Mueller Report Imminent

#7,976
#7,976
37L1 said:
Isn't a crime only a crime if the crime is completed? If no obstruction took place because McGahn didn't follow through, then how is it obstruction?

My big brother tells me to steal a candy bar at the store and I don't, is my brother guilty of theft?
Click to expand...

You obviously aren't aware of the Democratic party pre-crimes division who hang out in the political forum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, tennvols77 and volfanjustin
#7,978
#7,978
37L1 said:
Isn't a crime only a crime if the crime is completed? If no obstruction took place because McGahn didn't follow through, then how is it obstruction?

My big brother tells me to steal a candy bar at the store and I don't, is my brother guilty of theft?
Click to expand...


I believe attempted murder, attempted kidnapping, attempted sexual assault, attempted bank fraud, and attempted obstruction of justice are all crimes.
 
#7,979
#7,979
Stew Cook said:
So, we have established that Trump tried to obstruct justice. If he were not the president, it wouldn't be as big a deal. Oh, he also tried to get Mcghan to to lie about it to the special counsel, i.e. suborn perjury, although Trump denies it, but doesn't want Mcghan to testify to Congress.. hmm...

But, as some have excused, "He was just upset that he was unfairly being accused."
Click to expand...
That's not a valid excuse.

Let's see how y'all think this will play out. My crystal ball predictions:

House moves to impeach after lengthy hearings.

Senate not likely to follow through.

Trump not removed from office does not resign. Does what Trump does best, decries the MSM, tweets the hell out of it, everyday he is front page news.

This transpires during a Presidential election process.

Trump gets the Bill Clinton treatment and gets reelected, most likely.

That worked well, didn't it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#7,981
#7,981
luthervol said:
There's a time and a place for everything. The vast disinformation campaign headed by Trump/Barr has to be further negated before impeachment is feasible. Any attempt to impeach now would be hampered by the fact that such a large percentage of the population has mindlessly accepted the false portrayal by Barr that the Mueller report cleared Trump and they would ignorantly view impeachment as just the culmination of the "deep state's" illegal efforts to oust a duly elected president.....LOL...... Amash is doing what he can to chisel away at the nation's ignorance.
Click to expand...
That ought to be good for another year and a half of 'investigations' and screaming at the sky.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, VolStrom and volfanjustin
#7,982
#7,982
Hunerwadel said:
I believe attempted murder, attempted kidnapping, attempted sexual assault, attempted bank fraud, and attempted obstruction of justice are all crimes.
Click to expand...
True but you need a lot more evidence to convict without an overt action in most of those things you listed above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#7,983
#7,983
37L1 said:
Isn't a crime only a crime if the crime is completed? If no obstruction took place because McGahn didn't follow through, then how is it obstruction?

My big brother tells me to steal a candy bar at the store and I don't, is my brother guilty of theft?
Click to expand...

"Endeavors" at obstruction are crimes, and endeavors are interpreted to be even broader than "attempts".

1736. Inchoate Obstruction Of Justice Offenses
 
#7,984
#7,984
Stew Cook said:
So, we have established that Trump tried to obstruct justice. If he were not the president, it wouldn't be as big a deal. Oh, he also tried to get Mcghan to to lie about it to the special counsel, i.e. suborn perjury, although Trump denies it. But he doesn't want Mcghan to testify to Congress.. hmm...

But, as some have excused, "He was just upset that he was unfairly being accused."
Click to expand...

It gets more attention because he's POTUS, but it'd be a lot easier to punish if he weren't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stew Cook
#7,985
#7,985
37L1 said:
That's not a valid excuse.

Let's see how y'all think this will play out. My crystal ball predictions:

House moves to impeach after lengthy hearings.

Senate not likely to follow through.

Trump not removed from office does not resign. Does what Trump does best, decries the MSM, tweets the hell out of it, everyday he is front page news.

This transpires during a Presidential election process.

Trump gets the Bill Clinton treatment and gets reelected, most likely.

That worked well, didn't it?
Click to expand...


The scenario you imagine is possible, although I don't think he gets reelected either way.
 
#7,986
#7,986
All you liberals are gizzing your pants after Mueller made his statement. All I have to say is call your congressman/congresswoman and demand they impeach Trump! Get it over with already, you know you want it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
#7,987
#7,987
n_huffhines said:
"Endeavors" at obstruction are crimes, and endeavors are interpreted to be even broader than "attempts".

1736. Inchoate Obstruction Of Justice Offenses
Click to expand...
I get it but your example of "endeavors" applies to jurors and officers of the court. Since McGahn is an attorney, he may be, de facto, an officer of the court, but I'm not an attorney, so . . .

I think McDad cleared up my confusion about this with his SEC example.

But you should be aware that the American Public will not be that much aware of this "nuance." The further into the weeds we go with this, the more it will become a muddied proposition. After all, this is taking place in the Swamp.
 
#7,988
#7,988
I watched the Muells statement twice. The first time I couldn't believe I was listening to a man that used to be the top law enforcement officer in the land equivocate and avoid responsibility for the last two years of his work. The second time confirmed my initial impression and I left no doubt in my mind that the wording of his report and his statement today are both 100% engineered for the purpose of keeping the flames burning.

