Yzermandius19 Posted April 11, 2019 Report Share Posted April 11, 2019 (edited) Just now, Owly said: True, he could decide to deal with indictment. But why would he with his history? He's not going to be indicted. That's why, they have nothing on him. Edited April 11, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owly Posted April 11, 2019 Report Share Posted April 11, 2019 1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said: He's not going to be indicted. That's why, they have nothing on him. I'm sure Trump knows much better than that. I bet he has that pardon already signed and in his desk drawer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owly Posted April 11, 2019 Report Share Posted April 11, 2019 8 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: He's not going to be indicted. That's why, they have nothing on him. They have lots on him, but he is lucky that they don't usually prosecute a president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted April 11, 2019 Report Share Posted April 11, 2019 39 minutes ago, Owly said: They have lots on him, but he is lucky that they don't usually prosecute a president. They aren't prosecuting, because they have nothing, not just because he is president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owly Posted April 11, 2019 Report Share Posted April 11, 2019 1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said: They aren't prosecuting, because they have nothing, not just because he is president. Ever heard of obstruction of justice? Just for starters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted April 11, 2019 Report Share Posted April 11, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Owly said: Ever heard of obstruction of justice? Just for starters. They have no proof of it, just because they can't prove a negative, doesn't mean he obstructed justice or they have anything even approaching obstruction of justice. Firing Comey isn't obstruction of justice, the President is allowed to do that. Edited April 11, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owly Posted April 11, 2019 Report Share Posted April 11, 2019 9 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said: They have no proof of it, just because they can't prove a negative, doesn't mean he obstructed justice or they have anything even approaching obstruction of justice. Firing Comey isn't obstruction of justice, the President is allowed to do that. You say they have no proof, but I think I'll wait to see what Mueller had to say about it. If he did it to stop the Russia investigation then it could very well be obstruction. Of course Trump can pardon himself so he gets an automatic "get out of jail" card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted April 11, 2019 Report Share Posted April 11, 2019 Mueller forwarded all potential charges that were beyond his mandate to outside law enforcement. New York State is currently investigating them and there are likely to be indictments. And being under state law, they are outside Trump's pardon powers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owly Posted April 11, 2019 Report Share Posted April 11, 2019 19 minutes ago, BubberMiley said: Mueller forwarded all potential charges that were beyond his mandate to outside law enforcement. New York State is currently investigating them and there are likely to be indictments. And being under state law, they are outside Trump's pardon powers. It does get a bit tricky though when you get into the legal weeds. For instance one of the most glaring issues is Trump's firing of Comey to shut down the Russia investigation could be obstruction at the federal level but that is not indictable at the state level. I imagine there is a lot of legal head scratching going on these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owly Posted April 11, 2019 Report Share Posted April 11, 2019 Trump on the campaign trail talked about "how much he loves Wikileaks", now he says he "doesn't know anything about Wikileaks". Is this a sign of his ever growing derangement or just another lie to add to the huge pile? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted April 12, 2019 Report Share Posted April 12, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, Owly said: It does get a bit tricky though when you get into the legal weeds. For instance one of the most glaring issues is Trump's firing of Comey to shut down the Russia investigation could be obstruction at the federal level but that is not indictable at the state level. I imagine there is a lot of legal head scratching going on these days. Good luck proving Trump did it to shut down the investigation, when it didn't shut down the investigation, and there is no proof that is why he did it. Far more reasonable explanations explain why he fired Comey than your "to shut down the investigation" conspiracy theory. Edited April 12, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owly Posted April 12, 2019 Report Share Posted April 12, 2019 31 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: Good luck proving Trump did it to shut down the investigation, when it didn't shut down the investigation, and there is no proof that is why he did it. Far more reasonable explanations explain why he fired Comey than your "to shut down the investigation" conspiracy theory. Doesn't matter that it wasn't successful in shutting down the investigation, the attempt to is what's illegal. And you have no idea what evidence there is or isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted April 12, 2019 Report Share Posted April 12, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Owly said: Doesn't matter that it wasn't successful in shutting down the investigation, the attempt to is what's illegal. And you have no idea what evidence there is or isn't. It wasn't even an attempt to do that, Trump knew firing Comey wouldn't shut down the investigation, assuming he thought it would, is wishful thinking of a Trump hater with no evidence to suggest that is the case. Can't get caught for obstructing justice, if no justice was obstructed. You have no idea what evidence is or isn't. Edited April 12, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owly Posted April 12, 2019 Report Share Posted April 12, 2019 1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said: It wasn't even an attempt to do that, Trump knew firing Comey wouldn't