Sign out
Bimmerpost
Login
BMW E39 5-Series Forum | 5Post.com
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  
Go Back   BMW E39 5-Series Forum | 5Post.com > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-10-2019, 09:29 AM   #89
hooligan_COLD
Space Shuttle Door Gunner
hooligan_COLD's Avatar
3031
Rep
2,757
Posts

 
Drives: '15 X1 35i M Sport
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Back in the Mitten

iTrader: (0)

Sorry, you don't get to say this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
...How many of those did he charge with collusion?...


And then brag about this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
...My comprehension of law and logic do.
Appreciate 2
      06-10-2019, 09:45 AM   #90
TheWatchGuy
Major
TheWatchGuy's Avatar
1705
Rep
1,280
Posts

 
Drives: 335xi
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: CO

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishbimmer View Post
Try reading the book-its called "Football for a Buck" and its an entertaining read with commentary from the various owners, hi jinks from the players and testimony as to why the league went down. It clearly conflicts with your viewpoint.
if that was the case, the number of other football leagues that have come and gone would have succeeded.

The reason for the USFL, as well as the XFL, AFL and any other FL that has failed, is due to a lack of a fan base, a lack of talent, a lack of money and the fact that it isnt the NFL.

The USFL was already dying when Trump came in. He just helped ride it down the hole. By the time Trump had gotten a team in 84, a majority of the original USFL owners had already bailed.
__________________
@drunkcowatches on ig

Am I a watch guy, or do i watch guys?
Appreciate 0
      06-10-2019, 10:07 AM   #91
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
301
Posts

 
Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan_COLD View Post
Sorry, you don't get to say this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
...How many of those did he charge with collusion?...


And then brag about this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
...My comprehension of law and logic do.
Sorry for trying to simplify it and trying to put it in the terms of the left's promulgated narrative.

I guess instead of trying to refute any of my points, you went with the verbiage-selection critique. Congratulations on being one step smarter than the grammar police.
Appreciate 1
gjm120899.00

      06-10-2019, 10:44 AM   #92
Schwarzschild Radius
Field Marshal of the Cosmos
Schwarzschild Radius's Avatar
United_States
6749
Rep
8,383
Posts

 
Drives: 135i DCT
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Agua Caliente

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2012 135  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Well in the US, people are innocent until proven guilty, and therefore the onus is on you to justify the need for prosecution. So why don't you please provide the specific quotes/sections that you think warrant prosecution. Please also specify the specific laws that are broken in the conduct you intend to quote.

My point in challenging you isn't to show you that he shouldn't be prosecuted. It's to highlight the point that most people on the investigative team were slightly biased against trump personally, so if there was a remote chance that there was sufficient evidence to justify a charge based on a specific rule/law that was broken, they would have pursued it. Things that he has done that are not nice or icky do not qualify for prosecution and no one is saying that he didn't do things that were immoral or unpresidential, just that he didn't do enough to have a clear and shut case against him.
Evidence that they are biased? Besides Hannity.
"publicly available voter registration information shows that 13 of the 17 members of Mueller's team have previously registered as Democrats, while four had no affiliation or their affiliation could not be found.

Nine of the 17 made political donations to Democrats, their contributions totaling more than $57,000. The majority came from one person, who also contributed to Republicans. Six donated to Hillary Clinton, Trump's opponent in the 2016 race."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.wa...outputType=amp
So have you refuted the fact Mueller was biased for a Republican conclusion? As he is a registered republican......and the leader of the investigation.....
.
.
.
FYI if you don't address this, I will be forced to taunt you again (said in a silly french voice).
.
.
Attached Images
 
__________________
I need some warm warming up stuff -LUPS

Last edited by Schwarzschild Radius; 06-10-2019 at 10:56 AM..
Appreciate 0
      06-10-2019, 12:01 PM   #93
hooligan_COLD
Space Shuttle Door Gunner
hooligan_COLD's Avatar
3031
Rep
2,757
Posts

 
Drives: '15 X1 35i M Sport
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Back in the Mitten

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Sorry for trying to simplify it and trying to put it in the terms of the left's promulgated narrative.

I guess instead of trying to refute any of my points, you went with the verbiage-selection critique...

Words matter - don't be mad at me.

