• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

"Ladies and Gentlemen, We Got Him!"

Upchurch said:
If this thread is any indication, they'll refuse to acknowledge any evidence against the person with the (R) after their name.
Click to expand...

Only if that's what Fox News tells them to think.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
Wait, why’d you ask for the evidence of Trump’s obstruction if you weren’t even going to consider it?
Click to expand...

FWIW, I would still like an answer to this question.

I’d also like to know who here has finished reading the Mueller report and yet, somehow, still believes (1) Trump did not commit obstruction of justice as defined by law and (2) Mueller did not completely justify Congress’s use of impeachment in this case OR prosecution of Trump following the end of his first term, should he not be re-elected.
 
Stacyhs said:
And that's really what it's all about for you, innit? To 'humiliate" them thar libruls. That's why Trump gets away with what he does because he has that kind of thinking supporting him. Sad.
Click to expand...

^This. We engage in these endless discussions about evidence and can't understand why those with whom we're interacting can't see the blatantly obvious truth. It's much like debate with any classic woo-slingers here, whether the topic is psychics, bigfoot, etc. The thing that binds all of these frustrating discussions is the false premise that the other side is engaging us honestly in an effort to determine what is actually the truth. They're not.
 
Brainster said:
We are doing a rather delightful job of proving my original point, aren't we?

As for the obstruction of justice, if Congress impeaches him and he is subsequently convicted, I will accept that he was guilty. If he serves out his two terms and is subsequently convicted I will accept that he was guilty. Until then, innocent until proven guilty.

ETA: I do love that this is all part of a thread where the accusation in the OP has already been proven false. These threads live forever to humiliate the liberals who fell for it.
Click to expand...

Wow!

I find it quite odd, to say the least, that you will treat someone as innocent until that person has actually been proven guilty by some legal mechanism.

After all, there a number of famous criminals (such as Al Capone) who were not convicted of murder and yet these people definitely did commit murder.

And then there are number of other people who have been convicted of murder, rape, etc. who actually were innocent of the crime that they were convicted of (see the Innocence Project).

I suggest that you reconsider your view on this matter and especially that bit about how you like to see liberals humiliated.
 
The Shrike said:
^This. We engage in these endless discussions about evidence and can't understand why those with whom we're interacting can't see the blatantly obvious truth. It's much like debate with any classic woo-slingers here, whether the topic is psychics, bigfoot, etc. The thing that binds all of these frustrating discussions is the false premise that the other side is engaging us honestly in an effort to determine what is actually the truth. They're not.
Click to expand...

It's a demonstration of just how effective the Trump propaganda machine is.
 
lomiller said:
Nonetheless you have still decided you want to see her locked up for strictly partisan reasons.
Click to expand...
An accurate assessment.

Upchurch said:
It is interesting that you’ll only consider him guilty in the two scenarios where it is all but impossible.
Click to expand...
'Interesting' for gauging the degree of partisanship perhaps. However in this case the needle has already pinned so hard it's stuck there forever.
 
Upchurch said:
FWIW, I would still like an answer to this question.
Click to expand...

Because I thought you might actually have some evidence. Instead you urge me to read a report that you have already told me does not come to any conclusion about obstruction.

I’d also like to know who here has finished reading the Mueller report and yet, somehow, still believes (1) Trump did not commit obstruction of justice as defined by law and (2) Mueller did not completely justify Congress’s use of impeachment in this case OR prosecution of Trump following the end of his first term, should he not be re-elected.
Click to expand...

First guess is Nancy Pelosi?
 
Brainster said:
Because I thought you might actually have some evidence. Instead you urge me to read a report that you have already told me does not come to any conclusion about obstruction.
Click to expand...

Two logical fallacies in one sentence. You should know better than that.
 
phiwum said:
Ah, now *that's* relevant!

(I know it may sound like I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not. Meadmaker's cite is really relevant here.)
Click to expand...

This is only relevant if the OLC decision that a sitting President can't be indicted is deemed unconstitutional.
In that case, yes, a President could run out the Statutes if no one indicted him under the presumption that they couldn't.

Prosecutors can clearly make the case that they had to assume the the OLC memo was binding, and wouldn't have gotten permission to proceed if they tried.

My guess is that if this gets to the SC, it will make a ruling about the future, not the past.
 
Brainster said:
Because I thought you might actually have some evidence. Instead you urge me to read a report that you have already told me does not come to any conclusion about obstruction.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to remain in doubt over whether Trump committed obstruction. That's not to say I think he's innocent. It means that I don't know whether he's innocent or not.

