Politicspolitics

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 02:40 PM

To our colleagues on the left: A serious question.

Now that you have been forced to abandon the collusion fantasy because Mueller empirically shown there was none, you are now busy screaming obstruction of justice and saying there is ample evidence in the Mueller report that proves Trump obstructed justice.

I ask what evidence you bring to bear in light of the USC codes defining obstruction.

Obstruction of justice
Definition
18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "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."

Overview
Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection.

§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal administrative agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.


Well as Mueller was not a judicial proceeding, we are now left with 18USC1505:

18 U.S. Code § 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever 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 and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

The first part referes to Hillarys' actions

so which law was Trump trying to stop from being administered???????

69 replies, 779 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply To our colleagues on the left: A serious question. (Original post)
nolidad Apr 2019 OP
def_con5 Apr 2019 #1
oldenuff35 Apr 2019 #2
Crazy in SoFla Apr 2019 #3
Oldgeezer Apr 2019 #6
Carl Apr 2019 #7
jh4freedom Apr 2019 #10
Carl Apr 2019 #12
jh4freedom Apr 2019 #37
Carl Apr 2019 #38
nolidad Apr 23 #47
Butchie_T Apr 2019 #9
nolidad Apr 2019 #17
Iron Condor Apr 24 #59
oflguy Apr 2019 #26
akaConcernedCanuk Apr 2019 #4
GoldwatersSoul Apr 2019 #15
akaConcernedCanuk Apr 2019 #27
GoldwatersSoul Apr 2019 #28
AmandaCMatthews Apr 24 #56
GoldwatersSoul Apr 24 #57
AmandaCMatthews Apr 24 #58
GoldwatersSoul Apr 24 #60
AmandaCMatthews Apr 25 #61
GoldwatersSoul Apr 25 #64
Zuckerberg Hater Apr 2019 #5
jh4freedom Apr 2019 #8
rahtruelies Apr 2019 #14
GoldwatersSoul Apr 2019 #16
nolidad Apr 2019 #18
Trevor Apr 2019 #11
Charlie Mike Apr 2019 #19
Trevor Apr 2019 #22
Charlie Mike Apr 2019 #24
Trevor Apr 2019 #29
Charlie Mike Apr 2019 #30
Trevor Apr 2019 #31
Charlie Mike Apr 2019 #32
Trevor Apr 2019 #33
Charlie Mike Apr 2019 #34
Trevor Apr 2019 #36
Charlie Mike Apr 2019 #40
Trevor Apr 2019 #41
Charlie Mike Apr 22 #42
nolidad Apr 23 #49
Trevor Apr 23 #50
nolidad Apr 25 #62
Trevor Apr 25 #69
nolidad Apr 22 #43
Trevor Apr 23 #52
nolidad Apr 24 #54
Trevor Apr 24 #55
nolidad Apr 25 #63
nolidad Apr 2019 #20
Trevor Apr 2019 #23
nolidad Apr 22 #44
Trevor Apr 22 #46
nolidad Apr 23 #48
Trevor Apr 23 #51
nolidad Apr 24 #53
rahtruelies Apr 2019 #13
nolidad Apr 2019 #21
oflguy Apr 2019 #25
nolidad Apr 25 #66
oflguy Apr 25 #68
swifty Apr 2019 #35
Muddling Through Apr 2019 #39
nolidad Apr 22 #45
nolidad Apr 25 #65
Jack Burton Apr 25 #67

Response to nolidad (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 02:57 PM

1. They have not given up on collusion

Far from it, a whole bunch of em are saying including Warren the report proves collusion. Mueller ha to say no crime was committed because of the OLC decision. without it he would have clearly stated the collusion. But he left enough breadcrumbs for Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 02:58 PM

2. We now know beyond any reasonable doubt that the investigation was based on Dem paid for lies.

Cut and dried, that is beyond question but sane and rational people. There is not one shred of evidence about Trump or any member of his team colluding with the Russians. It was a DNC/Hil LIAR Y paid for lie from the beginning.

So, the only thing Trump did was strongly object to the false investigation against him. He objected to the whole which hunt based on the lies that were manufactured for and paid for by Hil LIAR Y and the DNC.

