(09-18-2019, 12:45 AM)Benton Wrote: Mueller was. And, according to the report, Trump tried to obstruct it. Which is as impeachable as lying under oath. 

(09-18-2019, 01:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So wanting to do something and discussing it with your staff is an impeachable offense?

As I said when the report was first release and classified as a "Bad American" for not pledging to read the report cover to cover.

Hillary: Committed what could be a criminal act without intent, so no crime

Trump: Intended to commit what could have been a criminal act, without action, so no crime.

The more the Dems drag this out, the more it appears my cliff notes were spot on.

(09-18-2019, 02:48 PM)jj22 Wrote: I guess Trump is safe as long as he doesn't get a blowjob in the Oval office.

(09-18-2019, 01:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So wanting to do something and discussing it with your staff is an impeachable offense?

Quote:a)

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

(09-18-2019, 05:31 PM)Benton Wrote: Legally, yup.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1503
18 U.S. Code § 1503.Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally







Bolded the relevant.

Basically, if Trump had a conversation with anyone on his staff and asked them to talk to Sessions, or talked to them about firing Sessions in regard to the report, or asked them to not talk to Mueller, it's obstruction. Even if they didn't listen.

(09-17-2019, 09:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So Mueller was able to carry out the investigation unimpeded. Just as I asserted. 

FWIW, that's one of the reason you have "people"; sometimes they have to protect you against yourself. I highly doubt Trump is the first POTUS to experience this dynamic

(09-18-2019, 08:52 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So Trump is just as incompetent at influencing an investigation as he is at running a Trump casino or a Trump university?

(09-18-2019, 06:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Cherry picking parts of the text aside I think the word "corruptly" at the beginning should be taken into consideration. 

But let's roll will your POV: Wouldn't the person talking to Sessions or Mueller possibly be guilty of Corruption? Perhaps why they chose not to do it. 

(09-18-2019, 10:15 PM)Benton Wrote: Nay, no cherry picking. Laws and statutes can be pretty complex with a lot of irrelevant verbage. I guessed that was why you were so unfamiliar with what constitutes an obstruction charge, and attempted to make that clearer. In any event, there's the complete wording of the law, which I'm sure you'll agree, falls in line with what Trump allegedly (according to his own people) did. 

As far as the question, that's irrelevant from the obstruction charge. Conspiracy, as I'm sure you're aware, is a charge. Corruption, as I'm sure you're aware, typically falls under various other charges. I'm not an attorney, but if they were tasked with obstruction, as the law clearly outlines, and formally declined to participate, there wouldn't be a conspiracy charge. But the impeachment issue doesn't really concern itself with conspiracy charges for staff members.

(09-18-2019, 10:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We can argue all day if you selected certain words to highlight while considering other points to be irrelevant, but why bother. I pointed to a word you did highlight "Corruptly" characterized by improper conduct (such as bribery or the selling of favors). I don't think he asked his folks to fire anyone out of corruption, I think he did it out of ignorance. The dude has been able to fire whomever he wants, whenever he wants for 70 years. 

Your making a big leap saying it was done out of corruption. It was done because he was mad. 

(09-18-2019, 11:55 PM)Benton Wrote: Well, the no highlighted portions were in regard to physical violence, petit jurors and other issues. I'm giving trump the benefit of the doubt, but I don't think he physically threatened staffers. 

Do you feel that's relevant? Do you think he physically  threatened staffers? 

(09-19-2019, 07:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose you've missed in my last 2 posts that although I feel you cheery picked the words you used, I said it really doesn't matter. Why do you continue to argue the point conceded instead addressing my constantly bringing up the highlighted word of corruptly ?  

(09-19-2019, 10:11 AM)Benton Wrote: Again, no cheery picking, they're just the words of the law that he broke. Laws, generally, encompass a wide area of things, as does that one. You don't have to break every part of the law to break the law. 

I'm not sure what conceding you're talking about, only that you're hanging up on the word corruptly. You should google it and see why it's relevant. 

(09-19-2019, 08:34 AM)GMDino Wrote: Trump's best defense is that he is an incompetent moron who refused to learn how to do his job legally but has people around him who were afraid of being arrested or charged with breaking laws so none of his half assed plans went forward.

Yet he can't admit that publicly.  So he goes on about how smart and how successful he is.

And his supporters eat it up.

The use the defense that he was too inept to successfully commit obstruction of justice (ignoring that even trying is enough for impeachment) and in the next breath think only he is smart enough to "make America great again". 

That voters can have such a disconnect that they seriously think/say they have to vote for the guy not smart enough to do the job rather than any Democrat because the Democrats want to give us better health care and cleaner water and air (but it might cost (gasp) money!) would be amusing if it wasn't so predictable and sad.

(09-19-2019, 11:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure how much slower I can type that IMO he did it out of ignorance. He's spent a lifetime telling his people to fire people or simply firing them himself. His people protected him; that's exactly what they were hired to do.