Why the President did not obstruct Justice.

Cohen plea'd for himself, and his actions do not reflect on Trump(AKA Person 1). Let me repeat: His actions DO NOT reflect on Donald Trump. When this case does go to trial, if I were Trump's defense lawyer I'd immediately jump on that, and remove Cohen factually from the trial. His claims are immaterial, and fly in the face of the evidence. Cohen did the crime, he should do the sentenced time and not try to drag person 1 into it.

I actually expect better of the SDNY. Cohen's argument is low hanging fruit. What Pecker testifies to would be interesting, but if Trump can credibly testify that he wanted to payoff Stormy and Karen Mcdougle to protect his marriage, then the SDNY's case is in tatters.

 

“The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law,” Mueller’s team wrote.

Two things about that. One, Mueller was governed by the OLC opinion as to whether a sitting prez can be indicted.
Two, given that Mueller's report provides ample evidence of grounds for impeachment he clearly leaves it up to Congress to determine what to do.......................NOT BARR.

 

Cohen took a GUILTY PLEA to CONSPIRACY with your BLOTUS!

That the EVIDENCE justified a GUILTY PLEA means that your BLOTUS is equally GUILTY since it takes MORE THAN ONE PERSON in order for there to be a CONSPIRACY!

You can't ARBITRARILY remove one of the GUILTY conspirators and then PRETEND that there was no conspiracy.

That silliness would be laughed out of court.

 

Ah! The highly coveted particpation trophy for failed impeachment! Great parting gift to memorialize their past congressional service.

 

Yes I can, because it relies on Cohen's word to establish this conspiracy, and to me it's abject nonsense. You need to learn that a prosecutor's argument is just that: The prosecutor's argument. That argument does not settle it, it doesn't make it true(as much as you'd like to think so.) That's up to a Jury ultimately to decide.

Luckily for us, Cohen has made his legal argument public(foolish on his behalf), and thus Trump Counsel is already aware of it and again: It's ridiculous. Cohen's assertion that it wasn't a direct order, but implied by Trump's language is patently ridiculous.

Especially in lieu of the fact that he benefited from the medallions and opened up his OWN company for the tax fraud/insurance fraud. If Trump ordered it, you'd think it would have gone directly to him. Instead, we learn that Trump was paying Cohen reimbursement money ROFL.

The Trump team's going to have fun with the Cohen section of the trial. He's not a credible witness, by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, he hurts the SDNY.

 

You are FORGETTING the THIRD CONSPIRATOR!

Pecker is there to CORROBORATE what Cohen is saying.

That is why Cohen decided to take the GUILTY PLEA. He KNEW that there was someone else besides just himself and your BLOTUS.

Your BLOTUS is going to TOAST if he gets on the witness stand and given that very few people in SDNY like you BLOTUS it won't be hard to find a jury that will convict him.

 

I'll wait for Pecker's own sworn statements to know what he knows/testifies. But I highly doubt Pecker can corroborate Cohen's story. The most important thing he needs to corroborate is Cohen's(very convenient) theory of implied orders.

It reads like an awful excuse for a criminal, which is exactly what it is. Every criminal likes to pin it on someone else, but I've never seen someone do so as blatantly and awfully as Cohen.

Do you believe in autonomy as a principle, or no? The abortion laws rely on autonomy as a principle, so we as a nation acknowledge it as a whole. Cohen has to do a lot better than "he made me do it!"

 

Not to mention that Weisselberg can corroborate Cohen's testimony as well.

 

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/04/18/thats-all-there-is-and-thats-all-folks/

Howie Carr That's All There Is and That's All Folks

Trump didn do nuffin

 

Cohen as a lawyer KNEW that he could not refute Pecker's testimony which is why he took his GUILTY PLEA.

The DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE is insurmountable which is why your BLOTUS is in deep crap.

 

Right, I had forgotten about him.

 

Why didn't the SDNY get them to sign the same pleas then, to the same charge? As of now, we should go on the facts that detail the so-called Cohen-Trump conspiracy, and the facts that underlie them.

