The Market Ticker
Rss Icon RSS available
You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
Comments on Did Trump Just Admit to Felony Obstruction?
User: Not logged on
Top Forum Top Login FAQ Register Clear Cookie
Showing Page 2 of 4  First1234Last
User Info Did Trump Just Admit to Felony Obstruction? in forum [Market-Ticker]
Supertruckertom
Posts: 1548
Incept: 2010-11-07

USA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
So do you leave him in as a De-Facto Lame Duck or do you take your chances with a President Pence?

I would rather see President Pence that might actually use the veto than a flipped back to his natural State Trump rubber stamping any legislation out of a Democratic Legislature post 2018.

From a Democrat perspective, Puppet Trump may be best until 2020.






----------
Preparing to go Hunting.
Gable
Posts: 758
Incept: 2009-07-04

Retired in NC Mountains
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I never expected Trump to get anything done to help the common man because all parties were going to stop him and he surrounded himself with Goldman types.. This might trigger him being removed and then it will get real interesting because Joe six pack will not see it as anything other than coup.

----------
In all of history, no government became more honest, less corrupt, or respected its citizens' rights more as it grew in size. E.L. 2016
Dan-kurt
Posts: 1
Incept: 2012-08-19

Seattle, WA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I am not a lawyer and never played one but answer this question anyone:

How can Trump incriminate himself on Twitter as he is not under oath?

Dan Kurt
Tickerguy
Posts: 150661
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
All these one-post wonders....

"I robbed the bank" doesn't have to be said under oath to be admissible evidence. It merely needs to be able to be tied back conclusively to the speaker in question.

Twitter's IP records and such are subject to subpoena under the third-party doctrine (no claim of privilege is available) and as such conclusively tying it back to Trump is quite trivial.

----------
Winding it down.
Tickerguy
Posts: 150661
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Teresajude
Quote:
Trump exercising his constitutional authority CANNOT be obstruction of justice.

If you disagree with the firing, then you can lobby congress to impeach him. There is no legal question here, only a political one.

Hahahaha.... yeah, right.

How'd that line of argument work out for Nixon?

----------
Winding it down.
Mekantor
Posts: 145
Incept: 2009-01-12

Houston, TX
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
If Flynn told FBI story A, and told Pence story B. Is the truth then story C?

If A = B, then what would lead Trump to know that Flynn lied to both Pence and the FBI? Did they get C from somewhere else?

If A != B, then it was immediately known as that was the public reason given for firing Flynn. So everyone already knew he lied to the FBI and nothing was concealed, it was just a matter of bringing charges and eventually going to trial or reaching a deal.

I'm just not sure where the obstruction is, the FBI continues to function without Comey and there is a special prosecutor, so the boulder kept on rolling. No legal expert though, reading through all comments to gain some insight.
Flaps10
Posts: 6780
Incept: 2008-10-17

PNW
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
He's back pedaling hard now. Elon's newspaper:

I never asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn, Trump said in a pre-dawn message on Twitter. Just more Fake News covering another Comey lie!

I think the toothpaste tube may have been stomped on
Budget-racer
Posts: 15
Incept: 2016-03-14

Virginia
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I'd only be sort of sorry to see this take him down not because of what some other people got away with, but just for how stupid you have to be to give your opposition anything to pin on you. When you KNOW they have it out for you and watch your every breath waiting for a slip up, you don't even cross your Ts and dot your Is, you pay someone to make sure it's done by the book for you.

Honestly it's sad, because he may end up as the biggest failure of potential in a long time. I would have thought someone with his personality would have enjoyed going in and sticking it to the medical monopolies and being able to sell the short term pain to the American people. If he just wanted to get in and play typical DC games, I certainly won't be shedding any tears when that comes back to bite him.
Tickerguy
Posts: 150661
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
The obstruction comes when you try to "steer" the investigation.

If your boss has you in a meeting and has a "this is a good guy, you really don't need to punish him" sort of conversation the implied threat, given the power relationship between the two of you, is clear.

