"It's now an obstruction investigation"

[Mac1958]

This is pretty interesting. The Trumpsters may be right that the collusion story is fading, but they may have bigger things to worry about. It would be easier to prove obstruction, especially considering the way Trump just can't keep his tweet shut:

It Is Now an Obstruction Investigation

Obstruction itself is a process crime — i.e., it relates to interference in the investigation of an underlying transaction that may or may not be criminal. In the first point, above, we noted that prosecutors generally do not let a cooperator settle a case by pleading guilty to a mere process crime. But if the main case the prosecutor is trying to build is itself a process crime, such as obstruction, then it is not all that damaging that the witnesses have pled guilty only to process crimes.

The theme of such a prosecution is that the investigative process must be protected, not that some terrible underlying crime (like an espionage conspiracy) has been committed. Witnesses such as Flynn and Papadopoulos would therefore not be made to look like they had gotten a pass on serious offenses; they would look like they had owned up to corrupting the process and are now helping the prosecutor against the principal corruption target.
.

 

[JoeMoma]

Wasn’t that the strategy all along?

 

[Mac1958]

Wasn’t that the strategy all along?

I thought it was about finding evidence of collusion, no?
.

 

[JoeMoma]

Wasn’t that the strategy all along?

I thought it was about finding evidence of collusion, no?
.

It’s about finding any way to impeach Trump.

 

[DarkFury]

Trump is considered the number one law officer in the country. It's one of the president's many titles. Legally, whatever he does cannot be obstruction. Per judge Andrew Napolitano!

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are a Rule of Law not Rule of Man. The office of the president is subject to the Constitution. He can be removed by impeached on charges by the House and trial and removal by the Senate. With the release of K. T. McFarland's emails, Trump is subject not only to charges of obstruction of justice but also collusion.

 

[Care4all]

I don't think any of us really know what the Mueller investigation team has in their
Pocket.....

We are guessing that it is obstruction of justice but this investigation goes much deeper than pastry....And not a peep is leaked by them.... Trump team was shocked about the charges and agreement to cooperate by Pappadopolous, and shocked by Flynns plea deal and cooperation.....neither of those two people cooperating with the investigation, are
cooperating for an obstruction charge against Trump, they have information pertinent to the Russian interference investigation....

Patience is a virtue....

 

[Mac1958]

Patience is a virtue....

Yep, we do love to try and convict with about 3% of the facts, don't we?

What's interesting about that piece is that he points out Mueller wouldn't have taken it so easy on Flynn if there were more meat to the collusion story, so he may be taking the path of least resistance.

But yeah, we're spit-balling.
.

 

[JakeStarkey]

CARE4ALL SAID: ↑Patience is a virtue....

JakeStakrey: So is closed mouth.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Pointless bullshit wasting my tax dollars.
Yea yea I get the endless Clinton investigation defense but that shit was not a direct attempt to usurp the will of the people.

Democrats are DUMBFUCKS If they think this shit is a winner

 

[JakeStarkey]

Too bad, Grampa, it is what it is.

 

[Mac1958]

Trump is considered the number one law officer in the country. It's one of the president's many titles. Legally, whatever he does cannot be obstruction. Per judge Andrew Napolitano!

Well, Napolitano is a libertarian former judge who now works for Fox.

Not sure how much legal faith you want to put into his opinion.
.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Trump is considered the number one law officer in the country. It's one of the president's many titles. Legally, whatever he does cannot be obstruction. Per judge Andrew Napolitano!

Well, Napolitano is a libertarian former judge who now works for Fox.

Not sure how much legal faith you want to put into his opinion.
.

Where he works is irrelevant. The man either has integrity or he doesn't

 

[JakeStarkey]

The question was well discussed half a year ago at Yes, Donald Trump and other presidents can be charged with obstruction

The question of Napolitano's integrity is not an issue.

 

[tinydancer]

Trump is considered the number one law officer in the country. It's one of the president's many titles. Legally, whatever he does cannot be obstruction. Per judge Andrew Napolitano!

