Conor (below) has now shifted his focus, stating that the way they will get Trump is with a cover up. A few months ago, the Left was adamant that Trump had colluded.
Now the Russians only revealed the truth and there are no laws actually outlawing what they are claiming, but even so, the Left has backed away from believing that Trump knew at the time.
The position shift is that of someone desperate for a negative finding of some kind.
Well, doesn't there need to be a crime to have a cover up? Or are they going to make up a new rule for Trump?
(no message)
Watching the two groups responsible for Trump being in the White House hurl insults at each other because he is now...
(no message)
For example: 18 U.S.C. Section 793(f) states:
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document. . .relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer, Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
On the other hand; 18 U.S. Code § 1512 (c) provides:
(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
I suppose that Hillary's cavalier handling of classified e-mails might not have been gross negligence. By contrast, I haven't heard even any allegation that Trump destroyed any evidence and to this point in time there hasn't even been any official proceeding* that he could obstruct.
*These are defined under the statute as (A) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, or a Federal grand jury; (B) a proceeding before the Congress; (C) a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law; or (D) a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce
on the results of the investigation?
I think you are deluding yourself if you think he will be saved by this literal a reading of the statute.
There is nothing to save him from. To quote Gertrude Stein, "There is no there there."
His intereference with the FBI that caused the director to have to resign was one of the more serious charges against him.
But live in your fantasy world.
The collusion was likely with Flynn and Manafort. It's almost 100% certain at this point that Flynn (who intends to plead the fifth and not comply with the Senate subpoena) committed a crime by not registering as a foreign agent.
That said, Flynn and Manfort's crimes occurred most likely without Trump knowing (until he became president). Just like Nixon didn't order or know about the break in at Watergate initially.
However, instead of letting Flynn and Manafort fall, Trump's ego (similar to Nixon's paranoia) has caused him to want to stop the investigation, although its legally warranted. Thus the cover up. When Trump learned Flynn was being investigated for being a foreign agent, he hired him anyway...giving him access to highly classified info and giving him input in important US military matters. Trump now knows that his hiring of Flynn despite these obvious problems was incredibly stupid on his part. Since Trump's ego would never admit to a mistake, he resorted to obstructing the Flynn investigation to try to make it go away.
and being accused of obstruction of justice doesn't suggest there isn't an underlying crime. one can be independently prosecuted of 2 separate, related crimes.
It's a separate crime of obstruction to cover up what your campaign did.
Those were violations of a criminal statute. Obstruction of justice is precisely defined under the law... it's not some sort of clumsy, wishy-washy attempt to avoid getting tarnished with innuendos.
When he wouldn't doesn't qualify? Get a grip.
(no message)
of the Congressional investigation.
Read the Nixon impeachment charge. Same thing there.
i know most on here don't believe that, but just appease me for a minute and assume they did nothing. can their be obstruction of justice if no crime was committed?
I think the biggest problem for Trump is this Flynn stuff. Flynn is in some deep shit, and it turns out he lied to the Pentagon. Trump asked Comey to drop the Flynn investigation, Comey didn't, Trump fired him.
If this was just a random person you read about in the paper, I think the conclusion you'd reach is pretty straightforward.
(no message)
(no message)
Those are purely up to the judge based on statutes and legal precedents.
Sorry, but the media is fabricating too much and not vetting anything that will paint a poor picture of Trump. I am not refuting that Flynn is in hot water, and probably should be, but why don't we wait for conclusive evidence or actual testimony from Comey before taking the media's word on whether or not Trump actually tried to influence the investigation.
he is an embarrassment in so many ways that it's almost as if he craves negative attention.
(no message)
(no message)
to be made.
At least Flynn and Manafort will go down on the underlying thing.
The WH is finally taking all this seriously as it should.
United States v. Ermoian, No. 11-10124, 2013 WL 4082072 (9th Cir. August 14, 2013). Ironically, the 9th Circuit is the most progressive (sic) of our Federal Courts of Appeal.
FBI investigation.
making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;
approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;
endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;
disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;
making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct:
or
endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
All this was determined after over a year of committee hearings, conducted by a Democratically controlled Congress. It was not the result of a hyperbolic media overreaction to the Democrats loss of the White House.
