Trump's Post Election Fallout: Legal & Obstruction actions

[Born N Bled Red]

Thought this was an interesting take on the current state of things. 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/call-bluff-edward-norton-lays-183646371.html

 

"I’m no political pundit but I grew up w[ith] a dad who was a federal prosecutor & he taught me a lot & I’ve also sat a fair amount of poker w[ith] serious players & l’ll say this: I do not think Trump is trying to ‘make his base happy’ or ‘laying the groundwork for his own network,' or that ‘chaos is what he loves," Norton said in series of tweets Friday morning.

 

"The core of it is that he knows he’s in deep, multi-dimensional legal jeopardy & this defines his every action," he continued in the thread. "We’re seeing 1) a tactical delay of the transition to buy time for coverup & evidence suppression 2) above all, a desperate endgame which is to create enough chaos & anxiety about peaceful transfer of power, & fear of irreparable damage to the system, that he can cut a Nixon-style deal in exchange for finally conceding. But he doesn’t have the cards. His bluff after ‘the flop’ has been called in court."

[Archy1221]

36 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Yes. Yes, it did. Multiple in fact.

 

But it did not lead to an indictment because DOJ policy (and many legal scholars agree) that a sitting President cannot be indicted.

What specific crime did it accuse Trump of?  

[Archy1221]

43 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Yes. Yes, it did. Multiple in fact.

 

But it did not lead to an indictment because DOJ policy (and many legal scholars agree) that a sitting President cannot be indicted.

“while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

[RedDenver]

10 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

What specific crime did it accuse Trump of?  

My mistake, I didn't realize you're playing word games with "accuse". Mueller said he could not indict a President, so the report cannot form a conclusion or reach the level of an accusation. I mistakenly thought you'd be able to read the report and think about the evidence.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/ben-wittes-five-conclusions-mueller-report/588259/

Quote

Mueller does not accuse the president of crimes. He doesn’t have to. But the facts he recounts describe criminal behavior. They describe criminal behavior even if we allow the president’s—and the attorney general’s—argument that facially valid exercises of presidential authority cannot be obstructions of justice. They do this because they describe obstructive activity that does not involve facially valid exercises of presidential power at all.

 

[Archy1221]

5 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

My mistake, I didn't realize you're playing word games with "accuse". Mueller said he could not indict a President, so the report cannot form a conclusion or reach the level of an accusation. I mistakenly thought you'd be able to read the report and think about the evidence.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/ben-wittes-five-conclusions-mueller-report/588259/

 

Words actually matter.  And I don’t read lampoon rags like the Atlantic.  
 

still waiting for one of their trash scribblers to provide more evidence and/or OTR sources he promised for his smear about Trump talking crap about dead soldiers 

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Words actually matter.  And I don’t read lampoon rags like the Atlantic.  
 

still waiting for one of their trash scribblers to provide more evidence and/or OTR sources he promised for his smear about Trump talking crap about dead soldiers 

Evidence matters more. But the bold is why I cannot take you seriously. You can't see outside your bubble.

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Evidence matters more. But the bold is why I cannot take you seriously. You can't see outside your bubble.

Your Bold is why I can’t take you serious either.  The Atlantic is not a good source for accurate news.  
 

i read some WAPO and NYT and listen to CNN and MSNBC quite a bit when on the road.  Way more than Fox.  Unlike you, I don’t have an information bubble 

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

Your Bold is why I can’t take you serious either.  The Atlantic is not a good source for accurate news.  
 

i read some WAPO and NYT and listen to CNN and MSNBC quite a bit when on the road.  Way more than Fox.  Unlike you, I don’t have an information bubble 

Tell yourself whatever makes you feel superior. Your hand waving isn't evidence or convincing.

[Archy1221]

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Tell yourself whatever makes you feel superior. Your hand waving isn't evidence or convincing.

I don’t feel superior.  You basically said I lived in an information bubble.  I said I don’t.
 

 I believe the Atlantic isn’t worth my time, you believe it’s worth yours.  Fine.  we can go about our wonderful lives knowing neither of us are superior to each other.  

[RedDenver]

If only someone had already posted additional sources. If only.

3 hours ago, knapplc said:

Since we're trying to lie about the results of the Mueller investigation (again).

 

Mueller declares his Russia report did not exonerate Trump

 

Robert Mueller Reiterates He Would Have Said if President Trump Was Exonerated—But He Didn't

 

[knapplc]

 

[knapplc]

Complains about biased journalism.

 

Posts story from The Federalist as if it should be taken seriously.

 

[RedDenver]

Good take on impeachment and the current election issues:

 

[RedDenver]

 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

If only someone had already posted additional sources. If only.

 

I’m no lawyer, but I don’t really think it’s a prosecutors job to exonerate people.  I’m sure there are a few on this board that could answer that.