EPTOn June 08 2017 01:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No, the issue is whether Trump did interfere, and the answer on that point was clearly "no." It's axiomatic in law that you can't convict someone on intent alone.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7786
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
No, the issue is whether Trump did interfere, and the answer on that point was clearly "no." It's axiomatic in law that you can't convict someone on intent alone. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
In his much-anticipated congressional testimony on Thursday, fired FBI Director James Comey will dispute President Donald Trump's interpretation of their conversations, according to sources familiar with Comey's thinking. Trump has made a blanket claim that Comey told him multiple times that he was not under investigation. But one source said Comey is expected to explain to senators that those were much more nuanced conversations from which Trump concluded that he was not under investigation. Another source hinted that the President may have misunderstood the exact meaning of Comey's words, especially regarding the FBI's ongoing counterintelligence investigation. ... In addition, one source familiar with Comey's testimony says that Comey is not going to conclude whether the President obstructed justice regarding the agency's Russia investigation, according to a source with knowledge. Rather, this source says, Comey plans to present himself as a "fact witness" by simply describing the interactions with the President on multiple occasions that made him uneasy enough to memorialize their conversations. www.cnn.com | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 08 2017 01:33 xDaunt wrote: No, the issue is whether Trump did interfere, and the answer on that point was clearly "no." It's axiomatic in law that you can't convict someone on intent alone. True based on the information we currently have. Though the act of firing the director of the FBI after he failed to comply with the request to drop the investigation will be argued as obstruction. If it prevails will really depend on what other evidence is out there. But impeachment and removal is a political process, not a criminal one. Trump won’t be charged with anything until the political process moves forward. | ||
|
convention
United States622 Posts
On June 08 2017 01:33 xDaunt wrote: No, the issue is whether Trump did interfere, and the answer on that point was clearly "no." It's axiomatic in law that you can't convict someone on intent alone. That's weird. I was certain if someone tried to kill me that they would be guilty of the intent to kill me. Just because the president isn't bright enough to succeed at obstruction of justice doesn't mean he is allowed to try. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9077 Posts
On June 08 2017 01:33 xDaunt wrote: No, the issue is whether Trump did interfere, and the answer on that point was clearly "no." It's axiomatic in law that you can't convict someone on intent alone. That's kind of disingenuous isn't it? If I say I have the intent to go beat someone because of X and Y reason, I would go to jail. The intent is there, even if I never carried it out. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12619 Posts
On June 08 2017 01:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: That's kind of disingenuous isn't it? If I say I have the intent to go beat someone because of X and Y reason, I would go to jail. The intent is there, even if I never carried it out. I don't think you would go to jail, no. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 08 2017 01:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: That's kind of disingenuous isn't it? If I say I have the intent to go beat someone because of X and Y reason, I would go to jail. The intent is there, even if I never carried it out. What country are you living in? We don't prosecute thought crimes in the US. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9077 Posts
I guess what I'm saying is that, if I'm caught outside the person's home, I have clear intent to do them bodily harm. That's my intent. To do harm. I would be arrested and booked. Spend a night or two in jail and then probably released. I'm sure the law is more strict when it comes to obstruction, but the underlying premise remains true. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9077 Posts
On June 08 2017 01:56 xDaunt wrote: What country are you living in? We don't prosecute thought crimes in the US. Obviously we don't. Don't be obtuse in your thinking. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On June 08 2017 01:56 xDaunt wrote: What country are you living in? We don't prosecute thought crimes in the US. He made the wrong distinction. Subjective feelings are not the same as what objectively happened. None of them said there was no interference or no pressure. They said "I did not feel pressured" etc. Classic lawyer speak, we can't make much of an inference from those statements about actual pressure, because individual perception widely varies. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 08 2017 01:53 convention wrote: That's weird. I was certain if someone tried to kill me that they would be guilty of the intent to kill me. Just because the president isn't bright enough to succeed at obstruction of justice doesn't mean he is allowed to try. Having intent is not the same as performing the act. The law always requires the act and it also requires some level of intent. I have no doubt that Trump really badly wanted to stop the FBI investigation. He'd be an idiot to not want it. And I also have no doubt that he spoke with his advisers regarding what his options are. Likewise, I have little doubt that he gave guidance to Comey in which he made it clear that it was his preference that Comey find a way to stop the investigation. None of those acts are going to qualify as obstruction of justice by themselves. Firing Comey could be, but Trump will be in the clear on that one too as long as he has a good explanation for why he did what he did (and this shakier than it should be). | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 08 2017 01:56 xDaunt wrote: What country are you living in? We don't prosecute thought crimes in the US. We do prosecute ham fisted attempts at crimes that were unlikely to be successful. You are 100% correct that the evidence we currently are aware of isn’t likely to be sufficient for criminal charges. But people are pointing out that you didn’t address the fact we don’t have all the evidence at this time. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 08 2017 01:59 biology]major wrote: He made the wrong distinction. Subjective feelings are not the same as what objectively happened. None of them said there was no interference or no pressure. They said "I did not feel pressured" etc. Classic lawyer speak, we can't make much of an inference from those statements about actual pressure, because individual perception widely varies. If they did not feel pressured to stop whatever it was they were doing, then the logical conclusion is that whatever Trump did not rise to the level of obstructing justice. There has to be actual interference. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 08 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote: We do prosecute ham fisted attempts at crimes that were unlikely to be successful. You are 100% correct that the evidence we currently are aware of isn’t likely to be sufficient for criminal charges. But people are pointing out that you didn’t address the fact we don’t have all the evidence at this time. Attempted crimes are prosecuted because there are acts associated with those attempted crimes. The problem here is that we don't have any evidence of any act that Trump took that constitutes obstruction of justice. At best, we're nibbling around the edges of an act by using the circumstantial evidence of intent. That's not enough for impeachment. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On June 08 2017 02:03 xDaunt wrote: If they did not feel pressured to stop whatever it was they were doing, then the logical conclusion is that whatever Trump did not rise to the level of obstructing justice. There has to be actual interference. If the intent is to disrupt the investigation, for whatever reason Trump had in his head, it doesn't matter whether he was successful or not. If you attempt the crime, and you had intent, that's actionable. Just because I accidentally slip on a banana peel and break my ass as I leave an attempted bank robbery does not detract from me robbing a bank. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 08 2017 02:06 NewSunshine wrote: If the intent is to disrupt the investigation, for whatever reason Trump had in his head, it doesn't matter whether he was successful or not. If you attempt the crime, and you had intent, that's actionable. Just because I accidentally slip on a banana peel and break my ass as I leave an attempted bank robbery does not detract from me robbing a bank. You are missing the point. There has to be an act for their to be an attempt. What is the act? All we have is testimony from Rogers and Coats saying that they did not feel pressured or interfered with. So what's the act? | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
This enters a nebulous realm where it probably matters what Trump thought he was accomplishing just as much as what was actually accomplished (e.g. if he fully intended to stop the investigation but they knew he couldn't). Which nobody ever knows, least of all Trump. Edit: Basically, the act could be asking to stop the investigation. In an ideal world if I went on record believing my finger guns kill people and then started firing my finger guns in public and was frustrated people weren't dying, I would 1) be institutionalized but 2) also be charged with attempted murder. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On June 08 2017 02:08 TheTenthDoc wrote: To be fair, it's possible that Trump asked them to stop the investigation or asked them about stopping the investigation but they didn't feel pressured to stop the investigation. Especially some of them weren't willing to say he didn't ask them to stop the investigation. This enters a nebulous realm where it probably matters what Trump thought he was accomplishing just as much as what was actually accomplished (e.g. if he fully intended to stop the investigation but they knew he couldn't). Which nobody ever knows, least of all Trump. Yup, that's why the defense "I didn't feel" and "not to my knowledge" aren't very strong. We don't know what the act is that xdaunt is referring to, because they refused the answer the question, due to their feelz. They pulled an inverse Comey, they gave their interpretation/judgement of whatever happened, and left out what actually happened. Comey is expected to do the opposite tomorrow. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
| ||
