ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Turtledove wrote:

In proving an obstruction of justice case it must be proven that the obstruction was done out of corrupt intent. Meaning that the person wanted to get in the way of the legal process from getting to the truth. The articles mention when there is no underlying crime that proving corrupt intent can sometimes be more difficult.

Wow, another similarity between the Mueller Report and the Comey Statement. Hillary Clinton was determined not to have corrupt intent, or any intent whatsoever, in the mishandling of 110 classified emails in 52 email chains. I don't believe that was a particularly fair determination.

In the event that corrupt intent would be determined in any of the Trump obstruction stories, I'd be pretty upset about the double standards. It's messed up when "intent" is functionally a code word for whether you've got a D or an R next to your name.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Obstruction of justice means obstructing the legal process. A legal process is either a trial or a criminal investigation. A classical obstruction of justice case would be someone committing a crime and then lying to police or threatening witnesses in their trial for that crime. What can also happen though is that the person did not commit a crime but they interfere in the legal process anyway. Maybe they want to protect someone else or maybe they are afraid that some embarrassing but legal facts might be revealed. Like the fellow that lied to cover up an affair. The only law broken was him lying to cover up the affair. Where is the underlying crime in that case? (as just one example) Or the case where the fellow obstructed justice just to help a friend?

Perjury is a crime my dude. Trump did no such thing btw. And you haven't provided a single example where someone was found guilty of obstructing justice without an underlying crime.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

In proving an obstruction of justice case it must be proven that the obstruction was done out of corrupt intent. Meaning that the person wanted to get in the way of the legal process from getting to the truth. The articles mention when there is no underlying crime that proving corrupt intent can sometimes be more difficult.

Wow, another similarity between the Mueller Report and the Comey Statement. Hillary Clinton was determined not to have corrupt intent, or any intent whatsoever, in the mishandling of 110 classified emails in 52 email chains. I don't believe that was a particularly fair determination.

In the event that corrupt intent would be determined in any of the Trump obstruction stories, I'd be pretty upset about the double standards. It's messed up when "intent" is functionally a code word for whether you've got a D or an R next to your name.

It's worse than that. Intent is not a part of the statutory crime of mishandling classified info. It was a rewriting of the law entirely, and it's of no surprise that after Bill Clinton met AG Lynch on the tarmac that fateful day that the AG decided not to pursue charges.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Obstruction of justice means obstructing the legal process. A legal process is either a trial or a criminal investigation. A classical obstruction of justice case would be someone committing a crime and then lying to police or threatening witnesses in their trial for that crime. What can also happen though is that the person did not commit a crime but they interfere in the legal process anyway. Maybe they want to protect someone else or maybe they are afraid that some embarrassing but legal facts might be revealed. Like the fellow that lied to cover up an affair. The only law broken was him lying to cover up the affair. Where is the underlying crime in that case? (as just one example) Or the case where the fellow obstructed justice just to help a friend?

Perjury is a crime my dude. Trump did no such thing btw. And you haven't provided a single example where someone was found guilty of obstructing justice without an underlying crime.

Perjury was the interference in the legal process part of obstruction of justice not in the corrupt intent part of that case! You apparently can't understand what you read?

"

It’s black letter law that a defendant can satisfy the corrupt intent criterion for obstruction even if the defendant himself committed no underlying crime. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit recently ruled that a defendant could be convicted of obstruction “even if [his] primary motivation was to extricate the sister of his childhood friend from a troubled situation.” A court in Utah held in 2013 that a defendant could be liable for obstruction where his only apparent motive was to protect a friend from a criminal charge.

Former Detroit mayor Kwame M. Kilpatrick went to jail for obstructing justice in 2008 after he lied under oath about an extramarital affair. And in January, a Navy captain in Florida was indicted on a charge of obstruction of justice after he allegedly misled investigators about his extramarital affair with a civilian employee’s spouse. Of course, adultery is not a crime. But interfering with an investigation to cover up adultery certainly is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/03/26/barr-is-wrong-obstruction-justice-doesnt-require-another-underlying-crime/?utm_term=.d6f029a652c9

What does black letter law mean?

