ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 7th October 2019, 12:44 PM   #161
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,023
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
No, because as already discussed, "high crimes and misdemeanors" includes things that aren't statutory crimes, per se, but rather any betrayal of public trust. If it just said "crimes and misdemeanors" then it would be interpreted to mean only that.
Ah okay. Thanks for clarifying.

I've long understood that in order to be an effective tool in our system of checks and balances, impeachment had to be able to remove for reasons other than statutory crimes.

Your claim seems to be that "high crimes" is actually a term with a specific technical meaning, and that it's this term that tells us explicitly that impeachment covers non-statutory transgressions. Am I understanding you clearly now?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 01:31 PM   #162
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,938
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
"Wrong" and "illegal" are not synonyms. Furthermore, there are many reasons why someone might hide something other than being wrong. One of Trump's primary opponents for the coming election had a famous incident where he said he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail, when in fact he was nowhere near the Appalachian Trail. I don't think that's evidence that he was committing a crime.
I kind of feel you are deliberately missing my point here. First off, when there is the basis of a crime established, and we're only looking at motive, then yes, "wrong" in this context does mean "illegal." Secondly, you show an example which clearly shows someone knew their actions were wrong and tried covering them up, which was exactly what was being pointed out.

I'm not saying that a cover up is evidence of a crime, rather it is evidence that the person(s) involved in the cover up knew their actions were wrong, and in the case of covering up a potential crime, knew their actions were illegal. This goes to their understanding and intent.

Quote:
That's kind of a scary standard in the hands of a prosecutor. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant is obviously a shifty bloke who is hiding something. We don't have any evidence of a specific crime, but there must be one otherwise he wouldn't be acting so guilty." I think it would be a tough sell.
Again, you seem to be deliberately missing the point here. We're not saying "There was a cover up there must have been a crime" we're saying, "The behaviour the defendant took part in was is clearly criminal if they had knowledge that what they were doing is illegal, and we can show that they did know that it was because they tried to cover it up."

The proof of the crime is in the actions that they took. The proof of their intent is given by the cover up.

ETA: And btw, Prosecutors do this all the time. For instance when a homicide occurs, if a person attempts to cover it up, then later trying to plead self defense or accident becomes way harder because the prosecutor will use the cover up as a proof of intent to commit murder.

Quote:
If that's all you've got, I wouldn't go to trial with it.
Perhaps you need to stop missing the point and see what is actually being presented.

Quote:
Perhaps it would make a bit more sense to me if you could make it a bit more concrete with a more specific example of Trump's behavior that is clear evidence of a crime.
Trump telling Corey Lewandowski to tell then AG Sessions to unrecuse himself and to then restrict the Mueller investigation to future acts only is a clear example.

It is unarguable that Trump attempted to interfere in the Mueller investigation through this action. It is also beyond doubt that he didn't want it to be found out doing this by his just directly contacting then AG Sessions and telling him to do it himself. By trying to go through a non-governmental intermediary instead of just doing it himself, then that is evidence that he knew that telling Sessions himself would have been wrong and he wanted to hide it. In this case knowing it is wrong, means knowing it would have been against the law, and that is "corrupt intent."
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 7th October 2019 at 01:36 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 04:18 PM   #163
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,586
PhantomWolf,

I think I get it. I'm not sure. You seem to be saying that if a crime is committed, and someone lies about it, it's strong evidence that they knew it was a crime.

What if no crime is committed?

You wrote:


Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I kind of feel you are deliberately missing my point here. First off, when there is the basis of a crime established, and we're only looking at motive, then yes, "wrong" in this context does mean "illegal."
(Emphasis added)

Was there a "basis of a crime established"? Which crime?
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 04:23 PM   #164
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,586
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Hold up, we're talking about intent. There was plenty of evidence in the report that Trump was afraid of the investigation. From the report:That provides exactly the motivation needed for your third "absolutely corrupt" point from above.
Huh? No.

You provided a quote that showed Donald Trump worried about being an ineffective President because he would be dogged by investigations. Wanting to avoid that is not corrupt.

If you want to argue otherwise, I'll request that you use some sort of legal definition of "corrupt" or "corruptly." Which one isn't important, because they all have the same important common elements.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 04:32 PM   #165
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,586
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
But why is it in that statute? We're talking about obstructing an investigation -- the only way we have of determining if any crimes were committed unless people voluntarily offer confessions -- and that's a serious crime itself.
No it isn't. That's the point. If you read Bob Mueller's report, it almost seems that he agrees with you, but it's incorrect.

Mueller quoted a couple of definitions of "corruptly" that came from court cases. The point of those cases was that the defendants were arguing that although they impeded an investigation and/or provided false information to investigators, they did not do so corruptly.

There were a variety of legal issues involved in the case, such as whether the jury instructions were correct at trial, and ultimately convictions were upheld, but every judge ruling in the cases affirmed that "corruptly" was a key part of the crime. The rulings were just concerned with whether or not the juries had been informed correctly of what that meant.


Quote:
It doesn't really matter if it was to avoid uncovering crimes or just to avoid embarrassment or political damage -- those are personal advantages that go against the public's right to investigate potential crimes. You could have saved a lot of typing in your longer post if you just said you don't think that's really "corrupt," because I don't see anything else in there.
A key idea in law is that the words of a statute all mean something. The fact that "corruptly" is included in the statute means that it is a requirement, and that it is possible to do the same thing but not corruptly. The court cases Mueller cited affirmed that.

If that had not been the case, Muelller wouldn't have used up so much ink in the "Analysis" sections of the report. He knew that was an important part of the statute, and of the requirements for saying that a certain act was a crime.

ETA: And yes, it is possible to obtain a "personal advantage" in a non-corrupt manner. The actual phrase from the case Scalia cited, and picked up by Mueller, included "inconsistent with their office". Those words are important.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 7th October 2019 at 04:35 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 04:40 PM   #166
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,938
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Was there a "basis of a crime established"? Which crime?
How many times do we need to repeat ourselves? Trump attempted to have the Mueller Investigation limited or shutdown, this is the basis of Obstruction of Justice.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 05:03 PM   #167
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,047
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
No it isn't. That's the point. If you read Bob Mueller's report, it almost seems that he agrees with you, but it's incorrect.

Mueller quoted a couple of definitions of "corruptly" that came from court cases. The point of those cases was that the defendants were arguing that although they impeded an investigation and/or provided false information to investigators, they did not do so corruptly.

There were a variety of legal issues involved in the case, such as whether the jury instructions were correct at trial, and ultimately convictions were upheld, but every judge ruling in the cases affirmed that "corruptly" was a key part of the crime. The rulings were just concerned with whether or not the juries had been informed correctly of what that meant.

A key idea in law is that the words of a statute all mean something. The fact that "corruptly" is included in the statute means that it is a requirement, and that it is possible to do the same thing but not corruptly. The court cases Mueller cited affirmed that.

If that had not been the case, Muelller wouldn't have used up so much ink in the "Analysis" sections of the report. He knew that was an important part of the statute, and of the requirements for saying that a certain act was a crime.

ETA: And yes, it is possible to obtain a "personal advantage" in a non-corrupt manner. The actual phrase from the case Scalia cited, and picked up by Mueller, included "inconsistent with their office". Those words are important.

It seems we're talking past each other, but here is what you said:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Mueller discusses possible motives for firing Comey and the events surrounding the firing. I found it kind of hard to follow, but after attempting to glean possible motives from the text of the Mueller Report, here are some I came up with.

-Unwillingness to state that the President was not personally under investigation.
-Didn’t like the way Comey handled the Hillary email investigation. Mueller dismisses this because Trump retained Comey at the beginning of his term, but I don’t know how Mueller can conclude such a thing. Can Presidents not reconsider things? I’m leaving it on the list of possible motives.
-The investigation was hurting the President’s ability to conduct foreign affairs.
-Viewed Comey as insubordinate
-Wanted to avoid an investigation into his campaign
----Because it might uncover personal data
----Because it might hurt him politically
----Because it might uncover crimes

I look at that list and, when I try to apply either of the above definitions of “corruptly” to anything on that list, I come up empty except for the very last item. It’s not corrupt to try to win reelection, or to oppose something you think might harm your popularity. That doesn’t “obtain an advantage inconsistent with his office”.
And as I said, you could have saved a lot of typing by stating the highlighted bit with fewer words. I contend that We the People give the President extraordinary powers, including executive authority over the Department of Justice, and we expect him to use all of his powers for our benefit, not his, and that doing otherwise is corrupt. If you now intend to say that if he can give some convincing reason for why he was obstructing justice for our benefit rather than his, sure, we should let him off. Good luck with that.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 05:14 PM   #168
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,936
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
How many times do we need to repeat ourselves? Trump attempted to have the Mueller Investigation limited or shutdown, this is the basis of Obstruction of Justice.
There is also a distinct difference between what the US Constitution refers to as a "high crime" and legally criminal. In fact criminality has little or nothing to do with it. The Constitution also deliberately limits Congress authority to censure, impeachment and disqualification. Congress cannot punish any President beyond that.

Abuse of power or not performing ones duty or as the Virginia delegate George Mason to the Constitutional Convention called it "mal-administration is a "high crime". Its more than clear Trump has been obstructing justice. His willingness to ignore the Constitutional emoluments clause breaks his oath to uphold the US Constitution as does his refusal to provide Congress necessary documents to perform its oversight duties. Add to this his willingness to use American foreign policy to smear his political opponents and target an individual citizen is a clear abuse of his authority.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 05:24 PM   #169
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,586
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I kind of feel you are deliberately missing my point here. First off, when there is the basis of a crime established, and we're only looking at motive, then yes, "wrong" in this context does mean "illegal." Secondly, you show an example which clearly shows someone knew their actions were wrong and tried covering them up, which was exactly what was being pointed out.
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
How many times do we need to repeat ourselves? Trump attempted to have the Mueller Investigation limited or shutdown, this is the basis of Obstruction of Justice.
So, once you establish the basis of a crime, which in this case is Obstruction of Justice, then if you find evidence that the target of the investigation covered up evidence of an action, then you know that they have committed Obstruction of Justice?


The thing is that Obstruction of Justice has to have three bases. You can't say that one of those bases establishes the other two. Mueller gave three parts in every analysis segment of his report. I wonder why he bothered. In the first part he showed that there was interference with the investigation. Why didn't he just stop there? Why bother with all that stuff about "corrupt intent"?

Last edited by Meadmaker; 7th October 2019 at 05:25 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 05:31 PM   #170
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,586
At the risk of straying away from the limited scope of the thread, I want to say how important it is that the word "corruptly" be respected in the definition of Obstruction of Justice. If non-cooperation or interference with an investigation is, all by itself, a crime, then it would be almost impossible to stop a determined prosecutor from throwing anyone they cared to into jail.

The reason I add that is that it illustrates that the word "corruptly" isn't just some throw-away boilerplate language. It's a key part of the statute, and we have to be mindful of it whether the target of the investigation is your neighbor, or your President, or you.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 05:37 PM   #171
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,936
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
So, once you establish the basis of a crime, which in this case is Obstruction of Justice, then if you find evidence that the target of the investigation covered up evidence of an action, then you know that they have committed Obstruction of Justice?


The thing is that Obstruction of Justice has to have three bases. You can't say that one of those bases establishes the other two. Mueller gave three parts in every analysis segment of his report. I wonder why he bothered. In the first part he showed that there was interference with the investigation. Why didn't he just stop there? Why bother with all that stuff about "corrupt intent"?
WRONG! Absolutely 100 percent FALSE. This is Republican make up crap NONSENSE. You really have to stop listening to right wing radio. Courts can and have convicted a great many people without ever convicting them of another crime.

If you spend the night in your office shredding documents that are the conclusive proof that you embezzled money from your client you may have avoided the embezzlement charge but not obstruction. The WHOLE purpose of the obstruction statutes is to discourage attempts to hide underlying evidence.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 05:44 PM   #172
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,586
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
WRONG! Absolutely 100 percent FALSE. This is Republican make up crap NONSENSE. You really have to stop listening to right wing radio. Courts can and have convicted a great many people without ever convicting them of another crime.

If you spend the night in your office shredding documents that are the conclusive proof that you embezzled money from your client you may have avoided the embezzlement charge but not obstruction. The WHOLE purpose of the obstruction statutes is to discourage attempts to hide underlying evidence.
Tell it to Mueller. See Volume II, page 9 of the report. I would copy and paste, but the pdf I have is just scanned pages.

(Oh, and you completely mischaracterized what I actually said.)

Last edited by Meadmaker; 7th October 2019 at 05:45 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 05:54 PM   #173
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,936
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Tell it to Mueller. See Volume II, page 9 of the report. I would copy and paste, but the pdf I have is just scanned pages.

