• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

First Charges Filed in Mueller Investigation

tintinisahottie said:
What justice was obstructed?
Click to expand...
Look at report, he lists 10 areas of obstruction of which 8 are chargeable as he lists the action, nexus, and intent with supporting evidence, talking prosecutors on various channels have said that is the info that is required to prove obstruction. Even Fox tv legal analyst retired judge Napolitano gave a rant on Fox saying Trump had obstructed justice, I am sure you can find the statement on the internet for your viewing pleasure, hope this will help your need.
 
Sally Yates also said on one of the morning shows if he wasn’t president he would be charged with obstruction. What a ludicrous policy to not charge a sitting POTUS.
 
tintinisahottie said:
What justice was obstructed?
Click to expand...

In obstruction of justice cases, the "justice" portion includes an official proceeding (an investigation into potentially illegal activity). Specifically for Donald, this includes investigations into Russian meddling in the election, Flynn proceedings, and/or investigations into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Under the federal statute, the prosecution doesn't even have to show the obstruction was successful (although in these instances it can be difficult to tell one way or the other) they just have to show that there was an attempt at obstruction justice (e.g., the ongoing investigation(s)).
 
tintin is just trolling. If President Hillary had done anything Trump did, he would say she obstructed justice.
 
BarcaDeac said:
Sally Yates also said on one of the morning shows if he wasn’t president he would be charged with obstruction. What a ludicrous policy to not charge a sitting POTUS.
Click to expand...

I’m ok with it. I don’t want unelected state or federal prosecutors to have the ability to jail the President. The Constitution has a clear path for elected officials to deal with Presidential misconduct.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
I’m ok with it. I don’t want unelected state or federal prosecutors to have the ability to jail the President. The Constitution has a clear path for elected officials to deal with Presidential misconduct.
Click to expand...

I largely agree with this. Bill Maher got all worked up this weekend over Mueller not throwing the book at Trump.

Congress - not Mueller - needs to act.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
I’m ok with it. I don’t want unelected state or federal prosecutors to have the ability to jail the President. The Constitution has a clear path for elected officials to deal with Presidential misconduct.
Click to expand...

They could be charged but prosecution could be delayed until the elected term is up.
 
BarcaDeac said:
Sally Yates also said on one of the morning shows if he wasn’t president he would be charged with obstruction. What a ludicrous policy to not charge a sitting POTUS.
Click to expand...

But that could get in the way of him trying to execute the duties of the Presidency, such as packing the courts with unqualified, uber conservative justices who will set our country back 50+ years, or trying to promote white nationalism from the White House.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
I’m ok with it. I don’t want unelected state or federal prosecutors to have the ability to jail the President. The Constitution has a clear path for elected officials to deal with Presidential misconduct.
Click to expand...

So, in your world, POTUS can sell his position to the highest bidder and not go to jail. He can steal or kill and be above the law.

You don't want a POTUS. You want a king or dictator who is above the law.

Got it!
 
RJKarl said:
So, in your world, POTUS can sell his position to the highest bidder and not go to jail. He can steal or kill and be above the law.

You don't want a POTUS. You want a king or dictator who is above the law.

Got it!
Click to expand...

I think DD was trying to say that Congress should ultimately be the institution/person responsible for removing a President from office. Not an unelected prosecutor. The unelected prosecutor might be able to outline wrongdoing and recommend charges but the prosecutor plus court system shouldn’t be the mechanism used to remove a sitting president.
 
amazing that Christine Blasey Ford was made to answer questions by counsel as mandated by the Republicans but the top law official in the land is too chicken to do so himself.
 
Newenglanddeac said:
I think DD was trying to say that Congress should ultimately be the institution/person responsible for removing a President from office. Not an unelected prosecutor. The unelected prosecutor might be able to outline wrongdoing and recommend charges but the prosecutor plus court system shouldn’t be the mechanism used to remove a sitting president.
Click to expand...

The worst idea is an elected prosecutor who has to get re-elected. A career prosecutor is more likely to be even-handed than any elected official. The major reason he/she would lose a job is for being partisan and fair.

A sitting POTUS should not be above the law and shouldn't have Congress as the only arbiter of guilt. At the very least, the statute of limitations needs to be stalled for POTUS. At the very least, it shouldn't start until that person is out of office or should be stopped for crimes committed before becoming POTUS.
 
RJKarl said:
The worst idea is an elected prosecutor who has to get re-elected. A career prosecutor is more likely to be even-handed than any elected official. The major reason he/she would lose a job is for being partisan and fair.

A sitting POTUS should not be above the law and shouldn't have Congress as the only arbiter of guilt. At the very least, the statute of limitations needs to be stalled for POTUS. At the very least, it shouldn't start until that person is out of office or should be stopped for crimes committed before becoming POTUS.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with your last point and the first one is fair as well.
 
I certainly understand the position that any president who would be indicted while sitting in office would theoretically have enough damning evidence against them that Congress would impeach the president rendering the indictment unnecessary. In this regard, there wouldn't be a question of partisanship or an "attempted deep state coup." However Donald and the GOP - like plenty of times over the past few years - continue to ignore, flaunt, and erode our institutions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top