I didn't see any points that needed to be refuted, or that weren't already in this thread or by Mueller himself.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
...Congratulations on being one step smarter than the grammar police.
Speaking of that - physician, heal thyself...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
It seems that people either don't know the definition of the word bias, or are conflating two concepts of having and exhibiting a bias...
Appreciate 1
      06-10-2019, 03:23 PM   #94
vocan
Second Lieutenant
176
Rep
297
Posts

 
Drives: 1M
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Northern exposure

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
FYI if you don't address this, I will be forced to taunt you again (said in a silly french voice).
.
.
LOL

Classic.
Appreciate 1
      06-10-2019, 03:40 PM   #95
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
301
Posts

 
Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Well in the US, people are innocent until proven guilty, and therefore the onus is on you to justify the need for prosecution. So why don't you please provide the specific quotes/sections that you think warrant prosecution. Please also specify the specific laws that are broken in the conduct you intend to quote.

My point in challenging you isn't to show you that he shouldn't be prosecuted. It's to highlight the point that most people on the investigative team were slightly biased against trump personally, so if there was a remote chance that there was sufficient evidence to justify a charge based on a specific rule/law that was broken, they would have pursued it. Things that he has done that are not nice or icky do not qualify for prosecution and no one is saying that he didn't do things that were immoral or unpresidential, just that he didn't do enough to have a clear and shut case against him.
Evidence that they are biased? Besides Hannity.
"publicly available voter registration information shows that 13 of the 17 members of Mueller's team have previously registered as Democrats, while four had no affiliation or their affiliation could not be found.

Nine of the 17 made political donations to Democrats, their contributions totaling more than $57,000. The majority came from one person, who also contributed to Republicans. Six donated to Hillary Clinton, Trump's opponent in the 2016 race."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.wa...outputType=amp
So have you refuted the fact Mueller was biased for a Republican conclusion? As he is a registered republican......and the leader of the investigation.....
.
.
.
FYI if you don't address this, I will be forced to taunt you again (said in a silly french voice).
.
.
I fail to understand the point you are trying to make. My statement, regarding the presence of bias, was not the primary point I was making. The primary point was that DESPITE the bias, they concluded that there was not sufficient conduct to warrant a recommendation of prosecution.

Is the point you are trying to make that Mueller wasn't one of the 13 of the 17 members who was a registered Democrat nor one of the 6 members who donated to the campaign of the opposing candidate of the person they were investigating? If that's your point, I agree.
Appreciate 0
      06-10-2019, 03:45 PM   #96
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
301
Posts

 
Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan_COLD View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Sorry for trying to simplify it and trying to put it in the terms of the left's promulgated narrative.

I guess instead of trying to refute any of my points, you went with the verbiage-selection critique...

Words matter - don't be mad at me.

I didn't see any points that needed to be refuted, or that weren't already in this thread or by Mueller himself.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
...Congratulations on being one step smarter than the grammar police.
Speaking of that - physician, heal thyself...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
It seems that people either don't know the definition of the word bias, or are conflating two concepts of having and exhibiting a bias...
So let me get this straight, you saw this thread, decided to read its contents, and concluded that the best you can do to add something meaningful to the discussion was to criticize a word choice as opposed to adding something worthwhile to the topic being discussed?

If that's the case you get a high five for being so "special"
Appreciate 0
      06-10-2019, 04:08 PM   #97
Schwarzschild Radius
Field Marshal of the Cosmos
Schwarzschild Radius's Avatar
United_States
6749
Rep
8,383
Posts

 
Drives: 135i DCT
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Agua Caliente

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2012 135  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
I fail to understand the point you are trying to make. My statement, regarding the presence of bias, was not the primary point I was making. The primary point was that DESPITE the bias, they concluded that there was not sufficient conduct to warrant a recommendation of prosecution.

Is the point you are trying to make that Mueller wasn't one of the 13 of the 17 members who was a registered Democrat nor one of the 6 members who donated to the campaign of the opposing candidate of the person they were investigating? If that's your point, I agree.
Thank you for not making me taunt you again with an old Monty Python joke.