Trump should have a front row seat as they trip the trap doors on all those who were involved in this intended coup as they take that short drop for the treason they have committed.

That would be real justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 03:11 PM

3. Have you read Volume 2 of the report...

There's stuff there that could be interpreted as obstruction, impeding an investigation and witness tampering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crazy in SoFla (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 03:49 PM

6. The left has shown it'll interpert it any way they want regarless of evidence..

You've done it for 2+ yrs.....and I can't stand the Dumpster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crazy in SoFla (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 04:10 PM

7. What stated crime was being investigated?

Not opinion but what exact law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 05:17 PM

10. Trick question

None of the five major presidential level Independent or Special Counsel investigations (Watergate, Iran-Contra, Whitewater/Lewinsky, CIA leaks/Valerie Plame, or Russia election meddling) has ever pre-supposed a crime in advance of conducting the investigation.
The investigation is conducted to find out if there was a crime but it doesn’t take an attorney to figure out that Russia meddling and the Mueller indictments of more than 20 Russians was about violations of federal election law and what the media calls “collusion” was an investigation looking in to possible federal conspiracy law violations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 05:40 PM

12. No it is not,the special consul law is what it is and none of that applies

A 2 plus year investigation would have found Russian meddling back to Stalin and before as the tools of the time allowed.

Obungles was warned of it in 2014 and yawned.

Try again or run away as you always do when your talking points from the DNC or Shareblue fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #12)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 05:17 PM

37. The Trump Administration Department of Justice

Authorized the Special Counsel to investigate: “any links and or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;”
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3726381/Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.pdf

And that’s exactly what Robert Mueller investigated. The Special Counsel looked only at the Trump Administration. In Watergate, the Independent Prosecutor Leon Jaworski looked only at the Nixon Administration; in Iran-Contra the Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh looked only at the Reagan Administration; in Whitewater/Lewinsky Independent Counsel Ken Starr looked only at the Clinton Administration and in CIA Leaks/Valerie Plame, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald looked only at the G.W. Bush administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #37)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 05:29 PM

38. A lot of words to say nothing once again.

It does not address the context of my post replying to yours.

Try again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #37)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 06:47 AM

47. As they are supposed to according to the law that established special counsels.

They are supposed to look at specific allegations!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crazy in SoFla (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 04:21 PM

9. You will eventually come to understand that the report will be the final word

Either kicking and screaming, eventual grudging reality or never agree at all because none of the answers were what you wanted. This will be noise in the house and presidential pundits but it all goes nowhere.

I’ll watch........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crazy in SoFla (Reply #3)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 08:05 AM

17. Could Be Interpreted?????

That does not meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Just because a man who has been hounded since the year before he was elected grows tired of the attacks against him and says out loud he wanted it ended is not obstruction.

He did not delay, withhold, edit or tamper with any records requested, nor did he deny by proclaiming executive privilege any person the investigation required!

Now destroying over 30,000 federally subpoenaed e-mails, destroying phones and hard drives under subpoena is obstruction of justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #17)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:25 PM

59. +100

Right on the nail head

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crazy in SoFla (Reply #3)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 09:49 AM

26. Like what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 03:26 PM

4. umm - I get sorta confused when people aim at "left and right"

I'm pretty much centre-left imo -

and I MUCH prefer Trump to the alternative - Hillary . . . . .

ok - Trump is a doofus - but he is YOUR doofus

USA's electoral thingy elected Donald Trump - simple a that.

Yeah - no shit - sorta crazy that the most powerful nation on the globe has the likes of Trump at it's helm . . . . .

Will his successor be better - ??

Worse . . . ?



CC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to akaConcernedCanuk (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 05:55 PM

15. Depends....

On your philosophy. If you need a daddy then a hard left Democrat would be great.

If you want less taxes but other forms of control and the possibility of war well then a Republican fits the bill.

Now if you want to be left alone to make your living and determine the outcome of your life....pray for a libertarian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #15)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 10:20 AM

27. hmmm - tuff choice - -

don't need a daddy

don't want war -

oh well - I'll just wait until momma nature lets the road dry up so I can escape back to my spot in the boonies . . .



yup

dat's my "estate" - the 28 acres to the left of that line, the end of the road

The house is gone (burnt in January) and been living in the small town nearby ever since

oh well, my friends will still be hanging around . . .





CC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #15)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 10:58 AM

28. Sorry bout the house...

In the end. The world will probably leave you alone out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #15)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 07:36 PM

56. ...and the possibility of war...

How many ‘conflicts’ started under Obama?

****

Revealed: The U.S. military's 36 code-named operations in Africa

Many Americans first became aware of U.S. military operations in Africa in October 2017, after the Islamic State ambushed American troops near Tongo Tongo, Niger, killing four U.S. soldiers and wounding two others.

Just after the attack, U.S. Africa Command said U.S. troops were providing “advice and assistance” to local counterparts. Later, it would become clear that those troops — the 11-man Operational Detachment-Alpha Team 3212 — were working out of the town of Oullam with a larger Nigerian force under the umbrella of Operation Juniper Shield, a wide-ranging counterterrorism effort in northwest Africa.

Until poor weather prevented it, that team was supposed to lend support to another group of American commandos who were trying to kill or capture Islamic State leader Doundoun Cheffou as part of Obsidian Nomad II.

Juniper Shield and Obsidian Nomad II were not isolated efforts but part of a panoply of named military operations and activities U.S. forces have been conducting from dozens of bases across the northern tier of Africa. Many of these operations are taking place in countries that the U.S. government does not recognize as combat zones, but in which U.S. troops are nonetheless fighting and, in several cases, taking casualties.

Between 2013 and 2017, U.S. special operations forces saw combat in at least 13 African countries, according to retired Army Brig. Gen. Don Bolduc, who served at U.S. Africa Command from 2013 to 2015 and then headed Special Operations Command Africa until 2017. Those countries, according to Bolduc, are Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Somalia, South Sudan and Tunisia. He added that U.S. troops have been killed or wounded in action in at least six of them: Kenya, Libya, Niger, Somalia, South Sudan and Tunisia.

Yahoo News has put together a list of three dozen such operations across the continent.



https://news.yahoo.com/revealed-the-us-militarys-36-codenamed-operations-in-africa-090000841.html

****

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AmandaCMatthews (Reply #56)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 08:28 PM

57. Make no mistake...

I give no pass to Democrats on the hawkish stance. The Democrats and the Republicabs both have their bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #15)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:17 PM

58. ...and the possibility of war well then a Republican fits the bill.

Could have fooled me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AmandaCMatthews (Reply #58)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:32 PM

60. Fooled you...

Tell me the Bushes were not war mongers???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #60)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 02:49 AM

61. You forgot lying badtids

But Dims like him because he says mean things about Trump.

Me? I can’t stand Trump OR the Clinton Creature. But I also cannot stand sedition.

This country is so screwed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AmandaCMatthews (Reply #61)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 07:54 AM

64. Been saying that since Bush I...

As I watch it slowly circle the toilet vortex. The parties are interested in always creating an opposition position regardless of the concept. They don't seek Nash equilibrium to benefit Americans only what they think will gain them power or hell them consolidate power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 03:43 PM

5. Barring some new evidence, Trump did not obstruct evidence

There is more convincing evidence that Hillary Clinton obstructed justice, but they voted for the cow anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 04:12 PM

8. These are the 10 episodes Mueller investigated for obstruction of justice

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/18/18484947/mueller-report-obstruction-of-justice-summary

And just like it was with both President Nixon, Article 1 of the Bill of Impeachment (Obstruction of Justice) and President Clinton, Article 3 of Impeachment (Obstruction of Justice), it will first be up to the House Judiciary Committee to decide if any of those ten episodes outlined in the Mueller Report rise to the level of an impeachable offense; and then it could conceivably be up to the 435 members of the House to vote on a Bill of Impeachment.
——————————
RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.

Article 1: Obstruction of Justice.

In his conduct of the office of the President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that: On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct investigations of such unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan have included one or more of the following:

(1) Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.

(2) Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.

(3) Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings.