Michael Cohen is trying to get Trump to fall with him for crimes he committed(not the other way around), and I can smell all over it. Cohen's testimony is CRAP. I can't believe the prosecutors actually brought it, never mind charged it.

A good prosecutor avoids liabilities like Cohen. The SDNY took him on.

 

The other more substantial reason is to keep the gullible sheep in the dark about this scumbag of a President.

 

Add something substantial to the conversation. Everyone knows Trump is an unsavory character. A criminal? No, as per this report and the SDNY case is weak as hell. There are two fronts that can be argued against the prosecution, while the prosecution has to show corrupt and intentional wrongdoing.

If for example, Cohen as his lawyer(and legal counsel) did not advise Trump to the illegality of the activity, that's another mark against the prosecution.

 

The OP is obviously wrong. The Mueller report reads like a charging document and details the available methods to hold the President accountable for his crimes: impeachment or prosecution after he leaves office. There is one thing clear in the report, Mueller's team bent over backwards to give Trump and his associates the benefit of doubt about their actions and unfortunately, we now know for certain we're dealing with starkly corrupt, immoral, dishonest, and incompetent men at the highest level of our government. At least we now know. The question is, what are we going to do about it? Are we see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil confused monkey's that believe --like the President--an attack by a hostile foreign power could benefit us personally, or benefit our country? Let's hope we're better than that.

 

Any blithering fool knows what obstruction of justice looks like. The only difference is an ordinary joe blow would spend years behind bars for the same thing this criminal President did but this MFer will likely get away with it. The MSM even substantiates that with this stupidity:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on his inquiry into Russia's role in the 2016 U.S. election described in extensive and sometimes unflattering detail how President Donald Trump tried to impede the probe, raising questions about whether he committed the crime of obstruction of justice.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/landmark-moment-trump-mueller-report-russia-looms-122919252.html

There's no question about it except in the American (in)justice phoniness designed to protect the aristocracy.

 

If you listen to administration spokesmen... the president cannot be indicted. Impeachment is the option

As far as intent... that is an interesting point. As i recall, Hillary Clinton wad not indicted for similar reasons.... much to the chagrin of many people who did not believe a lack of indictment indicated innocence. It is certainly true that if the people around trump had done as he instructed... he would have obstructed

 

Okay, now this is actually interesting(and finally, someone addressing what I posted sincerely. Props to you.) What are the similarities between HRC/Trump on the matter of Obstruction of Justice?

In both cases, intent is largely the reason for non-prosecution(I personally don't believe Counsel's words on not indicting because of prior precedent. They could've had a sealed indictment and carried on their way. I believe it was put in there, to give a plausible explanation(to Democrats), underlying the lack of an actual case that they had.)

Hence, why I now call it a political document. In fact, it never was a document to determine or evaluate the chances of prosecution.

However, there's a substantial difference(in my view) on the validity of the argument. In Trump's case, Trump actively helped the investigation. Meanwhile, Cheryl Mills can somehow destroy laptops with evidence while they look the other way. That's all that could be said on that, but I'll elaborate further.

Intent, in the case of handling misclassified information is that she HAD the ****ing server to begin with. In Colorado, with no one to access it and literally no one else knowing about it(or confirming otherwise to the State Department.) That shows deliberate intent to hide the server
and its intent to store those emails is obvious(for what other reason does the email server exist to do?)

So yes, she had intent. The whole operation doesn't make sense otherwise. It's not that they couldn't find intent, or prove intent. The only way their argument holds even the slightest bit of argument is that it wasn't "malicious"

And while it might not have been malicious, that doesn't mean a crime wasn't broken. Petty theft, someone might pickpocket your wallet and steal your credit card. You don't necessarily know its malicious. I won't even go with a sympathy sob story for the criminal: Let's assert scumbag is greedy, doesn't care and wants his money.

He's greedy, money hungry and overall indifferent but he's not malicious, nor is his intent malicious(at least, in general). It's just that the result is malicious to the victim.

If anything, the lack of maliciousness applies double to Donald Trump: He never committed a crime, he never commissioned a crime. The only thing he did, was try(perhaps in not-so-effective and legally endorsed ways) to defend himself, given the liability of the President to contest these false charges, literally being ran out of CNN's newsroom. Think about how much we knew about the report, prior to its being published.