My experience is that the leader has far more to do with taking a working group in a certain direction. Obviously Mueller, by the reasoning of most Trump supporters here, took his group in a very GOP friendly direction. Imagine if Mueller had been a democrat, what his report would have found.
__________________
I need some warm warming up stuff -LUPS
Appreciate 0
      06-10-2019, 04:11 PM   #98
Schwarzschild Radius
Field Marshal of the Cosmos
Schwarzschild Radius's Avatar
United_States
6749
Rep
8,383
Posts

 
Drives: 135i DCT
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Agua Caliente

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2012 135  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan_COLD View Post
Words matter - don't be mad at me.

I didn't see any points that needed to be refuted, or that weren't already in this thread or by Mueller himself.





Speaking of that - physician, heal thyself...
I conflated a few minutes ago, sbd.
__________________
I need some warm warming up stuff -LUPS
Appreciate 1
      06-10-2019, 04:14 PM   #99
wdb
dances with roads
wdb's Avatar
United_States
1334
Rep
2,218
Posts

 
Drives: '07 Z4MC, '07 E93 328i
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: the perimeter

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
The primary point was that DESPITE the bias, they concluded that there was not sufficient conduct to warrant a recommendation of prosecution.
For conspiracy with the Russians, yes you are right, they concluded insufficient evidence -- or as Trump calls it, total exoneration. For the investigation into obstruction that is not the conclusion.
Appreciate 2
      06-10-2019, 04:53 PM   #100
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
301
Posts

 
Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
I fail to understand the point you are trying to make. My statement, regarding the presence of bias, was not the primary point I was making. The primary point was that DESPITE the bias, they concluded that there was not sufficient conduct to warrant a recommendation of prosecution.

Is the point you are trying to make that Mueller wasn't one of the 13 of the 17 members who was a registered Democrat nor one of the 6 members who donated to the campaign of the opposing candidate of the person they were investigating? If that's your point, I agree.
Thank you for not making me taunt you again with an old Monty Python joke.


My experience is that the leader has far more to do with taking a working group in a certain direction. Obviously Mueller, by the reasoning of most Trump supporters here, took his group in a very GOP friendly direction. Imagine if Mueller had been a democrat, what his report would have found.
I can't refute that. The only thing I can say is that almost all Dems are against trump and there are even some repubs against him too. So odds are that there is more bias from dems against him than there is from repubs for him. (Meaning for him specifically as opposed to a generic republic)
Appreciate 0
      06-10-2019, 04:56 PM   #101
irishbimmer
Major
1003
Rep
1,409
Posts

 
Drives: Silverstone M6 CP, Bulldozer,
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Orange County, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy View Post
if that was the case, the number of other football leagues that have come and gone would have succeeded.

The reason for the USFL, as well as the XFL, AFL and any other FL that has failed, is due to a lack of a fan base, a lack of talent, a lack of money and the fact that it isnt the NFL.

The USFL was already dying when Trump came in. He just helped ride it down the hole. By the time Trump had gotten a team in 84, a majority of the original USFL owners had already bailed.
All I am saying is read the book.
__________________
"People are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts"
Appreciate 0
      06-10-2019, 04:59 PM   #102
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
301
Posts

 
Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdb View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
The primary point was that DESPITE the bias, they concluded that there was not sufficient conduct to warrant a recommendation of prosecution.
For conspiracy with the Russians, yes you are right, they concluded insufficient evidence -- or as Trump calls it, total exoneration. For the investigation into obstruction that is not the conclusion.
My understanding is that for an obstruction charge to be plausible, a person had to have tried to obstruct an action with corrupt intent. The corrupt intent being to conceal an underlying crime of which they are also guilty. In this case there was no evidence of conspiracy, the underlying crime also investigated and therefore no corrupt intent and therefore no obstruction charge. If there had been actual conspiracy, the same actions WOULD have led to an obstruction charge since the intent of the concealment was corrupt in nature in order to obstruct the discovery of an actual crime.
Appreciate 0
      06-10-2019, 05:56 PM   #103
Schwarzschild Radius
Field Marshal of the Cosmos
Schwarzschild Radius's Avatar
United_States
6749
Rep
8,383
Posts

 
Drives: 135i DCT
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Agua Caliente

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2012 135  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdb View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
The primary point was that DESPITE the bias, they concluded that there was not sufficient conduct to warrant a recommendation of prosecution.
For conspiracy with the Russians, yes you are right, they concluded insufficient evidence -- or as Trump calls it, total exoneration. For the investigation into obstruction that is not the conclusion.
My understanding is that for an obstruction charge to be plausible, a person had to have tried to obstruct an action with corrupt intent. The corrupt intent being to conceal an underlying crime of which they are also guilty. In this case there was no evidence of conspiracy, the underlying crime also investigated and therefore no corrupt intent and therefore no obstruction charge. If there had been actual conspiracy, the same actions WOULD have led to an obstruction charge since the intent of the concealment was corrupt in nature in order to obstruct the discovery of an actual crime.
As I argued earlier, how do we know the obstruction didn't succeed?
__________________
I need some warm warming up stuff -LUPS
Appreciate 0
      06-10-2019, 06:10 PM   #104
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
301
Posts

 
Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdb View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
The primary point was that DESPITE the bias, they concluded that there was not sufficient conduct to warrant a recommendation of prosecution.
For conspiracy with the Russians, yes you are right, they concluded insufficient evidence -- or as Trump calls it, total exoneration. For the investigation into obstruction that is not the conclusion.
My understanding is that for an obstruction charge to be plausible, a person had to have tried to obstruct an action with corrupt intent. The corrupt intent being to conceal an underlying crime of which they are also guilty. In this case there was no evidence of conspiracy, the underlying crime also investigated and therefore no corrupt intent and therefore no obstruction charge. If there had been actual conspiracy, the same actions WOULD have led to an obstruction charge since the intent of the concealment was corrupt in nature in order to obstruct the discovery of an actual crime.
As I argued earlier, how do we know the obstruction didn't succeed?
Because the evidence collected thus far does not support that.

How do we know that you're not a serial killer who's hidden all the evidence of your crimes and avoided being caught? We don't, and we can't preemptively jail you on the off chance that that may be the case until evidence supporting it comes to light
Having said that, if conspiratorial evidence is found and therefore the corrupt intent necessary for obstruction is found, I would fully support adding obstruction to the conspiracy charges.
Appreciate 0
      06-10-2019, 06:36 PM   #105
Schwarzschild Radius
Field Marshal of the Cosmos
Schwarzschild Radius's Avatar
United_States
6749
Rep
8,383
Posts

 
Drives: 135i DCT
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Agua Caliente

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2012 135  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdb View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
The primary point was that DESPITE the bias, they concluded that there was not sufficient conduct to warrant a recommendation of prosecution.
For conspiracy with the Russians, yes you are right, they concluded insufficient evidence -- or as Trump calls it, total exoneration. For the investigation into obstruction that is not the conclusion.
My understanding is that for an obstruction charge to be plausible, a person had to have tried to obstruct an action with corrupt intent. The corrupt intent being to conceal an underlying crime of which they are also guilty. In this case there was no evidence of conspiracy, the underlying crime also investigated and therefore no corrupt intent and therefore no obstruction charge. If there had been actual conspiracy, the same actions WOULD have led to an obstruction charge since the intent of the concealment was corrupt in nature in order to obstruct the discovery of an actual crime.
As I argued earlier, how do we know the obstruction didn't succeed?
Because the evidence collected thus far does not support that.

How do we know that you're not a serial killer who's hidden all the evidence of your crimes and avoided being caught? We don't, and we can't preemptively jail you on the off chance that that may be the case until evidence supporting it comes to light
Having said that, if conspiratorial evidence is found and therefore the corrupt intent necessary for obstruction is found, I would fully support adding obstruction to the conspiracy charges.
I kill cereal, not serial
__________________
I need some warm warming up stuff -LUPS
Appreciate 0
      06-10-2019, 07:03 PM   #106
Schwarzschild Radius
Field Marshal of the Cosmos
Schwarzschild Radius's Avatar
United_States
6749
Rep
8,383
Posts

 
Drives: 135i DCT
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Agua Caliente

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2012 135  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdb View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
The primary point was that DESPITE the bias, they concluded that there was not sufficient conduct to warrant a recommendation of prosecution.
For conspiracy with the Russians, yes you are right, they concluded insufficient evidence -- or as Trump calls it, total exoneration. For the investigation into obstruction that is not the conclusion.
My understanding is that for an obstruction charge to be plausible, a person had to have tried to obstruct an action with corrupt intent. The corrupt intent being to conceal an underlying crime of which they are also guilty. In this case there was no evidence of conspiracy, the underlying crime also investigated and therefore no corrupt intent and therefore no obstruction charge. If there had been actual conspiracy, the same actions WOULD have led to an obstruction charge since the intent of the concealment was corrupt in nature in order to obstruct the discovery of an actual crime.
As I argued earlier, how do we know the obstruction didn't succeed?
Because the evidence collected thus far does not support that.