(4) Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force and congressional committees.

(5) Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payments of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities.

(6) Endeavoring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States.

(7) Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability.

(8) Making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation has been conducted with respect to allegation of misconduct on the part of personnel of the Executive Branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct; or

(9) Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

(Approved by a vote of 27-11 by the House Judiciary Committee on Saturday, July 27, 1974.)
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/rnimparticles.htm
——————————-
ARTICLE III
In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:
(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.

(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.

(3)On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

(4)Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.

(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.

(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.

(7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/clinton_impeachment_articles.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 05:43 PM

14. npc alert

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 05:56 PM

16. Liberals pray for a technicality....

Even when they have no real crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #8)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 08:11 AM

18. The only problem with the whole impeachment thing

Is that congress which acts as judge and jury gets to decide for itself what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors- a Democrat congress that is unanimous in its hatred for Trump will call spitting on the sidewalk a high crime and misdemeanor.

Just like the illegal demand for the unredacted version of the report

Just like the illegal demand for a specific individuals tax return that is not germaine to a criminal investigation.

Just like the illegal demand or trumps financial records without it being part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Trevor (Reply #11)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 08:19 AM

19. Not divulging that thing that didn't happen that isn't a crime isn't obstruction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #19)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 09:31 AM

22. It did happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #22)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 09:42 AM

24. Mewler was not fired even though Trump had the legal authority to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #24)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 10:59 AM

29. Trump tried to fire him more than once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #29)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 11:01 AM

30. Trump had the authority to fire Mewler.

It never happened - obviously.

Doing so is not a crime. Talking about it, even less so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #30)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 11:12 AM

31. But telling McGahn to lie about it was a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #31)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 12:30 PM

32. Nah. Attorney client, and attorneys have an obligation to not commit crimes on behalf of clients.

So, if mcGahn lied that's on him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #32)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 01:10 PM

33. McGahn was White House Counsel

So the public was his client.

McGahn didn't lie. That's Trump's problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #33)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 01:16 PM

34. White House counsel means counsel for the White House.

This is the level of ridiculousness that you have been reduced to: you think just because WHC draws a government salary that entitles you to claim all conversations are open to the public.

I can assure you that no court has or will back(ed) that claim and no dem president would live by that rule.

Go to bed, little boy. You've beclowned yourself enough for one day and now you are late for your nap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #34)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 04:52 PM

36. I didn't say all his conversations have to be public.

A court has backed my opinion. So you are the beclowned one. Enjoy your nap.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/158/1263/544889/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #36)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 06:16 PM

40. The facts of that case have no relevance to your previous argument apart from

involving presidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #40)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 06:49 PM

41. You can't get away with

not reading it and pretending it isn't there.

"In these expedited appeals, the principal question is whether an attorney in the Office of the President, having been called before a federal grand jury, may refuse, on the basis of a government attorney-client privilege, to answer questions about possible criminal conduct by government officials and others. To state the question is to suggest the answer, for the Office of the President is a part of the federal government, consisting of government employees doing government business, and neither legal authority nor policy nor experience suggests that a federal government entity can maintain the ordinary common law attorney-client privilege to withhold information relating to a federal criminal offense."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #41)

Mon Apr 22, 2019, 08:13 AM

42. I read that.

WHC did not refuse to answer questions.

Questions were answered.

Mewler was not fired.

Move on with your pathetic life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #31)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 06:54 AM

49. Nope!

MJe telling someone to kill you isnot necessarily a crime! Intent matters and McGahn I am sure told Trump he could not lie. It still falls within attorney/.client privilege if Trump was just spouting off in frustration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #49)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 06:46 PM

50. Trump worked McGahn on multiple occasions

so just spouting off is unlikely.

As White House Counsel, McGahn worked for the public, not Trump. So no attorney / client privilege existed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #50)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 06:45 AM

62. But McGahn advises Trump on what is legal or not!

So Trump is free to spout off and McGahn says-- we can or cannot do that Mr. President.

So what Trump said in a fit of pique did not occur. HIs counsel advised me he can't do that!

