Should Trump Be Prosecuted?

No citizen can "sue" anyone for federal crimes; only the DOJ can. Citizens can only sue under civil laws.

 

Fair enough. I just have to strongly oppose throwing people in prison over an opinion.

 

Clinton was not impeached for getting a BJ. The investigation creates crimes.

 

It is not possible for obstruction to be a stand alone crime. This crime is created by an investigation. Even if no crime was committed, the investigation is likely to create charges of obstruction or lying to a federal agent. That is not even in the ball park of justice.

 

He was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury which juries confidentiality had been compromised thereby making it illegal.

 

If he didn't lie, it would have been obstruction. He was cooked either way.

 

It is, as a matter of fact and in law, possible, just ask Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby, who both sent to jail for obstruction.

The Mueller report demonstrates this clearly.

Some could think what he is doing is illegal or perhaps the investigation would uncover embarrassing information, and obstruct the FBI from pursuing their investigation. You can't do that, it is a crime independent of other crimes.

That Obstruction is a crime, period. end of argument.

You are seriously misinformed on this.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/mar/25/martha-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/

"You can obstruct justice even if a prosecutor ultimately finds you were not guilty of committing the crime that was the focus of the underlying investigation," said Miriam Baer, a professor at Brooklyn Law School.

"Suppose Trump knew that no crime had been committed but believed that the investigation would uncover politically or personally embarrassing information, or if he believed that the investigation would embarrass or implicate an ally, aide, or family member," Posner said. "Then interfering with the investigation is a crime. The reason is that the purpose of the investigation is to find the truth, and if people obstruct an investigation, then the investigation becomes more difficult, wasting government resources."

The highest-profile example of trying a case of obstruction without an underlying crime that our experts could think of was the prosecution of Martha Stewart, the founder of a popular lifestyle and media company. Stewart was tried on charges related to her sale of 4,000 shares of ImClone, a pharmaceutical company, one day before the company’s stock price plummeted.

The charges of securities fraud were thrown out, but prosecutors persisted with charges of obstruction of justice and lying to investigators. She was found guilty of four counts and in 2004 was sentenced to five months of prison, five months of house arrest, and two years of probation.

Stewart "surely feared reputational and business harm" even in the absence of a crime, said Robert Weisberg, co-director of Stanford University’s Criminal Justice Center.

Another notable example is the case of Scooter Libby, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, said Samuel Buell, a law professor at Duke University. Libby was charged by a special prosecutor with obstruction, perjury and false statements, but not any underlying crime related to the outing of a CIA employee

 

I have never suggested that.

 

Bang your head all you want, you argument is false. I gave ample evidence there was a crime committed in the Cohen/Trump/Stormy 'thing' as you put it, it is called felony campaign finance violation. Taht IS A CRIME.
Cohen was indicted and convicted for it, and Trump was named as undicted co-conspirator.

What in holy hell are you talking about 'under oath'? Mueller's only 'oath' is the constitution and law.

Your characterization of 'breadcrumbs' an 'innuendo' is utterly false. There is no 'innuendo' in the Mueller Report. It's backed up by evidence and documentation.

He laid out a solid path of evidence for criminal investigators to follow, which resulted in numerous indictments of those who are not president, as well as the president to be pursued with he out of office.

 

I just proved to you that you are wrong.

Admit it, or choose ignorance.

I could care less

 

More good examples of how crimes are created during an investigation. If they want you in jail, just trump up a crime and you will either obstruct by not answering or lie. Martha was never found guilty of the crime they were investigating. Show me the person and I will show you the crime.

 

Oh for christ's sakes. Knock it off.

You're wrong, plain and simple.

No one is making up a damn thing, don't be ignorant of the facts.

 

Well, just one more small detail since it is self evident and obviously wrong. Cohen was not convicted for campaign finance violations. He agreed to plead guilty during his interrogation hoping for better treatment in return, and was never tried for it..

 

A minor correction: Martha Stewart was not sent to prison for obstruction but for lying to the investigators -- not the same thing.

 

That could be the most illogical statement I've read in weeks.

 

Flynn was not convicted for speaking with Kislyak, he was convicted of lying to the FBI about his conversation.

 

Absafragginglutely.

 

I have no idea what this has to do with my post, but you are mostly though not completely correct. Flynn wasn't convicted; he pled guilty.

 

A distinction without a difference. He plead guilty because he was guilty.

 

It's obvious why you keep trying to spin this. Just like Flynn, Cohen entered a plea of guilty, on the advice of counsel, because he committed the crime he was charged with. A crime Individual 1 instructed him to commit.

 

She was convicted of both.

 

I am aware of our mighty system that has more of our population in prison than any other country. While it is extremely profitable, results show that society is no better off. I don't see how my opposition to this upsets you. Please review forum rules before replying.

 

I am glad you have the luxury of that opinion. Others are not so lucky having to face our mighty legal system that has more of our population in prison than any other country.

 

Deflection, your comment doesn't refute the premise you are rebutting. I didn't violate a rule.

 

"You're wrong" is not an argument. We will see if you still defend these actions when they are used against you or someone you support.