(06-15-2017, 08:58 PM)xxlt Wrote: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/opinion/the-case-for-obstruction-charges.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

The Law Professors who wrote the above article weren't the only highly partisan idiots agreeing with me this week. I heard other idiots with law degrees on radio and television making the case for impeachment and saying it is pretty much a slam dunk at this point.

From the article above:

"Obstruction of justice is a serious offense that lay at the core of Bill Clinton’s impeachment and forced the resignation of Richard Nixon. The Watergate-era cliché “The cover-up is worse than the crime” misses the point that the cover-up is a crime. Congress has made it a felony for any person — including the president — to “corruptly” interfere with a proceeding before a federal agency. Powerful evidence has emerged in recent weeks suggesting that President Trump did indeed interfere with the F.B.I. investigation of Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, which is part of the broader Russia inquiry."

Another partisan idiot and lawyer who served a previous President said simply, 'Trump told CBS news and Russians in the White House that he fired Comey to relieve the pressure of the Russia investigation. That's obstruction of justice and the proof is Mr. Trump's own statements.'

(06-15-2017, 09:11 PM)xxlt Wrote: More from the Times piece linked in post 320:

"And whether Mr. Trump succeeded in his efforts is legally irrelevant, because federal law criminalizes attempted obstruction as well as successful obstruction. Nor does it matter whether there was an actual underlying crime."

(06-15-2017, 11:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Cool, he won't be impeached over this, but if it helps you sleep at night.

(06-16-2017, 09:26 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I see they've run away from collusion and jumped on the obstruction charge.  What if it is determined you tried to obstruct a criminal case that never happened?  

(06-13-2017, 11:24 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, I don't ignore it, I just don't react to everything he does with hysterics.  I've made this point before, for a large section of the left if you don't scream and froth at the mouth over everything Trump does then you're branded a Trump supporter.  In the real world it doesn't work that way.  I do feel bad for failing your ideological litmus test though. 


Your quite good at condescension, it seems to make up about 70% of your posts since the whole Trump thing started.  I'll merely reiterate, if you got "impeachable offense" from Comey's testimony then you're either not very bright, which I don't think is the case with you, you're highly partisan (bingo!), or both.  I get the sense you disagree, no worries.  Just try not to be too upset when the whole impeachment thing the Dems have been talking about since 11/09/16 doesn't happen.

(06-16-2017, 11:19 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Trump supporter is the new racist.  We should get a gay marriage thread started or maybe a pro-choice one.  That way you will agree with them and no longer be a Trump supporter.

(06-16-2017, 09:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is where there seems to be a lot of confusion. The collusion investigations are not of Trump himself, they are of those around him (including Flynn, who is under a criminal investigation, not just counter-intel). The reason that everyone who has been latching onto this with a death grip is jumping to obstruction is because that is an investigation into Trump himself, and obstruction is what has gotten past presidents in hot water. It's their best shot, even if it is a very long one.

(06-16-2017, 11:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: No doubt some are just hoping for a best case to make headway in the next elections.
There is so much smoke we need this to clear the air.  If there is nothing there then we move on.  I really have no problem with that.  
However the POTUS' handling of this through his tweets is just making is worse for him if not for the people defending him.  If he could shut up for a month this might all just blow over.  But it is a reflection of the way Trump is, and how he was before the election.  He can't let ANY perceived slight go without throwing back an insult or some made up fact to try and show how HE is the best, not in trouble, etc.
I doubt there will be anything close to impeachment.  Heck there may not even be anything that says Trump is guilty of anything other than being ill-prepared for the job and unwilling to listen to anyone who could help him.
But it still amazes me that people think there is nothing there at all, or that agree with Trump that this is a "witch hunt" based on nothing.

(06-16-2017, 12:05 PM)michaelsean Wrote: i agree with your statements about Trump continually being his own worst enemy, but the collusion part does seem like a witch hunt.  Joe Manchin said they have seen no evidence whatsoever.  

(06-16-2017, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's not going to be any evidcne because collusion would never have been necessary.  Putin loathes Hillary so he would have done everything he could to ensure her loss without prompting from anyone and regardless of who the GOP candidate was.  

(06-16-2017, 12:05 PM)michaelsean Wrote: i agree with your statements about Trump continually being his own worst enemy, but the collusion part does seem like a witch hunt.  Joe Manchin said they have seen no evidence whatsoever.  

