@SorcererV1ct0r Any study that only looks at the last few decades claims humans are fully responsible. The one study I've seen that actually takes the planet's entire climate history into account says that they can't be certain people are the fully responsible. The Earth never re-normalized its climate to pre-ice age levels. So for most of human history we have been living in UNUSUALLY temperate climate. Naturally it would eventually recover on its own anyway. The problem is, our infrastructure and ways of living are based on what has been a steady climate until now. There is no "stopping it" but can, and NEED, to plan how we will react to it and adapt with it.
Anyone hear about the Saudi - Canada thing? Apparently as a result of the tiff 16,000 Saudi students have had their scholarships pulled and have been asked (by the Saudi government) to leave Canada.
Anyone hear about the Saudi - Canada thing? Apparently as a result of the tiff 16,000 Saudi students have had their scholarships pulled and have been asked (by the Saudi government) to leave Canada.
Anyone hear about the Saudi - Canada thing? Apparently as a result of the tiff 16,000 Saudi students have had their scholarships pulled and have been asked (by the Saudi government) to leave Canada.
Yes, and according to the media they're freezing all 'new' trade. We'll have to see whether this ends up affecting the 2014 armoured vehicle deal (worth $15 billion), but the language seems carefully crafted enough to suggest they'd like to keep that in place. But in this climate of rhetoric and tariffs, who knows?
Thanks a lot for answers. Any interesting articles about evidences that the climate changes are created by humans? And articles that they are natural?
But lets assume that the climate change is not natural and is caused by humans. HOw to solve that problem? I mean, China is the worlds largest polluter, if everyone needs to trade with China, who make countries pollute less? (source https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/09/the-worlds-largest-cap-and-trade-program/407371/ ) And how do that without capping the development in underdeveloped nations?
@SorcererV1ct0r the NASA web-site is a good place to start if you want to read about climate change - the information is presented in an accessible way, but there are plenty of links to more detail if you want it. The most authoritative source is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There's more information there than you could read in a lifetime though and I don't think it's summarized that well.
The US currently uses more energy than China, but that is likely to change in the coming years. However, China is investing very heavily in renewable sources of energy, which is why it is happy to sign up to the requirements of the Paris Agreement. Renewable sources include for instance solar power (China is easily the largest producer of solar panels), which is generally uncontroversial. However, China is also the world's leading proponent of hydropower. While in principle that is seen as a good thing, there is a lot of controversy over the way it is implemented (for instance as a result of changing the distribution of water between countries and requiring movements of population within countries) - here's an article on that I noticed the other day.
In the past Canada could count on the US having it's back. Trump won't lift a finger against Saudi Arabia they know this, he already let them walk over the UAE. Thry know Trump hates Trudeau so they are emboldened.
In the past Obama or a real President not the orange scuzzy man we have now would defuse the situation and get Saudi to cool it.
I just saw a rather interesting article regarding obstacles to getting healthcare costs lowered here in the US. I did not know these existed. The CON (Certificate of Need) laws were set up by states quite a while back, and not all have repealed them. It basically seems to give hospitals a monopoly on certain services. Anyone that has had to pay out of pocket, or even with ins. sometimes, knows how expensive MRI's are (and how important).
This one doctor here in NC is fighting the state on the matter. He wants to offer MRI's in his private practice for $500, which is much less than what a hospital charges (my last was around 2k I think). The state has accessed his situation and denied it. It's seems like the state sees it this way because it's in a city with a hospital and they don't see his need to have another (despite him being a surgeon). Through a loophole he is able to rent one of these 750k machines a couple times a week, but it's quite expensive to do so. The state appears to have not had it's ruling contested before now (hopefully he will be successful). This surgeon wants to offer cheap MRIs. A state law is getting in his way.
Surely Canada has matters which are more important for it to address than a squabble with Saudi Arabia, yes? If the two of them want to have a twitter feud then I see no reason to care about it at all.
West Hollywood city council wants to remove Trump's star from the "Walk of Fame" sidewalk; the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, which actually controls the sidewalk tourist attraction, is letting the star stay for now (at least, once it gets replaced after the vandalism). If they do decide to remove Trump's star because of his words or actions with which they disapprove, then they are going to have to start removing stars for a lot more celebrities whose actions are, shall we say, less than admirable--folks like Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey. That list will have a lot more names on it and there won't be many stars left for people to go see.
The latest numbers I saw for the race in Ohio District 12 has Balderson (R) at 101,574 and O'Connor (D) at 99,820 but there are at least 3,300 provisional ballots and an unspecified number of absentee ballots left to count, so there is no clear winner just yet.
Lindsey Graham golfed with Trump in New Jersey on Sunday. Trump apparently begged him repeatedly again and again and over again to end the Russian election interference probe.
“Did Trump ask that question? He must have mentioned that about 20 times,” said Graham.
During the public comment portion of the Net Neutrality debate, Ajit Pai claimed that there were attacks on the agency's servers. It was, in fact, just a result of an overwhelming response from the public. There were no DDos attacks. The story was used to explain away the public outcry and to block pro-Net Neutrality comments. Now, it turns out, Pai has been forced to admit that, lo and behold, there were NO attacks on the FFC servers. They invented a fake attack to push this through without sufficient public feedback:
Surely Canada has matters which are more important for it to address than a squabble with Saudi Arabia, yes? If the two of them want to have a twitter feud then I see no reason to care about it at all.
This is after the Ontario government scrapped a carbon tax and trade (good) and cancelled a pilot project about basic income reform (https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-basic-income-pilot) that was happening in Hamilton (badish) as Ford attempts to undo as much as he can of the Liberals foolishness.
Federally, not much is happening. NAFTA keeps spinning its wheels as the tariffs keep wrecking businesses (such as aluminum can prices. Many companies were eating the losses but they now have to raise prices as supplies are dwindling) and we still have too many illigal immigrants streaming into our country from the U.S. that it is straining our resources, not much is happening.
The Saudi thing was just an overreaction by their part although it has been a trend in the last year of overreactions that it maybe the new norm.
With a stronger ally in the White House (Trump), Saudi will probably stop paying lip service to the rest of the west and rely on their rhetoric that they are fighting Iran to get anything they want from the Trump administration. It’s a wait and see for now though. I think selling this regime more weapons though is going to bite the U.S. in the ass in about 6 years.
Telling ya Trump hates Trudeau (and Merkel) he will kiss Saudis butt before he lifts a finger for Canada who "has been ripping us off for yearz!" Canada is the moral Authority in the Americas these days.
As I mentioned before, the Judge in the Manafort case, Judge T.S. Ellis, is piece of work. He's the kind of authoritarian right wing power tripping guy that Trump adores, Trump's said the judge is really special. He's the kind of guy that has no business being a judge. The kind of guy with a little bit of authority and he thinks he's kind of the world.
Well hopefully Manafort gets what he deserves in spite of this nut job judge. But at this rate even when Manafort's convicted the judge will probably try to sentence Manafort to probation or overturn the jury's verdict.
Expressing an opinion is not "obstruction of justice". One must actually *do* something in order to obstruct justice.
@Mathsorcerer you do indeed have to do something - and while having an opinion is not doing something, expressing an opinion is. I've posted before about the fact that people are regularly convicted in the UK of the similar offence of contempt of court and that may just involve expressing an opinion - the appropriate question to consider is whether the opinion you express is likely to influence the relevant behavior of others. You telling your friends at dinner what you think about a case is unlikely to be a problem (though not impossible - if one of your friends is a juror in a current case for instance). A celebrity posting their views on social media about an ongoing or upcoming trial is much more likely to be a problem.
Let's consider the case of Trump posting on Twitter something like, 'my Attorney General should be fired if he doesn't end the Russia investigation'. Even if he successfully argued in court that was simply an opinion and not an order (and that seems a likely outcome to me), the opinion was clearly designed to influence other people's behavior in relation to an ongoing judicial investigation. I would class that as an open and shut case of obstruction of justice.
If you don't think that's obstruction, what would constitute doing something? There's a big grey area between plans and actions and Trump's behavior is already a long way into that grey area. However, you could push it a bit further - for instance what if he said explicitly (as opposed to implicitly) to Sessions that unless he ended the investigation Trump would fire him? Would that meet your test?
As a general matter of law (both in the UK and US) it is not necessary to commit a crime to be convicted of it. It is only necessary to have made plans and preparations and intended to commit it - that's why typically police will not wait until a terrorist atrocity is actually committed before making an arrest. The US constitutional right to free speech may give protections in some cases, where that wouldn't be the situation in the UK. However, it's a long way from being a complete protection.
As I mentioned before, the Judge in the Manafort case, Judge T.S. Ellis, is piece of work. He's the kind of authoritarian right wing power tripping guy that Trump adores, Trump's said the judge is really special. He's the kind of guy that has no business being a judge. The kind of guy with a little bit of authority and he thinks he's kind of the world.
Well hopefully Manafort gets what he deserves in spite of this nut job judge. But at this rate even when Manafort's convicted the judge will probably try to sentence Manafort to probation or overturn the jury's verdict.
I'm still not sure what the problem is here. It certainly sounds like the judge tries cases in a manner I wouldn't appreciate, but that doesn't mean he's being unfair. The entire story you linked is about putting that behavior in context and explaining why it shouldn't automatically be taken as evidence of bias.
As I mentioned before, the Judge in the Manafort case, Judge T.S. Ellis, is piece of work. He's the kind of authoritarian right wing power tripping guy that Trump adores, Trump's said the judge is really special. He's the kind of guy that has no business being a judge. The kind of guy with a little bit of authority and he thinks he's kind of the world.
Well hopefully Manafort gets what he deserves in spite of this nut job judge. But at this rate even when Manafort's convicted the judge will probably try to sentence Manafort to probation or overturn the jury's verdict.
I'm still not sure what the problem is here. It certainly sounds like the judge tries cases in a manner I wouldn't appreciate, but that doesn't mean he's being unfair. The entire story you linked is about putting that behavior in context and explaining why it shouldn't automatically be taken as evidence of bias.
The judge is clearly a prick, but from what I have read he is a prick to everybody in his courtroom and has been for years.
Let's consider the case of Trump posting on Twitter something like, 'my Attorney General should be fired if he doesn't end the Russia investigation'. Even if he successfully argued in court that was simply an opinion and not an order (and that seems a likely outcome to me), the opinion was clearly designed to influence other people's behavior in relation to an ongoing judicial investigation. I would class that as an open and shut case of obstruction of justice.
The thing is that Trump's legal status depends not on a typical trial, but on an impeachment proceeding. Impeachment will not happen via a randomly-selected jury; it will happen, if it does happen, because federal lawmakers make it happen. Federal lawmakers, in turn, take orders from the general public--and that's exactly who Trump is trying to reach out to. Public opinion is his jury, and he's trying to secure an advantage with that audience by publicly attacking his hypothetical prosecutors. It's clearly intended to manipulate the end result.
Trump has made it very clear that he wants the Russia investigation to end, and he's already admitted that he tried to stop it by firing Comey--which is a clear use of actual presidential power, and not just a statement. He's applied pressure on Rosenstein. He's attacked the special counsel and the FBI as a whole. It's pretty obvious that he's trying as hard as he can to put a stop to a federal investigation. We already know how much he hates the investigation and how much he wants it to stop; his motives are already well-known and unambiguous.
Everything he's been saying is geared towards trying to end the investigation. It's not a really a question of, "Does Trump really want the Russia investigation to end?" We already know the answer to that one.
The question is, "What is Trump doing to stop it?" And I don't think "Nothing" is a plausible answer at this point.
Let's consider the case of Trump posting on Twitter something like, 'my Attorney General should be fired if he doesn't end the Russia investigation'. Even if he successfully argued in court that was simply an opinion and not an order (and that seems a likely outcome to me), the opinion was clearly designed to influence other people's behavior in relation to an ongoing judicial investigation. I would class that as an open and shut case of obstruction of justice.
If you don't think that's obstruction, what would constitute doing something? There's a big grey area between plans and actions and Trump's behavior is already a long way into that grey area. However, you could push it a bit further - for instance what if he said explicitly (as opposed to implicitly) to Sessions that unless he ended the investigation Trump would fire him? Would that meet your test?
"Doing something" would be making a phone call, sending an e-mail message, or having a meeting where the topic "firing Mueller or firing Rosenstein if he doesn't fire Mueller" is the subject of discussion. Even sending out a tweet is insufficient--those are not direct orders given to people.
Telling Sessions that he needed to end the investigation or he, himself, would be fired could definitely be seen as obstruction.
I think everyone is waiting until November elections have been decided before they weigh their options. If the Democrats do not retake the House then the investigation probably won't live until next April; however, if they do then Trump will probably be subpoenaed by Mueller in January.
In regards to what is being done to stop the investigation, tonight NBC News obtained audio of Devin Nunes and other top GOP House members at a fundraiser. They make it VERY clear that despite the public facade of it not being serious, they have every intention to impeach Rosenstein if they have to. And they make it clear that it has NOTHING to do with his job performance, and that the plan is simply a naked power move to protect Trump. They even flat-out say the only reason they haven't done it yet is because they believe it might imperil Kavanaugh's confirmation. They have a plan already set out to do it AFTER the election, in the lame duck session of Congress. Go listen to the audio. If anyone at this late date had any illusions about Devin Nunes and the House GOP leadership, they should be erased forever.
I've ALWAYS been convinced of Trump's guilt and complicity in this matter. But I now also just as firmly believe he is going to get away with it even after everything is revealed. We've seen the lengths he will go to before he is even in serious peril to stop the investigation (though I have always suspected he knows what peril he is in far better than we do). What lengths will he go to if the walls close in and the shit truly hits the fan??
The thing is that Trump's legal status depends not on a typical trial, but on an impeachment proceeding. Impeachment will not happen via a randomly-selected jury; it will happen, if it does happen, because federal lawmakers make it happen. Federal lawmakers, in turn, take orders from the general public--and that's exactly who Trump is trying to reach out to. Public opinion is his jury, and he's trying to secure an advantage with that audience by publicly attacking his hypothetical prosecutors. It's clearly intended to manipulate the end result.
I agree in general with you, but personally I would like to see legal proceedings against Trump for obstruction of justice. It's possible that would ultimately lead to a declaration that a president cannot be prosecuted during his term of office, though I actually doubt that would be the result. At least if that were the case though, it would provide greater certainty than the current situation.
At present Trump is trying to turn legal into political proceedings. The trouble with impeachment as a process is that it is aimed at preventing a rogue president from doing his own thing against the will of Congress. It does nothing though to restrain a president from doing something that would be illegal done by anyone else - if he has the support of a majority (or even a substantial minority) of Congress. I'm sure you can foresee some of the problems that could arise if the president were in fact found to be able to act illegally in support of his own political party ...
That huge potential conflict of interest between what's good for the party and what's good for the country is one of the reasons I think the Supreme Court would in fact be likely to rule that Trump could be prosecuted now for obstruction of justice. I've posted before that I can see the advantages of not allowing cases to be brought against a sitting president, but ultimately I think the Supreme Court's vested interest in ensuring the independence of the judiciary from the executive would lead them to the conclusion that the law should apply to everyone equally.
In regards to what is being done to stop the investigation, tonight NBC News obtained audio of Devin Nunes and other top GOP House members at a fundraiser. They make it VERY clear that despite the public facade of it not being serious, they have every intention to impeach Rosenstein if they have to. And they make it clear that it has NOTHING to do with his job performance, and that the plan is simply a naked power move to protect Trump. They even flat-out say the only reason they haven't done it yet is because they believe it might imperil Kavanaugh's confirmation. They have a plan already set out to do it AFTER the election, in the lame duck session of Congress. Go listen to the audio. If anyone at this late date had any illusions about Devin Nunes and the House GOP leadership, they should be erased forever.
I've ALWAYS been convinced of Trump's guilt and complicity in this matter. But I now also just as firmly believe he is going to get away with it even after everything is revealed. We've seen the lengths he will go to before he is even in serious peril to stop the investigation (though I have always suspected he knows what peril he is in far better than we do). What lengths will he go to if the walls close in and the shit truly hits the fan??
Gentlemen and ladies, there is a right wing coup going on in this country right under our very eyes.
Are we powerless to stop the Republican party which is seemingly made up of nothing but traitors and sycophants?
There’s a lot in this audio behind just the headline. Check it out.
"If Sessions won't un-recuse and Mueller won't clear the president, we're the only ones -- which is really the danger. That's why I keep, and thank you for saying it by the way, I mean we have to keep all these seats" - Devin Nunes
"...I think this situation is so dangerous. When highly committed parties strongly believe [in] things that they cannot achieve democratically, they don’t give up on their beliefs — they give up on democracy." - David Frum, author and conservative editor at the Atlantic magazine
"Doing something" would be making a phone call, sending an e-mail message, or having a meeting where the topic "firing Mueller or firing Rosenstein if he doesn't fire Mueller" is the subject of discussion. Even sending out a tweet is insufficient--those are not direct orders given to people.
I'm a bit old to be comfortable with social media and I've never used Twitter. However, it does seem odd to me to say that a tweet (read by millions), discussing firing Rosenstein if he doesn't end the investigation, should be regarded as so much less serious than an email or phone call to a small number of people about the same topic. As referred to before obstruction does not require giving orders, but only an intention to influence relevant behavior.
Edit: wording of the statute in s1503 of the US code is "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice".
"Doing something" would be making a phone call, sending an e-mail message, or having a meeting where the topic "firing Mueller or firing Rosenstein if he doesn't fire Mueller" is the subject of discussion. Even sending out a tweet is insufficient--those are not direct orders given to people.
I'm a bit old to be comfortable with social media and I've never used Twitter. However, it does seem odd to me to say that a tweet (read by millions), discussing firing Rosenstein if he doesn't end the investigation, should be regarded as so much less serious than an email or phone call to a small number of people about the same topic. As referred to before obstruction does not require giving orders, but only an intention to influence relevant behavior.
Edit: wording of the statute in s1503 of the US code is "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice".
I think @Mathsorcerer is saying that Trump tweeting his complaints about the investigation, or tweeting what he 'wishes' would happen is not the same as a direct order to somebody to 'fire Mueller' or whatnot. Legalese perhaps but probably correct.
I think @Mathsorcerer is saying that Trump tweeting his complaints about the investigation, or tweeting what he 'wishes' would happen is not the same as a direct order to somebody to 'fire Mueller' or whatnot. Legalese perhaps but probably correct.
Basic observation of human nature over the course of life will tell you that someone who is acting like Trump is in regards to this investigation is guilty. If he was ANYONE else in any other walk of life, you would almost automatically assume so. Robert Mueller is not someone who set out to get Trump. He was, as far as I know, retired. He was asked by a person TRUMP HIMSELF appointed to come out of that retirement to head an investigation. A job which has caused a large portion of the country to turn on him and now view him as an avatar of a conspiracy to take down a President. He didn't seek out this job. He answered the call when he was asked because, prior to all this bullshit, he was universally respected on both sides of the aisles. What has changed to make that NOT be the case is self-evident. Sometimes 2+2 just equals 4 people. It isn't all that complicated. Again, if anyone one else was acting like Trump was acting, you would assume they were guilty. You know you would. There is a reason the phrase "thou doth protest too much" exists. Of course it comes from Hamlet. But just to lay it out there, the Urban Dictionary defines that phrase as:
Overly insistent about something, to the point where the opposite is most likely true.
Again, let's say some alcohol turns up missing from your liquor cabinet. You strongly SUSPECT it was your teenage child who took it, but you don't have the proof to nail them dead to rights. Then your kid spends the next 12 months telling you EVERYDAY how it definitely wasn't them who stole the liquor. I mean, come on. I'm sure every parent here would then be 110% convinced that yes, their kid DID in fact steal the liquor from the cabinet. And that they would have gotten away with it if they had just shut their mouth and quit while they were ahead.
Comments
Saudi students now have to look for another country to study in which won't criticize their human rights record - the US is the current favorite.
The US currently uses more energy than China, but that is likely to change in the coming years. However, China is investing very heavily in renewable sources of energy, which is why it is happy to sign up to the requirements of the Paris Agreement. Renewable sources include for instance solar power (China is easily the largest producer of solar panels), which is generally uncontroversial. However, China is also the world's leading proponent of hydropower. While in principle that is seen as a good thing, there is a lot of controversy over the way it is implemented (for instance as a result of changing the distribution of water between countries and requiring movements of population within countries) - here's an article on that I noticed the other day.
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/its-time-for-canada-to-take-the-next-step-against-saudi-arabia/
The west needs to realize the fallacy of thinking the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It has bit them too many times in the past.
In the past Obama or a real President not the orange scuzzy man we have now would defuse the situation and get Saudi to cool it.
This one doctor here in NC is fighting the state on the matter. He wants to offer MRI's in his private practice for $500, which is much less than what a hospital charges (my last was around 2k I think). The state has accessed his situation and denied it. It's seems like the state sees it this way because it's in a city with a hospital and they don't see his need to have another (despite him being a surgeon). Through a loophole he is able to rent one of these 750k machines a couple times a week, but it's quite expensive to do so. The state appears to have not had it's ruling contested before now (hopefully he will be successful).
This surgeon wants to offer cheap MRIs. A state law is getting in his way.
West Hollywood city council wants to remove Trump's star from the "Walk of Fame" sidewalk; the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, which actually controls the sidewalk tourist attraction, is letting the star stay for now (at least, once it gets replaced after the vandalism). If they do decide to remove Trump's star because of his words or actions with which they disapprove, then they are going to have to start removing stars for a lot more celebrities whose actions are, shall we say, less than admirable--folks like Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey. That list will have a lot more names on it and there won't be many stars left for people to go see.
The latest numbers I saw for the race in Ohio District 12 has Balderson (R) at 101,574 and O'Connor (D) at 99,820 but there are at least 3,300 provisional ballots and an unspecified number of absentee ballots left to count, so there is no clear winner just yet.
“Did Trump ask that question? He must have mentioned that about 20 times,” said Graham.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/lindsey-graham-trump-brought-ending-russia-probe-about-20-times-n898501
More obstruction of justice in plain sight.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/08/07/complete-fabrication-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-finally-admits-claim-attack-net-neutrality
There isn't a single nook or cranny of this Administration that isn't corrupt to the absolute core.
Ontario is having a buck-a-beer debate.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-announces-buck-a-beer-1.4775959
And of course we Cannabis becomes legal in October:
https://business.financialpost.com/cannabis/cannabis-business/companies-making-cannabis-plans-ahead-of-any-ontario-private-sales
This is after the Ontario government scrapped a carbon tax and trade (good) and cancelled a pilot project about basic income reform (https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-basic-income-pilot) that was happening in Hamilton (badish) as Ford attempts to undo as much as he can of the Liberals foolishness.
Federally, not much is happening. NAFTA keeps spinning its wheels as the tariffs keep wrecking businesses (such as aluminum can prices. Many companies were eating the losses but they now have to raise prices as supplies are dwindling) and we still have too many illigal immigrants streaming into our country from the U.S. that it is straining our resources, not much is happening.
The Saudi thing was just an overreaction by their part although it has been a trend in the last year of overreactions that it maybe the new norm.
With a stronger ally in the White House (Trump), Saudi will probably stop paying lip service to the rest of the west and rely on their rhetoric that they are fighting Iran to get anything they want from the Trump administration. It’s a wait and see for now though. I think selling this regime more weapons though is going to bite the U.S. in the ass in about 6 years.
Here is a video of the moment of the hit (tune up the volume), for those who tend to constant belittle the severity of such attacks
With luck, only two Israeli civilians Injured.
Well hopefully Manafort gets what he deserves in spite of this nut job judge. But at this rate even when Manafort's convicted the judge will probably try to sentence Manafort to probation or overturn the jury's verdict.
The Manafort trial judge keeps yelling at prosecutors
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/manafort-trial-judge-keeps-yelling-prosecutors-s-not-good-news-ncna898736
*************
Expressing an opinion is not "obstruction of justice". One must actually *do* something in order to obstruct justice.
Let's consider the case of Trump posting on Twitter something like, 'my Attorney General should be fired if he doesn't end the Russia investigation'. Even if he successfully argued in court that was simply an opinion and not an order (and that seems a likely outcome to me), the opinion was clearly designed to influence other people's behavior in relation to an ongoing judicial investigation. I would class that as an open and shut case of obstruction of justice.
If you don't think that's obstruction, what would constitute doing something? There's a big grey area between plans and actions and Trump's behavior is already a long way into that grey area. However, you could push it a bit further - for instance what if he said explicitly (as opposed to implicitly) to Sessions that unless he ended the investigation Trump would fire him? Would that meet your test?
As a general matter of law (both in the UK and US) it is not necessary to commit a crime to be convicted of it. It is only necessary to have made plans and preparations and intended to commit it - that's why typically police will not wait until a terrorist atrocity is actually committed before making an arrest. The US constitutional right to free speech may give protections in some cases, where that wouldn't be the situation in the UK. However, it's a long way from being a complete protection.
This story keeps getting worse.
Kids were being trained for school shootings.
Trump has made it very clear that he wants the Russia investigation to end, and he's already admitted that he tried to stop it by firing Comey--which is a clear use of actual presidential power, and not just a statement. He's applied pressure on Rosenstein. He's attacked the special counsel and the FBI as a whole. It's pretty obvious that he's trying as hard as he can to put a stop to a federal investigation. We already know how much he hates the investigation and how much he wants it to stop; his motives are already well-known and unambiguous.
Everything he's been saying is geared towards trying to end the investigation. It's not a really a question of, "Does Trump really want the Russia investigation to end?" We already know the answer to that one.
The question is, "What is Trump doing to stop it?" And I don't think "Nothing" is a plausible answer at this point.
Telling Sessions that he needed to end the investigation or he, himself, would be fired could definitely be seen as obstruction.
I think everyone is waiting until November elections have been decided before they weigh their options. If the Democrats do not retake the House then the investigation probably won't live until next April; however, if they do then Trump will probably be subpoenaed by Mueller in January.
I've ALWAYS been convinced of Trump's guilt and complicity in this matter. But I now also just as firmly believe he is going to get away with it even after everything is revealed. We've seen the lengths he will go to before he is even in serious peril to stop the investigation (though I have always suspected he knows what peril he is in far better than we do). What lengths will he go to if the walls close in and the shit truly hits the fan??
At present Trump is trying to turn legal into political proceedings. The trouble with impeachment as a process is that it is aimed at preventing a rogue president from doing his own thing against the will of Congress. It does nothing though to restrain a president from doing something that would be illegal done by anyone else - if he has the support of a majority (or even a substantial minority) of Congress. I'm sure you can foresee some of the problems that could arise if the president were in fact found to be able to act illegally in support of his own political party ...
That huge potential conflict of interest between what's good for the party and what's good for the country is one of the reasons I think the Supreme Court would in fact be likely to rule that Trump could be prosecuted now for obstruction of justice. I've posted before that I can see the advantages of not allowing cases to be brought against a sitting president, but ultimately I think the Supreme Court's vested interest in ensuring the independence of the judiciary from the executive would lead them to the conclusion that the law should apply to everyone equally.
Are we powerless to stop the Republican party which is seemingly made up of nothing but traitors and sycophants?
There’s a lot in this audio behind just the headline. Check it out.
"If Sessions won't un-recuse and Mueller won't clear the president, we're the only ones -- which is really the danger. That's why I keep, and thank you for saying it by the way, I mean we have to keep all these seats" - Devin Nunes
"...I think this situation is so dangerous. When highly committed parties strongly believe [in] things that they cannot achieve democratically, they don’t give up on their beliefs — they give up on democracy." - David Frum, author and conservative editor at the Atlantic magazine
Edit: wording of the statute in s1503 of the US code is "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice".
Less than 280 characters...
Overly insistent about something, to the point where the opposite is most likely true.
Again, let's say some alcohol turns up missing from your liquor cabinet. You strongly SUSPECT it was your teenage child who took it, but you don't have the proof to nail them dead to rights. Then your kid spends the next 12 months telling you EVERYDAY how it definitely wasn't them who stole the liquor. I mean, come on. I'm sure every parent here would then be 110% convinced that yes, their kid DID in fact steal the liquor from the cabinet. And that they would have gotten away with it if they had just shut their mouth and quit while they were ahead.