Now in an ordinary work environment where you allegedly have a remit (e.g. "pursue this deal with vendor X") and then your boss "changes it" with such a conversation that's not a crime, of course, although the implied "or else" remains. Bosses put those implied "or else's" in front of subordinates all the time.

But if your remit is to investigate and prosecute criminal acts under the rule of law such a conversation with its implied threat most-certainly IS obstruction standing alone, and if the implied threat is later carried out (whether under some sort of other excuse or not) it's materially-amplified.

----------
Winding it down.
Fedwatcher
Posts: 1961
Incept: 2009-04-07

Southern California
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Already a staffer in the White House has fallen on his sword and taken responsibility for the Tweet.

Interesting that the staffer claims to only have done one Tweet and will do no more.

Until Trump runs out of staffers willing to Take The Fall, Trump continues to have Plausible Deniability.


Will the Tweeter In Chief be impeached or just driven into Lame Duck Status?
Tickerguy
Posts: 150661
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Obstruction^4th power if that "staffer" is a lie.

Twitter's records are able to be subpoenaed and the device "fingerprint" responsible is trivially discoverable. Hell, I can do that right here, right now for anyone who posts on this forum.....

Further it doesn't matter who physically pushed the button; "plausible deniability" won't fly when that person winds up being called in front of a Grand Jury and it's explained to them that if they lie or obscure any material fact they're going to do 20 years in the fed slammer, but if they tell the truth they've in fact done nothing legally actionable. No jeopardy for said person attaches for the truth, only on an attempt to deceive.

----------
Winding it down.

Supertruckertom
Posts: 1548
Incept: 2010-11-07

USA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Trump, for all his trips to be deposed or cross examined in civil cases, thought he could run his mouth on criminal matters.
You have to know when to STFU.
Money won't solve this problem.
You can't BS your way out of dealing with the FBI.
I am ready for Pence.

----------
Preparing to go Hunting.
Goforbroke
Posts: 7147
Incept: 2007-11-30
A True American Patriot!
Time to feed the chickens.
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
For those of you who want the citation ... http://thehill.com/homenews/administrati....

Quote:
President Trumps personal lawyer said on Sunday that it was my mistake that the president sent out a tweet about firing former national security adviser Michael Flynn, prompting speculation that it showed evidence of obstruction of justice.

Im out of the tweeting business. I did not mean to break news, attorney John Dowd told Axios.


And NY Magazine brings up the issue ... http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201....


----------
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our Light, and not our Darkness, that most frightens us. -- Marianne Williamson
Click
Posts: 51
Incept: 2017-06-26

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
* shepherding

Excuse the misspelling . Don't know what happened. Neuron misfired, I guess...
Nevertoolate
Posts: 1392
Incept: 2007-08-26
A True American Patriot!
San Antonio de Bexar de runover with illegals, Texas
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Tweeting is an emotional shooting from the hip. It's like hitting "reply all" and going off EXCEPT all is many more people with a tweet. Trump likes Twitter and although it may have a place, the likelihood that you will eventually screw up is inevitable.

Initially, I thought Trump meant with his remarks to Comey, that since Flynn was gone it didn't make any difference so why continue. But those same words can be construed otherwise. Trump made a tactical error in front of political enemies and it has bitten him in the ass.

----------

Democracy is a conversation between 2 wolves & a sheep discussing what's for dinner. A Constitutional Republic is found when the sheep pulls out a gun & makes clear that his 2nd Amendment Right will be exercised should the wolves attempt to hold such a "vote."-KD 9-29-15
Jfms99
Posts: 224
Incept: 2009-10-06

Msumelle, Ar
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Well well well, I see we have a lot of people salivating the prospect of forcing another President from office.

And all this is based on a Tweet Trump made that has all the arm chair "Lawyer's" ready to convict him of Obstruction of Justice.

Until I see more evidence I withhold judgement on this. This whole investigation of Russian Meddling has been a waste of time. The nitpicking of Flynn or anyone else on the Presidential Transition team somehow being out of line, or worse breaking the moribund Logan Act is way over the top. Am I suppose to believe that previous President-Elects did not in any way talk to foreign governments during the Transition Phase, I think not, of course they did.