I'm okay with this stance because I don't know the law. Lots of folks who know the law say that the evidence in the Mueller report is sufficient to prosecute, were Trump not the president. Lots of folks disagree. I have a bit of a bias in favor of the former, but not enough to express confidence.

But you seem pretty darned willing to proclaim Trump's innocence unless he's convicted. Is this a principled stand? Is Hillary innocent of the various crimes some have claimed she committed? (Not an attempted derail onto the topic of Hillary, since no evidence is necessary here. She wasn't charged with any crimes. Hence, I presume, you agree that she is innocent unless things change.)
 
phiwum said:
I'm willing to remain in doubt over whether Trump committed obstruction. That's not to say I think he's innocent. It means that I don't know whether he's innocent or not.

I'm okay with this stance because I don't know the law. Lots of folks who know the law say that the evidence in the Mueller report is sufficient to prosecute, were Trump not the president. Lots of folks disagree. I have a bit of a bias in favor of the former, but not enough to express confidence.

But you seem pretty darned willing to proclaim Trump's innocence unless he's convicted. Is this a principled stand? Is Hillary innocent of the various crimes some have claimed she committed? (Not an attempted derail onto the topic of Hillary, since no evidence is necessary here. She wasn't charged with any crimes. Hence, I presume, you agree that she is innocent unless things change.)
Click to expand...

Isn't that the whole basis of our legal system? Now colloquially we understand that almost everybody ignores this (myself included), when what we really mean is that we think the case should go to trial (based on our admittedly incomplete knowledge of the facts and the law). And in Hillary's case, I don't think there's any justice to be served by prosecuting her.
 
Last edited:
I had an interesting conversation with a prosecutor this weekend.
A. He thinks Trump definitely committed obstruction of justice and the argument to the effect, "you can't obstruct justice if the underlying crime didn't happen" is BS.
B. There is something called a "sealed indictment" which is essentially a secrete indictment and Mueller's team probably filed about a half dozen of them. There is the potential, though unlikely, that Mueller indicted the president but he charges won't be revealed until he is out of office. That's pretty wild speculation though.

The guy is a federal employee in the DC higher and a prosecutor but he is fairly progressive so he may have some confirmation bias in his opinions.
phiwum said:
I'm willing to remain in doubt over whether Trump committed obstruction. That's not to say I think he's innocent. It means that I don't know whether he's innocent or not.

I'm okay with this stance because I don't know the law. Lots of folks who know the law say that the evidence in the Mueller report is sufficient to prosecute, were Trump not the president. Lots of folks disagree. I have a bit of a bias in favor of the former, but not enough to express confidence.

But you seem pretty darned willing to proclaim Trump's innocence unless he's convicted. Is this a principled stand? Is Hillary innocent of the various crimes some have claimed she committed? (Not an attempted derail onto the topic of Hillary, since no evidence is necessary here. She wasn't charged with any crimes. Hence, I presume, you agree that she is innocent unless things change.)
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with this take on Trump and obstruction. Unless your are a criminal defense lawyer, prosecutor, or professor of law, strong opinions on the matter are probably unwarranted. I've seen the above such people claiming that trump would clearly be prosecuted and others saying he would clearly not. I am currently at probably he would.

I do think Hillary clearly broke the law regarding handling of classified material but I also no for a fact that mishandling classified material is often not prosecuted, so meh.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
Ah, now *that's* relevant!

(I know it may sound like I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not. Meadmaker's cite is really relevant here.)
Click to expand...

It’s close, but not quite
The Wikipedia article quotes the actual decision thusly:
"a law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution."

NoSince the previous applicable limit has not expired a new law extending it would not be covered by this ruling. The fact that it's part of the ruling actually seems to suggest that statutes of limitation can be extended so long as the previous limit has not expired, which n this case it has not.
 
ahhell said:
I do think Hillary clearly broke the law regarding handling of classified material but I also no for a fact that mishandling classified material is often not prosecuted, so meh.
Click to expand...

There is a requirement for intent for mishandling classified information to be criminal. Even if there were classified information on a server run on her behalf, and there was intent to put it there knowing it should not be, she would only be guilty if she was the one who put it on the server which wasn't the case The suggestion that she, or anyone else, was guilty of anything was obviously going to be dismissed by the FBI and indeed it was.


The only offence that was actually committed by anyone was that a staffer destroyed documents after disclosure request for them. Normally documents get destroyed based on a pre-authorized schedule for documents of that type, if they are not destroyed on time and a court requests them they must be made available. Destroying them at this point is contempt of court, but again only the person who decided to destroy them would be guilty, and Clinton was not implicated in this decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom