Do you support the Democrats trying to Impeach the President

[Albion]

Actual lawyers disagree with you.

Not including Mueller.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Special Counsel Muller laid out three different cases for obstruction of justice.

I posted these articles earlier in this thread, but they have been ignored by Trump supporters.

The 5 crimes Mueller suggests Trump could be charged with

Trump would face obstruction charges if he wasn't president, prosecutors say

About 800 ex-prosecutors say Trump would be charged with obstruction if he wasn't president

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Actual lawyers disagree with you.

Doesn't mean they are right.

 

[Arcangl86]

Doesn't mean they are right.

Over a 1,000 former and current federal prosecutors, in service to both Democratic and Republican administrations, feel that Robert Muller laid out enough evidence to indict President Trump on obstruction of justice. What makes them wrong and you right?

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Over a 1,000 former and current federal prosecutors, in service to both Democratic and Republican administrations, feel that Robert Muller laid out enough evidence to indict President Trump on obstruction of justice. What makes them wrong and you right?

It isn't about me being right.
And how they "feel" doesn't matter.
Just a witch hunt and quite counterproductive for Americas best interest.
President Trump is the best President America has had since Reagan.
Enough already. Let him run the country without all the nonsensical, nonstop judging and witch hunt.

 

[hislegacy]

That is not relevant to the obstruction issue. Everything could of been made up whole cloth and obstructing the case would still be illegal.

What was obstructed?

Def:a thing that impedes or prevents passage or progress; an obstacle or blockage.

So what was impeded? What was prevented, what progress was prevented?

Mueller was not fired
Mueller had a blank check for financing
Mueller formed his own team
Mueller had unlimited subpoena power more than 500
Mueller had 40 FBI agents at his disposal
Mueller had no time limit
Mueller had access to over 1,000,000 pages of documents
Mueller was not hindered through Executive Privilege
Mueller was not hindered through the use of attorney client privilege


Please, please tell me what exactly was obstructed.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

What was obstructed?

Def:a thing that impedes or prevents passage or progress; an obstacle or blockage.

So what was impeded? What was prevented, what progress was prevented?

Mueller was not fired
Mueller had a blank check for financing
Mueller formed his own team
Mueller had unlimited subpoena power more than 500
Mueller had 40 FBI agents at his disposal
Mueller had no time limit
Mueller had access to over 1,000,000 pages of documents
Mueller was not hindered through Executive Privilege
Mueller was not hindered through the use of attorney client privilege


Please, please tell me what exactly was obstructed.

As you have been told many times now, an attempt to obstruct justice does not need to succeed for it to meet the legal standards of Obstruction of Justice.

Taken from the report, which cites the relevant legal opinions and case law (emphasis mine):

Obstructive act. Obstruction-of-justice law “reaches all corrupt conduct capable of producing an effect that prevents justice from being duly administered, regardless of the means employed.” United States v. Silverman, 745 F.2d 1386, 1393 (11th Cir. 1984) (interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1503). An “effort to influence” a proceeding can qualify as an endeavor to obstruct justice even if the effort was “subtle or circuitous” and “however cleverly or with whatever cloaking of purpose” it was made. United States v. Roe, 529 F.2d 629, 632 (4th Cir. 1975); see also United States v. Quattrone, 441 F.3d 153, 173 (2d Cir. 2006). The verbs “obstruct or impede’ are broad” and “can refer to anything that blocks, makes difficult, or hinders.” Marinello v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1101, 1106 (2018) (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted).

Trump certainly could have done MORE to obstruct justice than he did, but that doesn't excuse the things that he DID do.

 

[rjs330]

Mueller did not allege obstruction. Neither has the FBI or the DOJ. Until then it irrelevant what some lawyers think. I think it's pretty telling when some lawyers think Trump could be indicted when they don't actually have all the facts nor have looked over all the investigation, perused the interviews etc. No real prosecutor would sugh St such a thing without pouring over all the evidence, which is not available to them.

Trump is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It isn't about me being right.

How fortunate.

And how they "feel" doesn't matter.

let's remember this...

Just a witch hunt and quite counterproductive for Americas best interest.
President Trump is the best President America has had since Reagan.
Enough already. Let him run the country without all the nonsensical, nonstop judging and witch hunt.

...and how you "feel" matters because...?

 

[TLK Valentine]

What was obstructed?

Def:a thing that impedes or prevents passage or progress; an obstacle or blockage.

So what was impeded? What was prevented, what progress was prevented?