(Oh, and you completely mischaracterized what I actually said.)
Meller certainly never contradicted that. He said he couldn't prove conspiracy. But he definitely suggested that the obstruction charges were valid but refused to indict a President because of standing DOJ policy.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 06:06 PM   #174
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,772
It doesn't even have to be crimes Donald Trump committed, it could be that he obstructed the investigation of crimes other people may or may not have committed.

Even if you obstruction the investigation of a person who is completely innocent of any crime, that is a crime.


And what about meeting two Russians alone in the oval office?
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 06:08 PM   #175
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,586
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Meller certainly never contradicted that. He said he couldn't prove conspiracy. But he definitely suggested that the obstruction charges were valid but refused to indict a President because of standing DOJ policy.
You're kind of jumping straight to the guilt or innocence part.

I'm talking about what is required to establish guilt or innocence, in any case, not just this one. Mueller talked about the same thing on page 9 of volume II.

I know a lot of people find that sort of tedious and would prefer to take Shemp's approach, but if it ever ends up in the Senate you're going to have to listen to all this junk...………..or, just tune it out until the vote at the end, and call the people who vote the wrong way pond scum.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 06:11 PM   #176
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,586
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
It doesn't even have to be crimes Donald Trump committed, it could be that he obstructed the investigation of crimes other people may or may not have committed.

Even if you obstruction the investigation of a person who is completely innocent of any crime, that is a crime.
Only if you do it corruptly. Really, that word is important. There are whole Supreme Court cases about it.


Quote:
And what about meeting two Russians alone in the oval office?
The President can meet with whomever he wants. Presumably, he's smart enough not to tape the conversations. That didn't end so well for Nixon.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 06:13 PM   #177
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,023
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Meller certainly never contradicted that. He said he couldn't prove conspiracy. But he definitely suggested that the obstruction charges were valid but refused to indict a President because of standing DOJ policy.
We know what Mueller suggested.

The question here is, what kind of legal argument can be made to support Mueller's suggestion?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 06:14 PM   #178
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,938
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
So, once you establish the basis of a crime, which in this case is Obstruction of Justice, then if you find evidence that the target of the investigation covered up evidence of an action, then you know that they have committed Obstruction of Justice?


The thing is that Obstruction of Justice has to have three bases. You can't say that one of those bases establishes the other two. Mueller gave three parts in every analysis segment of his report. I wonder why he bothered. In the first part he showed that there was interference with the investigation. Why didn't he just stop there? Why bother with all that stuff about "corrupt intent"?
Seriously, I feel like you are deliberately going out of your way to not get it.

I'm not saying that one of the bases creates the others.

I'm saying when you have the "action" and the "nexus" than a cover up is evidence towards "corrupt intent."

Why can you not see this simple and obvious thing? Why are you deliberately twisting what is said to avoid the obvious?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 06:17 PM   #179
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,828
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Huh? No.

You provided a quote that showed Donald Trump worried about being an ineffective President because he would be dogged by investigations. Wanting to avoid that is not corrupt.
Hold up. You can’t just declare that and expect people to accept it. You have got to justify this claim. It is perfectly legal to investigate actions of the executive branch. It’s happened in every administration, at least since Nixon.

Using his executive privilege to attempt to prevent that is outside the normal execution of his duties. The burden is on you to show that it’s not.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 06:29 PM   #180
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,936
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
We know what Mueller suggested.

The question here is, what kind of legal argument can be made to support Mueller's suggestion?
What are you saying? That Mueller should have indicted the President?
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 06:36 PM   #181
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,586
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Hold up. You can’t just declare that and expect people to accept it. You have got to justify this claim. It is perfectly legal to investigate actions of the executive branch. It’s happened in every administration, at least since Nixon.

Using his executive privilege to attempt to prevent that is outside the normal execution of his duties. The burden is on you to show that it’s not.
I know that we're not engaged in an actual criminal trial here, but isn't the burden of proof usually assigned to the people who are trying to claim guilt?

Seems to me that you've made a claim or two yourself, but you haven't provided much in the way of proof, or even of argument.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 06:40 PM   #182
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,936
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Hold up. You can’t just declare that and expect people to accept it. You have got to justify this claim. It is perfectly legal to investigate actions of the executive branch. It’s happened in every administration, at least since Nixon.