If wanting things to happen and telling someon to go do it ina moment of anger is obstruction- every president would be in jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #62)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 08:20 PM

69. If an act that stems from anger is not a crime

then we have to let many people out of prison.

Every president wouldn't be in jail. Trump is unique. He has no respect at all for rules.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 22, 2019, 06:11 PM

43. If Trump tried to fire him- he could have and would have!

It is within his authority to do so for any or no reason! and it would not be obstruction of justice! It would cost him politically but not legally!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #43)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 06:54 PM

52. If Trump fired Mueller he would definitely be impeached.

Some Republicans would side against Trump too because it would be such a huge obscene abuse of power. Trump needed to hide behind others so he could pretend it wasn't him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #52)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 04:40 PM

54. It would not have been an abuse of power!

Trump would have been in in his full legal and constitutional authority to have fired Mueller at any time!

The optics of it would be terrible and the dems would have used firing Mueller as the catalyst to impeach Trump. They are still going to impeach him, but now they have to dig up a new thing they can call high crimes and misdemeanors!

Talking about firing Mueller and even with McGahn means nothing. Mcgahn refused and that ended it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #54)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 07:26 PM

55. It would be an incredible abuse of power.

If a Democrat did it you guys would scream about it forever. Are the Trump followers blind to what he does or do they just not care how bad he is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #55)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 06:46 AM

63. Yes we would!

Not be cause POTUS abused his power (POTUS can fire any exec branch appointee at any time for any reason)

but for the same reason the Dems would howl. It is not an abuse of power- just horrific optics that either party would howl!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #11)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 08:21 AM

20. If there are records that he ordered people to lie then yes.

But the biggest problem in this whole thing is that McGahn was white house counsel. He had no authority to hire or fire anyone! So Trump could have asked McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn would have told him that he did not have that authority! If memeory serves correct only the COS and POTUS had authority to fire Mueller.

Trump went on air many times saying he had the authority to fire Mueller anytime he wished (and he did). to fire Mueller in mid investigation would not have been obstruction of Justice!! It would have been a perfectly legal and constitutional act on Trumps part.

I am sure there were many times in the 2+ years of his presidency, that in a fit of pique, he ordered someone to go fire Mueller! two + years of nojn stop animosity and resistance can wear even the most patient man.

So was it just fatigue of being constantly second guessed and assaulted by the Dems and most of the media or a deliberate and contrived plan is what needs to be proved by the preponderance of evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #20)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 09:37 AM

23. Trump asked McGahn to present himself to those who had the authority to fire Mueller

as a representative of the president.

Trump may have had the authority to fire Mueller but he did not have the authority to ask McGahn to lie about it to the special counsel.

McGahn took notes so there are records.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #23)

Mon Apr 22, 2019, 06:13 PM

44. Still not obstruction of justice!

He could have Mueller fired anytime he wanted! Trump is not the kind to back door this kind of stuff, especially when he tweeted so many times he would love to have fired him!

So trying to have McGahn try to lie over something that Trump had authority to do is not obstruction either! Unethical yes! Criminal--no!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #44)

Mon Apr 22, 2019, 08:21 PM

46. I don't think the case against Trump is airtight on this one.

Mostly because Trump told McGahn to lie to the media and there isn't anything that exactly points to McGahn being told to lie to the special counsel. Although, Trump did ask McGahn if he told the special counsel about the firing attempt. McGahn had. Trump also knew when he tasked McGahn that McGahn would very likely be interviewed by the special counsel again and McGahn would be pressured to make his testimony agree with his public statements, which would have been lies for Trump. Also,.McGahn's credibility could be attacked if McGahn's public statements contradicted what he told Mueller.

On to your point.

The mere fact that an office holder has the power to do something doesn't cover them if there was a criminal intent. Suppose a defense contractor bribes Nancy Pelosi to vote for a bill and Nancy then votes for the bill. Nancy has the power to vote for bills but in this case it would still be illegal bribery.

Lying to law enforcement about legal acts is still illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #46)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 06:51 AM

48. Lying to law enforcement under oath is illegal!

But this has nothing to do with obstruction.

