Absent thread from the right

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The bar isn’t nearly that high, solid evidence of obstruction is easily enough.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

obstructing what?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

obstructing what?

Justice silly
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Justice silly
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what is the crime?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

what is the crime?

A lot of possible crimes, conspiracy to influence an election, money laundering etc... etc... it’s a known fact they tried to conspire and lied about it. Funny thing is even if there’s no good conspiracy case obstruction which looks likely is enough to violate Trump’s oath...many think there’s a lot more that Mueller already has. What are we up to now like 18 indictments and 8 pleading guilty?

Witch hunt?

Do you think Mueller would give up 6 convictions of manefort with many more comments ng if he didn’t have something significant to offer?

Why are you against the application of the law?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

A lot of possible crimes,

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

good grief

[wdmso]

its rather simple the right has used Guilt thru association and conspiracy again again against the left or any one they wanted to attack .. with Zero evidence Zero convictions ,, the list is endless

Now in the Face of Many convictions tons of evidence personal Tweets
the right has circled the wagons around "we need clear and concise proof Trump did something that was actually wrong, illegal"

the sad part is the next phase ... they will say will sure its a crime but its not like he lied under oath like Clinton...

Trump cant lie under oath because he'll never put his hand on the bible and say I swear to tell the truth the whole truth so help me god .. there will be no Sworn testimony From this LAW AN ORDER POTUS below shows his lack of respect for the rule of law



George Papadopoulos conviction trump tweets

14 days for $28 MILLION - $2 MILLION a day, No Collusion. A great day for America!

5:39 PM - Sep 7, 2018

Trump tweets on Manafort conviction


I feel very badly for Paul Manafort and his wonderful family. “Justice” took a 12 year old tax case, among other things, applied tremendous pressure on him and, unlike Michael Cohen, he refused to “break” - make up stories in order to get a “deal.” Such respect for a brave man!


Mueller after Manafort plea deal

Trump

While my (our) poll numbers are good, with the Economy being the best ever, if it weren’t for the Rigged Russian Witch Hunt, they would be 25 points higher!" Trump tweeted. "Highly conflicted Bob Mueller & the 17 Angry Democrats are using this Phony issue to hurt us in the Midterms. No Collusion!"


ship captain Trump who holds the ultimate responsibility for the vessel he is commanding. to bad Conservatives dont feel that way when their at the helm

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

obstructing what?

Hilary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Andy McCarthy

"Anti-Trumpers have visions of the walls closing in on the president. I would counter with what I said after the Virginia convictions:

At this point, it does not appear that Mueller has a collusion case against Trump associates. His indictments involving Russian hacking and troll farms do not suggest complicity by the Trump campaign. I also find it hard to believe Mueller sees Manafort as the key to making a case on Trump when Mueller has had [Richard] Gates — Manafort’s partner — as a cooperator for six months. You have to figure Gates knows whatever Manafort knows about collusion. Yet, since Gates began cooperating with the special counsel, Mueller has filed the charges against Russians that do not implicate Trump, and has transferred those cases to other Justice Department components.

I elaborated that, when it comes to Manafort, Mueller’s focus is not President Trump. It is Russia, “specifically, Manafort’s longtime connections to Kremlin-connected operatives.” This seems consistent with what Manafort’s camp is telling the press. Politico quotes a source close to Trump’s former campaign chairman: “The cooperation agreement does not involve the Trump campaign. . . .There was no collusion with Russia.”

The guilty plea serves Mueller’s purposes. He already had Manafort looking at a potential 80 years of prison exposure from the first case. He did not need another trial and additional jail time to ratchet up pressure. So prosecutors dropped the money-laundering charges as well as allegations that Manafort made false statements and failed to register as a foreign agent of a Kremlin-connected Ukranian party; but Mueller still got Manafort to admit to the underlying conduct in those charges by having the defendant plead guilty to the special counsel’s favorite device, the amorphous, elastic charge of “conspiracy against the United States.” In addition, Manafort pled guilty to obstructing justice — the witness-tampering allegation based on which he has been detained without bail.

The defendant, moreover, admitted guilt to the bank-fraud charges on which the Virginia jury hung. If Manafort cooperates to Mueller’s satisfaction, these unresolved counts will be dismissed; but the admissions would make it difficult for Manafort to fight the charges if they were ever retried.

The resolution of Manafort’s cases in a manner that spares both parties a second trial and months of appeals closes an important chapter in the special counsel’s investigation. It potentially brings the end into sight. That prospect, of course, intensifies speculation about the president’s status. To borrow, again, from what I said three weeks ago, Mueller’s focus on Trump seems to involve possible obstruction of the investigation, not so-called collusion.

If we assume, for argument’s sake, that the special counsel has wanted to make a criminal case on the president (I’ve never been fully convinced of this), the challenge Mueller has had from the start is that there was no underlying crime to predicate his investigation. He was rashly appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in the uproar over the president’s ham-fisted firing of FBI director James Comey. But terminating executive-branch officers is not obstruction; it is a prerogative of the presidency. If it is done abusively or for unsavory motives, that could be grounds for impeachment, but not for criminal prosecution.

Ditto harassing the attorney general, contemplating the removal of the special counsel himself, and allegedly weighing in on whether Michael Flynn, the former national-security adviser, should be investigated. We can all agree — or, at least, many of us do agree — that it would be better if the president did not do such things. It should be indisputable, though, that the Constitution endows him with the authority to do them. If you don’t like it, vote him out of office . . . but it is not the business of prosecutors.

As for “collusion,” it is not a crime unless it rises to the level of conspiracy to violate a federal criminal law. At least publicly, despite all the intelligence leaks, there has never been credible evidence that the president conspired with the Russian regime to commit cyberespionage or any other crime"