Trump is God's Punishment Upon America?

[TCassidy]

There is plenty of evidence for obstruction of Justice

Still waiting for you to post this so-called "evidence."

 

[FollowTheWay]

There is none, zilch, nada, zero evidence.

How an obstruction of justice case may be shaping up against Trump

How an obstruction of justice case may be shaping up against Trump

Two of the most intriguing questions in US national political discourse – what does the special counsel Robert Mueller have on Donald Trump, and what more is he looking for? – were filled in at a remarkable pace this week, as details of highly sensitive documents and internal Trump Organization emails became public for the first time.

Taken together, the documents could indicate that the special counsel is looking seriously at whether Trump committed an obstruction of justice on potentially various fronts, legal experts say.

 

[TCassidy]

may

May?

could

Could?

potentially

Potentially?

legal experts

Who? What legal experts? Name them.

 

[Revmitchell]

Nada, zilch, zip, zero

 

[AwesomeMachine]

There is plenty of evidence for obstruction of Justice which is one of the things Nixon was charged with. Collaboration with the enemy to change the result of an election would be serious if proven.

Do you know what "obstruction of justice" even means? Collaboration with the enemy to alter the results of an election is NOT obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice is interfering with investigators, such as lying to government agents or Congress.

You obviously have no idea what you're even talking about! Could you come up with even one example of something specific Donald Trump has been accused of that is illegal. Nixon was going to be impeached because he obstructed justice by covering up the Watergate burglary.

President Trump hasn't even been accused of doing something illegal. If he knew the Russians hacked into the DNC computers, and published what they found, he didn't violate the law. If the Russians wanted Trump to win the election, so they tried to help, that doesn't indict Trump.

If President Trump said, "Hey, why don't you guys dig up some dirt on my opponent, and then publish it," that's not illegal. There may be evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians to publish dirt on his opponent during the election, but there is no evidence he broke the law.

It seems to be some kind of liberal disease that causes the belief that any form of contact with the Russians regarding an election is illegal. But it's not. Even if the Russians actually did sway the election, there's no evidence they employed an illegal means to do so.

It's not illegal to take information from a computer connected to the Internet, over the Internet, because laws governing eavesdropping do not apply to civilian information obtained through a non-government computer network.

Even if such information is published, the law provides that truth defends itself. That is, a person cannot be held legally liable for publishing or speaking what (s)he believes to be the truth, regardless of the motivation. Even if the communication turns out to be false, if the person believed it was the truth, no law has been broken.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Do you know what "obstruction of justice" even means? Collaboration with the enemy to alter the results of an election is NOT obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice is interfering with investigators, such as lying to government agents or Congress.

You obviously have no idea what you're even talking about! Could you come up with even one example of something specific Donald Trump has been accused of that is illegal. Nixon was going to be impeached because he obstructed justice by covering up the Watergate burglary.

President Trump hasn't even been accused of doing something illegal. If he knew the Russians hacked into the DNC computers, and published what they found, he didn't violate the law. If the Russians wanted Trump to win the election, so they tried to help, that doesn't indict Trump.

If President Trump said, "Hey, why don't you guys dig up some dirt on my opponent, and then publish it," that's not illegal. There may be evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians to publish dirt on his opponent during the election, but there is no evidence he broke the law.

It seems to be some kind of liberal disease that causes the belief that any form of contact with the Russians regarding an election is illegal. But it's not. Even if the Russians actually did sway the election, there's no evidence they employed an illegal means to do so.

It's not illegal to take information from a computer connected to the Internet, over the Internet, because laws governing eavesdropping do not apply to civilian information obtained through a non-government computer network.

Even if such information is published, the law provides that truth defends itself. That is, a person cannot be held legally liable for publishing or speaking what (s)he believes to be the truth, regardless of the motivation. Even if the communication turns out to be false, if the person believed it was the truth, no law has been broken.

Fight it out among yourselves. I'll let our traditions of democracy find the answer as they did with Richard Nixon.