Trump Impeachments Were Unfair, Unprecedented, and Unconstitutional

[struth]

He did not say there was no obstruction. He said the investigation wasn't stopped, curtailed etc.

He actually said there was obstruction multiple times. If I were you I wouldn't use that link in future obstruction debates because it is very damning to Trump.

What the Dems know or knew is purely speculation.

what do you think o steution means you idiot?

quote him then…and why didn’t they impeach then?

no speculation. is needed we have the report and his testimony

 

[AntonToo]

i quoted Mueller when asked, he said he wasn’t obstructed

18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."


Trump ordered Mueller fired. White House lawyer ignored his order and started packing his shit. Trump's effort failed, but his intent to interfere and taking this corrupt step to remove Mueller has pretty clearly added up to Obstruction of Justice.

Trump also DID fire FBI Director (under false pretense) because he was conducting Russia investigation including into Trump's campaign. Again, clear Obstruction of Justice.


Read up, there are a lot of these.

 

[Catsnmeters]

what do you think o steution means you idiot?

As I stated multiple times, the curtailment or stoppage of an investigation is not the end all of the definition.

Is it your claim that unsuccessful attempts to obstruct justice are not chargeable crimes? I hope not.

Elements of an Obstruction of Justice Charge​

The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge differ by code section. For a person to be convicted of obstruction of justice, they must have acted with the specific intent to create an obstruction. The statute criminalizes "endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede" the legal process, even if those endeavors were unsuccessful. Seemingly innocuous acts could become criminal activity if they have the intended effect of impeding justice.

quote him then…

"Now, reading from page 2 of Volume 2 of your report that's on the screen, you wrote, quote, "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment," close quote. Now does that say there was no obstruction?

MUELLER:

No.

NADLER:

And your investigation actually found, quote, "multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations." Is that correct?
MUELLER:

Correct."

The above is from the link you conveniently provided so I won't link it again. I honestly could show several more examples but like I said, just do a "find" for the word obstruction. It's all there.

and why didn’t they impeach then?

That is also in your transcript...because it is DoJ policy to not indict a sitting president.

no speculation. is needed we have the report and his testimony

Agreed. It's all their. Looks bad for Trump.

 

[struth]

18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."


Trump ordered Mueller fired. White House lawyer ignored his order and started packing his shit. Trump's effort failed, but his intent to interfere and taking this corrupt step to remove Mueller has pretty clearly added up to Obstruction of Justice.

Trump also DID fire FBI Director (under false pretense) because he was conducting Russia investigation including into Trump's campaign. Again, clear Obstruction of Justice.


Read up, there are a lot of these.

hahaha sorry i asked you to quote where mueller concluded he obstructed

firing comey…was at the recommendation of the doj

and something even dems were calling for

and having a private convo about mueller, that mueller wasn’t even aware of, isn’t obstruction

why didn’t shifty impeach if you are correct?

 

[skye]

Both impeachments were shamefully partisan and stupid and baseless, without any supporting evidence.

That ^^^^^^^

 

[struth]

As I stated multiple times, the curtailment or stoppage of an investigation is not the end all of the definition.

Is it your claim that unsuccessful attempts to obstruct justice are not chargeable crimes? I hope not.

Elements of an Obstruction of Justice Charge​

The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge differ by code section. For a person to be convicted of obstruction of justice, they must have acted with the specific intent to create an obstruction. The statute criminalizes "endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede" the legal process, even if those endeavors were unsuccessful. Seemingly innocuous acts could become criminal activity if they have the intended effect of impeding justice.



"Now, reading from page 2 of Volume 2 of your report that's on the screen, you wrote, quote, "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment," close quote. Now does that say there was no obstruction?

MUELLER:

No.

NADLER:

And your investigation actually found, quote, "multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations." Is that correct?
MUELLER:

Correct."

The above is from the link you conveniently provided so I won't link it again. I honestly could show several more examples but like I said, just do a "find" for the word obstruction. It's all there.



That is also in your transcript...because it is DoJ policy to not indict a sitting president.


Agreed. It's all their. Looks bad for Trump.

hahah he didn’t say there was obstruction in other of those quotes

i didn’t say indict…i asked why they didn’t impeach

it looks great for trump cause they investigated and didn’t impeach…..therein the house exonerated trump of those accusations.

 

[AntonToo]

hahaha sorry i asked you to quote where mueller concluded he obstructed

Mueller specifically explained that DOJ policy prevented him from being able to bring charges against a sitting president or make deregotary judgements.

You are asking for something Mueller himself said he can't do.

 

[AntonToo]

firing comey…was at the recommendation of the doj

Trump admitted in a public interview that DOJ recomendation to fire Comey for being too rough on Clinton is not why he fired him (DUH)

"when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said: ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story - Trump

Donald Trump admits 'this Russia thing' part of reasoning for firing Comey

President admits the allegations of collusion between his advisers and Russian officials played into sacking of FBI director

www.theguardian.com

 

[Lesh]

NADLER:

And your investigation actually found, quote, "multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations." Is that correct?
MUELLER:

Correct."

WAS THAT IN THE BOOK?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh, and obstruction of justice can occur even when an actual curtailment/stopping/or hindrance of the investigation did not occur so your point is moot...but does show your cherry picking bias.

A charge of obstruction requires three things:
- An obstructive act
- A nexus between that act and an investigation
- Corrupt intent.
Guess which two Mueller proved, and which one he could not.

 

[AntonToo]

A charge of obstruction requires three things:
- An obstructive act
- A nexus between that act and an investigation
- Corrupt intent.
Guess which two Mueller proved, and which one he could not.

A lawyer tabulated it for you:

Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map

The Mueller report describes numerous instances in which President Trump may have obstructed justice. A few days ago, I threw together a quick spreadsheet on Twitter to assess how Special Counsel Robert Mueller seemed to assess the evidence.

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[M14 Shooter]

A lawyer tabulated it for you:

Your source:
"I should emphasize that the below is my interpretation of the evidence as Mueller seems to provide it—others may have different readings"
And so, your chart is meaningless.

Mueller:
Applying the obstruction statutes to the President's official conduct involves determining as a factual matter whether he engaged in an obstructive act, whether the act had a nexus to official proceedings, and whether he was motivated by corrupt intent.

Mueller:
"Corruptly" means with the intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, in a manner inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others; it corrupt intent] must be clearly demonstrated

Mueller:
"But, although obstruction statutes do not require a crime to have been committed, the absence of evidence of a crime affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires us to consider of other possible motives for his conduct."
^^^^
The fact other possible motives must be considered = reasonable doubt as to corrupt intent

Thus:
Nowhere does Mueller make the determination that Trump acted with corrupt intent.

 

[AntonToo]

"I should emphasize that the below is my interpretation of the evidence as Mueller seems to provide it—others may have different readings"
And so, your chart is meaningless.

Mueller:
"But, although obstruction statutes do not require a crime to have been committed, the absence of evidence of a crime affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires us to consider of other possible motives for his conduct."
^^^^
The fact other possible mnotives must be considered = reasonable doubt as to corrupt intent

And? What did you refute? That someone has to interpret law and what Trump did/thought? That's true for just about any indictment ever brought to court.

This lawyer clearly thinks there is strong evidence to meet criteria.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And? What did you refute?

See my edited reply.
There's nothing to refue as you offered an opinion. Big whoop.

 

[AntonToo]

See my edited reply.
There's nothing to refue as you offered an opinion. Big whoop.

And what is it you think prosecutors, judge and jury do?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And what is it you think prosecutors, judge and jury do?

A charge of obstruction requires three things:
- An obstructive act
- A nexus between that act and an investigation
- Corrupt intent.

Guess which two Mueller proved, and which one he could not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This lawyer clearly thinks there is strong evidence to meet criteria.

What does this prove?
I mean, other than nothing.

 

[AntonToo]

A charge of obstruction requires three things:
- An obstructive act
- A nexus between that act and an investigation
- Corrupt intent.

Guess which two Mueller proved, and which one he could not.

I gave you a clear, professional answer.

Your nuh-uh's are backed up by nothing.

 

[busybee01]

Guess who said that? Jerry Nadler himself, saying, "It’s unfair, and it’s unprecedented, and it’s unconstitutional."

A new book reveals that House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., was at odds with how House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi handled impeachment proceedings against former President Trump, insisting that the methods used by the prominent Democrats were "unconstitutional".

Nadler, according to the book, took issue with how Schiff, who was tapped by Pelosi to lead impeachment efforts, was prepared to proceed with the impeachment without due process for Trump.

Nadler's frustration with the pair of Democrats grew. Research conducted by his team proved that presidents facing impeachment from Congress had been allowed to defend themselves before the House Judiciary Committee, with attorneys for the president having the opportunity to attend hearings as well as cross-examine testifying witnesses or call their own.

That did not matter to Schiff, the authors wrote, and the fact that Trump would not be able to face his accusers before being impeached did not sit right with Nadler.

"If we’re going to impeach, we need to show the country that we gave the president ample opportunity to defend himself," Nadler told them, according to the book.

The book noted that Pelosi and Schiff were concerned with what Trump's attorneys would say at the hearings, worrying that it could upend Democratic messaging ahead of the 2020 presidential election and stifle Biden's election chances.

The book says tension among both teams reached a breaking point when Schiff sent Nadler a draft of the resolution laying out the rules for impeachment, which ignored his concerns about due process for the president.

"These lawless HPSCI b-------!" one Judiciary aide said, according to the book. Another claimed: "It’s dumb. It’s illegal!"

"They’re going to argue we don’t have due process for Trump. Why make that argument real?" Nadler asked Schiff.

Nadler feuded with Schiff, Pelosi over 'unconstitutional' impeachment of Donald Trump

House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler feuded with Adam Schiff and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over Donald Trump's "unconstitutional" impeachment process, a new book claims.

www.yahoo.com

It was not unfair,
Gee, makes you wonder if the Jan 6th committee is doing the same thing, doesn't it?

He is wrong. It was not unfair and not unconstitutional. The only reason that it is unprecedented is because Trump's level of corruption in the White House was unprecedented.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I gave you a clear, professional answer.

You gave an opinion that proves nothing.

Copy and paste the text from the Mueller report where Mueller clearly makes the determination Trump acted with "the intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, in a manner inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others"

G'head. I'll wait.