@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:You've misstated facts
What facts am I supposed to have misstated?
neptuneblue wrote:without acknowledging:
"In a sad coda to his tumultuous presidency, Bill Clinton used his final full day in office yesterday to bring legal closure and a belated measure of candor to the scandal that will forever mar his record. Under what amounts to a plea-bargain deal with the independent counsel Robert Ray, Mr. Clinton admitted for the first time to ''testifying falsely'' when he denied an affair with Monica Lewinsky during a deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit. Most people will properly see that as an admission that he lied under oath, notwithstanding the semantic quibbling of Mr. Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall.
As part of the deal, Mr. Clinton also accepted a five-year suspension of his license to practice law in Arkansas and agreed to pay a $25,000 fine. In exchange, Mr. Ray has agreed to close his investigation without filing any criminal charges against Mr. Clinton for perjury or obstruction of justice."
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/opinion/mr-clinton-s-last-deal.html
I'll tell you what. If Trump ever obstructs justice for real, I'll agree that a $25,000 fine and a five year suspension of any law licenses that he possesses is a fair penalty.
neptuneblue wrote:I know. It's ok, you're having a bad day.
Not all that bad of a day.
I've known for years that there was no actual obstruction here, so the fact that this is not an opportunity for me to throw Bill Clinton in the Democrats' faces was not a new revelation to me.
It was actually a rather uneventful day. Although I did read a history/archaeology book, and that was enjoyable.
neptuneblue wrote:Yes, he did.
Obstruction is when someone tries to derail an investigation that the government is trying to pursue.
This is a case of the government deciding to not pursue an investigation.
neptuneblue wrote:You shouldn't. It isn't a relevant fact.
Democratic behavior in regards to Bill Clinton's multiple counts of obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct is highly relevant. If a $25,000 fine and five year suspension of law license was good enough for Bill Clinton, it is also good enough for Trump (if it is ever established that Trump obstructed justice).
neptuneblue wrote:Yes, there is.
No. The fact that these Democratic witch hunts have a history of fabricating obstruction charges against innocent people means that we can't trust anything that the Mueller Report says.
neptuneblue wrote:No, there isn't.
Sure there is:
There is the fact that it isn't obstruction for the government to decide to stop an investigation.
There is the fact that, even if it was possible to interpret the obstruction statute to cover cases where the government decides to stop an investigation, such an interpretation would be unconstitutional when applied to decisions by the President.
There is the fact that these Democratic witch hunts have a history of fabricating obstruction charges against innocent people, and therefore we cannot trust anything that the Mueller Report says.
There is the fact that the Democrats said that a $25,000 fine and five year law license suspension was good enough for Bill Clinton's multiple counts of obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct.
There is the fact that the Mueller Report can't even prove the imaginary obstruction charges that it accuses Trump of.
There are probably a dozen more that have slipped my mind.
neptuneblue wrote:Clinton plea bargained on his last day in office so he wouldn't be charged for his crimes.
Then a similar outcome is also adequate for Trump, if it is ever established that Trump obstructed justice.
neptuneblue wrote:I just did.
What facts am I supposedly wrong about?
neptuneblue wrote:That's exactly what's going on here.
That is incorrect. What is going on here is, the President decided to close down the investigation.
neptuneblue wrote:No, he was TOLD to stop an investigation into criminal activities, which is against the law.
The official in charge of the investigation, who decided to close it down, was Donald Trump himself. No one told Trump to do this. He reached that decision on his own.
neptuneblue wrote:Congress has wide discretion to hold a sitting President accountable.
Since the Democrats used their discretion to say that a $25,000 fine and five year law license suspension was an adequate penalty for Bill Clinton's multiple counts of obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct, they have no basis for asking for anything more severe if it ever transpires that Trump committed the same crime.
neptuneblue wrote:False. Mueller's mandate was to fact find if there were Russian interference and possible American collusion.
That is incorrect. Mueller's only job is to prosecute crimes and nothing else.
neptuneblue wrote:It certainly is their job to impeach a sitting president who broke the rule of law.
Trump didn't break any laws.
If he had broken a law, it would be hypocritical for Democrats to ask for a penalty any more severe that the one that was imposed on Bill Clinton for committing the same crime.
neptuneblue wrote:It's not a witch hunt when facts proves a president broke the law.
If a witch hunt uncovers actual wrongdoing, that doesn't alter the fact that it is a witch hunt.
Just like if an illegal search uncovers actual wrongdoing, that doesn't change the fact that it was an illegal search.
Not to mention the fact that there is no proof that Trump broke any laws.
