Former Mueller deputy prosecuter says Trump should be investigated/prosecuted by next AG.

[WideNine]

30 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

No.  Trump talked about robbing a bank.  It appears he may have been engaged in some activities to support a plan to rob the bank but in the end the bank itself said they were never robbed.

 

I understand it appears different to me than you, but at the end of the day do you really believe it's worth the time, money, and effort to try and prove beyond a doubt Trump subjectively crossed a line and committed a

crime?  

 

Honestly after all the money and effort spent on the report, suspicion of or attempted obstruction was the best they could do to appease the left and show some kind of result.

 

I get that Trump is a slime ball but let SDNY take him out, it's the best chance.  Stop wasting the nation's time trying to split hairs on him.

 

I expect sophistry and ignorance about how the law works. Conspiring to commit a crime is a crime.

 

A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law.

 

So too is obstructing a lawful investigation into the same..

 

 

[SoTier]

39 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

No.  Trump talked about robbing a bank.  It appears he may have been engaged in some activities to support a plan to rob the bank but in the end the bank itself said they were never robbed.

 

I understand it appears different to me than you, but at the end of the day do you really believe it's worth the time, money, and effort to try and prove beyond a doubt Trump subjectively crossed a line and committed a

crime?  

 

Honestly after all the money and effort spent on the report, suspicion of or attempted obstruction was the best they could do to appease the left and show some kind of result.

 

I get that Trump is a slime ball but let SDNY take him out, it's the best chance.  Stop wasting the nation's time trying to split hairs on him.

 

NYS AG Letitia James and Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance are more than a match to take on Covid Donnie and his sycophants in court, and there's little doubt that Trump would get some prison time.   Even a month in a NYS DOCS facility would easily be the worst experience of Covid Donnie's life, and he'd get more than that, and Cuomo would absolutely not grant him clemency.  

 

 

 

 

 

[GaryPinC]

42 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

I expect sophistry and ignorance about how the law works. Conspiring to commit a crime is a crime.

 

A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law.

 

So too is obstructing a lawful investigation into the same..

 

 

And I am certainly not well versed in law.  But could you tell me who the other conspirators are and what provable actions they actually committed?   Also, given per Mueller, obstruction of the investigation was never committed, so will whatever Trump et al. might get proven guilty of be a substantial enough sentence to make the effort worthwhile?

[GaryPinC]

Now there is this:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

 

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

 

It sounds to me it's not just an action, but it has to actually effect, in this case, the investigation.  Good luck with that.

 

And simply conspiring to commit a crime is not a crime.

Edited November 27, 2020 by GaryPinC

[WideNine]

9 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

And I am certainly not well versed in law.  But could you tell me who the other conspirators are and what provable actions they actually committed?   Also, given per Mueller, obstruction of the investigation was never committed, so will whatever Trump et al. might get proven guilty of be a substantial enough sentence to make the effort worthwhile?

 

Well, this is where reading a tweet from Trump as if it were fact, or accepting a conclusion from career political-fixer Barr is not the same as the truth. When Trump tweets massive voting fraud, yet no such thing is provable in court with evidence, it is an established pattern of using his Twitter bully pulpit to forward falsehoods. That is why he hates it when they get labeled as such with such frequency.

 

Get the Mueller obstruction facts:

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/what-the-mueller-report-says-about-obstruction/

 

 

 

 

 

[oldmanfan]

It should not surprise anyone if Trump and his family members are indicted in NYS on January 21st.

[WideNine]

6 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

Now there is this:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

 

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

 

It sounds to me it's not just an action, but it has to actually effect, in this case, the investigation.  Good luck with that.

 

And simply conspiring to commit a crime is not a crime.

 

Sounds like you connected conspiring and obstruction to a federal crime....

[The Frankish Reich]

A. I don't want to see the Biden Administration (the federal level) investigating/prosecuting Trump for alleged crimes committed while he was in office.

B. I do want to see the NY Attorney General (the state level) continue to investigate and prosecute (where the facts and the law support it) crimes allegedly committed by Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, and their associates (including perhaps family members) once Trump leaves office.

 

To support A is to support an endless cycle in which the prior holder of the office can expect to be prosecuted over all manner of crimes that did not result in impeachment/removal. The founders got that right -- impeachment and removal is the sole remedy for crimes committed while in office, and prosecution for political type crimes afterwards creates the same type of danger.

 

To NOT support B is to say that any person who runs for President and gets elected is immune to prosecution for criminal acts done as a private citizen -- the types of things all of us are prosecuted for on a daily basis. No one should want to see that happen.

 

Now, there is a balance. We all know that Trump will be investigated more thoroughly for those old crimes simply because he was elected President and he can't be prosecuted for his alleged new crimes. That bothers me to some extent. But it bothers me less than the idea of life-long immunity for misdeeds done long before he was President.

