This morning Donald Trump finally admitted to "Russia helping [him] to get elected"

[A.J.]

If you yourself obstruct a police investigation because you yourself feel it is an unfair investigation... will you be charged? You would be. The president should be held to the same legal code as everyone else.

Too bad Meuller did not recommend that. Nothing rose to that level. If anything much of the evidence points that the investigation was a hoax and the criminality lies with the deep state players .... under these circumstances trump was more than patient. You have to look at the whole picture here.

Barr screwed up their plans and put a stop to it

 

[A.J.]

If you yourself obstruct a police investigation because you yourself feel it is an unfair investigation... will you be charged? You would be. The president should be held to the same legal code as everyone else.

Was the investigation justified?

 

[justjess]

Was the investigation justified?

It does not matter if it was justified or not. You’d still be charged.

Why do different rules apply to common citizens? And the investigation found plenty whether or not you want to admit or accept it. How many indictments?

 

[A.J.]

It does not matter if it was justified or not. You’d still be charged.

Why do different rules apply to common citizens? And the investigation found plenty whether or not you want to admit or accept it. How many indictments?

I’m alarmed at your reasoning...

You are leading with the idea that it’s ok that there was nothing legitimate to open up an investigation on (and probably spy on and ultimately set up) a sitting president, maybe you don’t think that occurred, which is ok.

But you don’t have trump derangement syndrome do you? Ok that was a joke.

But seriously, try and look at the whole picture. If the new standard is guilt before innocence and we see this with liberals when somebody’s line of thought does not line up with what is politically correct, they are merely GUILTY... of something.

So, in this country, despite what you usually hear. You are innocent until proven guilty. And you just can’t accuse somebody without evidence. This should terrify us all if this is no longer the case.

So why was as investigation opened against Trump?

 

[justjess]

I’m alarmed at your reasoning...

You are leading with the idea that it’s ok that there was nothing legitimate to open up an investigation on (and probably spy on and ultimately set up) a sitting president, maybe you don’t think that occurred, which is ok.

But you don’t have trump derangement syndrome do you? Ok that was a joke.

But seriously, try and look at the whole picture. If the new standard is guilt before innocence and we see this with liberals when somebody’s line of thought does not line up with what is politically correct, they are merely GUILTY... of something.

So, in this country, despite what you usually hear. You are innocent until proven guilty. And you just can’t accuse somebody without evidence. This should terrify us all if this is no longer the case.

So why was as investigation opened against Trump?

Authorizing and conducting an investigation is not “guilt before innocence”. It’s an investigation and that’s how things work when a crime is suspected. No ones feeling that it isn’t fair has ever been accepted as a defense against obstruction before. If there was nothing to hide he could have just let the investigation proceed with no worries.

It’s not like they had no justification for the entire investigation. Russia has been proved to have interfered with the election and numerous trump
Staffers have been indicted and are sitting in prison.

Had we impeached him or filed criminal charges against him WITHOUT an investigation that would have been GUILT BEFORE INNOCENCE but that isn’t what happened.

As it is he clearly committed a crime that can’t be charged because he’s the president. Apparantly that little loophole was passed under Nixon, no surprise. I’m still surprised but I guess I shouldn’t have been.

And the investigation wasn’t just of trump. It was of the whole entire situation - including trump but not limited to trump. They had plenty of REASONABLE CAUSE to start the investigation. If they hadn’t it wouldn’t have been approved.

It’s one thing to sit here and insist the president is innocent - despite evidence - it’s another to entirely rewrite history.

 

[Aero]

Yeah, I don't think you can obstruct justice to a crime that didn't happen. Of course, I haven't checked for precedents, but it seems highly dependent on the judge.

I don't think that electing Trump was a matter of National Security for the Russians. I think they were just butthurt.

 

[justjess]

Yeah, I don't think you can obstruct justice to a crime that didn't happen. Of course, I haven't checked for precedents, but it seems highly dependent on the judge.

I don't think that electing Trump was a matter of National Security for the Russians. I think they were just butthurt.

“The highest-profile example of trying a case of obstruction without an underlying crime that our experts could think of was the prosecution of Martha Stewart, the founder of a popular lifestyle and media company. Stewart was tried on charges related to her sale of 4,000 shares of ImClone, a pharmaceutical company, one day before the company’s stock price plummeted.