shut down the investigation, assuming he thought it would, is wishful thinking of a Trump hater with no evidence to suggest that is the case. You have no idea what evidence is or isn't. I'll wait for the report rather than entertain your flimsy assumptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted April 12, 2019 Report Share Posted April 12, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Owly said: I'll wait for the report rather than entertain your flimsy assumptions. You aren't waiting for the report, you are making flimsy assumptions and assuming they are more correct than my assumptions. Trump is guilty until proven innocent to you, to me he's innocent until proven guilty, one assumption is clearly far more fair than the other, and it isn't your assumption. Edited April 12, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owly Posted April 12, 2019 Report Share Posted April 12, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: You aren't waiting for the report, you are making flimsy assumptions and assuming they are more correct than my assumptions. And yet another of your flimsy assumptions. A growing number of legal experts say President Trump has opened himself up to a charge of obstruction of justice this week when he said “this Russia thing with Trump” was on his mind when he fired FBI Director James Comey. The federal law against obstruction of justice, a felony, is written broadly and applies to pending investigations. It can cover anyone who “corruptly … endeavors to influence, obstruct or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States.” In another section, the word “corruptly” is defined as “acting with an improper purpose.” Trump’s repeated references to the Russia investigation in interviews, tweets and the letter he sent Comey informing him that he'd been fired could be interpreted as an effort to “obstruct or impede” the investigation, the legal experts said. Edited April 12, 2019 by Owly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted April 12, 2019 Report Share Posted April 12, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Owly said: And yet another of your flimsy assumptions. Guilty until proven innocent is an assumption. Prove you aren't a witch Trump, or I will assume you are. Your witch trial standard is clearly the flimsiest assumption here. Innocent until proven guilty is much better assumption, that's why we base our legal system around that standard, and not yours. Edited April 12, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 12, 2019 Report Share Posted April 12, 2019 U.S. Attorney General Barr has opened the floodgates for cable news talking heads with the word "spying"....Democrats are going nuts. The next phase of "Russiagate" has begun, and it is not going to be pretty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owly Posted April 12, 2019 Report Share Posted April 12, 2019 1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said: U.S. Attorney General Barr has opened the floodgates for cable news talking heads with the word "spying"....Democrats are going nuts. The next phase of "Russiagate" has begun, and it is not going to be pretty. Oh but Trump is providing a much more tempting bait as his new word of the day is "treason" Barr is proving he is simply a piss poor lawyer, commensurate to being a member of the Trump team, but I wonder if anyone has explained to him that treason carries the death penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owly Posted April 12, 2019 Report Share Posted April 12, 2019 5 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: Guilty until proven innocent is an assumption. Prove you aren't a witch Trump, or I will assume you are. Your witch trial standard is clearly the flimsiest assumption here. Oh I see you've adopted the "witch" word from your hero. Too funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted April 12, 2019 Report Share Posted April 12, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Owly said: Oh I see you've adopted the "witch" word from your hero. Too funny. Obvious witch hunt is obvious. Guilty until proven innocent = witch hunt. Of course it's literally impossible to prove a negative, so you get to cling to Trump is guilty, regardless of the evidence, because he'll never prove his innocence, you'll just assume the smoking gun hasn't been found yet, even if they can't prove his guilt, how convenient. Edited April 12, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owly Posted April 12, 2019 Report Share Posted April 12, 2019 3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: Obvious witch hunt is obvious. Guilty until proven innocent = witch hunt. Let's wait for the report and of course what the SDNY has in its charges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted April 12, 2019 Report Share Posted April 12, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Owly said: Let's wait for the report and of course what the SDNY has in its charges. You'll still assume he's guilty even if they can't prove it, the smoking gun simply won't have been found yet because of the obstruction of justice that they couldn't find, or because Mueller and Barr are in the bag for Trump, anything but admit it was witch hunt. You are going to move the goalposts, you aren't going to accept the findings of the Mueller report, nor are you going to accept the findings of the SDNY, if they don't find the smoking gun. Don't snow. Edited April 12, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owly Posted April 12, 2019 Report Share Posted April 12, 2019 Just now, Yzermandius19 said: You'll still assume he's guilty even if they can't prove it, the smoking gun simply won't have been found yet because obstruction of justice that they couldn't find, or because Mueller and Barr are in the bag for Trump, anything but admit it was witch hunt. Re read my previous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted April 12, 2019 Report Share Posted April 12, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Owly said: Re read my previous. You aren't waiting for the report, you are making assumptions long before the report, and you will cling to those assumptions after, regardless if they have no proof of Trump's guilt. Trump can't prove his innocence, so you will assume guilt no matter what, guilty until proven innocent. Edited April 12, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.