I am still not sure what Flynn did or did not do. I do know that any of us who talk to the FBI could be charged for Lying and it could be for anything and not because of anything done deliberately. When you get charged for Lying to the FBI that is usually because that is all they can get you for, not the main charges they were investigating for. Go back and look at the Scooter Libby case, they wanted him for outing Valerie Plamme as an agent of the CIA, only thing was he was innocent, it was someone else and they knew it and yet they never prosecuted that person, but to get a scalp they got Libby because he could not remember some things, like phone calls. SO he life was ruined.

Since the time of Bill and Hillary Clinton in office, they perfected the Politics of Personal Destruction, how many lives and reputations destroyed because of that? Too many to list here and yet it continues today. It's become a Blood Sport Politically and we allow it to continue.

Donald Trump is hated not just politically by Democrats but by his own Party, not to mention the visceral hated of the MSM. Frankly it is amazing he was elected at all. All these forces arrayed against him and yet he fights on. Is he perfect, no, and I believe at times he does say things he should not, like that Tweet, which I believe was an exaggeration of why he fired Flynn, nor do I believe he tried to get Comey to drop that investigation, I think he just said something innocuous that any of us might say, yet the context sounds worse than it may have been.

Finally as to the Rule of Law, unfortunately I think it has been dead since the Clinton's were in office. Things have been totally perverted and in a sane world things would be different and Truth, Honor, and Country might mean something. I think we are past it and that is the sad truth for us. This country is going to have to collapse before we can reset, something Karl I think you have said.
Nevertoolate
Posts: 1392
Incept: 2007-08-26
A True American Patriot!
San Antonio de Bexar de runover with illegals, Texas
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
The rule of law has been dead since way before the Clinton's. Yes, they perfected the abuse to an entirely new level. A friend of mine who I had just met in the very early 90's and I were talking about how LBJ stole the 1948 Senate election in Texas. He was from Brinkley, Arkansas and said that if the Clinton's were elected in 1992, the country would be ruined for generations.

I will agree, that it appears a complete reset is the only way to purge the system and one should prepare for it as well as the continued slow death we are going through. How does a country execute a "Do Not Resuscitate Order?"

----------

Democracy is a conversation between 2 wolves & a sheep discussing what's for dinner. A Constitutional Republic is found when the sheep pulls out a gun & makes clear that his 2nd Amendment Right will be exercised should the wolves attempt to hold such a "vote."-KD 9-29-15
Teresajude
Posts: 2
Incept: 2017-12-02


Banned
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Karl:
Tickerguy wrote..

Teresajude wrote..


Trump exercising his constitutional authority CANNOT be obstruction of justice.

If you disagree with the firing, then you can lobby congress to impeach him. There is no legal question here, only a political one.


Hahahaha.... yeah, right.

How'd that line of argument work out for Nixon?


I would argue that is the point I was trying to make. Impeachment is a political remedy. Nixon resigned because he was likely to be impeached and convicted. He did not resign because the FBI (or some random 'special counsel') was looking into what he had done.

Again, there is a remedy for a president who is "out of control". That remedy is impeachment, which resides in the legislative branch of the government. There is no executive branch remedy for an "out of control" president. To claim there is such a remedy is constitutionally impossible. The FBI has no authority over the president.

Please understand, I am NOT saying Trump is as pure as the driven snow or any similar tripe. I am just trying to point out that the specific obstruction of justice allegation does not hold water from a constitutional standpoint. Please criticize him for actual crimes and don't go making up crimes that do not exist. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms without making up allegations. We already have a media for that...

