Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Big Dog said:
My post that folks are lapping up Dear Leftists' proclamations uncritically like a puppy laps up milk and reposting tweets with zero comment is evidence that Trump's fans are doing likewise?

Hilarious!
Click to expand...


Squeegee Beckenheim said:
https://twitter.com/tschneiderlaw/status/1069652595042541568
Click to expand...

What possible ******* comment do you need for that? It literally speaks for itself. Several people he's had have been prosecuted for less. If someone were to post that, what would you say? If you have an answer for that, then ******* post it just like you normally would. This is basic conversation. You can tell when someone's talking points are weak when they break it down to this. It's just empty whining.
 
plague311 said:
What possible ******* comment do you need for that? It literally speaks for itself. Several people he's had have been prosecuted for less. If someone were to post that, what would you say? If you have an answer for that, then ******* post it just like you normally would. This is basic conversation. You can tell when someone's talking points are weak when they break it down to this. It's just empty whining.
Click to expand...

any other skeptic want to take a stab at answering this? Anyone at all?

hint: Magic Bus.
 
The Big Dog said:
I enjoy how this thread has degenerated into basically trolling twitter for tweets that people like and reposting them without.
Click to expand...

"Basically?" There's plenty of substance in this thread, if you care to engage with it.
 
Paul2 said:
"Basically?" There's plenty of substance in this thread, if you care to engage with it.
Click to expand...

He doesn't care to... that his problem

In the meantime, from Steve Benen (MSNBC)

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-latest-twitter-tantrum-raises-awkward-legal-questions

"Putting aside the president’s odd grammatical errors – maybe someday, he’ll learn how quotation marks work – there are some substantive issues to consider in the wake of his little rant.

First, it’s worth appreciating the degree to which Trump sounds less like a president and more like Tony Soprano. Last week, Trump argued that those who cooperate with federal investigators (Michael Cohen) are “weak,” while those who don’t (Paul Manafort) may be deserving of a pardon. Today’s tantrum dovetails nicely with this same mob-boss posture.

Second, though Trump often forgets, he is the nation’s chief law-enforcement official – a president is responsible under the Constitution for executing the nation’s laws – and inserting himself in Cohen’s legal proceedings, while they’re ongoing, is a very bad idea.

Third, the idea that Cohen’s misdeeds were “unrelated to Trump” is hilariously wrong. Indeed, when Cohen acknowledged making illegal payoffs to Stormy Daniels, Donald Trump was an unindicted co-conspirator in Cohen’s guilty plea. Unless the president is unclear on the meaning of “unrelated,” he must realize how brazenly he’s lying.

But even if we put all of that aside, there’s the larger question of whether Trump’s Twitter tantrum is itself legally dubious – because it fits into a larger pattern in which the president sends not-so-subtle signals to possible witnesses that those who stand by him are worthy of praise, while those who betray him should “serve a full and complete sentence.”

This is of particular interest this morning with relation to Roger Stone, who appears to be an important figure in the special counsel’s investigation, and whom Trump appears to be encouraging to show “guts” in the face of Mueller’s questions.

George Conway implied this morning that the president’s tweets constitute witness tampering. Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general, agreed."​
 
Paul2 said:
"Basically?" There's plenty of substance in this thread, if you care to engage with it.
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
He has substance on ignore.
Click to expand...

This is so true. The truth that Trump is both a criminal and a traitor is piling up and he never addresses any of it. It's all ad hominems (leftists) and little else. Comey isn't a leftists and neither is Mueller and neither is Rosenstein and most real conservatives left the GOP when Trump won the nomination or before then. The idea that only leftists are disturbed by the President of the United States selling US foreign policy to dictatorships is laughable.
 
Say, how about time for some substance? Some of the never Trump brigade has claimed that one of trump's tweets is witness tampering? How, they don't bother to say.

Buy is it? Lets take a gander at the statute:

(e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully
Click to expand...

1512(e). Trump says that the subject will not be forced to make up stories and lies about President trump.

Golly, that seems like it falls directly within the scope of the above quoted language now don't it?

Yeah, it does.

This substantive post brought to you by the letters T, B, and D.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
And there is plenty of fluff and garbage. What would you like me to engage with in particular?
Click to expand...

Nothing right now, as it's tedious to go back and ID issues but make sure maybe you didn't address them in reply to someone else, etc.

When it happens again, I'll be sure to catch it.
 
The Big Dog said:
Say, how about time for some substance? Some of the never Trump brigade has claimed that one of trump's tweets is witness tampering? How, they don't bother to say.

Buy is it? Lets take a gander at the statute:



1512(e).
Click to expand...
Does section (c) apply?
(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so
Click to expand...
Has Trump "corruptly". . . "attempt[ed] to" . . . "influence or impede" the Mueller investigation (an "official proceeding")? It would seem to me that ANY attempt by Trump to influence or impede the Mueller investigation is corrupt given that Mueller is investigating potential Trump's 2016 campaign's ties to Russia.
 
Paul2 said:
Does section (c) apply?

Has Trump "corruptly". . . "attempt[ed] to" . . . "influence or impede" the Mueller investigation (an "official proceeding")? It would seem to me that ANY attempt by Trump to influence or impede the Mueller investigation is corrupt given that Mueller is investigating potential Trump's 2016 campaign's ties to Russia.
Click to expand...

lauding someone for telling the truth is plainly not a corrupt attempt to impede the investigation, as shown by the language I quoted above.
 
The Big Dog said:
...Trump says that the subject will not be forced to make up stories and lies about President trump.
Click to expand...
Yeah and when a mafia goon steps into a newly opened store, and says "I'd hate to see anything happen to your shiny new store...", we can bank that too.
 
varwoche said:
Yeah and when a mafia goon steps into a newly opened store, and says "I'd hate to see anything happen to your shiny new store...", we can bank that too.
Click to expand...

Are you asserting that Trump's tweet uses "intimidation or threatens" the witness?

Wow, I don't see that at all, but feel free to make your case!
 
The Big Dog said:
Say, how about time for some substance? Some of the never Trump brigade has claimed that one of trump's tweets is witness tampering? How, they don't bother to say.

Buy is it? Lets take a gander at the statute:



1512(e). Trump says that the subject will not be forced to make up stories and lies about President trump.

Golly, that seems like it falls directly within the scope of the above quoted language now don't it?

Yeah, it does.

This substantive post brought to you by the letters T, B, and D.
Click to expand...

LMFAO! Can you say BULL ****** As if Trump doesn't know that Cohen is telling the truth and not him. Clearly Trump is the liar. But I forgot. You seem to think Trump is not trying to influence the investigation. Seems as if someone is gullible. It should be noted that there are emails and other documentation that backs Cohen up. So why is Trump tweeting Cohen is being coerced to lie?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom