"It's now an obstruction investigation"

[Windparadox]

`
`
While I may not agree with Alan Dershowitz, he is a real constitutional expert, with years of schooling and training. His opinions on this topic, are being argued with other real constitutional experts. These people are infinitely more qualified to give their opinions on constitutional matters than the "online constitutional experts", who have lowered this to partisan political talking points.

 

[Vastator]

Wasn’t that the strategy all along?

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

Not really... The overall strategy the democrats have in mind behind all this (rather expensive) theater; isn't to find formal criminal charges against the President. But rather to introduce enough compelling testimony to motivate the congress to begin an impeachment hearing against Trump. Never have they thought they would actually find criminal wrong doing. But that isn't actually necessary to begin impeachment proceedings. All they really need to do is play on the feelings of congress. And in the end... That's what this has always been about. The Democrats desperately want to undo the rightful, and legal results of our solemn election process, because it didn't result in the outcome they wanted.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If there were no collusion, in violation of law, then how can there be obstruction?

You need to sit Ken down with Barbie in front of GIJoe. THEN it will all make sense.

 

[Mac1958]

Wasn’t that the strategy all along?

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

Not really... The overall strategy the democrats have in mind behind all this (rather expensive) theater; isn't to find formal criminal charges against tbe President. But rather to introduce enough compelling testimony to motivate the congress to begin an impeachment hearing against Trump. Never have they thought they would actually find criminal wrong doing. But that isn't actually necessary to begin impeachment proceedings. All they really need to do is play on the feelings of congress. And in the end... That's what this has always been about. The Democrats desperately want to undo the rightful, and legal results of our solemn election process, because it didn't result in tbe outcome they wanted.

I don't disagree - we've decayed now to a point where partisan politics and political advantage are higher priorities than anything else.

So I'll re-phrase, the nominal reason for the investigation is blah blah blah.
.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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....

Sure...and after a year, flynn is hit with a process charge while mueller keeps bumbling along with no evidence of anything.

2 guilty pleas and 2 more under house arrest. No evidence of anything?

What is the evidence?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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....

Sure...and after a year, flynn is hit with a process chartered while mueller keeps bumbling along with no evidence of anything.

keep wishing & dreaming!!! Btw, your process charge is a FELONY.

You can get a process charge on anyone. What is the evidence?

 

[Snouter]

`
`
While I may not agree with Alan Dershowitz, he is a real constitutional expert, with years of schooling and training. His opinions on this topic, are being argued with other real constitutional experts. These people are infinitely more qualified to give their opinions on constitutional matters than the "online constitutional experts", who have lowered this to a partisan political talking points.

He is 100% jew while I am only 7% but he is correct in this case! I do not consider him an expert in anything except whining like a butthurt jew who did not get a jewish syndicate real estate deal, but as long as he supports his opinion with facts and or documentation it is fine.

 

[cnm]

If there were no collusion, in violation of law, then how can there be obstruction?

What law is collusion in violation of? Why is collusion relevant to using one's authority to get the FBI to drop a charge against Flynn of lying to it?

 

[August West]

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....

Sure...and after a year, flynn is hit with a process charge while mueller keeps bumbling along with no evidence of anything.

2 guilty pleas and 2 more under house arrest. No evidence of anything?

What is the evidence?

I`m not privy to that information as I am not one of Mueller`s investigators. Why would anyone plead guilty if there is no evidence against them? Think son and come back with a question that`s less stupid.

 

[Windparadox]

`
`
One of the more interesting aspects of this case is the extent of executive power. Right now, this particular angle is being argued by legal jurists with both sides actually coming up with valid supporting arguments. It will remain there until someone or something triggers a legal challenge, one way or another. In this case, the ball was put into play by Trumps lawyer. While he may be qualified to make such a statement, it is still nonetheless, an opinion and currently, can only be adjudicated in a court of law. To wit;
`
`

"Under two administrations — Nixon and Clinton — the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued memoranda finding that a sitting president cannot be indicted. But both acknowledge that there is no explicit support in the Constitution for that conclusion, instead relying on a series of more practical arguments, including that the removal of a president is the duty of Congress, not a jury, and that the court trial of a president would impede his ability to govern.

But the courts have overruled memoranda from the OLC before. It’s also unclear whether such memoranda, as executive branch policy, would be binding on Mueller". - Source; Trump's lawyer sparks intense debate on obstruction of justice
​

 

[Snouter]

Windparadox, WTF are you talking about and what high school did you drop out of?

 

[Correll]

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.
.

The problem with this is that we see that the investigation found that that crime it was investigating did not happen,

BUT, rather than just admit that, and take the hit to their record, the prosecutors can gin up something, quite often based on minor contradictions in testimony on events that occurred many years ago.


THis has often been a massive miscarriage of justice.