Quote:Pence Hires Outside Counsel To Guide Him Through Russia Investigations

 SHARE




Vice President Mike Pence’s office on Thursday confirmed that Pence has retained outside counsel to guide him through the congressional and federal investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election.


“I can confirm that the Vice President has retained Richard Cullen of McGuire Woods to assist him in responding to inquiries by the special counsel,” Pence’s communications director Jarrod Agen told the Washington Post by email.
Agen said Pence “looks forward to a swift conclusion of this matter.”

The White House did not immediately respond to TPM’s request for comment.

The Washington Post reported, citing an unnamed aide, that it took several weeks for Pence to hire Cullen and several candidates were interviewed for the job.

Trump in May hired Marc Kasowitz to help him navigate the investigation into whether members of Trump’s campaign colluded with Russian officials to influence the U.S. election. That decision came days after former FBI director Robert Mueller was appointed as special counsel to lead the probe into Russian election meddling.

The New York Times reported on Sunday that Kasowitz advised White House staffers, who he does not represent, not to retain their own lawyers. Kasowitz is tasked with defending Trump personally, not the institution of the White House.

The Washington Post reported late Wednesday evening that Mueller is investigating whether Trump tried to obstruct justice.

(06-16-2017, 12:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Absofrickinlutely. I don't expect anything about collusion. I suspect that some members of his campaign were used, made to look foolish, etc., by Russian intelligence. But I don't expect anything about collusion.

(06-16-2017, 05:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mike-pence-hires-outside-counsel

(06-16-2017, 05:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which lends credence to the idea among many that this whole thing is a partisan witch hunt.  As much damage as Trump may do I think faith in our current form of government will be irrevocably destroyed in the, IMO, unlikely event this proceeds to impeachment.  While the "deep state" conspiracists are exactly that this kind of thing gives them loads of ammo they didn't have before and provides fertile soil for more believers to crop up.


So the fact that a person hires a lawyer while they're being investigated is somehow an admission or implication of wrong doing? In the unfortunate event that I have to use a firearm to defend myself I won't be giving any statement to investigators other than "It was self defense and I was in fear for my life" before lawyering up.  The legal system is tricky enough for those well versed in it, charting a course by yourself is foolish to the point of stupidity.

Besides, I'd want a lawyer to defend me from this highly partisan with hunt.

(06-16-2017, 05:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: Is Pence under investigation? 

I believe we have had a similar conversation about the POTUS before he admitted he is.

(06-16-2017, 07:28 PM)tigerseye Wrote: Is this the official witch hunt thread?

.

The globalists and the .000000000001% of the richest in the world are pissed...

(06-16-2017, 05:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which lends credence to the idea among many that this whole thing is a partisan witch hunt.  As much damage as Trump may do I think faith in our current form of government will be irrevocably destroyed in the, IMO, unlikely event this proceeds to impeachment.  While the "deep state" conspiracists are exactly that this kind of thing gives them loads of ammo they didn't have before and provides fertile soil for more believers to crop up.


So the fact that a person hires a lawyer while they're being investigated is somehow an admission or implication of wrong doing? In the unfortunate event that I have to use a firearm to defend myself I won't be giving any statement to investigators other than "It was self defense and I was in fear for my life" before lawyering up.  The legal system is tricky enough for those well versed in it, charting a course by yourself is foolish to the point of stupidity.

Besides, I'd want a lawyer to defend me from this highly partisan with hunt.

(06-16-2017, 05:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: Is Pence under investigation? 

I believe we have had a similar conversation about the POTUS before he admitted he is.

(06-16-2017, 06:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't know, is he?  Given the situation I'd call his hiring a lawyer cautiously prudent.  Especially as the Dems have been plotting this since the day after the GE.

(05-26-2017, 03:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Trump is under investigation?

(05-26-2017, 03:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: Good question.

I may have mistyped that as we don't know yet.  DJT said he was told he was not (3x) but he's the only one to say it.

(05-26-2017, 03:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I asked because you made a declarative statement that he was.  Now you are saying we don't know if he is and that Trump says he isn't.  So which is it, is Trump under investigation, is he not, or do you not know either way?

(05-26-2017, 03:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: I answered because you were correct that I made a declarative statement that I perhaps should not have as we do not know that he is under investigation.

(05-26-2017, 03:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I just wanted you to be clear about the fact that you made an incorrect statement.

That isn't anything close to owning a factually incorrect statement.  I love watching you dissemble.