F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen

All this LLC # is very boring. Means nothing.
No one knows what the warrant indicated or what they found and it's a stupid argument.
If they paid off people to keep quiet or paid to suppress damaging information it's against campaign laws. They will all be liable.
#ing LLC # is irrelevant space waster.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Ummm yeah it is. Because he told us he fired Comey because he was breathing down his neck. He TOLD US HE FIRED HIM BECAUSE OF THE RUSSHER THING!!!!!
You love the guy. This is the one time you think he may have been lying?
Ok. Lol

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Stay on topic and Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: Xcathdra

Looks like it will be the porn star that takes him down anyway. Lol.

#MAGA

(My Attorney Got Arrested)

originally posted by: Xcathdra


* - 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
* - 18 U.S. Code § 1510 - Obstruction of criminal investigations

I can't tell if you are just ignorant or dishonest?

Why are you Citing 1510?

Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 73. Federal law has no less than 21 separate and distinct provisions for obstruction of justice.

www.federalcriminallawyer.us...

Obstruction of justice is a federal crime in which someone "corruptly" attempts to “influence, obstruct or impede” the “due and proper administration of the law” in a pending proceeding, as stated in 18 U.S.Code § 1505.

abcnews.go.com...
And why are you linking to an outdated University Website?

Why not directly the DOJ Legal Code?

Protection Of Government Processes -- Omnibus Clause -- 18 U.S.C. 1505

The omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1505 parallels its counterpart in 18 U.S.C. § 1503 in language and purpose, and most of the law construing the latter is applicable to the former.

Generally, a defendant may be found guilty under section 1505 if the government establishes that:

(1) there was a proceeding pending before a department or agency of the United States;
(2) the defendant knew of or had a reasonably founded belief that the proceeding was pending; and
(3) the defendant corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which the proceeding was pending. United States v. Price, 951 F.2d 1028, 1030-31 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. 133, 163 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).

United States DOJ 18 USC 1505

“Corruptly” is defined in an accompanying section, 18 U.S.Code § 1515 (b), as “acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information."

abcnews.go.com...

Weird that you have been selling 1 of 21 different Obstruction of Justice Charges as the only one

a reply to: Xcathdra

No they indicate the long corrupt history of donald trump.
That's what they indicate.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Ummm yeah it is. Because he told us he fired Comey because he was breathing down his neck. He TOLD US HE FIRED HIM BECAUSE OF THE RUSSHER THING!!!!!
You love the guy. This is the one time you think he may have been lying?
Ok. Lol

No really its not. Comey is not directly involved in the investigation and McCabe testified Comeys termination had no impact.

I know you hate the guy but your obsession si blinding you to facts.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Yup.. Next step would be for you to understand US code and how it applies and what elements are needed to violate it. I noticed you failed to engage any of that and instead reposted what I did from a different website.

Had you actually read what I posted you would have known the very first link is to all of those obstruction of justice codes. Since you apparently didnt read it I will let you go back and do that so you can save some face.

It would have been easier for you to just say you dont know what obstruction is, what elements are needed to be violated to break that law.

Terminating Comey is not obstruction.
Terminating Rosenstein is not obstruction.

Thus far you have failed to provide any evidence he broke any one of those laws.

a reply to: Xcathdra


Oh my...
Keep trying.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

No they indicate the long corrupt history of donald trump.
That's what they indicate.

You are really grasping at straws now.

Corrupt history?

Explain that one.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra


Oh my...
Keep trying.

That would be my advice to you. You keep rattling things off yet you can never support it. By all means, cite your sources to support your position.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

Yup.. Next step would be for you to understand US code and how it applies and what elements are needed to violate it. I noticed you failed to engage any of that and instead reposted what I did from a different website.

.

The "Different Site" was the actual DOJ Code Manual.
And no I did not post what you did, you chose the non-applicable 18 U.S.C. 1510, when the relevant code is 18 U.S.C. 1505.

You seem to be either furthering your own confusion or doubling down on the dishonesty.

Can you see the difference between the numbers 1510 (as you cited) and 1505 (the actual relevant code)?

1505 and 1510 are not the same numbers, nor Legal code.

That seems pretty clear. Why are you saying they are the same?

a reply to: soberbacchus

Not only did you post the exact same info, you failed to see it because you didnt bother to read it.

and yet you are still unable to provide an answer to obstruction of justice. 1505 doesnt apply. For starters its not civil its criminal and secondly -

Section 1505 is constrained, like its counterpart in 18 U.S.C. § 1503, by the requirement that there be a pending proceeding.

18 USC 1505
18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

US 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—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Mueller is not a proceeding. He is a special counsel engaged in a criminal investigation.

Next time read your own sources and udne4rstand what it is they are saying.

My post and position stand.


By the way what you posted is not the law. It is an entry in the DOJ's Criminal Resource Manual and is used by Federal prosecutors on application of the law based on situation and elements and the application of those elements.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Ummm yeah it is. Because he told us he fired Comey because he was breathing down his neck. He TOLD US HE FIRED HIM BECAUSE OF THE RUSSHER THING!!!!!
You love the guy. This is the one time you think he may have been lying?
Ok. Lol

No really its not. Comey is not directly involved in the investigation and McCabe testified Comeys termination had no impact.

McCabe said the investigation had not been impacted as far as he was aware.
That is likely true since it actually got worse for Trump.

But the argument is a stupid one repeated by right wingers.

Obstruction of Justice charges are levied when the obstruction attempt fails, not succeeds.

If the Obstruction succeeded, then there would never be obstruction of justice charges. Justice would have been scuttled.

a reply to: soberbacchus

and there has been no attempt to obstruct justice by Trump. You left wingers keep repeating obstruction and yet you cant specifically cite the actions that violated the elements.

Firing Comey is a constitutional authority granted to the Executive branch. Separation of powers prevents one branch from impeding another branch from exercising its constitutional authority and by extension have immunity from prosecution for doing so. The same holds for Legislative and the Judicial in terms of having immunity for exercising their constitutional authority.

Comey was an administrator and not an investigative agent.

Obstruction does not exist.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Now clear you are aiming for dishonesty rather than confusion

Let me help you out.

An Investigation is a Proceeding or "Government Process"
And 1505 is not limited to civil.

U.S. Attorneys » Resources » U.S. Attorneys' Manual » Criminal Resource Manual » CRM 1500-1999 » Criminal Resource Manual 1701-1799

1727. Protection Of Government Processes -- Omnibus Clause -- 18 U.S.C. 1505

The omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1505 parallels its counterpart in 18 U.S.C. § 1503 in language and purpose, and most of the law construing the latter is applicable to the former.

Generally, a defendant may be found guilty under section 1505 if the government establishes that:
(1) there was a proceeding pending before a department or agency of the United States;
(2) the defendant knew of or had a reasonably founded belief that the proceeding was pending; and
(3) the defendant corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which the proceeding was pending.

www.justice.gov...

The above is not some excerpt from some university website that you spin.

The above is the CRIMINAL RESOURCE MANUAL for the US Department of Justice.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

and there has been no attempt to obstruct justice by Trump.

Saying it does not make it true.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Mueller is not a proceeding or government process.

He is a special counsel engaged in a criminal investigation.

What you are trying to do is pass off guidance for DOJ prosecutors as law. What I linked you to is the actual law itself and dismissing it because you are wrong doesnt help your argument.

The The omnibus clause is what you are not understanding. try again and get back to us when you understand the difference.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

and there has been no attempt to obstruct justice by Trump.

Saying it does not make it true.

No - the fact Trump never took an action that violated the US code says there was no obstruction.
The Constitution says it was not obstruction.