ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

lmao

Spoiler

Whatever the far right/Putin team manage to manufacture, there's no way they can make anyone appear worse than Trump actually is.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

You love Kellyanne Conway, right? Here's a short read from her lawyer husband

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

You love Kellyanne Conway, right? Here's a short read from her lawyer husband on how Obstruction of Justice doesn't require and underlying crime. (He sites the criminal code manual)

https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1124334597951643648

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

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.

"

Boem wrote:

Notice how i say "rip rational logic" not "rip law"?

I wan't to see a judge follow up on an obstruction where no initial crime was commited.

It's non-sensical from a logics point of view, i'm not really interested in the law when i am saying "nope, no logic to be found here".

Your logic, if i got this right, is like this.

"well you can obstruct justice when no initial crime is commited by hindering the process of law" And at the same time "obstruction requires corrupt intent"

I hope you realise it's imposible to read corrupt intent in the hindering of the law when the person is not at risk for any crime. In the absence of an initial crime the person in question can just plead "wrong hairday" all day any day and get released from charges.

Unless the aim is beyond law and justice and "righteous", in that case any means are justified to reach the desired outcome even trivializing rules and laws and twisting definitions to suit goals.

Democrats initiated the precedent know, i'm curious if the republicans will actually sink as low as the dems when they get a president in office or if they will have some respect for the democratic process and the presidency.
Republicans faith in the presidency was at an all time low with Obama and they didn't pull this stuff on him, not to this stupendous amount.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

That conclusion is questionable for reasons beyond its haste. 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.

"

Legally, however, obstruction can still occur even in the absence of an underlying crime.

"

There’s also a legal debate over some of Barr’s reasoning. In his memo to Congress, Barr said that he determined that there was not enough evidence on obstruction in part because Trump was not “involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.” Marriotti disputes Barr’s reasoning, calling it a weak argument because a person could have had a corrupt intent for obstructing justice even if they had not committed an underlying crime.

"

The highest-profile example of trying a case of obstruction without an underlying crime that our experts could think of was the prosecution of Martha Stewart, the founder of a popular lifestyle and media company. Stewart was tried on charges related to her sale of 4,000 shares of ImClone, a pharmaceutical company, one day before the company’s stock price plummeted.

The charges of securities fraud were thrown out, but prosecutors persisted with charges of obstruction of justice and lying to investigators. She was found guilty of four counts and in 2004 was sentenced to five months of prison, five months of house arrest, and two years of probation.

Stewart "surely feared reputational and business harm" even in the absence of a crime, said Robert Weisberg, co-director of Stanford University’s Criminal Justice Center.

Another notable example is the case of Scooter Libby, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, said Samuel Buell, a law professor at Duke University. Libby was charged by a special prosecutor with obstruction, perjury and false statements, but not any underlying crime related to the outing of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame. (Trump pardoned Libby.)

"

We checked with 11 legal experts to nail down answers. Essentially all of these experts agreed that obstruction can indeed be prosecuted without an underlying crime — and has been in the past, notably in the case of Martha Stewart.

"

Legal experts told us that a president (or anyone) could still be prosecuted for obstructing justice if they believed they might be prosecuted — even if they ultimately never are.

"You can obstruct justice even if a prosecutor ultimately finds you were not guilty of committing the crime that was the focus of the underlying investigation," said Miriam Baer, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. "Even if a prosecutor ultimately concluded that you weren’t guilty of crime X, that says nothing as to whether you thought that you might be indicted for crime X, or, for that matter, if you thought one of your friends of family members would be indicted for crime X."

Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, agreed that an obstruction prosecution could have been argued in this case.

"Suppose Trump knew that no crime had been committed but believed that the investigation would uncover politically or personally embarrassing information, or if he believed that the investigation would embarrass or implicate an ally, aide, or family member," Posner said. "Then interfering with the investigation is a crime. The reason is that the purpose of the investigation is to find the truth, and if people obstruct an investigation, then the investigation becomes more difficult, wasting government resources."

That said, an obstruction case is naturally going to be stronger if there is an underlying crime that’s being prosecuted, said Ric Simmons, a professor at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Here's some examples and more explanation from four or so different articles.

"

That conclusion is questionable for reasons beyond its haste. 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.

Black letter law means settled law that is not really disputed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/03/26/barr-is-wrong-obstruction-justice-doesnt-require-another-underlying-crime/?utm_term=.0eeadecd8182

"

Legally, however, obstruction can still occur even in the absence of an underlying crime.

https://qz.com/1582086/is-trump-guilty-of-obstruction-of-justice-its-complicated/

"

There’s also a legal debate over some of Barr’s reasoning. In his memo to Congress, Barr said that he determined that there was not enough evidence on obstruction in part because Trump was not “involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.” Marriotti disputes Barr’s reasoning, calling it a weak argument because a person could have had a corrupt intent for obstructing justice even if they had not committed an underlying crime.

http://time.com/5559169/donald-trump-obstruction-justice-barr-memo/

"

The highest-profile example of trying a case of obstruction without an underlying crime that our experts could think of was the prosecution of Martha Stewart, the founder of a popular lifestyle and media company. Stewart was tried on charges related to her sale of 4,000 shares of ImClone, a pharmaceutical company, one day before the company’s stock price plummeted.

The charges of securities fraud were thrown out, but prosecutors persisted with charges of obstruction of justice and lying to investigators. She was found guilty of four counts and in 2004 was sentenced to five months of prison, five months of house arrest, and two years of probation.

Stewart "surely feared reputational and business harm" even in the absence of a crime, said Robert Weisberg, co-director of Stanford University’s Criminal Justice Center.

Another notable example is the case of Scooter Libby, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, said Samuel Buell, a law professor at Duke University. Libby was charged by a special prosecutor with obstruction, perjury and false statements, but not any underlying crime related to the outing of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame. (Trump pardoned Libby.)

"

We checked with 11 legal experts to nail down answers. Essentially all of these experts agreed that obstruction can indeed be prosecuted without an underlying crime — and has been in the past, notably in the case of Martha Stewart.

"

Legal experts told us that a president (or anyone) could still be prosecuted for obstructing justice if they believed they might be prosecuted — even if they ultimately never are.

"You can obstruct justice even if a prosecutor ultimately finds you were not guilty of committing the crime that was the focus of the underlying investigation," said Miriam Baer, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. "Even if a prosecutor ultimately concluded that you weren’t guilty of crime X, that says nothing as to whether you thought that you might be indicted for crime X, or, for that matter, if you thought one of your friends of family members would be indicted for crime X."

Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, agreed that an obstruction prosecution could have been argued in this case.

"Suppose Trump knew that no crime had been committed but believed that the investigation would uncover politically or personally embarrassing information, or if he believed that the investigation would embarrass or implicate an ally, aide, or family member," Posner said. "Then interfering with the investigation is a crime. The reason is that the purpose of the investigation is to find the truth, and if people obstruct an investigation, then the investigation becomes more difficult, wasting government resources."

That said, an obstruction case is naturally going to be stronger if there is an underlying crime that’s being prosecuted, said Ric Simmons, a professor at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/25/martha-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

Weren't there a lot of crimes uncovered during the russia investigation? I seem to remember a lot of people going to jail...

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

Weren't there a lot of crimes uncovered during the russia investigation? I seem to remember a lot of people going to jail...

No crimes were found regarding Trump or his campaign.