I argue that Counsel ran its prosecution through the media, a HUGE no-no in the courtroom that would result in a Mistrial. If I were Defense counsel, I'd ask for all relevant records of phone conversations and otherwise that the Mueller counsel had with any newsletter organization.

 

Our federal government is completely paralyzed. Nothing substantive has come out of Washington in months, no meaningful legislation, no progress on trade deals, nothing from the White House except the border crisis, Trump's wall, and the Mueller Report and is ramifications. There is total chaos.

Putin is pleased. He is quite proud of our President. Trump is doing exactly what Putin wanted him to do.

"I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today," Trump said during a joint news conference after he spent about two hours in a room alone with Putin, except for a pair of interpreters.

 

Trump's fans are equally pleased with Trump. They voted for a contemptuous, narcissistic, mindless, completely inexperienced loudmouth because they wanted chaos in Washington. They often admit it by saying that Trump's brainless tweets and statements are designed to torment liberals. That is a shocking admission that proves my point.

Trump is not interested in governance. He is only interested in creating chaos. That is evident with every statement he makes. Plus, he a pathological liar. Americans can't believe anything he says.

 

Wait, you're blaming Trump/Putin for the actions of ****ing Pelosi and Schumer? Take your complaint up with those corrupt, old losers.

 

Is there some better way for me to argue that your opinion is worthless?

How do I argue that an apple is an apple? Mueller's memo lays out why the evidence is substantial. Your argument is nothing more than "NUH UH!" based on your non-existent understanding of how the law works. You expect us to defer to your opinion of how a court would rule on this evidence when you admit you have no experience on which to base that prediction. You seem to think that anything short of evidence that Donald outright said "I'm doing this to obstruct justice" is just speculation. You do understand that many people are convicted of crimes even when they never openly stated their motives, right? You understand that motives can be inferred from circumstances? You don't really need to be a lawyer to understand these concepts.

Wut

Cite page number and quote please.

You also might not prosecute if the department you work for has adopted a policy that the sitting president cannot be prosecuted.

What speculation are you referring to?

Here you go again pretending to be a lawyer.

 

For someone with so many opinions, you sure don't know the facts. Learn first, then develop informed opinions. You are writing paragraphs based on 5 seconds of thought and no facts.

 

Read the document yourself, you'll find the relevant passage where they complained about the difficulties in obtaining all of the evidence for yourself. I don't have the time, or respect for you to humor you in such a way

And again, your complaining about me is not a rebuttal, so we can expect that no such rebuttal exists. Where you do offer a 'rebuttal' of sorts, is where you claim that people do prosecute where they can infer intent based on events. This is speculative evidence, and while sometimes(note: Sometimes) prosecutors proceed with such a case, most of the time they don't.

Circumstantial evidence is not as firm as physical evidence. Someone fingering me at the murder scene at 9:00, and my DNA on a strand of hair are totally different. And the speculative evidence is so flimsy, it has absolutely NO chance in federal court.

Mueller does not cite a single obstructing offense in his 10 examples. And that in of itself, is all we need to know. If he cannot legally launch a complaint, he has no right to use the term obstruction.

 

but the idea of obstruction really centers around a crime. The president has all the authority to fire people in the DOJ so unless he is trying to cover something up (there was no crime to cover up) why would, he, exercising his constitutional authority, be obstruction of justice? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever... If he would've fired Mueller, even this wouldn't have been obstruction of justice...

Nixon didn't get impeached because of the saturday night massacre where he fired special prosecutor and both AG, deputy WG resigned, he was impeached because they later found evidence that he actually participated in covering up actual crimes.

The democrats and media are fabricating untruths and stuff that just isn't real. Trump had ALL the right to fire Mueller, it's in the constitution that he has this authority. Impeaching for this is a new low... a new low standard. Now if evidence surfaces that Trump was actually involved in something like colluding with Russia to hack into DNC.. and he would've fired Mueller to cover it up, different story.