|
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, if your boss called you into his office, kicked everyone else out and closed the door and then said "i hope you xx", would you interpret as something you should probably go and try to make happen?
|
On June 09 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 02:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2017 02:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 01:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:Here's the moneyshot on the "I hope" nonsense in case anyone missed it:
Risch: "Boy you nailed this down on page 5 paragraph 3, you put this in quotes, words matter, you wrote down the words so we could all have the words in front of us now. There are 28 words there that are in quotes and it says, 'I hope', this is the President speaking, 'I hope you can see your way claer to letting this go, to letting Flynn go...I hope you can let this go.'"
"Now those are his exact words, is that correct"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "And you wrote them here and you put them in quotes?"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go."
Comey: "Not in his words, no."
Risch: "He did not order you to let it go."
Comey: "Again, those words are not an order."
Risch: "He said 'I hope'. Now, like me you probably did 100's of cases, maybe 1,000s of cases charging people with criminal offenses. And, of course, you have knowlege of the 1,000s of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice, for that matter of any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?"
Comey: "I don't know well enough to answer. And the reason I keep saying 'his words' is I took it as a direction..."
Risch: "You may have taken it as a direction but that is not what he said. He said, 'I hope.' You don't know of anyone who has ever been charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?"
Comey: "I don't as I sit here."
It's always been "I hope" rather than "I order", which means semantically, without context, it's unclear but the intention in context is clear, which may not be enough to legally convict Trump of obstruction of justice. When your boss asks you to see him privately in his office and he says "I hope you can do X for me and I demand loyalty from you", I think it's pretty clear that he's giving you a specific direction and objective that he wants you to follow, which is what Comey's understanding of the situation was as well. And then afterwards, if your boss fires you and tells everyone that he fired you because you didn't do X, that sounds pretty straightforward that the "hope" was an implied "do this or else", with the "or else" being "You're fired". Of course, while "obstruction of justice" is a well-defined legal term, impeachment is completely political. I wouldn't be surprised if this potential obstruction of justice isn't a smoking gun for impeachment; Republicans would have to dislike Trump even more than they/ Americans do now. I really like this breakdown of obstruction of justice: https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/872532952055513088 "(13) If the words Comey CONTEMPORANEOUSLY RECORDED as having been said by Trump were indeed said, Trump IS guilty of Obstruction of Justice." That's referencing the "I hope" part. Like I pointed out last night, Seth Abramson is full of shit. He either doesn't understand the statute that he cites in those tweets, or he is a hack and is intentionally misrepresenting what it says. My bet is on the latter. What does he say that's incorrect? What makes you think he doesn't understand the statute? He turned "corruptly persuade" into "persuade." The statute that he cites in those tweets clearly says "corruptly persuade." There's a huge difference between the terms.
Sure there's a difference, but Trump 100% "corruptly persuaded", not just "persuaded" though.
http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/349
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol92/iss4/7/
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002214.html
|
On June 09 2017 02:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/markfollman/status/872854864010727425
Eh, as a certain infamous person once said "In Vietnam, they didn't put him in a prison, but into a hole in the ground. That is where he spent many years, and as any man would have, that is where he left his mind."
He's a crazy old coot that can't put his words and actions together.
|
France9034 Posts
On June 09 2017 02:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 02:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2017 02:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 01:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:Here's the moneyshot on the "I hope" nonsense in case anyone missed it:
Risch: "Boy you nailed this down on page 5 paragraph 3, you put this in quotes, words matter, you wrote down the words so we could all have the words in front of us now. There are 28 words there that are in quotes and it says, 'I hope', this is the President speaking, 'I hope you can see your way claer to letting this go, to letting Flynn go...I hope you can let this go.'"
"Now those are his exact words, is that correct"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "And you wrote them here and you put them in quotes?"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go."
Comey: "Not in his words, no."
Risch: "He did not order you to let it go."
Comey: "Again, those words are not an order."
Risch: "He said 'I hope'. Now, like me you probably did 100's of cases, maybe 1,000s of cases charging people with criminal offenses. And, of course, you have knowlege of the 1,000s of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice, for that matter of any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?"
Comey: "I don't know well enough to answer. And the reason I keep saying 'his words' is I took it as a direction..."
Risch: "You may have taken it as a direction but that is not what he said. He said, 'I hope.' You don't know of anyone who has ever been charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?"
Comey: "I don't as I sit here."
It's always been "I hope" rather than "I order", which means semantically, without context, it's unclear but the intention in context is clear, which may not be enough to legally convict Trump of obstruction of justice. When your boss asks you to see him privately in his office and he says "I hope you can do X for me and I demand loyalty from you", I think it's pretty clear that he's giving you a specific direction and objective that he wants you to follow, which is what Comey's understanding of the situation was as well. And then afterwards, if your boss fires you and tells everyone that he fired you because you didn't do X, that sounds pretty straightforward that the "hope" was an implied "do this or else", with the "or else" being "You're fired". Of course, while "obstruction of justice" is a well-defined legal term, impeachment is completely political. I wouldn't be surprised if this potential obstruction of justice isn't a smoking gun for impeachment; Republicans would have to dislike Trump even more than they/ Americans do now. I really like this breakdown of obstruction of justice: https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/872532952055513088 "(13) If the words Comey CONTEMPORANEOUSLY RECORDED as having been said by Trump were indeed said, Trump IS guilty of Obstruction of Justice." That's referencing the "I hope" part. Like I pointed out last night, Seth Abramson is full of shit. He either doesn't understand the statute that he cites in those tweets, or he is a hack and is intentionally misrepresenting what it says. My bet is on the latter. What does he say that's incorrect? What makes you think he doesn't understand the statute? He turned "corruptly persuade" into "persuade." The statute that he cites in those tweets clearly says "corruptly persuade." There's a huge difference between the terms. I asked last night, but is “corruptly persuade” one of the required prongs? Is the implied threat of losing his job not enough to meet the prong of “threatening”? Because I believe Abramson left “corruptly persuade” out of his tweets specifically because we have zero evidence of bribery or quid pro quo. It just isn’t a factor and he is explaining law to the public.
I see that the same way. This was less about persuasion rather than veiled threat behind the "I hope you do X" and the fact he had everyone else leave, and can decide to actually put an end to his tenure as FBI's director.
Also, the text
(18) And under "Obstruction by Intimidation, Threats, Persuasion, or Deception (18 U.S.C. 1512[b]), Trump DID "attempt to persuade" Comey.
Would not fit in a tweet with the word "corruptly". Which is 99% more probable to be the reason it was left out lol.
|
I think the major problem the White House will have when trying to contest what Comey thinks-he was fired in part because of the Russia investigation-is that their response post-firing was so horrifically uncoordinated that they gave multiple different reasons, some of which they later recanted and others they didn't.
That, and Trump's lips are so loose that it's virtually guaranteed he said something mind-bogglingly dumb about it at some point to someone, though whether Mueller can dig that up remains to be seen.
Plus I think this testimony will leave them spinning their wheels over the "I hope" stuff, all of which will reinforce that the conversations took place as reported.
|
On June 09 2017 02:11 ticklishmusic wrote:
xdaunt, if your boss called you into his office, kicked everyone else out and closed the door and then said "i hope you xx", would you interpret as something you should probably go and try to make happen?
And then when you didn't do XX, your boss fired you for not doing XX and then told other people that he fired you because didn't do XX, would you interpret XX as something you should have done to not get fired?
|
I tapped out right before McCain's Alzheimers rambling, looks like I have to go back and watch the thing.
|
On June 09 2017 02:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 02:04 LegalLord wrote:
On the "I hope" situation, I have to say it definitely depends on context. Is it "I hope you understand that it's time to drop it" or "I really hope this gets dropped?" The point is that "I hope," in a vacuum, is not obstruction of justice. There has to be something else, whether it be coercion or bribery. Trump is allowed to persuade the FBI director to drop an investigation. What he can't do is "corruptly persuade" the FBI director to drop the investigation (or threaten him, or any of the other things prohibited by the statute).
But what about the other talk about Mccabe? Trump presenting "i scratched your back, fyi"
|
I think we have to dissociate what would hold in court (there is a point to say that you can't prove it was an order even if it's obvious - such things happen all the time) and what's obvious even if it doesn't hold legally. We are not a court, and the notion that Trump only hoped and he wasn't asking anything is an insult to our intelligence.
There is no legal consequence to this discussion, and we can argue in good faith. I'm sure everyone of those republicans saying on tv that Trump didn't asked Comey anything admit in private or with their family it was a straightforward request. Playing stupid to win a case is fine, playing stupid because one is hyperpartisan and can't admit something that obvious is well, stupid.
|
On June 09 2017 02:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 02:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2017 02:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 01:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:Here's the moneyshot on the "I hope" nonsense in case anyone missed it:
Risch: "Boy you nailed this down on page 5 paragraph 3, you put this in quotes, words matter, you wrote down the words so we could all have the words in front of us now. There are 28 words there that are in quotes and it says, 'I hope', this is the President speaking, 'I hope you can see your way claer to letting this go, to letting Flynn go...I hope you can let this go.'"
"Now those are his exact words, is that correct"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "And you wrote them here and you put them in quotes?"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go."
Comey: "Not in his words, no."
Risch: "He did not order you to let it go."
Comey: "Again, those words are not an order."
Risch: "He said 'I hope'. Now, like me you probably did 100's of cases, maybe 1,000s of cases charging people with criminal offenses. And, of course, you have knowlege of the 1,000s of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice, for that matter of any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?"
Comey: "I don't know well enough to answer. And the reason I keep saying 'his words' is I took it as a direction..."
Risch: "You may have taken it as a direction but that is not what he said. He said, 'I hope.' You don't know of anyone who has ever been charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?"
Comey: "I don't as I sit here."
It's always been "I hope" rather than "I order", which means semantically, without context, it's unclear but the intention in context is clear, which may not be enough to legally convict Trump of obstruction of justice. When your boss asks you to see him privately in his office and he says "I hope you can do X for me and I demand loyalty from you", I think it's pretty clear that he's giving you a specific direction and objective that he wants you to follow, which is what Comey's understanding of the situation was as well. And then afterwards, if your boss fires you and tells everyone that he fired you because you didn't do X, that sounds pretty straightforward that the "hope" was an implied "do this or else", with the "or else" being "You're fired". Of course, while "obstruction of justice" is a well-defined legal term, impeachment is completely political. I wouldn't be surprised if this potential obstruction of justice isn't a smoking gun for impeachment; Republicans would have to dislike Trump even more than they/ Americans do now. I really like this breakdown of obstruction of justice: https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/872532952055513088 "(13) If the words Comey CONTEMPORANEOUSLY RECORDED as having been said by Trump were indeed said, Trump IS guilty of Obstruction of Justice." That's referencing the "I hope" part. Like I pointed out last night, Seth Abramson is full of shit. He either doesn't understand the statute that he cites in those tweets, or he is a hack and is intentionally misrepresenting what it says. My bet is on the latter. What does he say that's incorrect? What makes you think he doesn't understand the statute? He turned "corruptly persuade" into "persuade." The statute that he cites in those tweets clearly says "corruptly persuade." There's a huge difference between the terms. I asked last night, but is “corruptly persuade” one of the required prongs? Is the implied threat of losing his job not enough to meet the prong of “threatening”? Because I believe Abramson left “corruptly persuade” out of his tweets specifically because we have zero evidence of bribery or quid pro quo. It just isn’t a factor and he is explaining law to the public.
If you look at the statute, it lists three or four forbidden acts. I forget all of them, but intimidation is one and "corruptly persuade" is another. My problem with Abramson's tweets is that he very clearly was arguing that Trump obstructed justice because he attempted to "persuade" Comey to drop the investigation. This is clearly a groundless argument. And to be clear, Abramson did not rely upon the other forbidden acts in the statute. He only relied upon the persuasion angle. This is why I took him to task.
|
United States43211 Posts
On June 09 2017 02:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 01:59 KwarK wrote:On June 09 2017 01:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 01:44 KwarK wrote:
Do you think there is a conflict of interest in Trump instructing the FBI on how to proceed with their investigation of Trump? Keep asking. I'm not going to answer because it is a patently stupid question due to the phrase that I have highlighted. I'm not in the mood to needlessly shit up the thread. Your refusal to answer seems pretty transparent at this point honestly. Not really. It's a reflection on you and what you always do in this thread. You're asking me a hypothetical question that has no bearing on the current discussion for the purpose of shitting up the thread. I'm not playing that game. Ask a real question and I'll consider answering it.
Comey's FBI was investigating the connections between the Trump campaign and Russia and in particular a number of notable individuals within the Trump campaign and Russia. Hopefully you're not planning on disputing this.
You have previously stated that Trump has a legal right to instruct Comey not to pursue that investigation as legal investigations fall within his purview. Hopefully you're also not planning on disputing this.
Do you think that there is a conflict of interest when Trump exercises that right relating to an investigation of the Trump campaign and notable individuals within that campaign?
|
On June 09 2017 02:12 Ragnarork wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 02:11 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 02:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2017 02:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 01:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:Here's the moneyshot on the "I hope" nonsense in case anyone missed it:
Risch: "Boy you nailed this down on page 5 paragraph 3, you put this in quotes, words matter, you wrote down the words so we could all have the words in front of us now. There are 28 words there that are in quotes and it says, 'I hope', this is the President speaking, 'I hope you can see your way claer to letting this go, to letting Flynn go...I hope you can let this go.'"
"Now those are his exact words, is that correct"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "And you wrote them here and you put them in quotes?"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go."
Comey: "Not in his words, no."
Risch: "He did not order you to let it go."
Comey: "Again, those words are not an order."
Risch: "He said 'I hope'. Now, like me you probably did 100's of cases, maybe 1,000s of cases charging people with criminal offenses. And, of course, you have knowlege of the 1,000s of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice, for that matter of any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?"
Comey: "I don't know well enough to answer. And the reason I keep saying 'his words' is I took it as a direction..."
Risch: "You may have taken it as a direction but that is not what he said. He said, 'I hope.' You don't know of anyone who has ever been charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?"
Comey: "I don't as I sit here."
It's always been "I hope" rather than "I order", which means semantically, without context, it's unclear but the intention in context is clear, which may not be enough to legally convict Trump of obstruction of justice. When your boss asks you to see him privately in his office and he says "I hope you can do X for me and I demand loyalty from you", I think it's pretty clear that he's giving you a specific direction and objective that he wants you to follow, which is what Comey's understanding of the situation was as well. And then afterwards, if your boss fires you and tells everyone that he fired you because you didn't do X, that sounds pretty straightforward that the "hope" was an implied "do this or else", with the "or else" being "You're fired". Of course, while "obstruction of justice" is a well-defined legal term, impeachment is completely political. I wouldn't be surprised if this potential obstruction of justice isn't a smoking gun for impeachment; Republicans would have to dislike Trump even more than they/ Americans do now. I really like this breakdown of obstruction of justice: https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/872532952055513088 "(13) If the words Comey CONTEMPORANEOUSLY RECORDED as having been said by Trump were indeed said, Trump IS guilty of Obstruction of Justice." That's referencing the "I hope" part. Like I pointed out last night, Seth Abramson is full of shit. He either doesn't understand the statute that he cites in those tweets, or he is a hack and is intentionally misrepresenting what it says. My bet is on the latter. What does he say that's incorrect? What makes you think he doesn't understand the statute? He turned "corruptly persuade" into "persuade." The statute that he cites in those tweets clearly says "corruptly persuade." There's a huge difference between the terms. I asked last night, but is “corruptly persuade” one of the required prongs? Is the implied threat of losing his job not enough to meet the prong of “threatening”? Because I believe Abramson left “corruptly persuade” out of his tweets specifically because we have zero evidence of bribery or quid pro quo. It just isn’t a factor and he is explaining law to the public. I see that the same way. This was less about persuasion rather than veiled threat behind the "I hope you do X" and the fact he had everyone else leave, and can decide to actually put an end to his tenure as FBI's director. Also, the text Show nested quote +
(18) And under "Obstruction by Intimidation, Threats, Persuasion, or Deception (18 U.S.C. 1512[b]), Trump DID "attempt to persuade" Comey.
Would not fit in a tweet with the word "corruptly". Which is 99% more probable to be the reason it was left out lol.
Go read the text of the statute and not the title, which has no meaning whatsoever.
|
A big takeaway for me on this hearing was that Comey attended meetings with the Obama administration concerning Russian interference of the election, but no action was taken by the Trump administration in that regard while Comey was still head of the FBI. You would think the head of the department leading the investigation on Russian interference would be part of any talks concerning the matter, yet no such talks were(knowingly) held while Comey was there.
This leads me to believe that the Trump administration is either complicit in the interference, or they just don't care. Either way it's incredibly unacceptable and they need to be held accountable for their inaction in such a major attack on the countries democracy. Comey made the seriousness of that interference very clear.
|
On June 09 2017 02:11 ticklishmusic wrote:
xdaunt, if your boss called you into his office, kicked everyone else out and closed the door and then said "i hope you xx", would you interpret as something you should probably go and try to make happen?
Maybe, it depends upon how the conversation goes.
|
United States43211 Posts
On June 09 2017 02:04 LegalLord wrote:
On the "I hope" situation, I have to say it definitely depends on context. Is it "I hope you understand that it's time to drop it" or "I really hope this gets dropped?"
Fortunately we have a statement from a guy in that conversation saying that he took it as an instruction and so we don't really have ambiguity there. It's one of those things where you can make the argument that context matters and only the people in the conversation would know, but you can't continue to make that after the guy who would know has told you.
|
On June 09 2017 02:12 Ragnarork wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 02:11 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 02:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2017 02:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 01:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:Here's the moneyshot on the "I hope" nonsense in case anyone missed it:
Risch: "Boy you nailed this down on page 5 paragraph 3, you put this in quotes, words matter, you wrote down the words so we could all have the words in front of us now. There are 28 words there that are in quotes and it says, 'I hope', this is the President speaking, 'I hope you can see your way claer to letting this go, to letting Flynn go...I hope you can let this go.'"
"Now those are his exact words, is that correct"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "And you wrote them here and you put them in quotes?"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go."
Comey: "Not in his words, no."
Risch: "He did not order you to let it go."
Comey: "Again, those words are not an order."
Risch: "He said 'I hope'. Now, like me you probably did 100's of cases, maybe 1,000s of cases charging people with criminal offenses. And, of course, you have knowlege of the 1,000s of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice, for that matter of any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?"
Comey: "I don't know well enough to answer. And the reason I keep saying 'his words' is I took it as a direction..."
Risch: "You may have taken it as a direction but that is not what he said. He said, 'I hope.' You don't know of anyone who has ever been charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?"
Comey: "I don't as I sit here."
It's always been "I hope" rather than "I order", which means semantically, without context, it's unclear but the intention in context is clear, which may not be enough to legally convict Trump of obstruction of justice. When your boss asks you to see him privately in his office and he says "I hope you can do X for me and I demand loyalty from you", I think it's pretty clear that he's giving you a specific direction and objective that he wants you to follow, which is what Comey's understanding of the situation was as well. And then afterwards, if your boss fires you and tells everyone that he fired you because you didn't do X, that sounds pretty straightforward that the "hope" was an implied "do this or else", with the "or else" being "You're fired". Of course, while "obstruction of justice" is a well-defined legal term, impeachment is completely political. I wouldn't be surprised if this potential obstruction of justice isn't a smoking gun for impeachment; Republicans would have to dislike Trump even more than they/ Americans do now. I really like this breakdown of obstruction of justice: https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/872532952055513088 "(13) If the words Comey CONTEMPORANEOUSLY RECORDED as having been said by Trump were indeed said, Trump IS guilty of Obstruction of Justice." That's referencing the "I hope" part. Like I pointed out last night, Seth Abramson is full of shit. He either doesn't understand the statute that he cites in those tweets, or he is a hack and is intentionally misrepresenting what it says. My bet is on the latter. What does he say that's incorrect? What makes you think he doesn't understand the statute? He turned "corruptly persuade" into "persuade." The statute that he cites in those tweets clearly says "corruptly persuade." There's a huge difference between the terms. I asked last night, but is “corruptly persuade” one of the required prongs? Is the implied threat of losing his job not enough to meet the prong of “threatening”? Because I believe Abramson left “corruptly persuade” out of his tweets specifically because we have zero evidence of bribery or quid pro quo. It just isn’t a factor and he is explaining law to the public. I see that the same way. This was less about persuasion rather than veiled threat behind the "I hope you do X" and the fact he had everyone else leave, and can decide to actually put an end to his tenure as FBI's director.
It matters if all three factors are required to be present. The laws says “threatens, intimidates or corruptly persuades”. I don’t know if you can make the case with just one or you need all three.
For reference, most(or all?) jurisdictions treat first degree murder as “willful and premeditated with malice aforethought”. All three of those must be present for it to be first degree murder. (note: “premeditated” does not required planning. Just that it was the intent of the person to murder before committing the act)
Murder itself is described the intent to inflict death or great bodily harm on someone.
|
On June 09 2017 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 02:06 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 02:04 LegalLord wrote:
On the "I hope" situation, I have to say it definitely depends on context. Is it "I hope you understand that it's time to drop it" or "I really hope this gets dropped?" The point is that "I hope," in a vacuum, is not obstruction of justice. There has to be something else, whether it be coercion or bribery. Trump is allowed to persuade the FBI director to drop an investigation. What he can't do is "corruptly persuade" the FBI director to drop the investigation (or threaten him, or any of the other things prohibited by the statute). But what about the other talk about Mccabe? Trump presenting "i scratched your back, fyi"
Refresh my memory on this.
|
On June 09 2017 02:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think we have to dissociate what would hold in court (there is a point to say that you can't prove it was an order even if it's obvious - such things happen all the time) and what's obvious even if it doesn't hold legally. We are not a court, and the notion that Trump only hoped and he wasn't asking anything is an insult to our intelligence.
There is no legal consequence to this discussion, and we can argue in good faith. I'm sure everyone of those republicans saying on tv that Trump didn't asked Comey anything admit in private or with their family it was a straightforward request. Playing stupid to win a case is fine, playing stupid because one is hyperpartisan and can't admit something that obvious is well, stupid.
No we cannot argue in good faith because what you suggest would mean that xDaunt admits that Trump obstructed justice and he cannot admit that his side did something wrong.
Do not underestimate the need for people to reinforce their world view and their inability to admit that it does not match reality.
|
France9034 Posts
On June 09 2017 02:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 02:12 Ragnarork wrote:On June 09 2017 02:11 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 02:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2017 02:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 01:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:Here's the moneyshot on the "I hope" nonsense in case anyone missed it:
Risch: "Boy you nailed this down on page 5 paragraph 3, you put this in quotes, words matter, you wrote down the words so we could all have the words in front of us now. There are 28 words there that are in quotes and it says, 'I hope', this is the President speaking, 'I hope you can see your way claer to letting this go, to letting Flynn go...I hope you can let this go.'"
"Now those are his exact words, is that correct"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "And you wrote them here and you put them in quotes?"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go."
Comey: "Not in his words, no."
Risch: "He did not order you to let it go."
Comey: "Again, those words are not an order."
Risch: "He said 'I hope'. Now, like me you probably did 100's of cases, maybe 1,000s of cases charging people with criminal offenses. And, of course, you have knowlege of the 1,000s of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice, for that matter of any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?"
Comey: "I don't know well enough to answer. And the reason I keep saying 'his words' is I took it as a direction..."
Risch: "You may have taken it as a direction but that is not what he said. He said, 'I hope.' You don't know of anyone who has ever been charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?"
Comey: "I don't as I sit here."
It's always been "I hope" rather than "I order", which means semantically, without context, it's unclear but the intention in context is clear, which may not be enough to legally convict Trump of obstruction of justice. When your boss asks you to see him privately in his office and he says "I hope you can do X for me and I demand loyalty from you", I think it's pretty clear that he's giving you a specific direction and objective that he wants you to follow, which is what Comey's understanding of the situation was as well. And then afterwards, if your boss fires you and tells everyone that he fired you because you didn't do X, that sounds pretty straightforward that the "hope" was an implied "do this or else", with the "or else" being "You're fired". Of course, while "obstruction of justice" is a well-defined legal term, impeachment is completely political. I wouldn't be surprised if this potential obstruction of justice isn't a smoking gun for impeachment; Republicans would have to dislike Trump even more than they/ Americans do now. I really like this breakdown of obstruction of justice: https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/872532952055513088 "(13) If the words Comey CONTEMPORANEOUSLY RECORDED as having been said by Trump were indeed said, Trump IS guilty of Obstruction of Justice." That's referencing the "I hope" part. Like I pointed out last night, Seth Abramson is full of shit. He either doesn't understand the statute that he cites in those tweets, or he is a hack and is intentionally misrepresenting what it says. My bet is on the latter. What does he say that's incorrect? What makes you think he doesn't understand the statute? He turned "corruptly persuade" into "persuade." The statute that he cites in those tweets clearly says "corruptly persuade." There's a huge difference between the terms. I asked last night, but is “corruptly persuade” one of the required prongs? Is the implied threat of losing his job not enough to meet the prong of “threatening”? Because I believe Abramson left “corruptly persuade” out of his tweets specifically because we have zero evidence of bribery or quid pro quo. It just isn’t a factor and he is explaining law to the public. I see that the same way. This was less about persuasion rather than veiled threat behind the "I hope you do X" and the fact he had everyone else leave, and can decide to actually put an end to his tenure as FBI's director. Also, the text
(18) And under "Obstruction by Intimidation, Threats, Persuasion, or Deception (18 U.S.C. 1512[b]), Trump DID "attempt to persuade" Comey.
Would not fit in a tweet with the word "corruptly". Which is 99% more probable to be the reason it was left out lol. Go read the text of the statute and not the title, which has no meaning whatsoever.
I actually read it and checked the actual text, so dunno what you're asking exactly. And I stand by my opinion.
|
On June 09 2017 02:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On June 09 2017 02:06 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 02:04 LegalLord wrote:
On the "I hope" situation, I have to say it definitely depends on context. Is it "I hope you understand that it's time to drop it" or "I really hope this gets dropped?" The point is that "I hope," in a vacuum, is not obstruction of justice. There has to be something else, whether it be coercion or bribery. Trump is allowed to persuade the FBI director to drop an investigation. What he can't do is "corruptly persuade" the FBI director to drop the investigation (or threaten him, or any of the other things prohibited by the statute). But what about the other talk about Mccabe? Trump presenting "i scratched your back, fyi" Refresh my memory on this.
Trump, while talking to Comey about Flynn, mentioned trump was nice about "the mccabe thing". the mccabe thing is taken to be Trump being kind to mccabe for the sake of Comey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
