demagogue on 24/7/2019 at 16:21
A sitting president can't be charged by a court, only by Congress in an impeachment hearing.
Anyway, the report itself is pretty straightforward, at least for a lawyer.
The entire second part on the Obstruction reads basically like:
Here are 10 separate situations of obstruction, each one with about 4 or 5 counts, so here's like 50 counts of obstruction (he doesn't separate it into counts, so it's not clear how many counts there are, but I think it's more than the 10 cases alone. For one thing there have already been more counts since the report was released.)
Then he literally walks through all ~50 counts--keep in mind each is a separate count, so if Trump is innocent of one count, it says nothing about the other 49; he has to dodge all 50 bullets--and at the end of each of the "10 cases" he gives a legal analysis which is always basically the same.
"A jury would have to decide whether Trump did this particular act for some "innocent reason" (like merely lying to journalists or the public, or because of genuine affection for witnesses lol) or for some "obstruction reason" (like lying to investigators, firing or threatening to fire people to impede the investigation, and pressuring/tempting witnesses to be silent or lie favorably to Trump), and the report always has this kind of phrasing, like looking at the evidence we have, here are 2 pieces of flimsy evidence that kind of sort of might support the innocent explanation in isolation, but remember we can't look at pieces in isolation we have to look at the whole body of evidence, and here are 30 pieces of evidence that overwhelming support the obstructionist account. Or: the innocent explanation doesn't have any real basis in the evidence that we were able to find, although Trump's lawyers may argue XYZ in his defense if they are able to find and show evidence of XYZ. But again it's up to a jury to decide whether the 30 pieces of overwhelming evidence we found actually support the obstructionist narrative or they are persuaded by hypothetical evidence of XYZ.
And then you get responses to it like: Oh well, shit, Trump must be innocent after all!
For living fuck's sake, he gives the entire prosecution's case wrapped up with a bow. He gives mountains of evidence, going at lengths to see how it could spin for both the innocent narratives and the obstructionist narratives over all 50 some odd counts as even handedly as he can muster. I think the only way it will sink in to the public is if you literally walk through each count very directly -- like:
1. In two separate appearances on national news, Trump floated the prospect of a pardon for Manafort and was happy because he "doesn't flip", was Trump: (A) signaling to Manafort that he might get a pardon if he "doesn't flip", where "flip" in this case means to give testimony against Trump, or (B) some innocent use of words "he should get a pardon" and "I like that he doesn't flip" that have nothing to do with Manafort's upcoming testimony that might be damaning to Trump? He should get a pardon just because he's a nice guy, and by "flip"... uh, that was just off the cuff to a journalist on national news. Trump didn't even know Manafort might be able to hear that, much less act on it.
2. Or: when Trump uses the phrase "call me when it's done" after he told McGahn to fire Mueller, was that (A) ordering McGahn to fire Mueller and call him when it's done or (B) some innocent expression that Trump is leaving it up to McGahn to decide what course of action to take, and by "call me when it's done" he means of course "call me when you've decided what's the best course of action regarding Mueller. You do what you think is right, and I trust you to decide. I'm not indicating in any way which was is better one way or another." Or McGahn just made up the words "call me when it's done" and wrote it in his notepad at the time which he then locked in his safe lol because... IDK, McGahn is the White House lawyer... His central job is to protect the president. Why would he write that in his notepad at the time & lock it in his safe? I'm putting my imagination on overdrive here and still can't come up with a good reasoning for why he'd just make that up, but I'm sure they'll scrounge up something.
3. Or: When Trump said he was firing Comey to "make the Russia thing go away" and said he demands Comey's "loyalty", was he (A) firing Comey to make the Russia investigation go away and demanding Comey's loyalty in the investigation or (B) firing Comey for reasons that had nothing to do with Russia, because he was unpopular in the FBI, no wait (there was no evidence of that), because Rosenstein recommended it, no wait (Rosenstein explicitly denied that), because he botched up the Clinton investigation, yeah, that's it, and Comey just made up that "I demand loyalty" phrase and wrote it in his journal immediately after the meeting because just after being complimented and wined & dined by the President he foresaw that 3 or 4 years later he might get upset at the President and could use that made up phrase in a case against him. Edit: And oh yeah, nothing screams "innocent explanation" more than changing your story literally three times when the first two times were very pubilcaly exposed as blatant lies, but sure the third one, that must be bedrock solid and what he meant from the beginning he just forgot to mention it. And that has to prove that certainly it had nothing to do with "removing the cloud of Russia" despite Trump saying that constantly at the time.
If you were a jury member, what would YOU think, (A) or (B)??
And then go through the other 30 or 40 or whatever counts like that. I really think you have to literally walk through it at that level for it to start to sink in.
jkcerda on 24/7/2019 at 16:31
what is stopping congress?
Nicker on 24/7/2019 at 16:37
Quote Posted by jkcerda
then WHY hasn't he been charged? what are the democrats waiting for?
2020 the left has nothing again.
Because of the fucking ancient DOJ memo. Seriously? You are going to pretend to be ignorant of this?
Quote Posted by jkcerda
what is stopping congress?
Good question. Better question, in what way does this exonerate Trump and excoriate the ghost of Hillary Clinton?
Jingle jingle.
jkcerda on 24/7/2019 at 16:42
Quote Posted by Nicker
Because of the fucking ancient DOJ memo. Seriously? You are going to pretend to be ignorant of this?
Good question. Better question, in what way does this exonerate Trump and excoriate the ghost of Hillary Clinton?
Jingle jingle.
I am fine with BOTH trump and Hillary being "guilty" but not proven YET :D
Renzatic on 24/7/2019 at 17:11
A CAN OF MACE FOR ALL CONTRARIANS! :mad:
Nicker on 24/7/2019 at 17:28
If you are confused by your own politics and evidence that by your words on other forums, that's not our problem. Here you consistently support Trump.
Jingle jingle.
Nicker on 24/7/2019 at 17:29
Mueller totally exonerates Trump again...
[video=youtube;QswOr9gurSc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QswOr9gurSc[/video]
Whoops! Wrong video!!