Trump possibly commits Witness tampering twice; No one cares

originally posted by: underwerks
Trump isn’t a Democrat, so he can do whatever illegal thing he wants and his supporters will cheer it on.

Because he isn’t a Democrat.

I wish it was more complicated than that, but it isn’t. That’s the level of stupidity we’ve collectively reached as a nation.

I think you are mistaking your window for a mirror. Seems when you want to look out, you're seeing yourself - and everything is reversed.

If Trump does something that is factually wrong, you can rest assured people will hold him to account. But flinging off every wad of mud, is not standing up for his 'possibly' illegal activities.

Democrats, on the other hand, really do seem to apply liberal filters to everything their leaders do.

If only someone cared!

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: mtnshredder
who in their right mind would give a rats ass about anything your party has to say? I certainly couldn't care less what any dem says anymore and I'm a very open minded person.

My feelings exactly, the credibility has pretty much flown the coop.

Sometimes it almost feels as if we have somehow entered into some kind of liberal "Twilight Zone", where logic no longer applies...

When you no longer listen to or contemplate views different to your own you take the path of the ignorance, your confirmation bias then rules your world.

Agreed.

However the view hasn't changed. It's the same rehashed garbage for two years.

The sooner the people ween themselves away from media influence perhaps then we can have a conversation, until then we're all rats and the pied piper is leading the way

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: mtnshredder
who in their right mind would give a rats ass about anything your party has to say? I certainly couldn't care less what any dem says anymore and I'm a very open minded person.

My feelings exactly, the credibility has pretty much flown the coop.

Sometimes it almost feels as if we have somehow entered into some kind of liberal "Twilight Zone", where logic no longer applies...

When you no longer listen to or contemplate views different to your own you take the path of the ignorance, your confirmation bias then rules your world.

While there is truth to that, there is also truth in the boy who cried wolf

Look at the fake news just this week to smear trump

For good sakes reality is being denied to attack kids and defend racists that attacked them just to get at trumo and his supporters

Humans can only take so much of this lying and hatred before they tune out

But having said that, I am still trying to listen and take things seriously

But I understand those who have ran out of patience with the anti trump crowd

Perhaps the only way forward is to accept that media is not really factual information, it's biased relative to where they get paid from. The old saying don't bite the hand that feeds you is relative here, if corporations have a goal they will pay the media to influence people toward that goal, this is the reality of what we are living.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
When you no longer listen to or contemplate views different to your own you take the path of the ignorance, your confirmation bias then rules your world.

Intolerance has absolutely nothing to do with it...

I simply dislike drama and have zero-tolerance for bull#.

Life is far too precious and much too short to waste on individuals who thrive on drama and hypocrisy.

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
When you no longer listen to or contemplate views different to your own you take the path of the ignorance, your confirmation bias then rules your world.

Intolerance has absolutely nothing to do with it...

I simply dislike drama and have zero-tolerance for bull#.

Life is far too precious and much too short to waste on individuals who thrive on drama and hypocrisy.

Yet you have chosen a side have you not?

a reply to: BlackJackal

I don't understand why no one can't look at that and the other pieces of evidence and think to themselves that there just maybe, might be, possibly, be something fishy going on with Trump and Russia.

Oh my dear lordy. After having "Russia! Russia! Russia!" screamed at us for over two years now, I doubt there's an ATSer anywhere who hasn't thought that "just maybe, might be, possibly, be something" that can be called "collusion."

And we've been waiting patiently and not-so-patiently for the ones with the power to show us something -- anything! -- that can confirm Russian collusion. No one has.

Give me the proof, and I'll lock the damn jail cell door behind Trump.

As far as witness tampering, well, when we have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the "investigations" and deals being made, then I'll decide if it's witness tampering on Trump's part, or dirty dealing on Mueller's part.

And I don't see that happening in this lifetime. Do you?

originally posted by: Gothmog

Trump possibly commits Witness tampering twice; No one cares

Only a "possibility" ?
Why should one care for a theoretical ?
There is a probability one will get hit sitting and watching tv at home by a meteor. While watching Armageddon.
How much does that concern you ?

ats is a board only for facts! obama is a muslime. hillary is childtrafficin. masshootings are staged. europe is a warzone. nazis doesn't exists. young activists are all brainwashed. there are bases on the dark side of the moon. putin never ever would interfer foreign elections. moonlanding was staged. did i forgot something? probably.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: BlackJackal

On phone now so hard for a lengthy reply

I quoted a legal expert, you didn’t reference it

You say trump tower

What was the crime? Getting dirt from Prussians?

I have gone over the law, it says getting a thing of value directly or indirectly

This Hillary’s camp getting dirt indirectly from Steele and Russians are guilty of a crime

Yet no investigation

I know destroying subpoenaed evidence is a crime

Yet these legal experts are silent

I know clapper and comey lying to Congress is a crime

Yet these legal experts are silent

I know Abedin and mills lying to the fbi is a crime

Yet these legal experts are silent

I know the podesta group working with Manafort in failing to register as a foreign lobbyist is a crime

Yet these experts are silent

It is clear they have an agenda

Now on this particular case, we shall see

I posted an expert that doesn’t think it’s a crime

You apparently believe it is

You didn’t care when Obama was saying Hillary was innocent dangling a pardon for her, and neither did these legal experts

But ok, let’s selectively use double standards and act like now we need to enforce this law on tweets

Cause like all of these laws, they are only applicable to trump and people connected to him

I didn't mention the legal expert you quoted because he wasn't talking about this particular issue. No, he was referring to the president dangling pardons in front of other witnesses. So for one thing, this president is not only possibly guilty of manipulating witnesses by dangling pardons in front of their face but also for intimidation. Let that sink in.

Also, it may be worthwhile to post part of the actual text of Title 18 Section 1512:

******Only posting an excerpt since posting it all would be over the character limit.********

(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—
(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
(2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation 1 supervised release,,1 parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
(3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or
(4) causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.
(e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.

Sure sounds to me like Trump could have committed witness tampering. Plus, the burden of proof is on him in this particular instance.

So once more I ask, what legal experts disagree that you have seen. At the very least it appears that you had not actually heard from any of these experts prior to this post. Therefore on what basis do you base your disagreement with the legal experts who state this actually is witness tampering?

I have considered the OP's post very very carefully so that I might properly respond.
I've torn up a few responses in trying to get it right, but finally settled on...

The guy that got gotti cares. Patience my friend. a reply to: BlackJackal

a reply to: BlackJackal

You need to use 1 or 2 for your "possibly"
What you quoted is from from the "punisment" section; you have to prove the crime before you get to punish the POTUS.
(1) deals with murder and Cohen is still alive so that one is out
(2) is trickier but has what I like to call the hillary clause in it... "with intent to"
good luck using twitter to prove that.....freedom of speech and all

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: BlackJackal

I don't understand why no one can't look at that and the other pieces of evidence and think to themselves that there just maybe, might be, possibly, be something fishy going on with Trump and Russia.

Oh my dear lordy. After having "Russia! Russia! Russia!" screamed at us for over two years now, I doubt there's an ATSer anywhere who hasn't thought that "just maybe, might be, possibly, be something" that can be called "collusion."

And we've been waiting patiently and not-so-patiently for the ones with the power to show us something -- anything! -- that can confirm Russian collusion. No one has.

Give me the proof, and I'll lock the damn jail cell door behind Trump.

As far as witness tampering, well, when we have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the "investigations" and deals being made, then I'll decide if it's witness tampering on Trump's part, or dirty dealing on Mueller's part.

And I don't see that happening in this lifetime. Do you?

Help me understand your point of view. Why does the accumulation of evidence, circumstances, issues, and reporting linking Trump to Russia, while not conclusive, lead you to the conclusion that nothing happened with Russia? If there was only one report linking Trump to Russia then you should be less likely to actually believe that he was linked to Russia, yet there isn't just one, there is literally dozens of pieces of evidence linking Trump and his campaign to Russia. You mention that the constant screaming about "Russia" has caused you to be less likely to believe that it is true. Why is that? Usually, the accumulation of evidence causes someone to be more likely to believe, not less, why is that different for you on this case?

In regards to witness tampering, what difference does it make knowing the information from the "investigation"? No where in the law does it say, "witness tampering is only valid if the public knows the outcome of the investigation". So why do you believe that applies here?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: BlackJackal

You need to use 1 or 2 for your "possibly"
What you quoted is from from the "punisment" section; you have to prove the crime before you get to punish the POTUS.
(1) deals with murder and Cohen is still alive so that one is out
(2) is trickier but has what I like to call the hillary clause in it... "with intent to"
good luck using twitter to prove that.....freedom of speech and all

All Trump has to do is to intimidate a witness for it to be witness tampering. So I will ask you like I have asked others; why do you think your opinion is more valid than actual legal experts?

(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—
(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;

Given the above quote from the federal law code and the fact that Cohen has cancelled his testimony citing threats from Trump, why do you believe its not possible at all that Trump could have committed witness tampering?

a reply to: BlackJackal

You brought the law:

(a)
(1) Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person, with intent to—

nope he did not kill Cohen

(2) Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to—

Please show me the threat of physical force trump used against Cohen.
Here is the original quote you used for your "possibly"

“Michael Cohen asks judge for no Prison Time.” You mean he can do all of the TERRIBLE, unrelated to Trump, things having to do with fraud, big loans, Taxis, etc., and not serve a long prison term? He makes up stories to get a GREAT & ALREADY reduced deal for himself, and get..... ....his wife and father-in-law (who has the money?) off Scott Free. He lied for this outcome and should, in my opinion, serve a full and complete sentence.

now please point out the REQUIRED physical force or threat of physical force contained within.
oh and the INTENT as well

Spoiler alert: according to the law you were kind enough to quote there is none

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: BlackJackal

OK, we can play that game. The United States legal system operates on the presumption of innocence. What that means here is, in light of your "we don't know what Mueller has" theory, the prudent man would STFU and not propagate unfound, unprovable accusations and hyperbolic denunciations against Trump that depend entirely on wishful thinking of whatever Mueller has. In absence of Mueller's files, it's all nothing more than wild speculation and, in a matter as serious as this, very much worthy of disdainful rejection from anyone with half a hair's worth of brains and credibility.

That said, this goes well beyond Mueller. Much of what I am talking about isn't even a ball in Mueller's court. In the past 2 years we've heard the following, always from the same jackasses:
His phantom racism
sexual misconduct
antisemitism (against the POTUS with the most Israeli friendly admin in history and a number of Jewish people within his own family!!!)
He's working with Russia OMG!!! He's trying to start WWIII with Russia!!! (which is it?)
Trump trying to gut superfund site funding
Trump is an enemy to gays and lesbians (his best friend is a gay man and he saluted the RNC for applauding gay rights.)
Trump removed a bust of MLK from the White House
"He's literally Hitler" over several policies that later turn out to have been Obama policies Trump decided to keep in place
etc
etc
etc

ITS BULL# That is my issue here. The propagation of bull# by people on the left and then they/you have the gigantic gonads to act offended and shocked when your rambling manifestos of hyperbolic bullcrap aren't given the desired level of contemplation and respect? Those are values which are earned, not freely given. Time fater time after time of reading or hearing accusations and claims vociferously screeched against Trump only to later discover they were as valid as a $3 bill have destroyed the Resistance's credibility. It lies at my feet in tatters... Liars gonna lie and once that fact has been recognized, only a goddamned fool will take anything emanating from one of the liars with anything greater than baleful dismissal.

Dismissed.

Normally you are correct. However, for the crime of witness tampering the burden of proof is on the defendant.

(e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.

So, what proof makes you believe that the president did not conduct witness tampering? Are you making this decision just because you don't want to see Trump get into trouble? If not, on what basis have you decided that there is absolutely no way at all that Trump could have committed witness tampering under this Federal Code Title 18 Section 1512? Especially, this section in particular:

(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—
(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;

Wouldn't that seem to apply to Cohen cancelling his testimony?

a reply to: BlackJackal

Tired of the fake news. That old saying "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" comes to mind. Lots of people out there ashamed of themselves. My advice? Stop crying wolf.

a reply to: BlackJackal

You are reading the law wrong
1
2
3

(3) The punishment for an offense under this subsection is—

you are quoting from 3

you dont get to skip 1 and 2
you have to prove 1 or 2 to get to 3

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: BlackJackal

You brought the law:

(a)
(1) Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person, with intent to—

nope he did not kill Cohen

(2) Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to—

Please show me the threat of physical force trump used against Cohen.
Here is the original quote you used for your "possibly"

“Michael Cohen asks judge for no Prison Time.” You mean he can do all of the TERRIBLE, unrelated to Trump, things having to do with fraud, big loans, Taxis, etc., and not serve a long prison term? He makes up stories to get a GREAT & ALREADY reduced deal for himself, and get..... ....his wife and father-in-law (who has the money?) off Scott Free. He lied for this outcome and should, in my opinion, serve a full and complete sentence.

now please point out the REQUIRED physical force or threat of physical force contained within.
oh and the INTENT as well

Spoiler alert: according to the law you were kind enough to quote there is none

Hmmmm...... Are you really that dense? Law is not a checklist in which you must tick every box in order to be charged. No, the law is outlining all the ways in which a person can be guilty of witness tampering. You listed a few and I agree, Trump hasn't killed anyone but I do believe he has done this:

(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—
(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;

What about you? Do you think it's possible that Trump did that especially considering that Cohen cited threats from Trump when cancelling his testimony?

a reply to: BlackJackal

Hmmmm...... Are you really that dense? Law is not a checklist in which you must tick every box in order to be charged.

I am going to leave this here for you.
It will make sense to you sometime in the future.
When it does your apology will be accepted.