Using his executive privilege to attempt to prevent that is outside the normal execution of his duties. The burden is on you to show that it’s not.
I would argue it goes back further than that. One of Congresses Constitutional duties is oversight. What justification does the President have to subvert that?

Rudy goes to the Ukraine supposedly to get Ukraine to investigate Biden and he refuses to provide his notes or his testimony to Congress? The Secretary of State is refusing as well. If Trump's actions there are legal, why the hell is everyone stonewalling? If there is nothing there why all the backdoor channels and hiding it all?
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 06:48 PM   #183
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,936
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I know that we're not engaged in an actual criminal trial here, but isn't the burden of proof usually assigned to the people who are trying to claim guilt?

Seems to me that you've made a claim or two yourself, but you haven't provided much in the way of proof, or even of argument.
So you think obstruction is ok if the President does it? Or is that just any President with an "R" after his name? Here we have a President who is doing EVERYTHING to prevent any kind of oversight. He is hiding behind a DOJ memo which says POTUS cannot be indicted.

Or do you think it's correct that the State Department, the DOJ and Intelligence officials ignore Congressional authority?
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 06:51 PM   #184
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,938
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I know that we're not engaged in an actual criminal trial here, but isn't the burden of proof usually assigned to the people who are trying to claim guilt?
When the Defense brings up an Affirmative Defense, such as "When the President does it, it's not illegal" then they have the burden to prove it. They also have the burden to prove any evidence or statements that they make or that they introduce. They can't just make unsupported claims and expect them to refute evidence backed claims of the prosecution merely because they are playing defense.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 7th October 2019 at 06:53 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 06:53 PM   #185
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,586
Let me see if I can illustrate with a hypothetical.

There's a big city mayor. The police department is conducting an investigation. The chief of police in this city serves at the pleasure of the mayor.

The mayor calls the chief of police and says, "If you do not end that investigation, you're fired."

Has the mayor committed Obstruction of Justice?
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 06:55 PM   #186
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,938
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Let me see if I can illustrate with a hypothetical.

There's a big city mayor. The police department is conducting an investigation. The chief of police in this city serves at the pleasure of the mayor.

The mayor calls the chief of police and says, "If you do not end that investigation, you're fired."

Has the mayor committed Obstruction of Justice?
Yes.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 06:56 PM   #187
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,047
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
At the risk of straying away from the limited scope of the thread, I want to say how important it is that the word "corruptly" be respected in the definition of Obstruction of Justice. If non-cooperation or interference with an investigation is, all by itself, a crime, then it would be almost impossible to stop a determined prosecutor from throwing anyone they cared to into jail.

The reason I add that is that it illustrates that the word "corruptly" isn't just some throw-away boilerplate language. It's a key part of the statute, and we have to be mindful of it whether the target of the investigation is your neighbor, or your President, or you.

By coincidence, Maddow had a segment tonight about how Trump and his sycophants are now doing to the word "corruption" that they did with the phrase "fake new": reverse it's meaning and use it as defensive weapon, rendering it meaningless or meaning whatever you want it to mean. The original meaning of "fake news" was the outrageous click bait sites with totally fake stories which generated revenue, but the stories were also tailored to exploit and intensify divisions in society and to create a landscape of despair where people no longer trusted each other and felt nothing could be done about it, thereby undermining democracy. Those efforts by Russians trolls were eventually channeled into supporting Trump and undermining Clinton. But Trump co-opted the term and uses it to mean any news critical of Trump, repeating it over and over to the point that its original meaning and its significance are now beat senseless. Now, Trump is trying to do the same thing with the word "corrupt", claiming to be the anti-corruption hero and trashing all his critics as being corrupt.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 07:05 PM   #188
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,586
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Yes.
That's certainly consistent with your other statements.


Anyone else care to offer an opinion?
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 07:06 PM   #189
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,938
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Let me see if I can illustrate with a hypothetical.

There's a big city mayor. The police department is conducting an investigation. The chief of police in this city serves at the pleasure of the mayor.

The mayor calls the chief of police and says, "If you do not end that investigation, you're fired."

Has the mayor committed Obstruction of Justice?
Here you go, this case is pretty close to the one you use as a Hypothetical.

Mayor commits a crime and is arrested. Calls the acting mayor and arranges to get the police officer that arrested him fired.

Now has Obstruction of Justice charges as well.