How do we know that you're not a serial killer who's hidden all the evidence of your crimes and avoided being caught? We don't, and we can't preemptively jail you on the off chance that that may be the case until evidence supporting it comes to light
Having said that, if conspiratorial evidence is found and therefore the corrupt intent necessary for obstruction is found, I would fully support adding obstruction to the conspiracy charges.
The reason people obstruct justice is to Conceal evidence of a crime. If they were successful in concealing the crime, should they still get off on the obstruction charge?
__________________
I need some warm warming up stuff -LUPS
Appreciate 0
      06-10-2019, 08:12 PM   #107
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
301
Posts

 
Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdb View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
The primary point was that DESPITE the bias, they concluded that there was not sufficient conduct to warrant a recommendation of prosecution.
For conspiracy with the Russians, yes you are right, they concluded insufficient evidence -- or as Trump calls it, total exoneration. For the investigation into obstruction that is not the conclusion.
My understanding is that for an obstruction charge to be plausible, a person had to have tried to obstruct an action with corrupt intent. The corrupt intent being to conceal an underlying crime of which they are also guilty. In this case there was no evidence of conspiracy, the underlying crime also investigated and therefore no corrupt intent and therefore no obstruction charge. If there had been actual conspiracy, the same actions WOULD have led to an obstruction charge since the intent of the concealment was corrupt in nature in order to obstruct the discovery of an actual crime.
As I argued earlier, how do we know the obstruction didn't succeed?
Because the evidence collected thus far does not support that.

How do we know that you're not a serial killer who's hidden all the evidence of your crimes and avoided being caught? We don't, and we can't preemptively jail you on the off chance that that may be the case until evidence supporting it comes to light
Having said that, if conspiratorial evidence is found and therefore the corrupt intent necessary for obstruction is found, I would fully support adding obstruction to the conspiracy charges.
The reason people obstruct justice is to Conceal evidence of a crime. If they were successful in concealing the crime, should they still get off on the obstruction charge?
By definition (assuming the definition I'm using is correct) its only obstruction if there is an underlying crime. Therefore, if you don't have evidence of an underlying crime, then the subsequent action cannot be defined as obstruction. So to answer your question, if you commit a crime and then conceal the crime so that there is no evidence of it, then know one will know you committed a crime and the actions you took to conceal it are not criminal until the underlying crime is discovered. Ergo, to be a good criminal you need to be a good concealer.
Appreciate 0
      06-10-2019, 08:23 PM   #108
irishbimmer
Major
1003
Rep
1,409
Posts

 
Drives: Silverstone M6 CP, Bulldozer,
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Orange County, CA

iTrader: (0)

There does not have to be an underlying crime for there to be obstruction, or attempted obstruction of justice.
__________________
"People are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts"
Appreciate 2
      06-10-2019, 09:04 PM   #109
glennQNYC
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
glennQNYC's Avatar
United_States
4620
Rep
4,574
Posts

 
Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Obviously Mueller, by the reasoning of most Trump supporters here, took his group in a very GOP friendly direction.
Let the record show this staunch supporter of President Trump would not say the Special Council was "friendly" to their superiors in the Executive Branch. Two quick examples would be the lack of a decision on obstruction itself; and insubordinately not indicating the material in their report to the AG that was legally required to be redacted.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      06-11-2019, 06:50 AM   #110
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
301
Posts

 
Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishbimmer View Post
There does not have to be an underlying crime for there to be obstruction, or attempted obstruction of justice.
I read up on this and while technically you are correct, in reality it's almost impossible to make this case. To be able to charge a person who has not committed an underlying crime with obstruction you have to among other things prove an element of "corrupt intent to interfere with or attempt to interfere with the proceeding."
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:11 PM.




5post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST