GOP strategist Roger Stone convicted on 7 counts

[northwye]

In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson pointed to what was to become the Bill of Rights, as Ten Amendments to the Constitution, and to the American Birthright. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Following the principle that the right of individuals to be free, given to them by God, is secured by government, then there should have been an Amendment to the Constitution saying that no individual can be put in prison for behavior which did no harm to another individual. An individual can be put in prison for doing physical harm to an individual, or depriving him of his possessions.

What is being called "Process" crimes here for political type behavior that is an example of behavior which did no physical harm to an individual or to his possessions. Putting people into prison for behavior which did no harm to another individual is a very bad precedent for the principles and spirit of our Bill of Rights and Birthright, and is a trait of a totalitarian regime or political party. In modern times a totalitarian ideology and totalitarian political party or regime is either a Fascist or Communist ideology and regime.

 

[The Barbarian]

In those good old days, they used to hang people for lying under oath. They used to consider obstruction of an investigation the same as committing the crime. Is that what you want?

Obstruction and perjury are assaults on the very idea of justice, done specifically to thwart justice for those who have been harmed. It hardly needs to be pointed out that no sane person would do either of these things, if they weren't trying to cover for something much worse.

 

[Clete]

Obstruction and perjury are assaults on the very idea of justice, done specifically to thwart justice for those who have been harmed. It hardly needs to be pointed out that no sane person would do either of these things, if they weren't trying to cover for something much worse.

That's just your political bias speaking. There is no evidence that Trump did anything similar to conspiring with the Russians for any purpose much less to beat Hillary Clinton which the Russians wouldn't have wanted anyway.

You cannot obstruct when there is no underlying crime and telling two slightly different versions of the same story to an FBI agent, who is actively trying to get you to slip up, is not perjury nor is it any evidence of any other crime.

 

[User Name]

IWhat is being called "Process" crimes here for political type behavior that is an example of behavior which did no physical harm to an individual or to his possessions. Putting people into prison for behavior which did no harm to another individual is a very bad precedent for the principles and spirit of our Bill of Rights and Birthright, and is a trait of a totalitarian regime or political party.

You cannot obstruct when there is no underlying crime

Why was Michael Cohen sent to prison? What was he convicted of?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Obstruction and perjury are assaults on the very idea of justice, done specifically to thwart justice for those who have been harmed. It hardly needs to be pointed out that no sane person would do either of these things, if they weren't trying to cover for something much worse.

That's just your political bias speaking.

That's just the law. And no sane person commits felonies to cover up a crime that didn't happen. C'mon.

There is no evidence that Trump did anything similar to conspiring with the Russians for any purpose much less to beat Hillary Clinton which the Russians wouldn't have wanted anyway.

The only criminal act by Trump that Mueller was able to prove, was his repeated attempts to obstruct the investigation. Each of those is a felony, as Fox News' legal expert pointed out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzyEi4TtIrA

The Ukraine scandal is different. As Judge Napolitano points, out, Trump committed at least one felony:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yY_N4d5xv8

You cannot obstruct when there is no underlying crime

You can. It's a crime to obstruct a federal investigation regardless. But as I said, no sane person would commit a felony to hide something that never happened. Which might have given Trump an out, if it wasn't a crime to obstruct, period.

And it's highly unlikely that all of his indicted/convicted/sentenced underlings are crazy.

 

[Clete]

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.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:

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

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-...-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-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.

 

[Clete]

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-...-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/



Turns out, you can. See above.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "rightly"?

 

[The Barbarian]

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?