that the statute was violated. I'm not chasing this conversation in circles and I'm not going to do some analysis. Trumps been trying to derail the Flynn and the Russia investigation since he took office. It doesn't matter what the statute says because a GOP Congress will never impeach him.

I've already researched the applicable statute and conducted other research in relation to the statute. This is why I can confidently claim that your assertion Trump "clearly" violated the statute is mistaken. An indication you have not read the statute is your repeated erroneous assertion Trump "clearly" violated the statute. I am doubtful anyone who has sufficiently researched this issue will arrive to the conclusion Trump "clearly" violated the obstruction statute.

Ive did enough reearch to come to an informed conclusion.

You can allege fallacious reasoning, just as you allege Trump "clearly" violated the obstruction statute, but allegations do not constitute as statements of fact or truth. I have not engaged in any "fallacious reasoning" in my dialogue with you.

Actually you are begging the question of proof and making me dizzy with the circular logic. Don't get me wrong, I'm interested the question, just not when your begging the question of proof on your hands and knees.

You resorted to a strawman argument. You invoked an irrelevant theme. You relied upon a statement that has absolutely nothing to do with me or my position. The only "circling the drain" is your vacuous position.



You are referencing "some nebulous...statutory law" by invoking, without citing, an obstruction statute Trump has implicated.

And, just an FYI, "interfere with or influence the outcome of an investigation" does not, without more, constitute as obstruction of justice, as you allege. You'd know this if you took the time to read the statute and engage in other research on this very question.

Obstruction is a matter of fact that can only be determined by the Congress during an impeachment trial. Nixon was formally charged and would undoubtedly been convicted for simply saying, uh huh, at the suggestion of a cover up. I don't see any reason to chase the obstruction statute in circles for your amusement.

Thanks just the same.

 

[Allandavid]

So, here is why I'm mystified by your retort. You are "NOT familiar with the vagaries of" the U.S. "legal system." Yet, your lack of familiarity with the U.S. legal system is no deterrent to you assuming Trump has violated an obstruction of justice statute. Rather than take some time to conduct some research in an effort to support your assumption Trump has violated an obstruction of justice statute, you instead invoke your lack of familiarity with the U.S. legal system as an excuse to do no research, indeed to make no effort at all to support your assumption Trump has violated an obstruction of justice statute, but request other people establish how Trump hasn't obstructed justice.

Here's my point. It's apparent you, and many others, are inclined to believe Trump obstructed justice, have a desire to believe Trump obstructed justice, but really have no idea as to whether Trump did or didn't obstruct justice. You, and many others, just want to believe and assert Trump obstructed justice and whether you have an informed belief, a correct, belief, is irrelevant.

Which explains why you have no difficulty assuming Trump obstructed justice but are derelict in your responsibility to substantiate your assumption, while denouncing any notion you should substantiate your assumption because you "lack familiarity" with the U.S. legal system.

I'll say the following, the obstruction of justice statute, that best fits these facts, has a particular element which, legally, is very problematic in its application to these facts. Another element of the statute, while less problematic in its application to these facts, is difficult to satisfy because the facts do not easily or clearly establish the element.

If you have access to Google, you can very likely identify the most applicable statute and discover, there has been a lot of proverbial ink spilled on the legal and factual nightmare of applying the statute to these facts.

Again, you jump to the narrow assumption that I am trying to be some form of Clarence Darrow, building a legal case for the prosecution of Trump. We all know about 'assume', don't we...?

I am simply an everyday person who observes a man doing everything he can to stop, delay or divert an investigation into the activities of him and his cohorts. If a legal mind is able to convert that into a criminal case, great...have at it. But there are other 'courts' in which his actions might be judged.

You need a serious refresher on your mind-reading skills...

 

[NotreDame]

Thanks just the same.

No you wanted me to show you from the thread that the statute was violated. I'm not chasing this conversation in circles and I'm not going to do some analysis.

You clearly are predisposed to allege Trump obstructed justice and refuse to provide any support for your allegation.

Trumps been trying to derail the Flynn and the Russia investigation since he took office.

Had you read the statutes, and engaged in a sufficient amount of research, you'd realize the following:

There are two, maybe a third, of the six, obstruction of justice statutes that may be applicable to these facts.

1. Of those three, one is not immediately applicable on the basis of the facts as they are presently known because:
A. The statute has, as one of its elements, a "pending judicial proceeding," and there is no evidence a pending judicial proceeding existed when Trump spoke to Comey and/or fired him and/or
B. If a pending judicial proceeding existed there is no evidence Trump knew of the proceeding and/or
C. No evidence Trump intended to interfere or obstruct with the pending judicial proceeding

2. The applicability of the other obstruction of justice statute is problematic because of:
A. The manner in which some courts have interpreted a particular element of the statute would exclude an FBI investigation.
B. The U.S. attorney's manual states “investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are not section 1505 proceedings"
C. However, another court's reasoning and rationale by render FBI investigations as a 1505 proceeding when the FBI is engaged in a particular kind, a particular type of investigation.
D. However, there are some facts, legal arguments, statutory interpretation, and decisions which may render the FBI investigation as a 1505 "proceeding."

3. In regards to the possibly third obstruction of justice statute, two federal circuit court of appeals decisions have interpreted "official proceeding" as to exclude an FBI investigation, whereas a single circuit appellate court has determined an "official proceeding" does include an FBI investigation in 1512.
​

Ive did enough reearch to come to an informed conclusion.

I'm rather incredulous to this assertion, because if you had done "enough research to come to an informed conclusion" then you should have discovered the information I disclosed above, and this information unequivocally demonstrates it is not at all "clear" Trump violated these statutes.

Actually you are begging the question of proof and making me dizzy with the circular logic. Don't get me wrong, I'm interested the question, just not when your begging the question of proof on your hands and knees.

Invoking formal reasoning fallacies most assuredly provides the initial appearance of being impressive, but the impressive glare is immediately obscured when the fallacy is demonstrably inapplicable, rendering the invoking of then fallacy as nothing more than an ostentatious act. I have yet to engage in "begging the question of proof." You may want to look up and rethink what you know about the fallacy.

Nixon was formally charged and would undoubtedly been convicted for simply saying, uh huh, at the suggestion of a cover up.

This is revisionist history. Nixon engaged in egregious conduct that demonstrated more than a "suggestion of a cover up."

Obstruction is a matter of fact that can only be determined by the Congress during an impeachment trial.

This isn't accurate but addressing the point substantively isn't necessary.

​

 

[NotreDame]

Again, you jump to the narrow assumption that I am trying to be some form of Clarence Darrow, building a legal case for the prosecution of Trump. We all know about 'assume', don't we...?

I am simply an everyday person who observes a man doing everything he can to stop, delay or divert an investigation into the activities of him and his cohorts. If a legal mind is able to convert that into a criminal case, great...have at it. But there are other 'courts' in which his actions might be judged.

You need a serious refresher on your mind-reading skills...

I repudiate any effort to "mind-read." Your own posts are enough. Requesting some people make a demonstration of how Trump "didn't" obstruct justice, while certainly making no effort of your own to show how Trump did obstruct justice, and equally revealing is a conspicuous lack of a demand anyone show how Trump obstructed justice, demonstrates your default perspective of Trump did obstruct justice.

I make no assumption of who you are attempting to emulate and I couldn't care less. I couldn't care less if you were trying to emulate Clarence Darrow, Laurence Tribe, Johnny Cochran, or John Marshall.