Ironically, he could be guilty of obstruction of justice if he was anyone but the president.
Pyrrhus
Posts: 1
Incept: 2017-12-03


Banned
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
What nonsense! Its not obstruction of justice anyway, but Clinton and Obama did this kind of thing on a daily basis, even when it WAS obstruction of justice. Like Clintons meeting with Janet Reno, telling her not to investigate the Chinese money scandal or name a special prosecutor..This stuff is nothing but a soft coup attempt against Trump, with Mueller and his Democrat friends figuring they might get lucky.
Tickerguy
Posts: 150661
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
Again, there is a remedy for a president who is "out of control". That remedy is impeachment, which resides in the legislative branch of the government. There is no executive branch remedy for an "out of control" president. To claim there is such a remedy is constitutionally impossible. The FBI has no authority over the president.

Please understand, I am NOT saying Trump is as pure as the driven snow or any similar tripe. I am just trying to point out that the specific obstruction of justice allegation does not hold water from a constitutional standpoint. Please criticize him for actual crimes and don't go making up crimes that do not exist. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms without making up allegations. We already have a media for that...

That's a complete lie and you're done here for running it.

The FBI most-certainly DOES have jurisdiction. They cannot INDICT a sitting President but they sure as hell can issue a referral to the House, which is EXACTLY the same thing but in the context of impeachment.

If the President is impeached and convicted in the Senate he can THEN be indicted FOR WHAT HE DID WHILE IN OFFICE. Yes, the next President can pardon him (as Ford did with Nixon) BUT he is not entitled to that pardon nor is he immune from prosecution ONCE HE LEAVES OFFICE.

That's Constitutional Law FACT. Now get the **** out (along with "Pyrrhus") for running horse**** here.

----------
Winding it down.

Wootendw
Posts: 56
Incept: 2010-01-28

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!"

This is going to sound like splitting hairs but there is a difference between lying to the FBI and lying to the VP - the latter, I believe, is legal. So it's possible, just barely possible, that Trump, who is given to exaggeration in tweets, only knew the Flynn lied to the VP and just added the FBI to the tweet as though he knew Flynn lied to the FBI, but really didn't.

BTW, If Comey knew Flynn lied to the FBI, why are we only hearing about it now?
Tickerguy
Posts: 150661
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Correct, it is not illegal to lie to the VP -- it's grounds for being fired, of course, but it's not against the law (any more than lying to your boss in any other context is.)

However, lying to the FBI is illegal. Firing someone for lying to the FBI is not illegal, BUT ATTEMPTING TO INTERFERE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF SAID LYING MOST-CERTAINLY IS, AND IN FACT IS MORE ILLEGAL (MORE SERIOUS) THAN THE LYING ITSELF!

----------
Winding it down.
Themortgagedude
Posts: 10407
Incept: 2007-12-17

saint louis
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Dershowitz says you're wrong. Hell I don't know. What I find amusing is that he says if you charged him for obstruction for exercising his constitutional right you would invite a "Constitutional Crisis".

I'm always amused when they use that term. Like all of a sudden the whole world is going to melt down. Hell just let the SCOTUS make the decision and move on.

I do wonder why a noted leftist like AD has been so loudly defending DJT recently. It makes no sense. Generally I'd say follow the money but then I look at Dershowitz and have a hard time figuring that out. Makes me wonder if Soros pissed him off somehow?


----------
I think its time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that our founding fathers intended for us. Ronald Reagan 1964
Tickerguy
Posts: 150661
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
No he doesn't.

He in fact says what I have said -- the FBI can't CHARGE HIM (or any other sitting President, NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES.)

What the FBI CAN do is send a criminal referral to the House. WHEN Trump leaves office (whether by impeachment or otherwise) THEN they can charge him, assuming the Statute of Limitations has not run and he isn't pardoned.

You're still grasping at ANYTHING, no matter how insane, to try to justify supporting lawlessness. That's bull**** and it is EXACTLY this position that continues to suggest I've wasted 10 years writing this column.

----------
Winding it down.
Themortgagedude
Posts: 10407
Incept: 2007-12-17

saint louis
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
That wasn't how I heard it. But maybe that's because of my jaundiced view on things.

----------
I think its time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that our founding fathers intended for us. Ronald Reagan 1964
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 2 of 4  First1234Last