Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GOP strategist Roger Stone convicted on 7 counts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post

    You can. It's a crime to obstruct a federal investigation regardless.
    Nope! You need to turn off CNN (and Fox for that matter).

    You cannot be rightly convicted of, or even rightly charged with, obstructing justice if there is no established underlying crime (which is THE reason why Meuller didn't charge Trump with it). That's been the law for hundreds of years, if not thousands. It's a well understood principle of law that only people who irrationally hate Donald Trump want to deny.

    The fact is that you irrational lunatics on the left have nothing against Trump in the way of real evidence of any real wrong doing. It's all in your hate twisted minds that have yet to get over the fact the he beat Hillary Clinton and that are scared beyond mentioning that he's going to win reelection (by a landslide) and probably end up replacing Ginsburg on the Supreme Court which will end, for at least a generation, your dream of the Nirvana where anyone can murder their babies whenever they want at the expense of the tax paying public.

    sigpic
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

    Comment


    • #47
      Barbarian observes:

      You can. It's a crime to obstruct a federal investigation regardless.

      Originally posted by Clete View Post

      Nope!
      Yep:

      Legal experts told us that a president (or anyone) could still be prosecuted for obstructing justice if they believed they might be prosecuted — even if they ultimately never are.

      "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. "Even if a prosecutor ultimately concluded that you weren’t guilty of crime X, that says nothing as to whether you thought that you might be indicted for crime X, or, for that matter, if you thought one of your friends of family members would be indicted for crime X."

      Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, agreed that an obstruction prosecution could have been argued in this case.

      "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, Valerie Plame. (Trump pardoned Libby.)
      https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-be-obstructi/

      You cannot be rightly convicted of, or even rightly charged with, obstructing justice if there is no established underlying crime
      Turns out, you can. See above.



      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
        Barbarian observes:

        You can. It's a crime to obstruct a federal investigation regardless.



        Yep:

        Legal experts told us that a president (or anyone) could still be prosecuted for obstructing justice if they believed they might be prosecuted — even if they ultimately never are.

        "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. "Even if a prosecutor ultimately concluded that you weren’t guilty of crime X, that says nothing as to whether you thought that you might be indicted for crime X, or, for that matter, if you thought one of your friends of family members would be indicted for crime X."

        Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, agreed that an obstruction prosecution could have been argued in this case.

        "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, Valerie Plame. (Trump pardoned Libby.)
        https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-be-obstructi/



        Turns out, you can. See above.


        Do you understand the meaning of the word "rightly"?
        sigpic
        "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Clete View Post

          Do you understand the meaning of the word "rightly"?
          Yep. That's why it's a crime to obstruct a federal investigation,even if there was no crime to begin with. Lying to a federal agent in an investigation is a felony, period. That's what all those jurists and legal experts are explaining. It's what God Trump's national security advisor convicted. He lied to the FBI about his Russian contacts. So far, it doesn't seem as though he was doing anything criminal with the Russians; he became a criminal when he lied about it.

          But even more of an issue, why would anyone commit a felony, covering up a crime that never happened?

          Comment

          Working...
          X