The charges of securities fraud were thrown out, but prosecutors persisted with charges of obstruction of justice and lying to investigators. She was found guilty of four counts and in 2004 was sentenced to five months of prison, five months of house arrest, and two years of probation.

Stewart "surely feared reputational and business harm" even in the absence of a crime, said Robert Weisberg, co-director of Stanford University’s Criminal Justice Center.

Another notable example is the case of Scooter Libby, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, said Samuel Buell, a law professor at Duke University. Libby was charged by a special prosecutor with obstruction, perjury and false statements, but not any underlying crime related to the outing of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame. (Trump pardoned Libby.)”

 

[Aero]

“The highest-profile example of trying a case of obstruction without an underlying crime that our experts could think of was the prosecution of Martha Stewart, the founder of a popular lifestyle and media company. Stewart was tried on charges related to her sale of 4,000 shares of ImClone, a pharmaceutical company, one day before the company’s stock price plummeted.

The charges of securities fraud were thrown out, but prosecutors persisted with charges of obstruction of justice and lying to investigators. She was found guilty of four counts and in 2004 was sentenced to five months of prison, five months of house arrest, and two years of probation.

Stewart "surely feared reputational and business harm" even in the absence of a crime, said Robert Weisberg, co-director of Stanford University’s Criminal Justice Center.

Another notable example is the case of Scooter Libby, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, said Samuel Buell, a law professor at Duke University. Libby was charged by a special prosecutor with obstruction, perjury and false statements, but not any underlying crime related to the outing of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame. (Trump pardoned Libby.)”

In the case against Martha, real charges were drawn up. My source is telling me she was also found guilty of conspiracy.

Scooter Libby is a pretty good example though. It's correct that he wasn't charged with outing a member of the CIA. But the whole foundation of the case still revolved around that premise. The government was acting like Libby could have directly got someone killed. And that is all a matter of opinion.

You can draw the parallels if you want. But I don't think we know enough about the Mueller report. All I can say is there seems to be a personal element to all these cases. Like if it's more about one side winning, justice loses either way.

 

[A.J.]

Authorizing and conducting an investigation is not “guilt before innocence”. It’s an investigation and that’s how things work when a crime is suspected. No ones feeling that it isn’t fair has ever been accepted as a defense against obstruction before. If there was nothing to hide he could have just let the investigation proceed with no worries.

It’s not like they had no justification for the entire investigation. Russia has been proved to have interfered with the election and numerous trump
Staffers have been indicted and are sitting in prison.

Had we impeached him or filed criminal charges against him WITHOUT an investigation that would have been GUILT BEFORE INNOCENCE but that isn’t what happened.

As it is he clearly committed a crime that can’t be charged because he’s the president. Apparantly that little loophole was passed under Nixon, no surprise. I’m still surprised but I guess I shouldn’t have been.

And the investigation wasn’t just of trump. It was of the whole entire situation - including trump but not limited to trump. They had plenty of REASONABLE CAUSE to start the investigation. If they hadn’t it wouldn’t have been approved.

It’s one thing to sit here and insist the president is innocent - despite evidence - it’s another to entirely rewrite history.

There was absolutely no justification for this investigation. And you have not provided any. So your issue with trump sounds partisan and personal or at least biased. You don’t like the guy, I get it. That doesn’t mean he deserves to get put through the ringer. That’s not how our law is suppose to work. This was political from the start. You don’t investigate on the premise that if he’s innocent it will be proven. This is not the Soviet Union. Who else was charged for Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential election? I’m unfamiliar....

They purposely opened an investigation under false pretenses and this ain’t over.

You can talk impeachment all you want, but you have to start with the crimes against trump first, this is why Meuller is being so shady. This is also why impeachment will not be pursued.

 

[justjess]

I never claimed I did. But the investigation wouldn’t have been permitted without any justification and the numerous indictments that stemmed from the investigation (and guilty sentences) beg to differ with your analysis.

Partisan? I didn’t like trump since trump was a democrat. I didn’t like trump way before he ever had a spark in his brain telling him to be a politician. I didn’t like him before his show. I have never liked him. I never will. Maybe you didn’t have the opportunity to make an informed decision about him until 2016, but I did. He’s from nyc and so am I and his bullshits been common knowledge around here for a long time.

