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.
Obstruction is a specific definition of events that MUST happen in order for it to be obstruction. Simply mentioning that he wishes they would let Flynn go doesn't encompass that. There MUST be a threat of some sort or a quid quo pro for doing it. Neither of those was there.
Exactly......it would be very hard to build a case of obstruction of justice from Trump conversation with Comey (what we publicly know at least).
I understand that some are salivating every day but i strongly suggest to keep your expectations in check.
Trump-Russia Scandal = aiding, abetting, conspiring with Russia-sponsored hackers to steal private computer data and disseminating it to the public (a felony)
No physical material evidence.
Where are the computers ? Who examined them and took them into evidence and created the evidence chain of custody to be relied on in a court ?
Quote:
Both are illegal break-ins for political purposes.
But they are not the same as I pointed out. There is a big difference between a fishing expedition and a fish fry.
The quote from Trump’s Attorney is chillingly reminiscent of this exchange between David Frost and Richard Nixon:
Quote:
When the president does it that means that it is not illegal?
Frost:...Would you say that there are certain situations - and the Huston Plan was one of them - where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation, and do something illegal?
Nixon: Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal. Nixon: Exactly, exactly.
"(The) President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under (the Constitution's Article II) and has every right to express his view of any case." John Dowd, President Trump's personal lawyer, in an interview with Mike Allen, co-founder of the news website Axios.
This is why you don't get your brain surgery from your proctologist.
Defending your client by paraphrasing a claim made by a disgraced former president of the United States is incredibly horrible optics.
Geez, the only way Dowd could have made a more boner statement is if he started giving numerous interviews and started each one with the statement that the American people need to know that their president is not a crook.
I'm actually feeling a little sad for President Trump, that he's surrounded himself with such incompetent people.
An interesting (scary?) picture is starting to emerge with this legal theory coming from Dowd. I speculate Trump’s defense team had been aware of the legal hot water they were in even before the tweet. This may be their way of publicly admitting Trump had known about Flynn’s misstatements to the FBI back in Jan/Feb rather than letting Mueller’s team extract the information from the administration. It’s a PR stunt to minimize Trump’s appearance of culpability, which, unfortunately for them, has back fired. I’m not sure if Mueller forced their hands into announcing this publicly, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Flynn admitting to the media he is cooperating with the govt had forced Trump’s hands.
So now, Dowd is saying even IF the president had pressured Comey to look the other way or “go easy on Flynn” knowing that Flynn had lied to the FBI, the president still cannot be guilty of obstruction. This is getting into Nixonian territory. Mueller is damn good.
Nixon said the same thing. Turns out he was wrong.
Nonetheless - it really does not matter what Mueller finds. He literally could find video of Trump sitting in Putin's lap and the Republicans in Congress wouldn't do anything about it - let alone impeach him.
When your defense team begins to push legal theories like this, you aren’t just getting desperate from a legal standpoint, you also have a major optics problem.
There are desperate defenders of Trump here who continue to minimize events of recent days. Whatever their motivations may be, at this point they just come off as sad. Difference in political opinion is one thing, but not having the courage to admit the reality of this investigstion and the results it has produced so far is just cowardly and absurd. It really is taking political allegiance to an unpatriotic level. They are truly pathetic.
When your defense team begins to push legal theories like this, you aren’t just getting desperate from a legal standpoint, you also have a major optics problem.
Qui s'excuse, s'accuse, as the French say.
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.
