Giuliania: Whether or not Trump committed obstruction of justice is a matter of interpretation

Sigh…you guys have short memories…they already floated this idea a long time ago

The UK media is reporting protests happening regarding his arrest.

Allegedly all he was doing was filming people coming to court accused of child trafficking.

Yeah Russian bots have been pushing the story, so it’s gone pretty mainstream.

Protests by who, Joanne?

Allegedly. Be careful. I’ve been a fan of Dawkins and Harris for years because they are willing to criticise mainstream Islamic orthodoxy as well as Christian.

Tommy Robinson though? No. He led the ■■■■■■■ EDL. No.

A crazy elderly NYer being “defended” on TV by a crazy elderly NYer.

Makes sense.

Protests by UK citizens I assume, some happened outside Theresa Mays front door.

Yeah, be careful.

If you had the KKK protesting you wouldn’t have the same reaction would ya. Neither the CCC.

“It is for public opinion,” Giuliani said of his public campaign of dissimulation. “Because eventually the decision here is going to be impeach or not impeach. Members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, are going to be informed a lot by their constituents. And so our jury – and it should be – is the American people."


So you are comparing these people to the KKK? Are they actual racists or people worried about illegal immigrants pouring in to their country

I’ve got Canadians in my Twitter feed accused of racism because they oppose Trudeaus open borders.

It’s not racist to want people vetted and enter a country legally.

I’m certainly comparing them to the CCC.

If you want to go to bat for the EDL, it’s up to you Joanne. But I’d encourage you to do some research.

Your “whataboutism” is epic.

That is at the very best a political argument. Your lawyer can claim that you can’t possibly obstruct justice because you have the legal right to but that is very clearly not how obstruction works and that argument will go absolutely nowhere in court. I can legally shred any papers I own but if I’m aware they’re pertinent to a criminal investigation it’s still obstruction of justice. Trump has made numerous statements privately an publicly showing that he wanted the Flynn and Russia investigations to end and that he fired Comey because Comey wouldn’t go along with it.

He is playing the support game. If the gop supports trump in the high numbers then they wont impeach him…but id they cant persuade the public that trump has a witch hunt going on then trump is screwed

1 Like

But if he thought those investigations were ill advised or in fact not cases that “any reasonable prosecute” would bring a case over, then it would arguably be his responsibility to do something to end the investigation. That’s what Comey did with the Hillary investigation. It is not obstruction per se to end an investigation if you are in the loop and judge that it should be ended. That would not be a corrupt purpose.
Indeed, Nixon arranged for the firing or Cox and yet that was not listed as one of the articles of impeachment.

Comey could probably close an investigation he felt was going nowhere but it’s completely inappropriate for the President to intervene directly in investigations and especially not ones into his friends or himself. Do you really not get this? Comey could decide to end the Clinton investigation but if Obama had pressured him to end it and fired him when he didn’t it would have been obstruction.

And check your facts. The Saturday Night Massacre led directly and immediately to impeachment hearings and the very first article of impeachment was:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

Yes. Trump made far more than one statement clearly establishing his mens rea, in my opinion.

That doesn’t really make sense. Just because he CAN fire the head of the FBI doesn’t in any way mean doing so is not obstruction of justice.

The fact that he CAN is just the reality of the position.

As you have fount the articles of impeachment of Nixon, you should have found that they actually specified detailed actions, like influencing witnesses, that were obstruction…not just that general preface you copied. Nowhere in the detailed actions were anything related to firing Cox. That speaks for itself.
Check your facts.

Because he can fire him and believes he has just reason to fire him does, however, mean firing him is not obstruction of justice.

It usually is with law. Look as much as I dislike Trump…its a gray area. It’s up to interpretation by everyone.

It is what happens when one sells themselves in such a manner as to completely turn ones back on their scruples.