ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

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.

"

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:

"

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.

"

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.

"

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

Mueller disagrees but you gotta believe what you gotta believe.

"

"

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).