Trump answers Mueller’s questions with, “I don’t remember,” and gets away with it.  “Other answers were incomplete or imprecise.”

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8591
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
21 April 2019 12:05
 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/current/robert-mueller-let-donald-trump-duck-direct-questions-about-obstruction?

“This past November, Mueller received Trump’s answers. The next month, the report says, Mueller told Trump’s team that the answers weren’t enough. “We noted, among other things, that the President stated on more than 30 occasions that he ‘does not “recall” or “remember” or have an “independent recollection” ’ of information called for by the questions. Other answers were ‘incomplete or imprecise.’ ” Mueller’s team again asked for an in-person interview with the President. Trump said no.

At this point, Mueller’s team debated whether to issue a subpoena for Trump’s testimony. It was a few weeks away from completing its work, which, as the report states, did not find clear evidence that Trump hadn’t committed obstruction of justice. Trump had yet to answer any questions on the actions he’d taken that had been investigated as part of Mueller’s obstruction probe. But a subpoena, Mueller’s team knew, would take time and effort to fight out. “We thus weighed the costs of potentially lengthy constitutional litigation, with resulting delay in finishing our investigation, against the anticipated benefits for our investigation and report,” the report states. “As explained in Volume II, Section Il.B., we determined that the substantial quantity of information we had obtained from other sources allowed us to draw relevant factual conclusions on intent and credibility, which are often inferred from circumstantial evidence and assessed without direct testimony from the subject of the investigation.” And that’s the last thing Mueller had to say about that.”

 

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2735
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
22 April 2019 06:02
 

When it comes to the Commander in Chief, we cannot afford Presumption of Innocence of Proof beyond a reasonable doubt - the stakes are way too high.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7082
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
23 April 2019 07:11
 

It ‘worked’ for Ollie North…

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  474
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
23 April 2019 07:24
 
Twissel - 22 April 2019 06:02 AM

When it comes to the Commander in Chief, we cannot afford Presumption of Innocence of Proof beyond a reasonable doubt - the stakes are way too high.

The standard of presumption of innocence, even in a legal framework, only applies to criminal proceedings.  Civil law does not grant you a presumption of innocence, you can be found liable if there is sufficient evidence that you might have been responsible (though that can mitigate the resulting awards of damages).  For example, a wrongful death suit is a civil case and can result in a person owing thousands or millions of dollars despite the fact that a criminal case found them “not guilty”.  This is why cities take out insurance policies in order to pay lawsuits for when police officers are involved in the death of someone.

The other aspect of this is that impeachment isn’t a criminal, or even a civil, lawsuit.  It’s a job performance review.  Impeachment does not send a person to jail, it just fires them from their job.  Any actual punishment would have to come from a subsequent trial.

The only offense congress can send you to jail for is “contempt of congress.”  Historically it was applied to bribery, among other things, but now it is only applied to refusal to comply with a subpoena, and the last time congress detained someone was 1935.  Now, all matters get referred to the Justice Department.  They still hold votes on it, but it doesn’t really do much.

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8591
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
23 April 2019 12:32
 
Garret - 23 April 2019 07:24 AM
Twissel - 22 April 2019 06:02 AM

When it comes to the Commander in Chief, we cannot afford Presumption of Innocence of Proof beyond a reasonable doubt - the stakes are way too high.

The standard of presumption of innocence, even in a legal framework, only applies to criminal proceedings.  Civil law does not grant you a presumption of innocence, you can be found liable if there is sufficient evidence that you might have been responsible (though that can mitigate the resulting awards of damages).  For example, a wrongful death suit is a civil case and can result in a person owing thousands or millions of dollars despite the fact that a criminal case found them “not guilty”.  This is why cities take out insurance policies in order to pay lawsuits for when police officers are involved in the death of someone.

The other aspect of this is that impeachment isn’t a criminal, or even a civil, lawsuit.  It’s a job performance review.  Impeachment does not send a person to jail, it just fires them from their job.  Any actual punishment would have to come from a subsequent trial.

The only offense congress can send you to jail for is “contempt of congress.”  Historically it was applied to bribery, among other things, but now it is only applied to refusal to comply with a subpoena, and the last time congress detained someone was 1935.  Now, all matters get referred to the Justice Department.  They still hold votes on it, but it doesn’t really do much.

Trump’s 6 Essential Cons

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/22/essential-cons-that-define-trumps-success/?noredirect=on&utm;_term=.82effefe452c

“The failure of our imagination to respond to Trump remains true to this day. It is not that we underestimate his capacity as a businessman, candidate or president of the United States. It is that we cannot imagine — and are unprepared to respond to — anyone who lies and cons as shamelessly and effectively as he does.”

“Virtually every aspect of the Trump family empire operated like a tax evasion scheme. According to the Times, over the years, 295 separate revenue streams were created for Fred Trump to evade gift and income taxes while directing money to his children.

Donald Trump not only managed to deflate the value of his family’s assets for tax purposes, but in a con that probably goes unrivaled in American tax-dodging history, from at least 1996 onward, he reportedly erased personal income taxes he would have otherwise paid from profitable ventures like his “Apprentice” TV show. How? He used the whopping $916 million loss of the money that had come from the lenders who had backed his casinos. Over the next 15 years, Trump was able to pay no income taxes on this loss of $916 million in other people’s money.”
To make every business deal with him sound sweeter than it was, Trump marketed his name as synonymous with gold-plated luxury. But few of his deals had happy endings. His narcissistic need to be a winner every time meant that there were losers every time. This included just about anyone who made the mistake of signing a contract to lend or partner or supply goods or services to him. After stiffing his partners and lenders in Atlantic City in 1991 by declaring bankruptcy and forcing them to write down billions of dollars in losses, Trump soon retook control of the properties by creating a public casino company in 1995 and selling the stock to suckers attracted to his name. According to a MarketWatch columnist, “Donald Trump was a stock market disaster,” with Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts racking up more than $1 billion in losses during his 13 years as chairman, while its stock fell from a high of $35 to just 17 cents. But despite making losers of the poor saps who invested with him, Trump emerged a winner, soaking the bankrupted public company for what Fortune magazine estimated was $82 million in compensation.”

As most here know, this is the tip of Trump’s Game of Cons..  Anyone interested in going below the ‘waterline’ to the other cons listed in this article?  (90% of an iceberg is below the waterline). 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-who-got-40-years-for-robbing-store-with-bb-gun-says-his-sentence-was-excessive/  Should he have told the judge he didn’t remember robbing the store?

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  474
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
23 April 2019 13:25
 

A couple weeks ago his comments to ICE officials were publicized where he was literally instructing officers to lie to judges.  I haven’t hear a single person comment about how this is obstruction of justice.  As president, he has been instructing people to lie to judges, but this is such commonplace behavior from him that no one makes a big deal of it.

When Michael Cohen was testifying in front of Congress, they berated him and tried to establish his lack of credibility by pointing out that he had previously lied to Congress.  No one made a big deal that contained within that argument is the tacit admission that Trump was engaged in business with the Russian government during the campaign.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2735
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
23 April 2019 23:51
 

A number of legal experts have determined that Trump is exempt from the usual charges of Obstruction and Suborning crimes because he has Crime Tourettes: saying things that normally would be seen as criminal are normal for him, so they can’t be treated as criminal.
It’s like you would never charge a shark for killing fish.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8591
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
24 April 2019 11:08
 
Twissel - 23 April 2019 11:51 PM

A number of legal experts have determined that Trump is exempt from the usual charges of Obstruction and Suborning crimes because he has Crime Tourettes: saying things that normally would be seen as criminal are normal for him, so they can’t be treated as criminal.
It’s like you would never charge a shark for killing fish.

Victims of the Trump University scam win a $25 million settlement, but ‘sadly no one will get to testify against him.’  (The shark signs a check and swims away saying that the Indiana-born judge was biased against him because of his Mexican heritage).

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/federal-court-approves-25-million-trump-university-settlement-n845181

https://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-trump-university-fraud-settlement-20180207-story.html

 

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9566
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
26 April 2019 09:05
 

Trump can murder someone on 5th Ave. in NYC and the Republican-controlled Senate will not convict him on impeachment charges, therefore Trump is immune from the law.  Lying to Congress, judges, or anyone, is acceptable to Republicans as long as it is their guy doing it.

 
Quadrewple
 
Avatar
 
 
Quadrewple
Total Posts:  483
Joined  28-04-2017
 
 
 
04 May 2019 15:42
 
Twissel - 22 April 2019 06:02 AM

When it comes to the Commander in Chief, we cannot afford Presumption of Innocence of Proof beyond a reasonable doubt - the stakes are way too high.

When it comes to Twissel, we cannot afford presumption of innocence barring proof beyond a reasonable doubt - the stakes are way too high.