Founding Fathers warned of foreign influence

[EatTheRich]

i amended my first reply to show how wrong you are about there having to be an "underlying crime" before anyone can obstruct justice. that is bullshit. you are wrong. it has been explained many times. the crime is obstructing justice, not obstructing a crime. read something and quit arguing for the sake of arguing.

I didn't say there had to be an underlying crime for obstruction of justice, I said that Mueller said that absent an underlying crime being established it is harder to prove that the intent of Trump’s actions was to obstruct.

 

[llovejim]

I didn't say there had to be an underlying crime for obstruction of justice, I said that Mueller said that absent an underlying crime being established it is harder to prove that the intent of Trump’s actions was to obstruct.

when did he say that? what other intent but obstruction of justice are the clear examples Mueller laid out that even Judge Nappy had to rise up on Fox and point out? why are you trying to deny intent? why else tell someone to quit investigating, to change testimony? just for grins?

 

[EatTheRich]

when did he say that? what other intent but obstruction of justice are the clear examples Mueller laid out that even Judge Nappy had to rise up on Fox and point out? why are you trying to deny intent? why else tell someone to quit investigating, to change testimony? just for grins?

I’m not denying it, I’m just saying it’s up to Congress to prove it.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

So? Our intelligence community is all over it. No?

And Obama gave a shit. So there's that too.

1. In Helsinki, Trump said he believed Putin's denials of interfering in the 2016 election.

Trump continues to maintain that position.

 

[llovejim]

Is this why your boy Barry O did nothing of Russia interference?

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/2012-flashback-obama-whispers-message-putin-after-my-election-ill-have-more

There's your collusion......

hate to be the one to break it to you, but to signal to a foreign country we can work out certain compromises AFTER an election, when there is obviously no collusion to influence the election, when there is no heightened partisan attacks on just having discussions about certain areas where compromises might be able to be achieved due to less partisanship, is not trying to influence an election...notice how he said "AFTER THE ELECTION?" that is what Sherlock Holmes would call a "clue."

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

hate to be the one to break it to you, but to signal to a foreign country we can work out certain compromises AFTER an election, when there is obviously no collusion to influence the election, when there is no heightened partisan attacks on just having discussions about certain areas where compromises might be able to be achieved due to less partisanship, is not trying to influence an election...notice how he said "AFTER THE ELECTION?" that is what Sherlock Holmes would call a "clue."

obama said it like he knew he was going to win how much did Russian influence the election of 2012? Is that why obama blew off the suggestion that Russian may have interfered with the election of 2016?

 

[Mick]

1. In Helsinki, Trump said he believed Putin's denials of interfering in the 2016 election.

So he should just accept whatever the people say who had just used the phony dossier as their "evidence"? Think Droolie, think.

 

[PhilFish]

wrong...state of mind means nothing unless trump accidentally ran into a witness on his way to tell all....how can you keep denying reality? the only reason mueller did not indict trump is because he is a sitting president, which he clearly said about 58 times so far!! why would he describe every case of obstruction so clearly in his report that 500 former DOJ attorneys and judges of both political parties and even Judge Nappy of Fox News clearly see how an indictment is called for if he did not think that was the LEAST he could do, since he could not indict traitor trump himself? try to think as a non-biased person.

Obstruction doesn’t care what political party a president hails from.

2. The crime is obstruction of justice — not “obstruction of crime.” In other words, the law doesn’t require prosecutors to show that the alleged “obstructer” did the bad deed of interfering with an investigation because he wanted to cover up some other crime. If you bully a witness because you hate the prosecutor and want to make her working life a living hell out of spite, that counts.

Mueller himself explains that “obstruction-of-justice law reaches all corrupt conduct capable of producing an effect that prevents justice from being duly administered, regardless of the means employed.” In other words, “the verbs obstruct or impede are broad and can refer to anything that blocks, makes difficult, or hinders.”

As a matter of law, Trump need not be guilty of criminally conspiring with the Russians in order to be guilty of obstruction. His attempts to stymie Mueller’s probe can constitute obstruction of justice regardless of conspiracy or “collusion.”

Here are a few highlights from the Mueller report’s account of Trump’s bad deeds:

• Trump told his White House counsel, Don McGahn, to fire the person in charge of the investigation, Firing the top prosecutor on an investigation is a form of interference, to say the least.

• Trump told people in the White House not to disclose emails documenting the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower New York between Russians hawking dirt on Hillary Clinton and key members of his campaign. Encouraging people to hide material information from investigators counts as impeding an investigation.