Mueller was not fired
Mueller had a blank check for financing
Mueller formed his own team
Mueller had unlimited subpoena power more than 500
Mueller had 40 FBI agents at his disposal
Mueller had no time limit
Mueller had access to over 1,000,000 pages of documents
Mueller was not hindered through Executive Privilege
Mueller was not hindered through the use of attorney client privilege


Please, please tell me what exactly was obstructed.

Donald could be found not guilty by reason of failure, then?

 

[ItIsFinished!]

How fortunate.



let's remember this...



...and how you "feel" matters because...?

Articulate yourself in a proper manner please.

 

[Allandavid]

Articulate yourself in a proper manner please.

What was improper....??

 

[Fantine]

Oh really? And what evidence of what felony would that be?

Over 700 former federal prosecutors who have read the redacted report have found ample evidence to prosecute the president for a felony.

List of former federal prosecutors accusing Trump of obstruction nears 700

I believe them far more than an attorney general handpicked to shield Trump from impeachment, post-presidential felony convictions, and more. Barr should himself be subject to impeachment for obstruction of justice. He is a disgrace to the DOJ.

 

[Fantine]

I am reluctant to see Trump impeached, because there seems to be no way that enough of Trump's 50 plus enablers in the Senate will vote to convict. One of the Senate intelligence committee members is a Senator in my state (I certainly would not call him MY senator) but he seems to have either slept through the meetings or is too much of an ideologue to approach them objectively.

Nevertheless, I believe, as Michelle Obama says, "When they go low, we go high." Despite continued obstruction, the evidence against Trump is so strong that to ignore it (as Trump's enablers do) is to do a disservice to our nation.

 

[NotreDame]

Really? I'm certain @NotreDame will be surprised to hear that since he has a chart on it that he has presented at least twice.





OK

Indeed, and @Aldebaran can read it here.

Richard Hoeg on Twitter

The Report, Volume Two, has some very strong evidence for obstruction of justice. I can safely say at least two specific instances by Trump, and up to a total of 4-5, have enough supporting evidence of obstruction to constitute as significantly more than an “accusation.”

Hoeg does an excellent job of scrutinizing the evidence and explaining how the evidence relates to the three elements of obstruction. He also details where the evidence strongly supports obstruction and why.

 

[Arcangl86]

It isn't about me being right.
And how they "feel" doesn't matter.
Just a witch hunt and quite counterproductive for Americas best interest.
President Trump is the best President America has had since Reagan.
Enough already. Let him run the country without all the nonsensical, nonstop judging and witch hunt.

Over 1,000 federal prosecutors, with thousands of years of experience prosecuting federal crimes between them have publically stated that based on their experience Mueller has laid out enough evidence to charge Trump with multiple charges of obstruction. And you say it's a witch hunt based on what?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Over 1,000 federal prosecutors, with thousands of years of experience prosecuting federal crimes between them have publically stated that based on their experience Mueller has laid out enough evidence to charge Trump with multiple charges of obstruction. And you say it's a witch hunt based on what?

Feelings, of course.

 

[Belk]

What was obstructed?

Def:a thing that impedes or prevents passage or progress; an obstacle or blockage.

So what was impeded? What was prevented, what progress was prevented?

Mueller was not fired
Mueller had a blank check for financing
Mueller formed his own team
Mueller had unlimited subpoena power more than 500
Mueller had 40 FBI agents at his disposal
Mueller had no time limit
Mueller had access to over 1,000,000 pages of documents
Mueller was not hindered through Executive Privilege
Mueller was not hindered through the use of attorney client privilege


Please, please tell me what exactly was obstructed.

Why am I having to explain this to you? This is documented in Mueller's report. Why are you only focusing on Mueller? He was the one investigating the obstruction that occurred with other people. I literally posted a graph earlier in this very thread listing this information. Is it really so hard to look at the plethora of sources?

 

[Belk]

Not including Mueller.

I do not find your claim of being privy to Mueller's thoughts on the subject credible.

 

[rambot]

. And you say it's a witch hunt based on what?

Because they didn't charge him with a crime. I don't see why all these facts are clouding this other fact: that they didn't charge him.

It's almost like it getting repeated 300 times in this thread hasn't been enough to convince anyone.

And then what do you all counter it with?

Facts?
Yes
Explanation?
Yes
Expert opinion?
Yes

Listen, the guy appointed by Trump (the 5th person in that position, by the way, so you KNOW he's the best of the best) who clearly aligns himself with the presidential visions, says he is totally innocent.

I can't believe professionals and facts are more convincing to you than friends and allies who have completely misrepresented the report?
___
Tongue out of cheek.
Doesn't this start to feel a bit like a climate change debate.