Well, Napolitano is a libertarian former judge who now works for Fox.

Not sure how much legal faith you want to put into his opinion.
.

Dershowitz came out swinging at the bullshit of "obstruction of justice" as well. According to him, you can't impeach Trump for exercizing sp his constitutional authority.

 

[Mac1958]

Trump is considered the number one law officer in the country. It's one of the president's many titles. Legally, whatever he does cannot be obstruction. Per judge Andrew Napolitano!

Well, Napolitano is a libertarian former judge who now works for Fox.

Not sure how much legal faith you want to put into his opinion.
.

Dershowitz came out swinging at the bullshit of "obstruction of justice" as well. According to him, you can't impeach Trump for exercizing sp his constitutional authority.

That interpretation is where it'll get sticky. If you have a President who is immune from the law at that scale, that would be considered too far for many, and I'd guess there are a few Republicans who would have a problem with it.
.

 

[tinydancer]

ETA: I have no idea why the print is so big. Sorries.

Back to Videos
Dershowitz: No Case For Obstruction Of Justice Against Trump, Would Be "Constitutional Crisis"
Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date December 4, 2017

Alan Dershowitz said there is no case for obstruction of justice against President Trump and if Congress were to charge him with exercising his Article II authority, we'd have a "constitutional crisis." Dershowitz said if Trump were afraid of charges he would have pardoned Flynn, which he has the power to do according to the law professor.

"Look, the president could have pardoned Flynn if he were really thinking about trying to end this investigation," he said. "He would have pardoned Flynn and then Flynn wouldn't be cooperating with the other side, and the president would have had the complete authority to do so, and Flynn never would have been indicted, never would have turned as a witness against him. So I think the fact that the president hasn't pardoned Flynn, even though he has the power to do so, is very good evidence there's no obstruction of justice going on here."

Dershowitz said Flynn talking to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak was the right thing to do. He said it was stopping the lame-duck President Obama from tying the hands of incoming President Trump."

More at link..

Dershowitz: No Case For Obstruction Of Justice Against Trump, Would Be "Constitutional Crisis"

 

[Care4all]

Trump is considered the number one law officer in the country. It's one of the president's many titles. Legally, whatever he does cannot be obstruction. Per judge Andrew Napolitano!

Well, Napolitano is a libertarian former judge who now works for Fox.

Not sure how much legal faith you want to put into his opinion.
.

Where he works is irrelevant. The man either has integrity or he doesn't

He doesn't.

 

[tinydancer]

Trump is considered the number one law officer in the country. It's one of the president's many titles. Legally, whatever he does cannot be obstruction. Per judge Andrew Napolitano!

Well, Napolitano is a libertarian former judge who now works for Fox.

Not sure how much legal faith you want to put into his opinion.
.

Dershowitz came out swinging at the bullshit of "obstruction of justice" as well. According to him, you can't impeach Trump for exercizing sp his constitutional authority.

That interpretation is where it'll get sticky. If you have a President who is immune from the law at that scale, that would be considered too far for many, and I'd guess there are a few Republicans who would have a problem with it.
.

Think about this. He fired Comey which was his right to do so, but the investigation kept on going. It's still going. What was obstructed?

 

[Mac1958]

Trump is considered the number one law officer in the country. It's one of the president's many titles. Legally, whatever he does cannot be obstruction. Per judge Andrew Napolitano!

Well, Napolitano is a libertarian former judge who now works for Fox.

Not sure how much legal faith you want to put into his opinion.
.

Dershowitz came out swinging at the bullshit of "obstruction of justice" as well. According to him, you can't impeach Trump for exercizing sp his constitutional authority.

That interpretation is where it'll get sticky. If you have a President who is immune from the law at that scale, that would be considered too far for many, and I'd guess there are a few Republicans who would have a problem with it.
.

Think about this. He fired Comey which was his right to do so, but the investigation kept on going. It's still going. What was obstructed?

There's obstruction and there's attempted obstruction.

More importantly, I'm not a lawyer.


.