"Ladies and Gentlemen, We Got Him!"

[lomiller]

He could be impeached and then prosecuted.

A similar situation might have arisen, with Republicans baying for the prosecution of President Clinton over her "obvious" crimes regarding her State Department emails. But the Clinton DOJ won't indict their own president, and a Democratic Congress refuses to impeach. As aggravating as such a situation would be to me, I'd find it equally as tolerable - and correct! - as the current situation.

I'd love to see Hillary locked up, but I have zero enthusiasm for applying english to due process until I get the desired result.

How is that even remotely analogous? There is no “Republican DoJ” or “Democratic DoJ”, at least there wasn’t before Trump took office. The DoJ investigation into Clinton concluded that there was nothing criminal to prosecute. The DoJ investigation into Trump found significant evidence of criminal activity that is beyond it’s power to prosecute at this time.

The main takeaway I have from your post is that even though the DoJ ruled that no criminal activity occurred and even basic understanding of record keeping laws/practices and security classifications is sufficient to understand that this was the correct ruling. Nonetheless you have still decided you want to see her locked up for strictly partisan reasons.

 

[Upchurch]

How about if we accept that both sides start from the premise that the crimes of the other side are heinous and the supposed "crimes" of our side are trivial technicalities.

Multiple counts of obstruction of justice is a trivial technicality?

 

[lomiller]

How about if we accept that both sides start from the premise that the crimes of the other side are heinous and the supposed "crimes" of our side are trivial technicalities.

How about we look at what actual crimes were committed before deciding there is some sort of equivalence. The DoJ rightly concluded that Clinton didn’t commit any crime, the DoJ also reported significant evidence of Trump committing a crime.

 

[Brainster]

Multiple counts of obstruction of justice is a trivial technicality?

Way to miss the point. I said both sides do this and you all seem bent on proving it.

 

[Upchurch]

Way to miss the point. I said both sides do this and you all seem bent on proving it.

No, I'm asking. Who sees multiple counts of obstruction of justice as a trivial technicality?

Do you?

 

[Brainster]

No, I'm asking. Who sees multiple counts of obstruction of justice as a trivial technicality?

Do you?

Who says there were multiple counts of obstruction of justice? Mueller didn't. Barr didn't.

 

[Upchurch]

Who says there were multiple counts of obstruction of justice? Mueller didn't. Barr didn't.

Didja read the Mueller report?

 

[Brainster]

Didja read the Mueller report?

Feel free to point out the parts where Mueller stated there were multiple counts of obstruction of justice. I will feel free to wait.

 

[Upchurch]

Feel free to point out the parts where Mueller stated there were multiple counts of obstruction of justice. I will feel free to wait.

Pretty easy: Volume II outlines the criteria for obstruction of justice and all the evidence that supports the criteria in each case.

I'm sure you're counting on the fact that Mueller could not specifically charge Trump with these crimes due to his office. However, that would be ignoring that the office explicitly stated that it would declare he did not commit crimes if they could, but that they cannot do that, because of the heaps of outlined evidence documented in Volume II.

In short, Mueller outlined several potential crimes. He then proceeded to point out a few that are not crimes, pointedly looking at the rest in silence.

There is no way you could have read that report and not seen that Trump had committed obstruction of justice.

 

[Brainster]

Pretty easy: Volume II outlines the criteria for obstruction of justice and all the evidence that supports the criteria in each case.

I'm sure you're counting on the fact that Mueller could not specifically charge Trump with these crimes due to his office. However, that would be ignoring that the office explicitly stated that it would declare he did not commit crimes if they could, but that they cannot do that, because of the heaps of outlined evidence documented in Volume II.

In short, Mueller outlined several potential crimes. He then proceeded to point out a few that are not crimes, pointedly looking at the rest in silence

You admit that he did not say there were multiple counts of criminal obstruction of justice, and somehow you infer from that that there were.

 

[plague311]

You admit that he did not say there were multiple counts of criminal obstruction of justice, and somehow you infer from that that there were.

You're either being deliberately obtuse or you're trying for the same ******** "gotcha" moment the rest of you righties are. It's spelled out in the ******* report and everyone sees through this nonsense.

He said that he was leaving it up to Congress and he laid out the case for Obstruction, meaning he felt there were issues. Just like in the first Volume he didn't lay out the issues in detail and then cleared Trump of any connection. He did NOT do that in the second volume, and if you can't or won't apply Occam's Razor to that (combined with the actual words Mueller said where he blatantly laid out that he couldn't clear the president), then don't. I wouldn't expect too many to give a **** about such a weak argument.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm sure you're counting on the fact that Mueller could not specifically charge Trump with these crimes due to his office.

You admit that he did not say there were multiple counts of criminal obstruction of justice, and somehow you infer from that that there were.

Nailed it.

You didn't read the report, didja? Relying on the second- and third-hand accounts from the Trump-o-sphere?

Edit: To build off what plague311 colorfully stated, Mueller ends Volume II with a rather detailed list of justifications for how Trump's obstruction could be addressed, both by Congress and if Trump leaves office after only one term.

 

[Stacyhs]

Even a Republican Congressman, J. Amash, has concluded after reading the Mueller report that Trump committed multiple counts of obstruction and has called for his impeachment:

Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence

.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...nts-that-trump-didnt-obstruct-justice-837749/

Can anyone here seriously claim that, if Trump were a Democrat, that the very same Republicans now defending Trump would not be screaming for his impeachment on the same evidence?

 

[Brainster]

Nailed it.

You didn't read the report, didja? Relying on the second- and third-hand accounts from the Trump-o-sphere?

Edit: To build off what plague311 colorfully stated, Mueller ends Volume II with a rather detailed list of justifications for how Trump's obstruction could be addressed, both by Congress and if Trump leaves office after only one term.

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.

 

[plague311]

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.

Is the OP not in reference to the John Oliver skit where he kept saying it fictitiously? Perhaps maybe you're missing the joke?

As to the rest, you saying "innocent until proven guilty" still doesn't mean no crimes have occurred. I don't know why this is so complicated to get. It means that he hasn't been charged and convicted. Being guilty of a crime, and being charged\convicted with a crime are different.

 

[Cabbage]

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.

Actually, no. You simply remain blind to the fact that you made a false equivalence. Comparing (like you do) mountains to molehills doesn't change the fact that mountains are hard to climb.

You merely pretend the same is true of molehills yet somehow (disingenuously) believe the analogy is still apt.

 

[Upchurch]

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.

Wait, why’d you ask for the evidence of Trump’s obstruction if you weren’t even going to consider it?

It is interesting that you’ll only consider him guilty in the two scenarios where it is all but impossible. As it stands, Senate Republicans are just about as likely to convict Trump post-impeachment as they were to consider an Obama nominee to the Supreme Court and if Trump serves two terms, the statute of limitations on his known instances of obstruction of justice will have run out.

If he serves only one term, however, he has a very good chance of being convicted. Will you accept that or just the most unlikely possibilities?

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

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.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Sometimes, shock and horror, we know with reasonable certainty that someone is guilty even before they are convicted. If Trump shot someone on 5th Avenue and we had his fingerprints on the gun, CCTV footage, and the witness statements of three policemen who witessed the shooting...

...who am I kidding, they'd still sit there yelling witch hunt and fake news.

 

[Upchurch]

Sometimes, shock and horror, we know with reasonable certainty that someone is guilty even before they are convicted. If Trump shot someone on 5th Avenue and we had his fingerprints on the gun, CCTV footage, and the witness statements of three policemen who witessed the shooting...

...who am I kidding, they'd still sit there yelling witch hunt and fake news.

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