• In Mueller’s words, Trump engaged in “multiple” additional acts “that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.” They ranged from efforts “to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”

Even to the untrained ear, this laundry list sounds a lot like endeavoring to obstruct an investigation. It doesn’t take a lawyer to conclude that the natural effect of these types of acts — if successful — would be to impede an investigation. (The acts need not succeed for there to be obstruction, mind you.)

3. The thorny part of obstruction of justice is proving intent — that is, that the person doing the obstruction did it with the objective interfering with an investigation. If you rear-end a juror by mistake on her way to a high-profile criminal trial, rendering her inescapably late, you are not susceptible to an obstruction charge. If you do it on purpose, you could be in trouble under the criminal laws.

Mueller indicated in his report that intent wasn’t a toughie when it comes to Trump. That’s why he didn’t push to interview him — his team decided they had enough evidence to show the intent element of obstruction.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/439880-the-thorny-part-of-obstruction-of-justice-is-proving-intent-now-thats-a

Then we will see it in court.

But doubtful

 

[PhilFish]

that is not the part i debunked. the part i debunked is that obama ignored it out of some sort of devious, pro-russian or anti-trump or pro-hillary reason until AFTER THE ELECTION...if he had ran with our intelligence about putin helping trump, and the trump team taking every opportunity to profit from their efforts BEFORE the election, hillary would have probably won, considering in 3 pivotal states that went to trump- wisconsin, michigan and pennsylvania, the total margin for victory combined was just 77,000 votes!!

You didn't debunk a thing..as I proferred none of that. He didn't act

 

[llovejim]

You didn't debunk a thing..as I proferred none of that. He didn't act

and a reasonable person would know why. he should be commended that he put partisanship aside. i do not believe any of the things the Russians did changed the election, but it was so close in 3 states that usually go blue- Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, maybe it did. But I do know if Obama had put the hammer down on Putin, went public with what our military-intelligence and FBI agents knew and reported about his desire and efforts to help Trump win, and the 100 or so contacts between the Russians and the Trump team without one member of the Trump team telling the FBI about the Russian efforts, the backlash of that public information in those 3 states that barely went to Trump would have changed at least 77,000 votes. And right wingers still try to accuse him of having some sort of deep state conspiracy to take away the election from trump and of not doing enough about the known Russian interference until after the election..just freaking amazing. Obama could cure cancer and right wingers would find something negative about it.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

I didn't say there had to be an underlying crime for obstruction of justice, I said that Mueller said that absent an underlying crime being established it is harder to prove that the intent of Trump’s actions was to obstruct.

Mueller said no such thing.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

and a reasonable person would know why. he should be commended that he put partisanship aside. i do not believe any of the things the Russians did changed the election, but it was so close in 3 states that usually go blue- Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, maybe it did. But I do know if Obama had put the hammer down on Putin, went public with what our military-intelligence and FBI agents knew and reported about his desire and efforts to help Trump win, and the 100 or so contacts between the Russians and the Trump team without one member of the Trump team telling the FBI about the Russian efforts, the backlash of that public information in those 3 states that barely went to Trump would have changed at least 77,000 votes. And right wingers still try to accuse him of having some sort of deep state conspiracy to take away the election from trump and of not doing enough about the known Russian interference until after the election..just freaking amazing. Obama could cure cancer and right wingers would find something negative about it.

The Russians did an excellent job of suppressing the black vote in those states.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/12/12/the-real-voting-scandal-of-2016

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=2z8GXaz3LYyu5wLIhYW4DQ&q=Russian+suppression+of+black+vote+2016&oq=Russian+suppression+of+black+vote+2016&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1209.9845..10413...0.0..0.276.5268.9j26j3......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0j0i131j0i22i30j0i22i10i30j33i22i29i30j33i299.Xfb58sCXD0U

 

[EatTheRich]

The Russians did an excellent job of suppressing the black vote in those states.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/12/12/the-real-voting-scandal-of-2016

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=2z8GXaz3LYyu5wLIhYW4DQ&q=Russian+suppression+of+black+vote+2016&oq=Russian+suppression+of+black+vote+2016&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1209.9845..10413...0.0..0.276.5268.9j26j3......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0j0i131j0i22i30j0i22i10i30j33i22i29i30j33i299.Xfb58sCXD0U

Your link blames Republicans, not Russians, for that.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

Your link blames Republicans, not Russians, for that.

Second link shows both Russians and Republicans did that.