it takes only ONE of three and i did in fact show that he did not match any one of them

Lawyers can argue either side of anything. That's their job, after all.

Let's see the evidence and hear the arguments before we decide that Donnie is as pure as the driven snow.

tl;dr - Just because something seems "obvious" to us based on our understanding of the text of the law, the clear meaning of words, and the evidence that we've heard about in the press, doesn't mean that he'll be found guilty. Look at Bob McDonnell.

Bob McDonnell convicted on 11 counts of corruption

Conviction vacated by SCOTUS over weaseling on the meaning of 'official act'

McDonnell was as guilty as sin. He sold his office. SCOTUS decided (even though it was 8:0) that he wasn't because, I guess, IOKIYAR.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.

hard case to prove all up hill as der trumpster is the chief executive. Go back a ways
https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2013/mayjune/feature/burr-versus-jefferson-versus-marshall

A remarkable aspect of the trial—one unique in American history—was the president’s micromanagement of the prosecution from the White House. The reasons for Jefferson’s personal involvement are unclear. Generally speaking, he was reluctant to delegate authority, and he also may have lacked full confidence in the government’s lawyers. And since he had already declared Burr guilty, he may have felt compelled to prove himself right. In any case, Jefferson’s numerous letters to George Hay, the federal attorney who was nominally in charge, contain detailed instructions about trial strategy, evidence, and witness interrogation. Jefferson even forwarded a batch of blank pardons to be used, at Hay’s discretion, to elicit evidence from reluctant witnesses. One such was Erick Bollman, a Burr associate, who pointedly refused in open court to accept a pardon for the crime of treason, a crime that he clearly did not commit. Burr’s lawyers took the occasion to blast the prosecution—and the president.

Jefferson’s involvement, which became common knowledge during the trial, turned out to be one of Burr’s main lines of defense. It also provided some of the trial’s most dramatic moments, notably when Luther Martin, one of Burr’s lawyers, denounced the author of the Declaration of Independence for behaving like “a king of Great Britain” and for unleashing “the dogs of war, the hell hounds of persecution” against an innocent man for personal reasons.
no impeachment, no charges and in american law precedent matters.

blank pardon forms? not the first time and in this case maybe not the last.

Post #425,053 by boxley 8/6/18 9:46:36 PM 8/6/18 9:46:36 PM Reply	it takes only ONE of three and i did in fact show that he did not match any one of them trump did not solicit, he was solicited trump did not receive as nothing was offered. trump did not accept as nothing was received hth "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #425,054 by Another Scott 8/6/18 10:52:34 PM 8/6/18 10:52:34 PM Reply	We shall see, shalln't we? Lawyers can argue either side of anything. That's their job, after all. Let's see the evidence and hear the arguments before we decide that Donnie is as pure as the driven snow. tl;dr - Just because something seems "obvious" to us based on our understanding of the text of the law, the clear meaning of words, and the evidence that we've heard about in the press, doesn't mean that he'll be found guilty. Look at Bob McDonnell. Bob McDonnell convicted on 11 counts of corruption Conviction vacated by SCOTUS over weaseling on the meaning of 'official act' McDonnell was as guilty as sin. He sold his office. SCOTUS decided (even though it was 8:0) that he wasn't because, I guess, IOKIYAR. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #425,055 by boxley 8/6/18 11:36:34 PM 8/6/18 11:36:34 PM Reply	you are right all of the evidence or lack thereof is not available, but as far as obstruction goes.. hard case to prove all up hill as der trumpster is the chief executive. Go back a ways https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2013/mayjune/feature/burr-versus-jefferson-versus-marshall A remarkable aspect of the trial—one unique in American history—was the president’s micromanagement of the prosecution from the White House. The reasons for Jefferson’s personal involvement are unclear. Generally speaking, he was reluctant to delegate authority, and he also may have lacked full confidence in the government’s lawyers. And since he had already declared Burr guilty, he may have felt compelled to prove himself right. In any case, Jefferson’s numerous letters to George Hay, the federal attorney who was nominally in charge, contain detailed instructions about trial strategy, evidence, and witness interrogation. Jefferson even forwarded a batch of blank pardons to be used, at Hay’s discretion, to elicit evidence from reluctant witnesses. One such was Erick Bollman, a Burr associate, who pointedly refused in open court to accept a pardon for the crime of treason, a crime that he clearly did not commit. Burr’s lawyers took the occasion to blast the prosecution—and the president. Jefferson’s involvement, which became common knowledge during the trial, turned out to be one of Burr’s main lines of defense. It also provided some of the trial’s most dramatic moments, notably when Luther Martin, one of Burr’s lawyers, denounced the author of the Declaration of Independence for behaving like “a king of Great Britain” and for unleashing “the dogs of war, the hell hounds of persecution” against an innocent man for personal reasons. no impeachment, no charges and in american law precedent matters. blank pardon forms? not the first time and in this case maybe not the last. "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

Welcome to IWETHEY!