It appears Trump is offically under investigation for obstruction

MoonlessNight · Jun 22, 2017

mark kennedy said:
So the DNC and state polls with the determined goal of influencing the election in Trumps favor.

Why don't you claim that the DNC and polls were hacked then? That is, after all, what you are actually claiming.

When someone says an election is hacked, it is natural to think that that means that votes were changed through hacking. I guess you're either unaware of that perception, or alternatively you simply don't care that you are misleading people with your choice of words.

Allandavid · Jun 22, 2017

NotreDame said:
Are you referring to, once again, the federal crime of obstruction of justice?

If yes, then perhaps you'd know the answer to this question if you actually knew which of the 6 federal obstruction of justice statutes are potentially applicable to these facts. Requesting someone demonstrate to you "how he has not sought to obstruction that investigation," rests upon the default assumption Trump "has...sought to obstruct that investigation." Here's a novel suggestion. Rather than someone inform you of how President Trump hasn't implicated any of the 6 federal obstruction of justice statutes, perhaps you could inform us of how President Trump has violated one or more of the 6 federal obstruction of justice statutes.

Or would you prefer to not have to make any demonstration of how President Trump has violated any of the 6 obstruction of justice statutes but instead assume he has, and on the basis of this mere unproven assumption, requests others make a demonstration of how President Trump hasn't violated those statutes?

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...?

bhsmte · Jun 22, 2017

Allandavid said:
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...?

playing devils advocate, comey himself acknowledged trump told him it would be good to know if anyone on his campain colluded with russia. Also, comey stated that no one ever ordered him to stop an investigation. As has been noted, a president can fire an fbi director whenever they please. Although the explanations are all over the place, they key witness states the guy who fired him wanted to know if there was collussion and again admitted has was not told to stop the russia investigation. I can see how someone can piece parts of this together to argue obstruction, but i can also see how that charge would be rigorously defended.

Allandavid · Jun 22, 2017

MoonlessNight said:
Why don't you claim that the DNC and polls were hacked then? That is, after all, what you are actually claiming.

When someone says an election is hacked, it is natural to think that that means that votes were changed through hacking. I guess you're either unaware of that perception, or alternatively you simply don't care that you are misleading people with your choice of words.

Why "natural"..?

'Hacking' means to break through the security of computer files and gain access to their data. There are many categories of data connected with elections, other than the vote tallies.

Voter registration data, for example...

MoonlessNight · Jun 22, 2017

Allandavid said:
Why "natural"..?

'Hacking' means to break through the security of computer files and gain access to their data. There are many categories of data connected with elections, other than the vote tallies.

Voter registration data, for example...

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?

Allandavid · Jun 22, 2017

bhsmte said:
playing devils advocate, comey himself acknowledged trump told him it would be good to know if anyone on his campain colluded with russia. Also, comey stated that no one ever ordered him to stop an investigation. As has been noted, a president can fire an fbi director whenever they please. Although the explanations are all over the place, they key witness states the guy who fired him wanted to know if there was collussion and again admitted has was not told to stop the russia investigation. I can see how someone can piece parts of this together to argue obstruction, but i can also see how that charge would be rigorously defended.

Yes, legal arguments usually play out like that. It becomes a matter of balance. On balance, which is more likely...did Trump act with a view towards stalling the investigation, or is there a more compelling explanation that exonerates him from any suspicion...? I know that I have seen written from several corners that Trump is being played as the 'willing idiot' by several key people who surround him and who are simply using him to further their own interests.

Anything's possible...

Allandavid · Jun 22, 2017

MoonlessNight said:
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?

Did you see a claim in there...??

I merely disagreed with your narrow interpretation of what 'election hacking' means...

Hank77 · Jun 22, 2017

mark kennedy said:
So the DNC and state polls with the determined goal of influencing the election in Trumps favor.

They hacked the state polls? What does that mean?

MoonlessNight · Jun 22, 2017

Allandavid said:
Did you see a claim in there...??

I merely disagreed with your narrow interpretation of what 'election hacking' means...

Ah. Intentionally causing obscurity without furthering any point. Sounds productive.

Allandavid · Jun 22, 2017

MoonlessNight said:
Ah. Intentionally causing obscurity without furthering any point. Sounds productive.

Well, since you persist...

"Ken Menzel, general counsel of the Illinois State Board of Elections, told Time that 90,000 state voter records were obtained through cyberattacks on their system"

Report: Congress Investigating If Trump Team Used Voter Data Stolen By Russia

Hank77 · Jun 22, 2017

bhsmte said:
Although the explanations are all over the place, they key witness states the guy who fired him wanted to know if there was collussion and again admitted has was not told to stop the russia investigation.