The Acting Mayor was arrested too...
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 7th October 2019 at 07:08 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 10:05 PM   #190
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,108
Just like lying to the FBI is a crime even when you have done nothing worth lying about, obstructing an official investigation into you is illegal even if there is no crime to be found.
Barr stands alone in his claim that this is not the case.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 10:09 PM   #191
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,108
On a related note: it was a crime by Trump to lie to Mueller in his sworn statements.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 12:25 AM   #192
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,521
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
You might need to expand your media content a bit.

It's the news island phenomenon at work.
Well, give me some links from outside of my island, then.

In the meantime, I'd like to present 1,027 former federal prosecutors to the witness stand.

Quote:
Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 02:43 AM   #193
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,828
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I know that we're not engaged in an actual criminal trial here, but isn't the burden of proof usually assigned to the people who are trying to claim guilt?
What we have here is an expert opinion based on the evidence, to which you responded, “nuh-uh” with absolutely no support whatsoever. If this is the way you’re going to handle things, there is absolutely no point in any of this as you’ve set yourself up with no way to lose or need to change your mind.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Seems to me that you've made a claim or two yourself, but you haven't provided much in the way of proof, or even of argument.
Well, I have, but you are working under a double standard with no impartial judge to arbitrate. We’re only one issue in and this is already falling apart.

This is why law is a lousy way of attempting to determine truth. Legal trials have their null hypothesis determined for them and cannot reach an inconclusive determination. A scientific approach is much better.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 03:52 AM   #194
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,521
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Just like lying to the FBI is a crime even when you have done nothing worth lying about, obstructing an official investigation into you is illegal even if there is no crime to be found.
Barr stands alone in his claim that this is not the case.
IIRC, Barr's argument was closer to something like "Well, he wasn't really meaning to obstruct justice, because he felt like he was being attacked and persecuted, so it's okay that he technically obstructed. He was just trying to defend himself."

eta: found it:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/cooperat...ction-analysis

Quote:
Barr then turned to a lengthy discussion of Trump’s state of mind. He opened with a sympathetic description of the “unprecedented situation” Trump faced, in which “federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct” even though “there was in fact no collusion,” before concluding with the following:

Quote:
[A]s the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

Last edited by kellyb; 8th October 2019 at 04:09 AM.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 04:39 AM   #195
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,047
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
IIRC, Barr's argument was closer to something like "Well, he wasn't really meaning to obstruct justice, because he felt like he was being attacked and persecuted, so it's okay that he technically obstructed. He was just trying to defend himself."

eta: found it:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/cooperat...ction-analysis
Yeah, Barr pretty much sums up the attitude we're seeing from congressional Republicans and Trump apologists here: There's nothing corrupt about a Republican president using his powers to protect himself since it's really in the best interests of the country to do so.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 08:06 AM   #196
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,586
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Yeah, Barr pretty much sums up the attitude we're seeing from congressional Republicans and Trump apologists here: There's nothing corrupt about a Republican president using his powers to protect himself since it's really in the best interests of the country to do so.
That's an interesting spin but, essentially, yes.


Some exceptions apply.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 08:23 AM   #197
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,108
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
That's an interesting spin but, essentially, yes.


Some exceptions apply.
If that's the case, it was an unnecessary mistake of Clinton to testify.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 08:23 AM   #198
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,047
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
That's an interesting spin but, essentially, yes.


Some exceptions apply.
I think you're going to have a hard time convincing me that the country's best interests are served by protecting the political interests of a president who is completely unfit for office. But it's Trump's intent that would be an issue, so first, can you please give me some reason to believe that Trump doesn't put himself above all else?
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 08:25 AM   #199
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,023
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
What are you saying? That Mueller should have indicted the President?
Another non sequitur. I'm saying that while Mueller (understandably) did not make a complete legal case for obstruction, that doesn't prevent us from making our own attempt at it, based on the available evidence and our understanding of the law. And I'm saying that in the context of the thread, that's what you should do, if you think there's a legal case to be made.

What Mueller should have done is completely irrelevant to Meadmaker's purpose in this thread. Why did you even bring up that question?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 08:28 AM   #200
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,023
The way I see it, there's a list of reasons for a President to do Hypothetical X. As long as any of the reasons on that list are legitimately within the responsibility of the President, it is almost impossible to make a legal case that he should be tried for Corrupt Reason Y. Absent an explicit confession to Reason Y, I don't really see how it could be done.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:11 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.