 

[miketx]

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.
.

 

[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.
.

The problem with this is that we see that the investigation found that that crime it was investigating did not happen,

BUT, rather than just admit that, and take the hit to their record, the prosecutors can gin up something, quite often based on minor contradictions in testimony on events that occurred many years ago.


THis has often been a massive miscarriage of justice.

As I understand it (and I may not), it was open-ended in that they could follow any trail that might lead them somewhere. It's fair to wonder how many high-powered, high-profile people could survive such a public legal colonoscopy.

No, it doesn't smell good in general, but everything is so hyper-politicized now that it's just a permanent shit storm.

Yes, I did notice that I used "colonoscopy" and "shit storm" in successive sentences, and that seems kind of Freudian to me.
.

 

[Correll]

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.
.

The problem with this is that we see that the investigation found that that crime it was investigating did not happen,

BUT, rather than just admit that, and take the hit to their record, the prosecutors can gin up something, quite often based on minor contradictions in testimony on events that occurred many years ago.


THis has often been a massive miscarriage of justice.

As I understand it (and I may not), it was open-ended in that they could follow any trail that might lead them somewhere. It's fair to wonder how many high-powered, high-profile people could survive such a public legal colonoscopy.

No, it doesn't smell good in general, but everything is so hyper-politicized now that it's just a permanent shit storm.

Yes, I did notice that I used "colonoscopy" and "shit storm" in successive sentences, and that seems kind of Freudian to me.
.

But this is not "leading somewhere". They didn't find something.

They have created the "crime" by their actions.


It has occurred during countless hours of testimony and investigation.

 

[Correll]

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.
.

View attachment 164387

To be timely, they need to publish a Nancy Drew where she investigates somethings, realizes her suspicions were unfounded, be tempted to nail the suspect on ginned up charges, and then realizes that that would make her a petty tyrant and she apologizes to those whom she wronged.

 

[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.
.

The problem with this is that we see that the investigation found that that crime it was investigating did not happen,

BUT, rather than just admit that, and take the hit to their record, the prosecutors can gin up something, quite often based on minor contradictions in testimony on events that occurred many years ago.


THis has often been a massive miscarriage of justice.

As I understand it (and I may not), it was open-ended in that they could follow any trail that might lead them somewhere. It's fair to wonder how many high-powered, high-profile people could survive such a public legal colonoscopy.

No, it doesn't smell good in general, but everything is so hyper-politicized now that it's just a permanent shit storm.

Yes, I did notice that I used "colonoscopy" and "shit storm" in successive sentences, and that seems kind of Freudian to me.
.

But this is not "leading somewhere". They didn't find something.

They have created the "crime" by their actions.


It has occurred during countless hours of testimony and investigation.

Well, I don't know what evidence or clues they have found, or what they have followed, or what they know.

All we have are leaks and conjecture, neither of which can be trusted.
.

 

[Correll]

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.
.

The problem with this is that we see that the investigation found that that crime it was investigating did not happen,

BUT, rather than just admit that, and take the hit to their record, the prosecutors can gin up something, quite often based on minor contradictions in testimony on events that occurred many years ago.


THis has often been a massive miscarriage of justice.

As I understand it (and I may not), it was open-ended in that they could follow any trail that might lead them somewhere. It's fair to wonder how many high-powered, high-profile people could survive such a public legal colonoscopy.

No, it doesn't smell good in general, but everything is so hyper-politicized now that it's just a permanent shit storm.

Yes, I did notice that I used "colonoscopy" and "shit storm" in successive sentences, and that seems kind of Freudian to me.
.

But this is not "leading somewhere". They didn't find something.

They have created the "crime" by their actions.


It has occurred during countless hours of testimony and investigation.

Well, I don't know what evidence or clues they have found, or what they have followed, or what they know.

All we have are leaks and conjecture, neither of which can be trusted.
.

My prediction. This won't be someone ordering a minion to stonewall to hide the truth, or someone shredding documents they were ordered to turn over, or "accidentally" wiping a hard drive.


It will be some poor guy who jumbled the order of events, or did not report something that occurred several years ago, or maybe even fell into a "perjury" trap, or something along those lines.


The guy they throw to the wolves, to create an illusion they did not fail, will not be a mastermind, but an innocent victim.

 

[JoeB131]

Wasn’t that the strategy all along?

Well, there's an old saying. It's not the action that gets you into trouble, it's the cover up.

Clinton didn't get into trouble for getting the blow job, he got in trouble for LYING about the blow job.

Nixon didn't get into trouble for breaking into the Watergate, he got into trouble for trying to pay people to keep their mouths shut.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Can't find anything just have to keep changing the direction of the investigation eventually the lefty nutbags will be screaming for Trump's impeachment for jaywalking 39 years ago.