It made me ask myself how is this man not being ridiculed, chastised and blasted by all sides?
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinsd, 1972 Grad, AM64 and 3 others
#7,989
#7,989
luthervol said:
Mueller to - CNNPolitics

Special counsel Robert Mueller will make a statement about the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election at 11 a.m. ET Wednesday, the Justice Department said.
The statement will be delivered amid political disputes about the findings of Mueller's investigation, particularly regarding whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice.
This story is breaking and will be updated.
Click to expand...
It will be 'breaking' on CNN a year from now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and volfanjustin
#7,990
#7,990
Stew Cook said:
The scenario you imagine is possible, although I don't think he gets reelected either way.
Click to expand...
You mean, you hope and pray he doesn't get reelected either way.

Be objective and put any bias away for a moment. This scenario plays in favor of his reelection.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#7,992
#7,992
37L1 said:
Isn't a crime only a crime if the crime is completed? If no obstruction took place because McGahn didn't follow through, then how is it obstruction?

My big brother tells me to steal a candy bar at the store and I don't, is my brother guilty of theft?
Click to expand...


I have a couple of times spoken in terms of "attempted obstruction of justice," but even that doesn't capture the whole thing. See below from DOJ.

Several of the obstruction of justice provisions prohibit "endeavors" to obstruct. Section 1503 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits "endeavors" to tamper with jurors and officers of the court. The omnibus clauses of sections 1503 and 1505 prohibit "endeavors" to obstruct justice as well as actual obstructions of justice. Section 1510 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits "endeavors" to obstruct criminal investigations through bribery.


Although "endeavor" might be thought of as a synonym for "attempt," the Supreme Court has concluded that "endeavor" is broader than "attempt." United States v. Russell, 255 U.S. 138 (1921). In Russell, the Supreme Court held:


The word of the section is "endeavor," and by using it the section got rid of the technicalities which might be urged as besetting the word "attempt," and it describes any effort or essay to accomplish the evil purpose that the section was enacted to prevent . . . . The section . . . is not directed at success in corrupting a juror but at the "endeavor" to do so. Experimental approaches to the corruption of a juror are the "endeavor" of the section.​

Id. at 143. Accord Osborn v. United States, 385 U.S. 323, 333 (1966). See also United States v. Tedesco, 635 F.2d 902 (1st Cir. 1980) (court rejected defendant's argument that an explicit offer of a bribe or a request for specific testimony was required for an endeavor to influence a witness under section 1503), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 962 (1981); United States v. Fasolino, 586 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1978) (defendant's importuning of a third party to approach a Federal judge, whom the third party knew, on a pending sentencing matter constituted an endeavor). see generally United States v. Osborn, 385 U.S. at 332-33; United States v. Lazzerini, 611 F.2d 940, 941-42 (1st Cir. 1979); United States v. Roe, 529 F.2d 629, 631-32 (4th Cir. 1975); United States v. Rosner, 485 F.2d 1213, 1228-29 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 950 (1974); United States v. Missler, 414 F.2d 1293, 1306 (4th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 913 (1970); Knight v. United States, 310 F.2d 305, 307 (5th Cir. 1962) (per curiam). The legislative history of section 1510 indicates that Congress intended to incorporate this case law into that provision. H.R.Rep. No. 658, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 3, reprinted in 1967 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1760, 1762.


It follows that an endeavor to obstruct justice need not be successful to be criminal. See, e.g., Osborn, 385 U.S. at 333; United States v. Bucey, 876 F.2d 1297, 1314 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1004 (1989); United States v. Thomas, 916 F.2d 647, 651 (11th Cir. 1990); United States v. Barfield, 999 F.2d 1520, 1522 (11th Cir. 1993); United States v. Wood, 6 F.3d 692, 695 (10th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, factual impossibility, which arises when the defendant solicits a third party to obstruct justice and the third party is a government informant, is not a valid defense. See United States v. Osborn, supra and United States v. Rosner, 485 F.2d at 1228-29.
Click to expand...


1736. Inchoate Obstruction Of Justice Offenses
 
#7,994
#7,994
Septic said:
One of the most conservative congressdudes in the house, get's called a "lightweight loser" for suggesting that Congress has a responsibility to the American public.
Click to expand...

I've called him out because he hasn't taken responsibility and backed up his words.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#7,996
#7,996
37L1 said:
I get it but your example of "endeavors" applies to jurors and officers of the court. Since McGahn is an attorney, he may be, de facto, an officer of the court, but I'm not an attorney, so . . .

I think McDad cleared up my confusion about this with his SEC example.

But you should be aware that the American Public will not be that much aware of this "nuance." The further into the weeds we go with this, the more it will become a muddied proposition. After all, this is taking place in the Swamp.
Click to expand...

That was just one example from section 1503 of title 18. It goes on to name other examples.
 
#7,997
#7,997
37L1 said:
You mean, you hope and pray he doesn't get reelected either way.

Be objective and put any bias away for a moment. This scenario plays in favor of his reelection.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Click to expand...

Biased or not, I don't see him being reelected.

Just my opinion, but if more light is shined on DJ Trump and he comes out looking like a dandy rose, so be it. But if Dems are afraid to impeach for political reasons, and Dems would only impeach for political reasons... I dont see it matters much either way.
 
#7,999
#7,999
n_huffhines said:
That was just one example from section 1503 of title 18. It goes on to name other examples.
Click to expand...


Bottom line is that it is certainly not a defense, at least not politically, for Trump's defense to be that while he tried to obstruct justice he screwed it up and failed. "No harm, no foul" would not play well beyond the base, I don't think.
 
#8,000
#8,000
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and volfanjustin
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top