Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fox’s in house Judge is not buying the Attorney-General’s legal arguments on obstruction.
Not. At. All.
Quote:
The essence of obstruction is deception or diversion -- to prevent the government from finding the truth. To Mueller, the issue was not if Trump committed crimes of obstruction. Rather, it was if Trump could be charged successfully with those crimes.
Mueller knew that Barr would block an indictment of Trump because Barr has a personal view of obstruction at odds with the statute itself. Barr's view requires that the obstructer has done his obstructing in order to impede the investigation or prosecution of a crime that the obstructer himself has committed. Thus, in this narrow view, because Trump did not commit the crime of conspiracy with the Russians, it was legally impossible for Trump to have obstructed the FBI investigation of that crime.
The nearly universal view of law enforcement, however, is that the obstruction statute prohibits all attempted self-serving interference with government investigations or proceedings. Thus, as Georgetown Professor Neal Katyal recently pointed out, former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was convicted of obstruction for interfering with an investigation of his extramarital affair, even though the affair was lawful.
The entire scope of the Mueller probe, Senate Judiciary Investigation, and Justice department investigation was founded on the basis of "russian collusion" .
Since there was no RUSSIAN COLLUSION....
You can't obstruct justice when you have been exonerated of the original "accusation" of Russian Collusion.
That's how Fox gets the ratings !!!
All the democrats are starting to watch Fox and get the bone they occasionally throw out for them.
So easily duped by media they are sucked in again. Accept for all the crap the judge gets wrong, he's right about everything. He is only one legal pundit but now he is a legal GOD among them, say liberals.
What's that you say, GOD is a Fox News contributor !!! Is there anyone who didn't know that ?
The entire scope of the Mueller probe, Senate Judiciary Investigation, and Justice department investigation was founded on the basis of "russian collusion" .
Since there was no RUSSIAN COLLUSION....
You can't obstruct justice when you have been exonerated of the original "accusation" of Russian Collusion.
Give it up. Its over
That’s not true, no matter how often lemmings repeat the lie.
Fox Judge Napolitano: Trump IS Guilty of Obstruction of Justice
Everyone knows it. Some pretend otherwise for their own reasons.
Most people just think that since Hillary got away with using her private email server without prosecution then Trump should be automatically let off for anything he has done. I don’t know what one really has to do with the other once one steps back from their tribal loyalties.
sorry, FBI Director Comey testified in Congress that Trump wasn't personally under investigation. That means the President has constitutional powers and prosecutorial discretion in what investigation will be handled and how and which ones don't deserve too much time or resources and which ones to close in the DOJ.
Those are his constitutional powers as the Chief Prosecutor of the land. As the sole head of their branch, presidents are able to fire pretty much anyone for pretty much any reason, as well as to determine how resources should be used, and to decide on what executive employees should and should not focus. With the exception of per se illegal actions (e.g. perjury or bribery)
You can't charge Trump of a crime for doing his constitutional duties. If they wanted to investigate the President, then it was Congress, not the DOJ.
That’s not true, no matter how often lemmings repeat the lie.
Obstruction of justice is a crime onto itself.
Prosecutorial Discretion is not a crime......a President As the sole head of their branch are able to fire pretty much anyone for pretty much any reason, as well as to determine how resources should be used, and to decide on what executive employees should and should not focus. With the exception of per se illegal actions (e.g. perjury or bribery)
Trump didn't commit perjury or bribed anybody.....so your obstruction case is weak.
Speaking with reporters on Wednesday, Mr. Trump cited the end of the special counsel investigation to declare he had been investigated enough. “I thought after two years we’d be finished with it,” he said. “No. Now the House goes and starts subpoenas.” He added, “I say it’s enough.”
Quote:
He also falsely stated that Mr. Mueller’s investigators “came up with no obstruction.”In fact, they laid out extensive evidence that he committed that crime several times but stopped short of deciding whether to accuse him of it only because the Justice Department considers sitting presidents temporarily immune from indictment.
And on Twitter, Mr. Trump offered a novel idea for pushing back against any impeachment proceedings if House Democrats tried to move forward with them: He would get the Supreme Court to order them to stop.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is there anyone who didn't know that ? 