Indictments: https://www.axios.com/mueller-russia-investigation-timeline-indictments-70433acd-9ef7-424d-aa01-b962ae5c9647.html

Justification: https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/what-started-the-trump-russia-investigation-1.5788518

 

[polymoog]

I won't argue that. At all. I'm simply saying that Hillary Clinton would have likely imposed harsh sanctions and quicker so it would have been more productive for them to have Trump or Sanders in office. The later would impose sanctions, but that would pretty much be the end of it. The former can be easily played since he's got a huge ego. Clinton is a warhawk and a career politician.

i dont have the time to find all the data right now (its late) but i recall that hillary wanted more involvement in the middle east and trump was fine with russia handling the syrian situation at the time. from my POV-- and i would need some time to bring up the hard evidence so i will simply express the theme here-- is that hillary was determined to assist in the greater israel project for the NWO. russian "meddling" in iraq ruined it (not to mention that russia had, at the time, said they would refuse to import any GMO food into their country. big corporations surely didnt care for that and their russian attitude of independence from the US. russia is not one of the countries that the US (NWO) can dictate their whims and push around-- russia wont put up with it, and thats why they are targeted and vilified. russia isnt tied into the US economy like china and therefore does not have to take american bullying.).

The CIA does the same world over, too. That's how we fight wars these days; we influence elections, orchestrate coups, and spread propaganda.

thats a fact. all countries meddle in others elections. if there was any russian interference in the election, it made absolutely no difference at all in the outcome. what YT, twitter, FB, and other social media platforms are doing to conservatives by banning/removing them is by FAR more influential.

by the way, it was reported that russia gave millions to the clinton foundation. even if that money went to her campaign, that still had no bearing on the elections outcome.
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/russian-government-initiative-gave-millions-to-clinton-foundation/

 

[A.J.]

I never claimed I did. But the investigation wouldn’t have been permitted without any justification and the numerous indictments that stemmed from the investigation (and guilty sentences) beg to differ with your analysis.

Partisan? I didn’t like trump since trump was a democrat. I didn’t like trump way before he ever had a spark in his brain telling him to be a politician. I didn’t like him before his show. I have never liked him. I never will. Maybe you didn’t have the opportunity to make an informed decision about him until 2016, but I did. He’s from nyc and so am I and his bullshits been common knowledge around here for a long time.

Indictments: https://www.axios.com/mueller-russia-investigation-timeline-indictments-70433acd-9ef7-424d-aa01-b962ae5c9647.html

Justification: https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/what-started-the-trump-russia-investigation-1.5788518

So you think our government is above witch hunts? Which indictments and guilty sentences relate directly to Russian collusion tied to Trump in the presidential election?

Also.....

Barr was asked about why Mueller had failed to come to a conclusion on the question of obstruction of justice during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 1st. He said, “We were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction and we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this. Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction.”

Barr made a similar remark at the press conference he held prior to the public release of the redacted Mueller Report. He told reporters, “We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that was not his position.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/06/mueller_and_obstruction_of_justice.html

 

[justjess]

Did you read the list of indictments? The investigation wasn’t only into trump.

Did you listen to his press conference? Even fox is saying he was giving instructions for impeachment and I don’t watch or like fox.

 

[Lurker]

The investigation wasn’t only into trump

I think it was, just they got caught in the net. Their charges/convictions really had very little, if anything, to do with the premise of the investigation.

Even fox is saying he was giving instructions for impeachment and I don’t watch or like fox.

It was Mueller's job to recommend/not recommend charges, instead he punted to congress. Not that it matters, the house is eager to impeach and I don't see the senate going along, so it's kinda moot.

 

[justjess]

I think it was, just they got caught in the net. Their charges/convictions really had very little, if anything, to do with the premise of the investigation.

It was Mueller's job to recommend/not recommend charges, instead he punted to congress. Not that it matters, the house is eager to impeach and I don't see the senate going along, so it's kinda moot.

The investigation started with staffers - papadopoulos (?) to be specific. It expanded to trump and obstruction later. Atleast that’s how I understand it. Most of them were charged with lying about contacts with Russian agents so it seems relevant to me.

He did punt to congress and I don’t think he should have. But it is what it is. Impeachment will accomplish nothing. So it’s all a bunch of nothing except yet another lesson about the skewed criminal justice system.. the more power u have, the more untouchable you are. But we all knew that already anyway.

 

[Lurker]

yet another lesson about the skewed criminal justice system.. the more power u have, the more untouchable you are. But we all knew that already anyway.

Yep, true story.

 

[The Zone]

Do you believe there is a deep state? Because the war against Trump has the establishment written all over it. Now, I know some will say it is all orchestrated and all sides are the same, which it is when it comes to the deep state who wants to push the country into certain things.

But you cannot orchestrate what we are seeing on the fly, meaning the hyper anger we are seeing against Trump is unlike anything seen in history. If you keep making mainstream media talking points in your arguments it sure seems like some here are buying into all they hear and read with slanted sources. If it is not clear by now that unusual measures were used against Trump, then it is time to get ones head out of the sand. And everyone who is called Trump supporters here would all call him out if he crosses real lines and not some which all politicians past have, IMO for they are more libertarian in their beliefs than far right.

And no offense Jess, but you do seem very partisan when it comes to political discussions always leaning left. Always social justice like. However, everyone here is likely in agreement that power corrupts and that those with power get off way too damned often in everyday life doing what you and I would go to jail for. Sidenote - your opinion is as good as mine for I believe in free speech and expression.

 

[justjess]

Yeah I lean left. But I hated trump when he was a democrat. And “leaning left” doesn’t even mean I support the Democratic Party.. over all I don’t. I also don’t agree with every single left position. Not even close. I have certain things I’m passionate about - mainly the economy and women’s rights within it - and my positions on those happen align more closely with the left (the true left not the corporate left which is the majority). But I’m all for gun rights, think identity politics are a distraction, think the police state is super out of control, not comfortable with transgenders etc. I’m not some walking caricature.

I’d be more inclined to agree with you on trump if I hadn’t been exposed to him and his ways decades before his celebrity or politician status. As it stands I can never respect a man who refuses to pay his bills and treats women like objects to acquire and use as he sees fit. I also can not give him the benefit of the doubt when the majority of what he’s done in office directly attacks those few issues mentioned earlier I feel so strongly about.

Do I believe in a deep state? Yeah. He wouldn’t have got in if they didn’t want him. Your job is perhaps to figure out why. My guess is Israel and the Middle East. Maybe they needed a nutjob to accomplish their goals there, idk. The attacks on trump and the support of trump are both over exaggerated by the media and both serve a purpose. That’s why I don’t watch it. I have friends and family that are avid trump supporters and friends and family that avidly hate him and the majority don’t care either way. But the majority haven’t been literally obsessed with economic freedom and justice since grade school. I have. I envy them. It is what it is. Blame tupac

 

[The Zone]

Then please try to explain how Hillary who was a deep state wet dream lost.

 

[justjess]

Then please try to explain how Hillary who was a deep state wet dream lost.

You are assuming you know what the deep state wants at every particular moment in time. The truth is we don’t know. We have no idea. We might fool ourselves into thinking we know but we don’t.

Hilary was a horrible candidate. Everyone knew from day 1 she was a horrible candidate. The democratic establishment had to have some reason for putting her forward despite knowing this. Sanders would have won according to every poll out there and yet they chose her. I can only assume it’s because 1) sanders pissed off israel 2) sanders was talking about economic changes the establishment didn’t want.

Since being elected all trumps populist promises have amounted to nothing. Taxes for rich and corporations have been lowered, the middle class did not benefit and the jobs promised from it have not materialized. Further cuts to the support net are being proposed every day. Further limits on women’s rights are being passed everyday. And I don’t see how he’s disrupted what the wealthy elite want in any way shape of form.

Why would Hilary be a wet dream for them? She’s god awful but she was campaigning on promises they didn’t want to keep. And in order to satisfy her base she would have had to have tried. No one cares either way if trump gets his wall or if he keeps trying to get his wall to please his base. They only care about money. And he’s given it to them in plenty. He moved the embassy to Jerusalem which is the first step in a process they’ve been pushing for if you believe the spiritual angle. He’s on the verge of war with Iran which would appease the military contractors behind the scenes, if that’s your angle. I mean I just don’t see how he’s done anything to upset the establishment at all.

I guess that depends on who you view as the establishment but I’m personally of the opinion that a bunch of minorities screaming for equal rights and politically correct language definately isn’t it.