"Black Letter Law refers to the basic standard elements or principles of law, which are generally known and free from doubt or dispute."
https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/black-letter-law/

What I think you are missing is that you're confusing different parts of what must be proven for an obstruction of justice case. What is being discussed is proving corrupt intent. It is not discussing proving attempted interference in a legal process. It is plainly obvious that Trump attempted to interfere with the investigation. The plain facts make that part of what must be proven obvious to everyone. I hazard to guess that that even the most delusional Trump supporter such as yourself would admit that. What is the part that is open to some possible disagreement is proving corrupt intent when he attempted to interfere the 10 or so times.

Think about it and if it still doesn't make sense to you then we'll just have have to assume that you're a hopeless case.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Obstruction of Justice doesn't require an underlying crime. (However, in the Trump/Putin campaign there was loads of underlying criminal activity)

rip rational logic.

If there is no need for justice(absence of crime) how does one obstruct justice.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Obstruction of Justice doesn't require an underlying crime. (However, in the Trump/Putin campaign there was loads of underlying criminal activity)

rip rational logic.

If there is no need for justice(absence of crime) how does one obstruct justice.

Peace,

-Boem-

You don't know what you're talking about.

Obstruction of justice requires a couple of things. First an attempted interference with a legal process, meaning an investigation or trial. Second, corrupt intent when doing that interference. In other words if the interference is an accident or an innocent mistake then it is not obstruction of justice. When someone says that no underlying crime is required, it means that the person obstructing justice need not commit any other crime other than the obstruction of justice.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Obstruction of Justice doesn't require an underlying crime.

In theory, maybe. In reality, it does. So far we haven't found a single example where someone was found guilty of obstruction without doing any other crimes.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

(However, in the Trump/Putin campaign there was loads of underlying criminal activity)

Mueller disagrees but you gotta believe what you gotta believe.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Obstruction of justice means obstructing the legal process. A legal process is either a trial or a criminal investigation. A classical obstruction of justice case would be someone committing a crime and then lying to police or threatening witnesses in their trial for that crime. What can also happen though is that the person did not commit a crime but they interfere in the legal process anyway. Maybe they want to protect someone else or maybe they are afraid that some embarrassing but legal facts might be revealed. Like the fellow that lied to cover up an affair. The only law broken was him lying to cover up the affair. Where is the underlying crime in that case? (as just one example) Or the case where the fellow obstructed justice just to help a friend?

Perjury is a crime my dude. Trump did no such thing btw. And you haven't provided a single example where someone was found guilty of obstructing justice without an underlying crime.

Obstruction of Justice doesn't require an underlying crime. (However, in the Trump/Putin campaign there was loads of underlying criminal activity)

Perhaps, I would assume that some of the 12 offshoot cases from the Mueller investigation might find something. I mean besides the Russian's getting indicted as part of the current report.

lmao



Biden is the obvious mainstream corporate choice so there's a very good chance that he'll win the nomination. The memes will be nasty.

Kinda related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUto5LJ2AmY

I remember when this was a "slippery slope argument" made by "homophobes". I wonder what the backlash to this will look like (I don't).

"

Xavderion wrote:

lmao

Spoiler

Biden is the obvious mainstream corporate choice so there's a very good chance that he'll win the nomination. The memes will be nasty.

Kinda related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUto5LJ2AmY

I remember when this was a "slippery slope argument" made by "homophobes". I wonder what the backlash to this will look like (I don't).

Related: https://youtu.be/-agsyUShmcs. Not that I'm saying YouTube censored Biden; I've got a less conspiratorial explanation.

The incompetence of the Biden campaign at anything other than raising money is utterly breathtaking. I have every confidence their confidential emails will be vulnerable to extraction at some point in the campaign. If the DNC rigs the primary for Sloppy Joe it'll be 2016 all over again.