Once again McGahn as personal counsel to POTUS has no authority to fire anyone. and I am sure he informed Trump of that! Trump telling him to fnot sy anything means nothing! Unless one is invesatigating that particular instance.

It cannot be obstruction.

But McGahn could be in trouble if he told FBI that he was not instructed to lie if he was in the course of an investigation. But that is not related to Trump but Mcgahn!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #48)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 06:51 PM

51. Trump's order was for McGahn to contact Rosenstein

Who did have the power to fire Mueller. McGahn was to represent himself as acting on behalf of the president and in doing so convince Rosenstein to fire Mueller.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #51)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 06:54 AM

53. Still doesn't rise to obstruction!

Mueller served at the pleasure of POTUS! He could have fired him at any time for any reason and wouldbe within hsi full authority!

Any charges would have been political and not legal. You cannot commit a crime if you are acting legally!

And that is simply not Trumps style, so I find it suspicious- Trump is one who takes care of this stuff himself. He has shown it many many times.

And even if he did instruct McGahn to do so- it never got to Rosenstein, so it was a conversation between POTUS and his legal counsel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 05:42 PM

13. sport these people are traitors to America not 'colleagues'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rahtruelies (Reply #13)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 08:33 AM

21. Well, I was being polite.

I am not ready to go to war with those who disagree with me!

As a Follower of Christ, I would rather see them won then dead!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 09:46 AM

25. Easy

When Trump said the witch hunt was a witch hunt, that was obstruction of their witch hunt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #25)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 03:13 PM

66. Well then I guess we better impeach every president for complaining!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #66)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 03:44 PM

68. Only liberals are allowed to complain

Conservatives must be impeached, no matter what they do

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 01:18 PM

35. The Mueller Report supports charging Trump with high crimes, both for obstruction and collusion.

Again, you guys just don't seem to understand that Trump committed high crimes. The Republicans have convinced you that because Trump isn't indictable as a sitting president, then he can keep being President regardless of what he did or does. You guys can't follow a zag if it is preceded by a zig apparently. That makes conning you (and you conning yourselves) much easier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swifty (Reply #35)

Sun Apr 21, 2019, 05:35 PM

39. "The Mueller Report supports charging Trump with high crimes"

Horseshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swifty (Reply #35)

Mon Apr 22, 2019, 06:19 PM

45. Well name the high crimes!

There was no collusion with Russia!

Russia did not alter one vote in the elections

Russia can spend money to voice their opinion about our elections- like we do with theirs!

Russia did not hack our voting system- only the DCCC andDNC computers , and then only because Podesta was stupid enough to let his password get hacked while in Russia. When they found out- they did not even let the FBI look at their computers! Wonder why??? Maybe because all the dope on their collusion to bury Bernie was there, as well as Hillary paying Steele through cutouts for teh Steele Dossier??

When the Russians tried to hack the GOp computers- the GOP let the FBI look at all they wanted and needed!

It has now come out that Mueller and his squad of lawyers knew in 2017 the Steele Dossier was a dem paid oppo research piece! So they knew there was no collusion- so how can there be bostruction when the alleged crime Mueller was investigating a non existent thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swifty (Reply #35)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 03:12 PM

65. That is funny because the Mueller report says there was no collusion.

As for obstruction it concludes they cannot exonerate him. What does that mean??? He was investigating whether he did or didn't!

Mueller and his 19 lawyers did not come out and say whether he was guilty or innocent! Juries exonerate- special counsels conclude there was or was not ample evidence.

Just remember that while a sitting president cannot be tried for a crime- Congress can impeach. Remember congress can decide spitting on a sidewalk is a high crime or misdemeanor if they choose!

I am still waiting for the evidence of one high crime to be presented!

Trump made no secret he thought Mueller was on a witch hunt. He made no secret that he could fire him at any time he wanted! He made no secret he thought it a witch hunt. Nop obstruction there.

When asked for docmnets and people to be interviewed- Trump gave the counsel everything they wanted except a direct interview with himself! So what did Trump do specifically to obstruct justice on a crime he did no tcommit and Mueller knew in early 2017 that Trump did not do!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swifty (Reply #35)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 03:16 PM

67. High crimes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics