this analogy will “make sense” to everyone

El Correcto

Well-Known Member
That article isn’t very good. The dude links to a Fox News article that involves Samantha B clearing him of collusion charges.

I agree with what he is trying to say but the analogy fell flat and the source he used is garbage. Obstruction is still a charge even with no underlying crime and even if they didn’t find evidence on Trump that doesn’t necessarily guarantee there wasn’t any. What was it that Rumsfeld said, the absence of evidence isn’t the evidence of absence?

The way he behaved is in character for him, but being a jackass isn’t really a defense for him. It drives me nuts he didn’t just let them investigate and stop his non sense. Hopefully they can’t pin him with it, which with the senate involved they most likely won’t.
 

El Correcto

Well-Known Member
I think the investigation hurt both sides and it getting a bit uglier for the dems now that they can’t run around screaming collusion and have to stick to obstruction.

Everyone has been dragged through the mud over this and both sides look stupid. Might be a good year for third party.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Imagine you are innocent of murder but guilty of a completely separate kidnapping.

Does the innocence of murder negate any obstruction that may take place in trying to hide the kidnapping?

Of course not.

That’s why the “underlying crime” makes no sense especially when dealing with a special prosecutor and a wide ranging mandate.
 

Old Man Jingles

Rat out of a cage
That article isn’t very good. The dude links to a Fox News article that involves Samantha B clearing him of collusion charges.

I agree with what he is trying to say but the analogy fell flat and the source he used is garbage. Obstruction is still a charge even with no underlying crime and even if they didn’t find evidence on Trump that doesn’t necessarily guarantee there wasn’t any. What was it that Rumsfeld said, the absence of evidence isn’t the evidence of absence?

The way he behaved is in character for him, but being a jackass isn’t really a defense for him. It drives me nuts he didn’t just let them investigate and stop his non sense. Hopefully they can’t pin him with it, which with the senate involved they most likely won’t.
You're wrong!
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
Imagine you are innocent of murder but guilty of a completely separate kidnapping.

Does the innocence of murder negate any obstruction that may take place in trying to hide the kidnapping?

Of course not.

That’s why the “underlying crime” makes no sense especially when dealing with a special prosecutor and a wide ranging mandate.
You may like to rethink what you just posted and report back.
You're silly.
 

Box Ox

Well-Known Member
Imagine you are innocent of murder but guilty of a completely separate kidnapping.

Does the innocence of murder negate any obstruction that may take place in trying to hide the kidnapping?

Of course not.

That’s why the “underlying crime” makes no sense especially when dealing with a special prosecutor and a wide ranging mandate.

What if you know you’re innocent of murder (treason/working for Russia) but half the Country is screaming for 2 years that you’ve strung the body up in a closet somewhere?

Sure, it’s easy for us to say that if you’re innocent you should just let the investigative process play out and clear your name. But I don’t think I could blame an egomaniac for being pissed off and pushing back against the accusation. It’s an extremely serious one.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Proud Deplorable
What if you know you’re innocent of murder (treason/working for Russia) but half the Country is screaming for 2 years that you’ve strung the body up in a closet somewhere?

Sure, it’s easy for us to say that if you’re innocent you should just let the investigative process play out and clear your name. But I don’t think I could blame an egomaniac for being pissed off and pushing back against the accusation. It’s an extremely serious one.
So he obstructed an investigation because he is innocent. Makes perfect sense.
Lol.
 

Box Ox

Well-Known Member
Ok.
You said "I don't think I could blame" him because he's an egomaniac
Not sure why.
I don't have any problem blaming a kleptomaniac for stealing or blaming a compulsive liar for lying.

Not the same thing. He stood accused of treason by the media and the left for 2 years. He pushed back using the powers of his office. That’s not equivalent to some random crime.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
What if you know you’re innocent of murder (treason/working for Russia) but half the Country is screaming for 2 years that you’ve strung the body up in a closet somewhere?

Sure, it’s easy for us to say that if you’re innocent you should just let the investigative process play out and clear your name. But I don’t think I could blame an egomaniac for being pissed off and pushing back against the accusation. It’s an extremely serious one.
Doesn’t matter. You still don’t get to try to thwart the investigation. That in itself is criminal. Whether you sympathize with the person or not is irrelevant.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Not the same thing. He stood accused of treason by the media and the left for 2 years. He pushed back using the powers of his office. That’s not equivalent to some random crime.
“...using the powers of his office.”

If done to obstruct justice would be an abuse of power, another crime.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Proud Deplorable
Not the same thing. He stood accused of treason by the media and the left for 2 years. He pushed back using the powers of his office. That’s not equivalent to some random crime.
Obstruction is not a random crime.

Bro, all you're saying is you can't blame Trump, because, well, he's just being Trump.

That's just dumb.
A crime is a crime.
 
Top