Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
Thanks Tree12Thanks

Thread: Trump's Lawyer: Pres. Can't Be Guilty of Obstruction of Justice Under Constitution

  1. #21
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    33,203
    Thanks
    30636

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    His money is green and there's lots of it.
    I suppose that is a good reason, but apparently it's not good enough. Trump's legal team is quite obviously subpar.

    Guess even some lawyers adhere to standards of moral and ethical behavior?
    Thanks from Dangermouse

  2. #22
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    76,423
    Thanks
    39458

    From
    becoming more and more
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    Can you give me one good reason why any attorney worth his or her salt would agree to represent Donald Trump in this case? I'm not surprised that his legal team is so damned dysfunctional. They are the best that Trump's (and the RNC's) money could buy.
    ya got me on that one. I have no clue why lawyers do the things they do sometimes.

  3. #23
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    76,423
    Thanks
    39458

    From
    becoming more and more
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    I suppose that is a good reason, but apparently it's not good enough. Trump's legal team is quite obviously subpar.

    Guess even some lawyers adhere to standards of moral and ethical behavior?
    Trump doesn't pay his bills and he doesn't listen. That's the biggest reason why he's having trouble finding a good lawyer. Even with that his team isn't as incompetent as they appear. Not exactly sure why they're making so many public blunders?

  4. #24
    Franken-Stein DemoKKKrats excalibur's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    7,687
    Thanks
    2719

    From
    The Milky Way
    It is probably true that a POTUS cannot obstruct justice. However obstruction of justice involves the judicial power, not an FBI investigation. Which is explained in the USAM, and they use court precedent for their position.

    It should be noted that the House can use obstruction of justice in an impeachment proceeding, as they filed against Nixon only after Nixon refused to obey a subpoena which SCOTUS had upheld. As they did with Clinton with an actual bill of impeachment.

    Firing Comey is not obstruction of justice by any measure. Bill Clinton also fired an FBI Director.

  5. #25
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    13,090
    Thanks
    10857

    From
    Here
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    Can you give me one good reason why any attorney worth his or her salt would agree to represent Donald Trump in this case? I'm not surprised that his legal team is so damned dysfunctional. They are the best that Trump's (and the RNC's) money could buy.
    There still are people out there that are more interested in $$$$$$$$, than any sense of human values as a priority. As in any facet, sector or segment of life there are the good, and the bad, honest, fair, people with integrity and a true sense of justice and people who would sell their soul to the devil for a million bucks.

    Seems there is nothing different in this case. One might say that in many, perhaps not all, cases, slime ball lawyers might be interested in defending slime ball people. UNLESS they're in it to help in the take down of Trump, by knowing he's indefensible, but like Trump's supporters, know Trump will "trust" them, to defend him.

    In fact, this statement may in some ways be a hint that Trump knows things he's going to need a lawyer for......

    I think almost any attorney, especially a prosecuting attorney, worth their salt could easily explain how no one is above the law and how if one is attempting to obstruct justice coming to THEM, specifically, they are no different than anyone else. Any Amendment that makes the President the chief of anything does not give them absolute and dictatorial or monarchical powers, especially in the sense they could use such power to do whatever they choose to do, with impunity, like shoot someone in broad daylight on 5th Avenue, EVEN if they would still have people out there that would continue to "support" them.

    Trump, perhaps more than American President before him, seems to be testing the design and limits of intent of the founders of this nation and the government they designed and pushing the envelope of what happens when a narcissistic authoritarian tries to insert himself as the de facto ruler/dictator/monarch of the nation by doing or attempting to do all the things tyrants or would be tyrants do in order to gain the control they need to be elevated to such a position of power. One of the main and most important ones, (Perhaps why it is among the others mentioned in the FIRST Amendment), being the freedom of the press. Trump has made it his mission to discredit, subdue, even getting close to oppressing and suppressing anything negative about him.

    We can all read history and for some, the experience is first hand. The LAST thing a tyrant wants, is BAD press. It dilutes their power and makes people wonder or think, be skeptical and mistrust. If one can wipe out most or all of any information that points out their flaws, lies or misdeeds, their power is mostly complete.

    Trump wants the world to believe ONLY, his Tweets and convince the world that all other sources, except (suspiciously and in some ways conspicuously) those that portray him mostly, if not only, in a positive light. Trump's consistency in trying to make any free press that calls him and his actions out, as "fake", should be a warning sign to all honest people. A Republican form of government, where non hereditary heads of government are elected via democratic elections, is NOT a fail safe to the formation of dictatorships, "elected" by "the people". The loss of the French in Vietnam, the subsequent treaty and the treaty agreed to and imposed reunification election is a perfect example of American concerns for the same happening elsewhere.

    After the French lost, the treaty which both temporarily divided Vietnam into North and South and called for their reunification pending a democratic vote for a leader, was believed by Americans to be the route by which Ho Chi Minh would become President of Vietnam and like Hitler, once in power, dissolve all democratic mechanisms and declare himself supreme leader and would not only make Vietnam communistic, but facilitate the spread of communism in Asia. Even Eisenhower understood that some 80% of the Vietnamese people would have voted for Ho Chi Minh. Still, knowing this and that we would be fighting against a vast majority of people who merely wanted to choose their own destiny, but not one we would have wanted them to choose, we not only did NOT support the democratic reunification election, we jumped in with both feet to try to assert our will against the will of the vast majority of the people, claiming to "know" that were they to choose Ho Chi Minh, it would have been bad for them. In the end Ho Vji Minh won out, it was bad for millions of people, including 58,000 PLUS Americans who lost their lives and who knows how many others lost their lives from involvement in the war and were wounded physically and mentally by the war, as well as the cost to this nation alone, in dollars, division and bad blood. In Vietnam, how many people were punished for their involvement in facilitating our part in the war versus how many would have been "purged" in some way (even if the same way that took place after the war) if we had supported the election and not interfered with the Vietnamese choosing their own leader and destiny, by doing so?

    At least a coalition of foreign nation's troops have not yet arrived on our soil to "save" those who did not for Trump (almost 3 million more, just in consideration of the votes his closest political opponent got, alone) from Trump and those that did vote for him.

    Are we in a race to see if we can beat Trump, if that were his aim, to the punch, in terms of his appointing himself "supreme leader" and dissolving democracy in America, as others in history have done? I imagine the people of most of the nations were such a thing has happened in history, perhaps had NO concerns that it could possibly even happen, until it did. The same seems to be true here, in spite of all the people that have long spoken out about the potential and the signs that point the potential for this possibility.

    Who would have thought the moment before the attack on Pearl Harbor, that such a thing would occur? Same with 9/11/01. Were Italians and Germans expecting the outcomes of elevating their leaders to power in the 20's, 30's and 40's?

    I don't stay up at night or more than a few fleeting moments worrying about that happening here, but being wary of all kinds of things going on around one, is probably not a bad idea, if not merely a survival instinct. I also feel that there is more than enough evidence exposed out there to refute any claims that no one was warned, if it were to happen.
    Last edited by KnotaFrayed; 4th December 2017 at 01:27 PM.

  6. #26
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    33,203
    Thanks
    30636

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    It is probably true that a POTUS cannot obstruct justice. However obstruction of justice involves the judicial power, not an FBI investigation. Which is explained in the USAM, and they use court precedent for their position.

    It should be noted that the House can use obstruction of justice in an impeachment proceeding, as they filed against Nixon only after Nixon refused to obey a subpoena which SCOTUS had upheld. As they did with Clinton with an actual bill of impeachment.

    Firing Comey is not obstruction of justice by any measure. Bill Clinton also fired an FBI Director.
    Don't quit your day job. You'll never make it as an attorney.
    Thanks from Dangermouse

  7. #27
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,745
    Thanks
    33467

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    I suppose that is a good reason, but apparently it's not good enough. Trump's legal team is quite obviously subpar.

    Guess even some lawyers adhere to standards of moral and ethical behavior?
    Months ago there was a story in WaPo about Trump's difficulty in finding counsel. Most of his previous attorneys won't take his calls. They've even had to sue him in order to get paid. But the story seemed to imply that while Trump wouldn't follow his attorney's advice, the real knock against him is that he doesn't pay his bills. If my memory serves, Trump even tried to hire the firm that sued him on behalf of another attorney he stiffed.
    Thanks from NightSwimmer

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 23rd November 2017, 02:40 PM
  2. Mueller Investigating Trump Possible Obstruction of Justice
    By HayJenn in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 374
    Last Post: 17th June 2017, 08:52 PM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 23rd May 2017, 02:54 PM
  4. Barry Bonds found guilty of obstruction of justice
    By Gypsy in forum Current Events
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 15th April 2011, 03:56 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed