- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Contrary to Barr's view, DoJ issues Obstruction indictment w/o underlying crime
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:41 am to funnystuff
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:41 am to funnystuff
quote:
A better version of your analogy would be, police go into house looking for evidence of murder, don’t find it, but declare to all of the homeowners neighbors that a murder occurred anyway. The homeowner, pissed off at the blatant abuse of power and public slandering of his or her name, tells all his or her neighbors that these particular police are full of shite.
How this analogy does not just leap into your face and grab you by the ears and shout loudly to anyone who RATIONALLY wants to understand the overall process escapes me.
The Democrats are spinning their version of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and smearing anyone who has a contrary view of their conclusion.
0
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:41 am to NC_Tigah
I’m picturing this dude reading the entire mueller report looking for any daylight that could make him not look like a fool. Alas he’s hitched to the collusion/conspiracy differences bandwagon....
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:41 am to tigerinDC09
You people are so stupid.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:42 am to tigerinDC09
The media sure as hell was. In fact called Trump treasonous. Could you imagine if that were you???
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:42 am to rumproast
quote:
Good Lord. You just claimed it had been proven by the SDNY that Trump had committed a crime.
Well you technically got me. Individual one committed a crime. so please, I beg, forgive my error.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:43 am to tigerinDC09
Did I miss the trial of individual 1? Do you understand how the criminal justice system works?
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:43 am to tigerinDC09
What did he obstruct?
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:44 am to rumproast
quote:
The media sure as hell was
So we went from Mueller saying Trump was guilty to the "media" saying trump was guilty. That's a reach, don't strain any muscles.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:44 am to tigerinDC09
You're gonna dislocate something with all these contortions.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:46 am to rumproast
quote:
Did I miss the trial of individual 1? Do you understand how the criminal justice system works?
Yes, prosecutors allege, via indictment that a crime was committed.
Barr asserted that he needed to see an underlying crime in order to prosecute Trump. I'm asserting that he willfully ignored the underlying SDNY crime.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:46 am to AllemanWC
quote:
NO OBSTRUCTION you idiot.
Do you not understand?
Trump should be charged with the intent to obstruct, even though he was proven to not actually obstruct anything, in an investigation in which he is an alleged unnamed unindicted co-conspirator in an investigation that was not only proven to be a false investigation where there was no crime, it was also proven that the entire investigation was a sham set up by the previous administration using fraudulent tactics.
So Trump is guilty!
He should not have tried to fight back or had the intent to obstruct a falsified investigation of a crime that did not exist. He should have just left office and killed himself in peace like the Democrats wanted him to.
This post was edited on 5/7/19 at 7:49 am
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:47 am to tigerinDC09
quote:What that means tigerinDC09, since you obviously struggle with the language, is Mueller investigated collusion in its totality, but did so in pursuit of its legal terminology . . . "conspiracy". The terms in this instance are synonymous.
In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.
There was no collusion. There was no conspiracy. There was nothing rising to the level of a chargeable obstruction of justice offense . . . . even in the eyes of Andrew Weissmann who used a similar approach to put 85,000 employees out-of-work under guise of fallacious obstruction of justice charges.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:47 am to tigerinDC09
Christ, I sure hope you’re trolling at this point. I’d like to think no adult could be this dense.
I’m done with you. I’ve wasted too much of my morning on this and need to get to work. Hopefully you have similar obligations. Good luck sorting through your anger and finding some sort of internal peace. And I know it’s tough to tell sarcasm from honesty online, but I mean that sincerely. I can’t imagine the anguish it must cause to be this detached. Good luck.
I’m done with you. I’ve wasted too much of my morning on this and need to get to work. Hopefully you have similar obligations. Good luck sorting through your anger and finding some sort of internal peace. And I know it’s tough to tell sarcasm from honesty online, but I mean that sincerely. I can’t imagine the anguish it must cause to be this detached. Good luck.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:50 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
tigerinDC09
It is very child-like to not be able to see things in whole and without nuance.
Let me break it down:
Barr did not say it was never the case of Obstruction without underlying crime. But, that the fact of clearing of underlying mitigates it and makes it less likely to be charged.
Also, SOME the evidence presented to "obstruction" involved the POTUS acting within his official power: he was legally able to fire Mueller if he wanted. Bad politics (and his staff saved him from bad political move). But, legal
Next, the "encouraged to lie". There is a HUGE difference between the following statements:
BHP 1 (to friend)- "Hey, just remember we didn't do anything wrong, right? Just tell them that"
BHP 2 (to friend)- "Hey, weren't you and I were together on a boat out at sea. I was with you and we were alone. Seems like that is what I remember."
BHP 3 (to FBI)- "Nope. That is not me on the recording. I was out at sea in a boat and never made a phone call"
I'd say #1 is very difficult to prove as obstruction. #2 is sketchy, but unlikely to be a charge if the underlying is CLEARED. #3 is a crime
This post was edited on 5/7/19 at 7:53 am
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:51 am to Corch Urban Myers
quote:That's actually a huge understatement...
You people are so stupid.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:51 am to tigerinDC09
quote:100% False.
Yes, prosecutors allege, via indictment that a crime was committed.
quote:No he did not.
Barr asserted that he needed to see an underlying crime in order to prosecute Trump.
Barr said he didn’t feel the government could show “corrupt intent beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:52 am to tigerinDC09
If the prior poster's point was that Trump was shouting that the investigation was a hoax because he was publically being accused of something that he didn't do, then it doesn't matter if Mueller or the media was saying it. In fact, the media has the mouthpiece. If CNN daily said that TigerinDC was a traitor to this country, and you weren't, I suspect you'd tell anybody who would listen that you weren't. I don't mean this disparagingly, but I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:56 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Trump is named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal election crime. There's one underlying crime for you.
Like Strong Safety just dumber.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:57 am to tigerinDC09
true believer noun
Definition of true believer
1 : a person who professes absolute belief in something
2 : a zealous supporter of a particular cause
3. OP
Seriously, tigerinnDC09, how bad of an arse-kicking does it take for you to just go away? This isn't even fun anymore
Definition of true believer
1 : a person who professes absolute belief in something
2 : a zealous supporter of a particular cause
3. OP
Seriously, tigerinnDC09, how bad of an arse-kicking does it take for you to just go away? This isn't even fun anymore
This post was edited on 5/7/19 at 7:58 am
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:57 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
tigerinDC09
A joke of a post from a joke of a poster.
This post was edited on 5/7/19 at 7:58 am
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News