But did take the 'I hope' statement as an order to stop the Flynn investigation.

MoonlessNight · Jun 22, 2017

Allandavid said:
Well, since you persist...

"Ken Menzel, general counsel of the Illinois State Board of Elections, told Time that 90,000 state voter records were obtained through cyberattacks on their system"

Report: Congress Investigating If Trump Team Used Voter Data Stolen By Russia

Now all you have to show that this was done by the Russians in an attempt to influence the election in the favor of Donald Trump.

Since that was, after all, what it was claimed that the "hacking" in question did by mark kennedy.

Allandavid · Jun 22, 2017

MoonlessNight said:
Now all you have to show that this was done by the Russians in an attempt to influence the election in the favor of Donald Trump.

Since that was, after all, what it was claimed that the "hacking" in question did by mark kennedy.

No, I don't have to do that...because that job has already been done by ALL of your intelligence agencies who have concluded that very thing...! THEY state clearly that the cyberattacks mounted on your elections last year were conducted by the Russian government with the express purpose of tilting the election in Trump's favour...

MoonlessNight · Jun 22, 2017

Allandavid said:
No, I don't have to do that...because that job has already been done by ALL of your intelligence agencies who have concluded that very thing...! THEY state clearly that the cyberattacks mounted on your elections last year were conducted by the Russian government with the express purpose of tilting the election in Trump's favour...

Woah there buddy. No need to get all hot under the collar over this. We're just having a pleasant conversation.

If you need some time to cool down I can come back later.

bhsmte · Jun 22, 2017

Hank77 said:
But did take the 'I hope' statement as an order to stop the Flynn investigation.

That is what he stated after he was fired correct. And this is where i believe, he would get exposed by cross examination from a skilled attorney, if it ever got to that. Again, one can piece together a claim of obstruction and i also believe, it would not be difficult to establish a whole bunch of reasonable doubt on that charge.

Hank77 · Jun 22, 2017

MoonlessNight said:
Ah. Intentionally causing obscurity without furthering any point. Sounds productive.

Hackers targeted voter registration systems in Illinois and Arizona, and the FBI alerted Arizona officials in June that Russians were behind the assault on the election system in that state.

The bureau described the threat as “credible” and significant, “an eight on a scale of one to 10,” Matt Roberts, a spokesman for Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan (R), said Monday. As a result, Reagan shut down the state’s voter registration system for nearly a week.

It turned out that the hackers had not compromised the state system or even any county system. They had, however, stolen the username and password of a single election official in Gila County. [emphasis mine]

Russian hackers targeted Arizona election system

mark kennedy · Jun 22, 2017

MoonlessNight said:
Why don't you claim that the DNC and polls were hacked then? That is, after all, what you are actually claiming.

Because that's what they were doing. If the language isn't specific enough the just elaborate. The melodrama isn't doing much except muddying the waters.

When someone says an election is hacked, it is natural to think that that means that votes were changed through hacking. I guess you're either unaware of that perception, or alternatively you simply don't care that you are misleading people with your choice of words.

The only way you think the votes are changed is if your grossly missinformed. They did hack state polls so should this continue unabatted, that's exactly what we can expect. None of the Trumpsters.will care unless the Russians decide to support the other side, then they will be screaming treason from the rooftops

Hank77 · Jun 22, 2017

bhsmte said:
That is what he stated after he was fired correct. And this is where i believe, he would get exposed by cross examination from a skilled attorney, if it ever got to that. Again, one can piece together a claim of obstruction and i also believe, it would not be difficult to establish a whole bunch of reasonable doubt on that charge.

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.

Go Braves · Jun 22, 2017

Rion said:
Trump's twitter is like a teenaged girl's. I pretty much assume that the stuff that is written is only vaguely reflective of reality and is mostly woe is me hyperbole.

Well the problem is that his White House staff have said that all the teenaged girl-like, vaguely reflective of reality, woe is me hyperbole are official statements.

Allandavid · Jun 22, 2017

MoonlessNight said:
Woah there buddy. No need to get all hot under the collar over this. We're just having a pleasant conversation.

If you need some time to cool down I can come back later.

Please don't confuse a forcibly made point with being "hot under the collar". And you should observe the site rule that asks you to target the post, rather than the poster...

It appears Trump is offically under investigation for obstruction

Fides et Ratio

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Fides et Ratio

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fides et Ratio

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fides et Ratio

Well-Known Member

Fides et Ratio

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

I miss Senator McCain

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency