Is Joe Biden guilty of obstruction of justice?
I try to avoid posting "political" issues, or at least initiating them, but Joe Biden just called for Trump to be impeached because Trump called on Ukraine and China to investigate him, Joe Biden. I wonder why this doesn't qualify as "attempted obstruction of justice". Any facts concerning illegal or improper activity by Biden found by either Ukraine or China would likely eventually make their way back to America, and thus would likely (should they exist) result in the prosecution of Biden's son, Hunter. Joe Biden is trying either to threaten Trump, or to actually remove Trump as retaliation for this investigation. I'm not objecting to Joe Biden simply because he (hypothetically) said something merely wrong or otherwise objectionable. There was plenty Biden could have said in criticism, which wouldn't have constituted attempted obstruction of justice. But that's not what happened. He said he wants Trump removed from office, because Trump wants him and his son investigated for crimes. Jim Bell
On 09/10/2019 21:02, jim bell wrote:
I try to avoid posting "political" issues, or at least initiating them, but Joe Biden just called for Trump to be impeached because Trump called on Ukraine and China to investigate him, Joe Biden. > I wonder why this doesn't qualify as "attempted obstruction of justice".
Not even if Biden is guilty of something (for which we have approximately zero evidence) and was trying to hide it. Trump was not performing the lawful investigative act of a Government official - whether or not his motive was purely the administration of justice, his act is clearly and specifically illegal under US election law - therefore obstructing that unlawful act cannot be obstruction of justice. In a few other jurisdictions it might be considered to be perverting the course of justice - but it is not obstruction of justice as defined under US law, which is obstructing the lawful judicial actions of prosecutors, investigators or other Government officials. If you have been following the Brexit implosion, there is a law here which says that (under some circumstances) Boris must ask the EU for an extension, which Boris has said he will not do, and also that he will. He definitely doesn't want to. It has been suggested that he might ask a EU country to refuse the extension as a way of getting round the law. However if he did, and it meant Brexit happened, anyone who was in any way disadvantaged by Brexit could then sue Boris, as his action as Prime Minister would not have been lawful. What was it Nixon said? "Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." Nope, thankfully it doesn't work like that. Peter Fairbrother
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 01:52:57 PM PDT, Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote: On 09/10/2019 21:02, jim bell wrote:
I try to avoid posting "political" issues, or at least initiating them, but Joe Biden just called for Trump to be impeached because Trump called on Ukraine and China to investigate him, Joe Biden. > I wonder why this doesn't qualify as "attempted obstruction of justice".
Not even if Biden is guilty of something (for which we have approximately zero evidence) and was trying to hide it.
Trump was not performing the lawful investigative act of a Government official - whether or not his motive was purely the administration of justice, his act is clearly and specifically illegal under US election law - therefore obstructing that unlawful act cannot be obstruction of justice. Could you cite which specific part of US election law" that Trump's action was "clearly and specifically illegal"? And I notice you said "US election law". We're not having an election now, at least not for about 13 months. How does this magic "US election law" guide what somebody says 13 months prior to an election? (Note: I'm not suggesting that "US election law" cannot possibly apply, due to this 13-month distance in time. But Biden is not yet even a nominee, and hardly even an official candidate, for office. Are you saying that if Trump had asked a foreign country to investigate merely an ordinary citizen for a possible crime, that WOULDN'T be a problem under "US election laws", merely because that ordinary citizen isn't a candidate in an election? That simply doesn't make sense. Remember, when Hillary Clinton had her law firm Perkin Coie hire FusionGPS to hire Christopher Steele to talk to many Russians, Donald Trump was DEFINITELY a candidate. And soon enough, the FBI became involved. So wasn't THAT an act which was "clearly and specifically illegal under US election law". I know, consistency's a bitch, huh? C'mon, let's use some logic here.
In a few other jurisdictions it might be considered to be perverting the course of justice - but it is not obstruction of justice as defined under US law, which is obstructing the lawful judicial actions of prosecutors, investigators or other Government officials.
Is it legal for Trump to ask a foreign nation to do a criminal investigation? I'm not aware that it is specifically illegal. It isn't a crime, I think, It's not REQUIRED, of course, but that doesn't mean that what Biden said was not (attempted) obstruction of justice.
If you have been following the Brexit implosion, there is a law here which says that (under some circumstances) Boris must ask the EU for an extension, which Boris has said he will not do, and also that he will. He definitely doesn't want to.
It has been suggested that he might ask a EU country to refuse the extension as a way of getting round the law. However if he did, and it meant Brexit happened, anyone who was in any way disadvantaged by Brexit could then sue Boris, as his action as Prime Minister would not have been lawful.
What was it Nixon said? "Well, when the President does it, that means
I'm not sure how that's relevant in this case.... that it is not illegal." Just because Nixon said something, that neither definitely makes it right, nor makes it wrong.
Nope, thankfully it doesn't work like that.
Neither does it, the other way around. Jim Bell
On October 9, 2019 9:26:47 PM UTC, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 01:52:57 PM PDT, Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
I try to avoid posting "political" issues, or at least initiating
On 09/10/2019 21:02, jim bell wrote: them,
but Joe Biden just called for Trump to be impeached because Trump called on Ukraine and China to investigate him, Joe Biden. > I wonder why this doesn't qualify as "attempted obstruction of justice".
Not even if Biden is guilty of something (for which we have approximately zero evidence) and was trying to hide it.
Trump was not performing the lawful investigative act of a Government official - whether or not his motive was purely the administration of justice, his act is clearly and specifically illegal under US election law - therefore obstructing that unlawful act cannot be obstruction of justice. Could you cite which specific part of US election law" that Trump's action was "clearly and specifically illegal"? And I notice you said "US election law". We're not having an election now, at least not for about 13 months. How does this magic "US election law" guide what somebody says 13 months prior to an election? (Note: I'm not suggesting that "US election law" cannot possibly apply, due to this 13-month distance in time. But Biden is not yet even a nominee, and hardly even an official candidate, for office. Are you saying that if Trump had asked a foreign country to investigate merely an ordinary citizen for a possible crime, that WOULDN'T be a problem under "US election laws", merely because that ordinary citizen isn't a candidate in an election? That simply doesn't make sense. Remember, when Hillary Clinton had her law firm Perkin Coie hire FusionGPS to hire Christopher Steele to talk to many Russians, Donald Trump was DEFINITELY a candidate. And soon enough, the FBI became involved. So wasn't THAT an act which was "clearly and specifically illegal under US election law". I know, consistency's a bitch, huh? C'mon, let's use some logic here.
In a few other jurisdictions it might be considered to be perverting the course of justice - but it is not obstruction of justice as defined under US law, which is obstructing the lawful judicial actions of prosecutors, investigators or other Government officials.
Is it legal for Trump to ask a foreign nation to do a criminal investigation? I'm not aware that it is specifically illegal. It isn't a crime, I think, It's not REQUIRED, of course, but that doesn't mean that what Biden said was not (attempted) obstruction of justice.
If you have been following the Brexit implosion, there is a law here which says that (under some circumstances) Boris must ask the EU for an
extension, which Boris has said he will not do, and also that he will. He definitely doesn't want to.
It has been suggested that he might ask a EU country to refuse the extension as a way of getting round the law. However if he did, and it meant Brexit happened, anyone who was in any way disadvantaged by Brexit could then sue Boris, as his action as Prime Minister would not have been lawful.
I'm not sure how that's relevant in this case....
What was it Nixon said? "Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." Just because Nixon said something, that neither definitely makes it right, nor makes it wrong.
Nope, thankfully it doesn't work like that.
Neither does it, the other way around.
Jim Bell
So which way does it work? Is it illegal unless the president does it? Well, obviously, if he can get away with it, then yes! It's all palace intrigue amongst self interested elites and the winner makes the "rules". I don't know why Jim is pretending any of this shit has any "legal" grounding. It's internecine warfare because the king got a little too vulgar. You can loot the the little guy all day long, but at least be half-ass fucking articulate, and for that matter half ass competent, when twisting the screws.
On 09/10/2019 22:26, jim bell wrote:
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 01:52:57 PM PDT, Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/10/2019 21:02, jim bell wrote:
I try to avoid posting "political" issues, or at least initiating them, but Joe Biden just called for Trump to be impeached because Trump called on Ukraine and China to investigate him, Joe Biden. > I wonder why this doesn't qualify as "attempted obstruction of justice".
Not even if Biden is guilty of something (for which we have approximately zero evidence) and was trying to hide it.
Trump was not performing the lawful investigative act of a Government official - whether or not his motive was purely the administration of justice, his act is clearly and specifically illegal under US election law - therefore obstructing that unlawful act cannot be obstruction of justice.
Could you cite which specific part of US election law" that Trump's action was "clearly and specifically illegal"?
Nope, no idea. I just read that in the UK papers. It was widely reported. But if it wasn't illegal, how could Trump be potentially impeached for a "high crime"? What crime? How could Biden complain about Trump's doings unless they were illegal? Well of course he could complain, but why would people take any notice? Only makes sense to me if it really was illegal. Suppose a cop was following you for months, was parked outside your house every day, was all-the-time-asking your family and neighbours about you. Could you go to a Judge and get a restraining order? Whether he was doing it because your and his kids had a fight, because you slept with his wife, or because he thinks (without sufficient evidence to justify it) that you are a serial killer, the Judge should grant it. That would not be attempted or actual obstruction of justice, even if you were a serial killer. Because the cop's actions were illegal. Peter F
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 04:30:50 PM PDT, Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote: On 09/10/2019 22:26, jim bell wrote:
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 01:52:57 PM PDT, Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
[snip >Trump was not performing the lawful investigative act of a Government
official - whether or not his motive was purely the administration of justice, his act is clearly and specifically illegal under US election law - therefore obstructing that unlawful act cannot be obstruction of justice.
Could you cite which specific part of US election law" that Trump's action was "clearly and specifically illegal"? Nope, no idea. I just read that in the UK papers. It was widely reported.
I don't doubt it was "widely reported" !!! The British press can spew nonsense as well as the American press, And I doubt that the people of the British press know American law any better than the average American does: "Almost none at all". Was Trump REQURED to do what he did? No.Was Trump PROHIBITED to do what he did? I don't think so, either.Instead, I think that this was simply a matter which Trump was ALLOWED to do. Now, if it had been utterly clear that there was no justification to investigate Hunter Biden, and Joe Biden as well, for a kind of influence-peddling bribery, then I might think that Trump did something wrong, But so far, it sure looks like these Bidens were indeed engaging in influence-peddling. I'm not suggesting that a Biden-supporter cannot, with a straight face, defend what Hunter Biden did. YET. But I think he was paid vastly more money than a person in his position could reasonably expect.
But if it wasn't illegal, how could Trump be potentially impeached for a "high crime"? What crime?
The impeachment requirements of the US Constitution are remarkably vague. "High crimes and misdemeanors". (remember, while the term "misdemeanor" has come to mean a relatively non-serious offense, in 1791 it meant any offense NOT punishable by death. Life in prison for a misdemeanor was a strong possibility.) I think it's generally understood today that the House, in passing an article of impeachment, and the Senate, having a trial and voting on the impeachment, can pretty much do anything they please. I am reminded of an old maxim that 'a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich', not least at all because as I type this, I happen to be eating a ham sandwich. Not that it's necessarily "right", but the only remedy anyone else has is a vote in the next election: Even the Supreme Court cannot "undo" an convicted impeachment.
How could Biden complain about Trump's doings unless they were illegal?
I'm not saying that Biden cannot "complain" about them. Sure he can! But threatening impeachment isn't merely "complaining", It is an attempt to obstruct an action that could result in criminal investigation in an American court. Also, "impeachment" is by no means limited to actions which are explicitly "illegal".
Well of course he could complain, but why would people take any notice?
I invite Biden to complain, but he structured his "complaints" in a form which were clearly intended to deter an investigation of his and his son's arguable misdeeds.This article https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/hunter-bidens-legal-social... says: "What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment." Sorry, but I have to laugh at that assertion. "Spurious investigations"? Is it OBVIOUS that Hunter Biden didn't do anything even arguably wrong? I don't think so! Quite obviously, it looks POSSIBLE that Hunter Biden was doing something wrong. Can I state the specific US Statute prohibiting that? No, but that doesn't mean that some investigation cannot uncover evidence showing that this payment was illegal,
Only makes sense to me if it really was illegal.
If the American public had heard that Hunter Biden was being paid $166K PER MONTH (that's today's story) when that practice was going on, when Joe Biden was VP, I'd say that a large fraction of the American people could have viewed that as improper. It would have had to stop, even if Biden said it hadn't been wrong, The fact that it didn't become public during Biden's time in office is why Hunter Biden was not forced to quit his job years ago. "Suppose a cop was following you for months, was parked outside your house every day, was all-the-time-asking your family and neighbours about you. Could you go to a Judge and get a restraining order?" In America, probably yes, unless the cop could show good-cause for his actions, But in that case, you have described an action which occurs over many months is arguably disruptive and borderline-threatening, and presumably they would argue that there was no arguable reason for the cop's actions. And the cop would have an opportunity to make his own case that he had justification to do what he did,. It's certainly not clear that Hunter Biden didn't engage in actions which could have been improper. "Whether he was doing it because your and his kids had a fight, because you slept with his wife, or because he thinks (without sufficient evidence to justify it) that you are a serial killer, the Judge should grant it." "That would not be attempted or actual obstruction of justice, even if you were a serial killer. Because the cop's actions were illegal. Biden and his son have engaged in an action which is "colorably" suspicious. Presumably they deny doing something clearly illegal, but that's a matter that reasonable people can dispute, Jim Bell
On 10/10/2019 01:28, jim bell wrote:
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 04:30:50 PM PDT, Peter Fairbrother
Was Trump REQURED to do what he did? No. Was Trump PROHIBITED to do what he did? I don't think so, either.
I think he was prohibited. Whether he had good or bad motives, whether there is a specific law against it or not, it's like Nixon sending the watergate burglars, especially if the investigation is linked to aid or treaties or whatever - improper use of office.
Instead, I think that this was simply a matter which Trump was ALLOWED to do. Now, if it had been utterly clear that there was no justification to investigate Hunter Biden, and Joe Biden as well, for a kind of influence-peddling bribery, then I might think that Trump did something wrong, But so far, it sure looks like these Bidens were indeed engaging in influence-peddling.
Suppose they were. Suppose they weren't. Suppose the investigation is proper. Suppose it is improper. You are trying to say the Bidens maybe did something wrong. But I don't care if they did. It doesn't matter. What matters is what Trump did. BTW, Biden's complaining (did Biden actually complain? I thought it was a CIA whistleblower..) probably didn't actually stop any investigation of him, likely the reverse. But again, I do not care what Biden did or did not do. Also, "impeachment" is by no means
limited to actions which are explicitly "illegal".
High Crimes and Misdemeanours? Sounds illegal as hell to me. Peter F
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:30:27AM +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 09/10/2019 22:26, jim bell wrote:
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 01:52:57 PM PDT, Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/10/2019 21:02, jim bell wrote:
I try to avoid posting "political" issues, or at least initiating them, but Joe Biden just called for Trump to be impeached because Trump called on Ukraine and China to investigate him, Joe Biden. > I wonder why this doesn't qualify as "attempted obstruction of justice".
Not even if Biden is guilty of something (for which we have approximately zero evidence) and was trying to hide it.
Trump was not performing the lawful investigative act of a Government official - whether or not his motive was purely the administration of justice, his act is clearly and specifically illegal under US election law - therefore obstructing that unlawful act cannot be obstruction of justice.
Could you cite which specific part of US election law" that Trump's action was "clearly and specifically illegal"?
Nope, no idea. I just read that in the UK papers. It was widely reported.
But if it wasn't illegal, how could Trump be potentially impeached for a "high crime"? What crime?
How could Biden complain about Trump's doings unless they were illegal? Well of course he could complain, but why would people take any notice?
Only makes sense to me if it really was illegal.
Oh seriously, you missed the most compelling ground for illegality - is that CNN said so. I mean, I read it on the Internet, it simply MUST be true! Nice to see you shilling for Trump :)
Suppose a cop was following you for months, was parked outside your house every day, was all-the-time-asking your family and neighbours about you. Could you go to a Judge and get a restraining order?
Whether he was doing it because your and his kids had a fight, because you slept with his wife, or because he thinks (without sufficient evidence to justify it) that you are a serial killer, the Judge should grant it.
That would not be attempted or actual obstruction of justice, even if you were a serial killer. Because the cop's actions were illegal.
Peter F
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 11:47:34AM +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 10/10/2019 03:10, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
I mean, I read it on the Internet, it simply MUST be true!
Nice to see you shilling for Trump :)
I thought, if anything, I was shilling for Biden...
Dood, you should shill for McCain instead - he no longer in our realm o' the livin', so it's much harder for him to defend himself now he's gone :) : Demonstrating the sanity of US international diplomacy: Former US-Backed Rebel Leader Now Spearheading Attack On US-Backed Syrian Kurds https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/former-us-backed-rebel-leader-now-lea...
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 21:39:55 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
What was it Nixon said? "Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."
Nope, thankfully it doesn't work like that.
RIght Peter. Thankfully, in the first, free, developed world where you live, the Rule of Law* is Absolute. Just ask Assange! *Rule of Law of course means that the child murdering psychos whom you regard as your governmetn do whatever the fuck they want and call it 'Law'. They don't even have to write it down, let alone publish it. Secret Laws being an absolute necesity for National Security.
Peter Fairbrother
participants (5)
-
jim bell -
John Newman -
Peter Fairbrother -
Punk -
Zenaan Harkness