[Doc]

3 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

A. I don't want to see the Biden Administration (the federal level) investigating/prosecuting Trump for alleged crimes committed while he was in office.

B. I do want to see the NY Attorney General (the state level) continue to investigate and prosecute (where the facts and the law support it) crimes allegedly committed by Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, and their associates (including perhaps family members) once Trump leaves office.

 

To support A is to support an endless cycle in which the prior holder of the office can expect to be prosecuted over all manner of crimes that did not result in impeachment/removal. The founders got that right -- impeachment and removal is the sole remedy for crimes committed while in office, and prosecution for political type crimes afterwards creates the same type of danger.

 

To NOT support B is to say that any person who runs for President and gets elected is immune to prosecution for criminal acts done as a private citizen -- the types of things all of us are prosecuted for on a daily basis. No one should want to see that happen.

 

Now, there is a balance. We all know that Trump will be investigated more thoroughly for those old crimes simply because he was elected President and he can't be prosecuted for his alleged new crimes. That bothers me to some extent. But it bothers me less than the idea of life-long immunity for misdeeds done long before he was President.

 

That's fair. 

[TBBills]

On 11/27/2020 at 1:27 PM, The Frankish Reich said:

A. I don't want to see the Biden Administration (the federal level) investigating/prosecuting Trump for alleged crimes committed while he was in office.

B. I do want to see the NY Attorney General (the state level) continue to investigate and prosecute (where the facts and the law support it) crimes allegedly committed by Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, and their associates (including perhaps family members) once Trump leaves office.

 

To support A is to support an endless cycle in which the prior holder of the office can expect to be prosecuted over all manner of crimes that did not result in impeachment/removal. The founders got that right -- impeachment and removal is the sole remedy for crimes committed while in office, and prosecution for political type crimes afterwards creates the same type of danger.

 

To NOT support B is to say that any person who runs for President and gets elected is immune to prosecution for criminal acts done as a private citizen -- the types of things all of us are prosecuted for on a daily basis. No one should want to see that happen.

 

Now, there is a balance. We all know that Trump will be investigated more thoroughly for those old crimes simply because he was elected President and he can't be prosecuted for his alleged new crimes. That bothers me to some extent. But it bothers me less than the idea of life-long immunity for misdeeds done long before he was President.

This is probably the most balanced statement I ever heard here, agreed.

 

@I am the egg man you jealous no one called your posts balanced?

Edited November 30, 2020 by TBBills

[WideNine]

3 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

A. I don't want to see the Biden Administration (the federal level) investigating/prosecuting Trump for alleged crimes committed while he was in office.

B. I do want to see the NY Attorney General (the state level) continue to investigate and prosecute (where the facts and the law support it) crimes allegedly committed by Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, and their associates (including perhaps family members) once Trump leaves office.

 

To support A is to support an endless cycle in which the prior holder of the office can expect to be prosecuted over all manner of crimes that did not result in impeachment/removal. The founders got that right -- impeachment and removal is the sole remedy for crimes committed while in office, and prosecution for political type crimes afterwards creates the same type of danger.

 

To NOT support B is to say that any person who runs for President and gets elected is immune to prosecution for criminal acts done as a private citizen -- the types of things all of us are prosecuted for on a daily basis. No one should want to see that happen.

 

Now, there is a balance. We all know that Trump will be investigated more thoroughly for those old crimes simply because he was elected President and he can't be prosecuted for his alleged new crimes. That bothers me to some extent. But it bothers me less than the idea of life-long immunity for misdeeds done long before he was President.

 

A well thought out post, the only thing I would add is that impeachment proceedings only give Congress two powers:

 

1. To remove a sitting President from office.

 

2. To prevent the removed President from holding public office again.

 

I think any impeachment articles brought against a former President would be an attempt to firewall public office from that individual.

 

It would be somewhat uncharted territory. There are provisions in article II requiring just a majority Senate vote rather than the two-thirds majority for removal, but my sense is that such an act could be appealed and could end up before the Supreme Court where it would get really interesting if Kavanaugh and Barret have to recuse themselves.

 

From Justia site:

 

Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote,⁸⁵⁵ the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.⁸⁵⁶

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

A. I don't want to see the Biden Administration (the federal level) investigating/prosecuting Trump for alleged crimes committed while he was in office.

B. I do want to see the NY Attorney General (the state level) continue to investigate and prosecute (where the facts and the law support it) crimes allegedly committed by Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, and their associates (including perhaps family members) once Trump leaves office.

 

To support A is to support an endless cycle in which the prior holder of the office can expect to be prosecuted over all manner of crimes that did not result in impeachment/removal. The founders got that right -- impeachment and removal is the sole remedy for crimes committed while in office, and prosecution for political type crimes afterwards creates the same type of danger.

