Should Trump Be Prosecuted?

Seems to be a common problem with members of the cult.

 

And I sorta wonder why all the cons worry about this so. I looked it up and yes, a convicted felon CAN run for President, so I bet that in 2024 the cons will use Trump's prison stay as a campaign slogan.

Hey, challenge for Jeanette, make up a song for the 2024 campaign, maybe "Dirty Donnie Jailbird in Stripes " sung to the tune of "Lovely Rita"

 

As you know, but Rod does not, Mueller's report goes on to detail 10 instances of obstruction. Four of which meet all the criteria necessary to sustain an indictment for obstruction.

 

Rod being one of the most egregious examples.

 

Arguing with the Trump diehards will lead nowhere; as said by someone on this forum; they would deny water is wet, the more so if Trump requests them to.

As already stated here by several other members, I don't want Biden to get involved in a revenge crusade and I'm quite sure he won't. That would rather be Trump's style.

Let's just Justice follow its course. Anyone who wasn't fully asleep during the last 4 years is well aware that any moderately gifted prosecutor would have a very large array of potential criminal clues to indict Trump.

 

But any violation of federal criminal laws must by their nature be pursued by the federal government. So how does "Justice follow its course" without Biden's, or the DOJ as Biden's proxy, involvement?

 

It's like the old wag once said: people not knowing stuff is not the problem; it's people knowing stuff that just ain't true is the problem.

 

My mother does not eat grass.

 

I remember when they were questioning Mueller about this afterward and one of them asked whether Trump could be tried for these instances after he left office. Mueller's answer was about as brief as most lawyers get. "Yes" he said, and then nothing. You could almost hear him slamming the door on Trump and turning the key in that silence though.

 

Totally oblivious and blind to the fact that there was nothing illegal or inappropriate about those payments. Cohen, prosecutors, representatives and hyenas can yell from the mountain top all they want and it won't change a thing. I might ask you why you think the SDNY dropped the case immediately after Cohen's trial, but that would clearly be a colossal waste of time.

 

Point well taken, your mother is a fine woman and an exemplary cook. My limited knowledge indicates she may partake of bamboo shoots in an exotic mood but only to satisfy a Chinese guest.

Your personal liking for the occasional alfalfa casserole, however, is the subject of persistent rumor, you should know.

 

You do realize Cohen plead guilty to charges regarding matters you refer to as "nothing illegal or inappropriate about those payments," right?

"In a court filing submitted last week to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Southern District of New York, federal prosecutors alleged personal involvement by the president of the United States in the commission of a felony. During the 2016 campaign, they wrote, Michael Cohen—then a lawyer with the Trump Organization—both arranged for and personally made a series of payments to purchase the silence of two women who might have gone to the press with stories of their affairs with Donald Trump. Cohen pleaded guilty in August 2018 to violations of campaign finance law in arranging the payments to Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford, better known as Stormy Daniels. Now, months later, the government has written in Cohen’s sentencing memo that the president’s former fixer “acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1”—referring, of course, to Trump."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/does-trumps-involvement-cohen-payments-constitute-impeachable-offense

https://www.lawfareblog.com/documen...york-and-special-counsels-office-file-michael

 

He didn't obstruct Justice he assisted Justice which is his job.

Let's be honest what this really is it's a prosecution for him being Donald Trump.

 

Illegal? Maybe not (though if you go by the above post 237 rather completely so). Inappropriate? Totally, completely and absolutely so unless you wish to tell us how you excuse a man having sex with a porn star while his wife delivers their first child. The SDNY dropped the matter after they realized that this was a case of Trump and his cult followers rather than normal people who might be distressed by what we lesser beings call shame over egregiously sordid and extremely immoral conduct.

For God's sake man, you are a normal individual and have as much moral revulsion to monstrously unfeeling and brutally uncaring conduct as anyone. Politics completely aside HOW can you even BEGIN to defend this kind of action by anyone?

 

How so?

E. Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

F. Efforts to curtail Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

 

Obstructing obstruction isn't obstructing justice.

 

My bad, I thought you were trying to make a serious point.

 

Yes it is your back you're trying to arrangements syndrome is not something to be taken seriously it's something to be mocked.

 

Incoming House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday that "there's a very real prospect" the Justice Department may indict President Trump the day he leaves office — calling him "the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time" — based on the sentencing memo for Michael Cohen submitted by federal prosecutors in New York.
https://www.axios.com/adam-schiff-d...hen-a1e14cff-f8c1-4370-95b9-11caf7c6b3e8.html

 

Next time you try to make a point it would be more effective if you used coherent sentences.

 

You suffer from Trump derangement syndrome. I am mocking your views.

 

I'm afraid Trump is the only person who can and is suffering from Trump derangement syndrome. How can you tell? Every time he opens his face hole he spews irrational nonsense. It's clear evidence he's totally deranged.

 

It just because you disagree with him and doesn't mean he's deranged.

 

Really? I think not

 

Justice is not revenge.

Justice in among the cornerstones of liberal democracy.

Obstruction is a stand alone crime, and a serious one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...tice-doesnt-require-another-underlying-crime/