Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
26 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: the Donald accidentally admits Obstruction of Justice on Twitter rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Welcome Rolling Stones
Latvia
Bullshit
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

If Flynn's actions were lawful, why did he lie to the FBI about it?

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Especially since no one has ever been prosecuted for violating the Logan Act which was passed in 1799. Was he just that stupid?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Welcome Rolling Stones
Latvia
Bullshit
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Now the Trumples are saying that it was not the Donald that sent the tweet, but it was his lawyer. I think that is even worse!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If it says "I" then he is responsible. Besides, he is lying anyway.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Brown
United States
Okemos
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
Was he just that stupid?


Rhetorical.
9 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edgar the Woebringer
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
mb
This kind of thing is one of the two reasons that he shouldn't be kicked off Twitter. I have no idea if that's even possible to do, but it's something I see brought up. Trump damages himself by his spastic unfiltered bleats. Twitter is a (small) rope by which he can hang himself.

The other reason is similar, just that it gives us all a reminder from time to time what the man is really about, in a way that WH press statements can't. It's embarrassing that the world gets to read it, but we need a strong bout of shame for electing this dud in the first place. I hope the GOP lawmakers cringe every time he tweets...I know many of the supporters love it, and that serves as a reminder of what *they* are about as well.
14 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Kearns
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
flag msg tools
Silence is golden.
badge
Your sea is so great and my boat is so small.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Apparently his lawyer wrote that. Not the Donald, posting on #realDonaldTrump.

His lawyer?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
Mostly made up of spare parts and sarcasm! ... HTTP Error 418 I'm a Teapot!
Avatar
mbmb
That darn senility - he nearly did the honorable thing but forgot the 45.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Probability of his lawyer writing that tweet = 0.

Probability Trump wrote it, not realizing he would be incriminating himself = 1.

Not sure why Mueller would even wait at this point to bring forth an obstruction charge. This tweet indicated he obstructed justice, by telling Comey to give Flynn a break. Combined the fact that he fully admitted to Lester Holt on video that he fired Comey because of Russia, combined with the fact that he told Kislyak and Lavarov in HIS office that the 'kook' Comey is gone now, so the pressure is relieved, should be enough to convict.

Of course, I know this is not the way things work. Mueller will plod on, and likely bag people higher than Flynn on collusion charges, but the obstruction here is, to me, blatantly obvious. Or at least, if all else fails, worthy of pursuing.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Humor from the tweet world;









3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
abadolato01 wrote:
Humor from the tweet world;
That one is funny.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
From http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/04/alan-dershowitz-obstru...


On "Fox & Friends," Dershowitz countered that Trump had the constitutional power to fire FBI Director James Comey and to tell the Justice Department who to investigate and who not to investigate.

"If Congress were ever to charge him with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, we'd have a constitutional crisis," Dershowitz said.

He explained that Congress would have to demonstrate "clearly illegal acts" on Trump's part, such as former President Richard Nixon paying "hush money," telling people to lie and destroying evidence in the Watergate scandal.

"There's never been a case in history where a president has been charged with obstruction of justice for merely exercising his constitutional authority. That would cause a constitutional crisis in the United States," Dershowitz said, adding that he hopes Special Counsel Robert Mueller understands that before he considers bringing an indictment or recommending that the matter be referred to Congress.

"And Sen. Feinstein simply doesn't know what she's talking about when she says it's obstruction of justice to do what a president is completely authorized to do under the Constitution."

He added that if Trump truly wanted to impede Mueller's investigation, he could have pardoned Gen. Michael Flynn to prevent him from cooperating.

"The president would have had the complete authority do so and Flynn never would have been indicted, never would have turned as a witness against him," said Dershowitz, a lifelong Democrat.


Dershowitz showing the defense here, and his is a lifelong Democrat. In other words, it was well within Trumps authority to fire Comey, and to tell Comey to lay off Flynn. The Trump defense team may definitely play this strategy up, if it ever came to a courtroom showdown.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
BG.EXE
United States
flag msg tools
I favor Euros, but I like pretty much all games.
badge
Don't forget to have fun!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
And there will be no consequences, because nothing matters anymore.
What a world.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
abadolato01 wrote:
From http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/04/alan-dershowitz-obstru...


He explained that Congress would have to demonstrate "clearly illegal acts" on Trump's part, such as former President Richard Nixon paying "hush money," telling people to lie and destroying evidence in the Watergate scandal.
If everything he says is true, this is a real problem with the system. How can you demonstrate illegal acts when the President has the power to shut down all existing government investigative agencies from collecting evidence? Does Congress need it's own Law Enforcement agency now?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/trump-john-dowd-obstr...

Trumps lawyer picking up on the Dershowitz mode of thinking. Is this an argument that has merits legally? We need a lawyer to chime in. Trump is, theroretically, the chief law enforcement man in this country. Can he run it any way he sees fit. I am not sure that, legally, there are any formal laws in place that prevent him from using the DOJ as he wishes. The past presidents wisdom to NOT mingle in the affairs of the DOJ were not forced by any laws, to my knowledge, but rather simply based on long standing traditions, to avoid any impression of 'tampering' and 'impropriety'. But does the Constitution really prevent (legally) Trump from using the Department as he sees fit, which may include firing Comey, and asking Comey to lay off Flynn?

I am curious, because this may be an angle that Trumps defense may largely take, indicating that, for all this obstruction of justice talk, there can really be no obstruction of justice, since no laws were broken.

This article hits it on the head;

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-justice-depart...

The PROTOCOL is not to have the President interfere in the DOJ investigations directly. But there is nothing on the lawbooks (to my knowledge) that specifically PROHIBITS this.

Oddly enough, I can see this tpye of defense gaining traction, and seeing the need for this issue to be 'clarified' by the Supreme Court, or 'clarified' legislatively after Trump leaves office. In other words, perhaps his powers as the chief law enforcement officer have to be more clearly defined (on paper), in terms of what he can and cannot do legally.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
From http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/04/alan-dershowitz-obstru...


He explained that Congress would have to demonstrate "clearly illegal acts" on Trump's part, such as former President Richard Nixon paying "hush money," telling people to lie and destroying evidence in the Watergate scandal.
If everything he says is true, this is a real problem with the system. How can you demonstrate illegal acts when the President has the power to shut down all existing government investigative agencies from collecting evidence? Does Congress need it's own Law Enforcement agency now?


That's why Congress can appoint an independent counsel outside of the strictures of the FBI via the United States office of the Independent Counsel, which is created through the Ethics in Government Act
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
Avatar
mb

There's blood in the water.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
From http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/04/alan-dershowitz-obstru...


He explained that Congress would have to demonstrate "clearly illegal acts" on Trump's part, such as former President Richard Nixon paying "hush money," telling people to lie and destroying evidence in the Watergate scandal.
If everything he says is true, this is a real problem with the system. How can you demonstrate illegal acts when the President has the power to shut down all existing government investigative agencies from collecting evidence? Does Congress need it's own Law Enforcement agency now?


That's why Congress can appoint an independent counsel outside of the strictures of the FBI via the United States office of the Independent Counsel, which is created through the Ethics in Government Act


Yes, but the Independent Counsel is looking for illegal acts. What Trumps lawyer seems to be stating is that there is no illegal act, Trump is constitutionally the chief law enforcement officer, and can operate the DOJ as he sees fit. Now the Independent Counsel can find other illegalities, not related to obstruction of justice, but the Trump team seem to be pushing this new defense, that may gain some traction. It may be the case that was traditionally done in the past (non-interference of the President in DOJ matters) is being questioned (by Trump and his team), based on legal arguments, not long standing traditions.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
abadolato01 wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
From http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/04/alan-dershowitz-obstru...


He explained that Congress would have to demonstrate "clearly illegal acts" on Trump's part, such as former President Richard Nixon paying "hush money," telling people to lie and destroying evidence in the Watergate scandal.
If everything he says is true, this is a real problem with the system. How can you demonstrate illegal acts when the President has the power to shut down all existing government investigative agencies from collecting evidence? Does Congress need it's own Law Enforcement agency now?


That's why Congress can appoint an independent counsel outside of the strictures of the FBI via the United States office of the Independent Counsel, which is created through the Ethics in Government Act


Yes, but the Independent Counsel is looking for illegal acts. What Trumps lawyer seems to be stating is that there is no illegal act, Trump is constitutionally the chief law enforcement officer, and can operate the DOJ as he sees fit. Now the Independent Counsel can find other illegalities, not related to obstruction of justice, but the Trump team seem to be pushing this new defense, that may gain some traction. It may be the case that was traditionally done in the past (non-interference of the President in DOJ matters) is being questioned (by Trump and his team), based on legal arguments, not long standing traditions.


Mueller isn't an independent counsel. He is Special Counsel, working for the FBI. An Independent Counsel is distinct from the FBI.

I was answering the question of how can you find evidence against the President if the President controls the FBI. The answer is, you don't use the FBI, you use the Office of Independent Counsel
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
Avatar
mb
If it turns out they can prove the lawyer is lying can he be charged or dis-bared?

If so Donnie's -fin-.

If 'the Kush' cops a plea...

Of course I've thought this before... Like most white collar criminals he'll walk away unharmed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
From http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/04/alan-dershowitz-obstru...


He explained that Congress would have to demonstrate "clearly illegal acts" on Trump's part, such as former President Richard Nixon paying "hush money," telling people to lie and destroying evidence in the Watergate scandal.
If everything he says is true, this is a real problem with the system. How can you demonstrate illegal acts when the President has the power to shut down all existing government investigative agencies from collecting evidence? Does Congress need it's own Law Enforcement agency now?


That's why Congress can appoint an independent counsel outside of the strictures of the FBI via the United States office of the Independent Counsel, which is created through the Ethics in Government Act


Yes, but the Independent Counsel is looking for illegal acts. What Trumps lawyer seems to be stating is that there is no illegal act, Trump is constitutionally the chief law enforcement officer, and can operate the DOJ as he sees fit. Now the Independent Counsel can find other illegalities, not related to obstruction of justice, but the Trump team seem to be pushing this new defense, that may gain some traction. It may be the case that was traditionally done in the past (non-interference of the President in DOJ matters) is being questioned (by Trump and his team), based on legal arguments, not long standing traditions.


Mueller isn't an independent counsel. He is Special Counsel, working for the FBI. An Independent Counsel is distinct from the FBI.

I was answering the question of how can you find evidence against the President if the President controls the FBI. The answer is, you don't use the FBI, you use the Office of Independent Counsel


I am unaware if the President has the power to squash an independent counsel, but even if not, their investigative powers may be seriously limited, if Trump has control over the DOJ (of which the FBI is part).

No one is disputing the fact that Trump has the authority to fire Mueller, the only debate there is whether he should or not. But this is more a political question than a legal one (as Nixon found out the hard way).

I would think that the best way to avoid abuse of the DOJ is simply to effectively legislate what the President can and cannot do with respect to it. Something that is, in my view, not totally defined in the parameters of the Constitution itself.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For anyone interested, this is Brookings report on this issue, don't be daunted by it's length, the summary points are below the link;

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/preside...

The
public record
contains substantial
evidence that President
T rump attempted to
impede the
investigations of
Michael Flynn and
Russian interference in
the 2016 presidential
election, including by
firing FBI Director
James Comey.

T he fact that the
president has lawful
authority to take a
particular course of
action does not
immunize him if he takes
that action with the
unlawf
ul intent of
obstructing a
proceeding for an
improper purpose.

While the matter is not
free from doubt, it is our
view that neither the
Constitution nor any
other federal law grants
the president immunity
from prosecution.

The publication of this paper
comes at a time when our
understanding of the facts is
still developing and without
the benefit of the
investigative tools that a
prosecutor (or even a defense
attorney) might e
mploy.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Professor of Pain
United States
St. Joseph
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dkearns wrote:
Apparently his lawyer wrote that. Not the Donald, posting on #realDonaldTrump.

His lawyer?


Trump’s lawyer claims responsibility for president’s problematic tweet
Quote:
Dowd told NBC News that he drafted the tweet and then sent it to White House Social Media Director Dan Scavino to publish. When asked for the original email he sent to Scavino, Dowd said he dictated it orally.


6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
Avatar
mb
I hope his lawyers are being paid a lot of money, they deserve it!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rcbevco wrote:
I hope his lawyers are being paid a lot of money, they deserve it!


Mr Dowd may not be on that payroll much longer. It will be kind of hard to continue to be his lawyer if Mueller decides to call him in for questioning on this tweet he claims is his.

Are all his lawyers this stupid (yes a rhetorical question)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.