 

To NOT support B is to say that any person who runs for President and gets elected is immune to prosecution for criminal acts done as a private citizen -- the types of things all of us are prosecuted for on a daily basis. No one should want to see that happen.

 

Now, there is a balance. We all know that Trump will be investigated more thoroughly for those old crimes simply because he was elected President and he can't be prosecuted for his alleged new crimes. That bothers me to some extent. But it bothers me less than the idea of life-long immunity for misdeeds done long before he was President.

This is the problem with the little people dealing with career politicians and having short memories.  
 

Exhibit A: Eliot Spitzer;

Exhibit B: Eric Schneiderman;

Exhibit Cuomo:  Joseph Percoco

Exhibit D Joe Bruno;

Exhibit E: Sheldon Silver;

Exhibit F: Hillary Clinton

 

The decisions surrounding who gets prosecuted and who does not is often purely political, with fall guys strewn about and powerful yet corrupt figures remaining untouched. There is no mythical place where the powerful are treated as average citizens. It doesn’t exist.  
 

So, if they think they can get Trump and destroy the spirit of the base and impact walk-away Dems and independents, they’ll pursue it like it was true.  They’d Kavanaugh him, they’d Mike Flynn him, and I personally think some would go much further than that (the infamous “six ways to Sunday” offering by the senior senator from NY).  
 

The trade off is that Trump most definitely knows where the bodies are buried, and I think we would all agree he’s not the gentleman Willard Romney is (and by gentleman, I mean nutless weasel) where he’ll take his $$$-🤬 and ask for more. 
 

There’s also the needle to thread on when too much is too much.  For all the posturing here about bogus claims of obstruction, the flip side is the AG said it never happened.  In fact, he said the treatment of DJT in this sham was quite horrific, though oddly that didn’t get a lot of play in typical msm outlets.  Trump supporters certain believe that by the tens of millions.  Partisan lefties like W9, SoT and the like see it the other way, which sets the stage for a very interesting battle for the hearts and minds of the middle.  
 

Part of me would like to see the battle play out.  I’d love to see DJT giving us access to the inner workings of the govt, the CIA, to hear stories of what folks like Brennan do when they’re not trying  to manipulate our own elections.  
 

I say it doesn’t happen, or at most, happens on the basis of lots of fireworks but no real pop. 

 

[US Egg]

On 11/27/2020 at 5:00 PM, TBBills said:

This is probably the most balanced statement I ever heard here, agreed.

 

@I am the egg man you jealous no one called your posts balanced?

Just think your comment comical. That's what the laughing emoji is for.

 

Talk to the mods if you have a problem with that aspect.

[TBBills]

13 minutes ago, I am the egg man said:

Just think your comment comical. That's what the laughing emoji is for.

 

Talk to the mods if you have a problem with that aspect.

I know you got jealous b.c no one ever said one of your posts was anything special except for laughs. Just good to know even after something was posted a while ago you still get mad.

Edited November 30, 2020 by TBBills

[US Egg]

6 minutes ago, TBBills said:

I know you got jealous b.c no one ever said one of your posts was anything special except for laughs. Just good to know even after something was posted a while ago you still get mad.

Your doggin' me because I simply checked the laughing emoji in one of your comments and that alone.

 

That's psychotic.

 

[TBBills]

6 minutes ago, I am the egg man said:

Your doggin' me because I simply checked the laughing emoji in one of your comments and that alone.

 

That's psychotic.

 

Yes, you are but don't let us stop you. Maybe you will find more like minded crazies on that other site.

[US Egg]

21 minutes ago, TBBills said:

Yes, you are but don't let us stop you. Maybe you will find more like minded crazies on that other site.

One laughing emoji up vote and you make it an issue in here.

 

Your pals in here should be rallying around you anytime soon.

 

[Big Gun]

26 minutes ago, I am the egg man said:

One laughing emoji up vote and you make it an issue in here.

 

Your pals in here should be rallying around you anytime soon.

 

Don't bother with that POS, he's a keyboard warrior that lives a pathetic life who is so insecure and scared of his own shadow in the real world. Sad excuse of a human really!

[TBBills]

38 minutes ago, I am the egg man said:

One laughing emoji up vote and you make it an issue in here.

 

Your pals in here should be rallying around you anytime soon.

 

And than you invite your crazy friends.

9 minutes ago, Big Gun said:

Don't bother with that POS, he's a keyboard warrior that lives a pathetic life who is so insecure and scared of his own shadow in the real world. Sad excuse of a human really!

Oh please just look at your post history says everything. 

[US Egg]

8 minutes ago, Big Gun said:

Don't bother with that POS, he's a keyboard warrior that lives a pathetic life who is so insecure and scared of his own shadow in the real world. Sad excuse of a human really!

Never had anyone chase after me in here for just voting on their comment, let alone edit it after I did in order to do so.

 

He's clearly a rabid one.