Oh! And this was based upon an actual crime: the breakin at the Watergate. So far, there has been no crime identified with Trump derangement syndrome.
(no message)
(no message)
The collusion case is coming. I did not shift the focus. But, the case vs Donald Trump is that he likely obstructed the investigation (Collusion, Flynn, etc.) against OTHERS.
Moreover, and aside from all of the above, is the money trail. That is not necessarily criminal wrongdoing (money laundering) on Trump's part, but if he was financially "in bed" with the Russians, the optics/reality is that he was vulnerable to being compromised, thereby completing the circle re tax returns, campaign collusion, leaking top secret intelligence to the Russians, firing Comey, asking law enforcement to stand down, joking with the Russians about firing Comey . . . . . . and on and on.
This gets him impeached.
Try to keep up.
(no message)
Investigations take months. Even simple ones.
Watergate took years, and this one is much more complex.
Perhaps we will find out that the president is totally innocent. But everyone seems to doubt it.
And if you don't think that his obstruction and lying are going to bring him down, you're different from me.
When 95%+ of the media toward him is negative or fake, how can he possibly accomplish anything. When every piece of news you hear about him or what he supposedly has done is negative, inaccurate, or lacking any evidence outside of "unnamed sources". The desperation to bring him down is unlike anything I have ever seen.
Was it the media's fault he tweeted about Obama wiretapping him?
Was it the media's fault he made up some story about his crowd size?
Was it the media's fault he hired Mike Flynn?
Was it the media's fault he hired Manafort?
Was it the media's fault he fired Comey?
Was it the media's fault he invited Russia to the Oval office?
Was it the media's fault he went to the CIA and talked about crowd size and the electoral college?
Was it the media's fault he disclosed classified information to Russia?
Is it the media's fault he can't handle himself on Twitter?
Was it the media's fault he said an armada was going to North Korea when it wasn't?
Was it the media's fault he failed twice to pass a healthcare plan through a GOP led congress?
Was it the media's fault he said he fired Comey over Russia?
We can go on and on. When your kid takes a dump in the living room, then denies that it happened, do you say "good job"?
Why should people say something is well done, when it is not well done?
Every story you saw was negative.
It's almost like covering disasters honestly has to be negative.
(no message)
"Trump budget slashes billions from Medicaid, Social Security" - You would think he is leaving nothing left in the coffers. Actually, it is less than a 3% cut.
"Sen. Coons on Russia probe: There's 'a lot of smoke here'" - No one has yet to produce actual evidence of collusion from anyone. It is all speculation.
"Warren: Trump's agenda moving forward despite Russia probe" - Apparently the gov't should just shut down until the Russia probe is complete.
"Clinton: Trump budget an "unimaginable level of cruelty"" - The first line "This administration and Republicans in Congress are mounting an onslaught against the needs of children and people with disabilities, women and seniors". - See point one above.
"Watergate prosecutor: Trump's actions are illegal" - Apparently, President Trump has shown the "corrupt intent" necessary to prove obstruction of justice.
All of this, less than 48 hours from a terrorist attack that killed 22 kids and hurt 59 other people, yet was not mentioned in one of the top 10 "Top Stories". So, out of the top 20 "Top Stories" on the msnbc website, three are related to the terrorist attack and the other 17 are related to either Trump's budget proposal that hasn't even started going through Congress yet but is going to kill or lame half of America or the "Russian probe".
Do those numbers not at least cause you to step back and think?
from these programs - That's not a correct quote from Clinton?
Watergate prosecutor didn't actually say what he said?
Tell me, what part of the news is actually true?
Tell me how a 3% cut is an "Unimaginable level of cruelty"? i would guess that most the programs receiving minimal cuts have way more in fraud, abuse, and waste than the cut amounts to.
how can he possibly accomplish anything"
Lets see, you haven't yet pointed out any fake media coverage or noted how it's negative against Trump.
If all this coverage is true, what's your point?
When Obama wanted HC reform, much of what the Right news posted was Fake - Death Panels and so on. Where is the MSNBC story that qualifies as Fake - Let's put it on the level of Death Panels - these arguments you and others here used for Obama's desire for HC reform.
Don't act like there's this avalanche of Bullshit stories and non-truths being supported by MSNBC -
And this is the easy stuff to get ahold of - yet you can't support your statement with anything.