American Politics Discussion Thread

[Gavagai]

Secondly, under most States' laws, intentionally concealing evidence from the police in the course of their investigation, even if this evidence has no bearing on your guilt is indeed an offense.

Then those are stupid laws.

Not when you take into account that the irrelevance of the evidence is often only clear post facto.

Darrell

From the perspective of the accused, the irrelevance of the evidence is always clear because he knows for certain what he did. Like, on our case Trump always knew that he never colluded with Russia and from his perspective, Mueller's investigation was always nothing more than a waste of time and resources.

[Bacchus]

What exoneration can there possibly be in the minds of the public? The public will always believe what it will, there is no process for defending yourself from personal dislike, however motivated, or entirely unmotivated.

To answer your question above, indeed if Congress brings no charges that would be the final official word on the matter. It would not, and could not mean 'total exoneration', because there is simply no such thing. There is only exoneration from charges explicitly brought in particular proceedings and under the terms of these proceedings. What the public thinks is not a legal matter, and yeah, sure, individuals will politically use any piece of information they can reach, including legal documents, to lay blame (or praise) wherever they want. So what?

I jumped in because you specifically said that the report is "masquerading", which appears to directly criticize Mueller's work, not the way it's being received. The work is alright, given the pretty dysfunctional setting it was carried out in. How is an investigator even meant to investigate "obstruction of justice" when the perpetrator has constitutional powers to define exactly what "justice" procedurally entails?

[Bacchus]

Then those are stupid laws.

Perhaps. Laws which allow suspects to destroy evidence and then go free because it became impossible to prove whether they were, in fact, guilty also look pretty stupid though.

[darrelljs]

From the perspective of the accused, the irrelevance of the evidence is always clear because he knows for certain what he did. Like, on our case Trump always knew that he never colluded with Russia and from his perspective, Mueller's investigation was always nothing more than a waste of time and resources.

Saying Mueller's investigation is a waste of time and money is like saying Damian Lillarard's shot was a good one, just because it went in.

Sometimes people are guilty, sometimes they are innocent. To suggest that the accused should determine what evidence, and indeed whether the investigation should proceed, just because they know whether they are innocent is pretty silly. There was sufficient evidence to warrant the investigation, and the outcome has no bearing on whether the investigation itself was proper.

Darrell

[Gavagai]

Then those are stupid laws.

Perhaps. Laws which allow suspects to destroy evidence and then go free because it became impossible to prove whether they were, in fact, guilty also look pretty stupid though.

My position is that an innocent person, being wrongly accused, has a right to defend himself by any means he finds necessary, short of those intrinsically criminal. To believe otherwise is to expect such a person to trust the law enforcement to interpret the evidence correctly... given that the law enforcement has already breached that trust by making a false accusation. And that does not look like a reasonable expectation.

[darrelljs]

My position is that an innocent person, being wrongly accused, has a right to defend himself by any means he finds necessary, short of those intrinsically criminal. To believe otherwise is to expect such a person to trust the law enforcement to interpret the evidence correctly... given that the law enforcement has already breached that trust by making a false accusation. And that does not look like a reasonable expectation.

I find the logic circular, but this just seems to be a point we'll never agree on.

Darrell

[Bacchus]

My position is that an innocent person, being wrongly accused, has a right to defend himself by any means he finds necessary, short of those intrinsically criminal. To believe otherwise is to expect such a person to trust the law enforcement to interpret the evidence correctly... given that the law enforcement has already breached that trust by making a false accusation. And that does not look like a reasonable expectation.

Sure. And many sensible people are anarchists on broadly similar premises. I am rather of a thought that we need to make the legal process work, and one of the requirements of that is the ability of all relevant parties to access all evidence they are entitled to by due process, and to carry out their duties without fear of adverse consequences or enticement towards beneficial consequences, should they reach the 'right' decision.

I mean, consider the same question in the civil context — do you really want to allow, say the divorcing parties to destroy evidence of their property holdings? Isn't an injunction against tampering with all relevant material a basic premise of any proceedings that seeks objectivity?

[Mardoc]

So... if the Congress decides not to impeach Trump does it mean that "no obstruction, no collusion, fully exonerated"? If not then how Trump can possibly "exonerate" himself?

Can't.  Impeachment is fundamentally a political act, not a working of the justice system.  He can avoid political consequences by convincing enough people, but there is no such thing as exoneration in this arena.

Maybe there should be, but I struggle to see how it can be possible.  It would require politicians and officials who are objective and known to be objective, and I think that's pretty much impossible.

Even in actual criminal justice, the outcomes are really 'guilty' and 'not proven' even if the word used for 'not proven' is 'innocent'.  All that an innocent verdict means is that the court will not impose punishment, not that the reputation of the accused remains intact.  That, in turn, is a consequence of requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt - if you're going with the philosophy that it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than to punish an innocent, it's natural to realize that sometimes guilty people will get a verdict of innocence.

But for Trump: the only exoneration he can ever get will be decades in the future, when historians have full access to all the unredacted information - and even then, only if Trump was unimportant enough for those historians to be objective, and if he is actually innocent.

Firstly, intent, not motive. Secondly, under most States' laws, intentionally concealing evidence from the police in the course of their investigation, even if this evidence has no bearing on your guilt is indeed an offense. You can plead the Fifth and refuse to make any positive statement, but, say, burning all your clothes could be chargeable in itself, even if you are not guilty. The point is exactly that your actions may have rendered any establishment of guilt impossible.

Pretty sure that important pieces of this are 'intentionally' and after receiving notice.  You're perfectly clear to delete all the e-mails you want until and unless you receive notice that you are to retain them.  Similarly, when it comes to actual charges of obstruction, it's important that the court order of document retention be made early and specific, so that violations can be proven.

To believe otherwise is to expect such a person to trust the law enforcement to interpret the evidence correctly... given that the law enforcement has already breached that trust by making a false accusation. And that does not look like a reasonable expectation

Sure. And many sensible people are anarchists on broadly similar premises. I am rather of a thought that we need to make the legal process work, and one of the requirements of that is the ability of all relevant parties to access all evidence they are entitled to by due process, and to carry out their duties without fear of adverse consequences or enticement towards beneficial consequences, should they reach the 'right' decision.

I mean, consider the same question in the civil context — do you really want to allow, say the divorcing parties to destroy evidence of their property holdings? Isn't an injunction against tampering with all relevant material a basic premise of any proceedings that seeks objectivity?

Gavagai, to add to this: it's nearly impossible for a defendant to really defend their own interests, given that both the innocent and guilty have very similar incentives.  This is why we have the jury, judge, defense attorney, and political restraints on prosecutors.  Justice requires neutral third parties to make the decisions.  

Fundamentally 'law enforcement' who makes the false accusation needs to be distinct from the jury/judge who determines the verdict, and the jury needs to be trustworthy enough for a defendant to be willing to let facts speak for themselves.  That's the fundamental reason why, despite the ill-treatment jurors get, I don't try to get out of jury duty when called. It's not as much as I could be doing, but it's at least something in the right direction.

And this of course loops back to why impeachment is inherently political: you can't find a neutral third party.

right in this thread Cyneheard states that Mueller has proven something "beyond a reasonable doubt" and that the only reason Mueller did not indict Trump was that what he has proven fell "just short of being a crime". It is obvious that the public treats Mueller report as a final word on the matter and pretty much ignores Mueller's caveats.

I agree with you somewhat here: Cyneheard and that portion of the public who are treating this report as proven facts are just plain wrong, overtrusting the police as is unfortunately common.  But do keep in mind that this is not a universal take.

Much as I want to put this whole thing behind us, it'll only happen for political reasons.  Only if either something bigger happens, or if it becomes politically useless to both sides.

Trump always knew that he never colluded with Russia and from his perspective, Mueller's investigation was always nothing more than a waste of time and resources.

Personally I think it wasn't a waste - it's made me much more likely to vote Trump in 2020.  If this is the worst that can be proven about Trump's team, then he's really quite clean by DC standards - something I would never have believed about a generic New York real estate mogul otherwise.

[Bacchus]

You're perfectly clear to delete all the e-mails you want until and unless you receive notice that you are to retain them.

That is not true. Intent, as you say, is key. If you know that e-mails could be evidence in proceedings which are ongoing, or even pending, and you are deleting them as potential evidence, you are most likely offending. If you clear your inbox once a month, and something happens to be bulk-deleted — you could have a defense. But the onus is not on any investigating authority to provide each party with a full list of materials to be retained — simply because no authority would even know of their existence until the investigation is somewhat advanced.

Here is a detailed description under NY Law for a civil context: https://fhnylaw.com/spoliation-evidence-...ctionable/, the general approach remains across states, and in criminal contexts. In some cases, the demands of justice are fairly strict — the litigants (and remember, these are civil litigants, no crime is even suspected) can be expected to institute proactive measures that would deviate from their normal activities to preserve materials which might be relevant. Even failure to undertake such measures, not to mention "deleting all the e-mails you want" can be sanctionable.

I understand why a libertarian would be upset at such a state, of course, but them's the facts.

Some more useful NY, civil background: http://www.newyorklegalethics.com/law-of...decisions/, the relevant piece is:
The Second Circuit has defined “spoliation” as “the destruction or deliberate alteration of evidence, or the failure to preserve property for another’s use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.” A party is obligated to preserve evidence when the party is on notice that the evidence is “relevant to litigation” or when the party “should have known that the evidence may be relevant to future litigation.” Moreover, the obligation to preserve relevant documents “exists whether or not the documents have been specifically requested in a demand for discovery.”

And here is an example in a criminal setting in a different state: http://www.tdtnews.com/archive/article_3...9ed2b.html, nobody had to specifically instruct the guy not to hide the carpet.

[Mardoc]

If you know that e-mails could be evidence in proceedings which are ongoing, or even pending,

I may have phrased it incorrectly (IANAL), but what I meant is that you have be notified about the proceedings and be notified to retain documents, with at least enough specificity to know the subject at question.   Not that the documents have to be specifically mentioned, but that you have to know there is an actual legal issue in question.

In this particular case, I don't know enough of the details to have a real opinion, other than innocent until proven guilty.  And that the 'obstruction of justice' I've heard about hasn't been about document retention, but about casting doubt on the value of the investigation itself which seems to me to be ordinary politics/freedom of speech.

And here is an example in a criminal setting in a different state: http://www.tdtnews.com/archive/article_3...9ed2b.html, nobody had to specifically instruct the guy not to hide the carpet.

Yes, but they did have to prove that there was a crime that the guy knew about.