Demorcrats and Liberal Media Say President Trump Obstructed Justice..

Youre still at it. I didn't say he obstructed or should be charged. I said that falsely stating over and over again they cannot charge him with obstruction without proving he is guilty of an underlying crime is grossly inaccurate. It's fantasy land stuff.

But anyone who doesn't repeat the talking points gets shouted down in the echo chamber you helped create. They just become "you people" to try to shout down. Same thing has happened on the left where Glen Greenwald and Dore and co were shouted down because they wouldn't fall in line and jump on the RussiaGate train. Way to be part of that problem.

"Deny ignorance", indeed.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed Can you show me where there is a clear consensus on these obstruction of justice laws? It seems to me they may be applied without another crime being commited, but the law seems vague and open to interpretation at the same time.

a reply to: RadioRobert

It's disturbing how fast you can become one of those people on either side of the fence these days.

originally posted by: trustmeimdoctor
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed Can you show me where there is a clear consensus on these obstruction of justice laws? It seems to me they may be applied without another crime being commited, but the law seems vague and open to interpretation at the same time.

What is the legal definition of obstruction of justice?
Obstruction may consist of any attempt to hinder the discovery, apprehension, conviction or punishment of anyone who has committed a crime.

You can't start a valid investigation looking for a crime hoping to find something like the DNC is doing to Trump, and then claim obstruction before a crime is found. (Like what happened to Trump).
Everything they did to Trump was carefully planned and scripted in a very deceitful and illegal manner. No crime was found, no obstruction is possible.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

That is not the language used in the statute. You're still way off base here. Improperly influencing, lying to, hiding or providing misleading information to government officials investigating a crime is still obstruction. The underlying crime doesn't have to have be determined to have occurred to put yourself in legal jeopardy.

If your one of your co-workers is having an affair with another co-worker and the police end up investigating her or the coworker for some crime, say his wife ends up dead under suspicious circumstances, and you decide to be helpful and alibi them out saying they were working late with you so police don't find out about the affair, you can be charged with obstruction -- even if he isn't a murderer and the police later find she had a congenital heart defect. Will you be? Probably not. They aren't going to waste their time and money. But your are still criminally liable once you obstruct. If you lied and sent them on a goose chase and wasted a bunch of their time to protect your buddy, I'd expect to get charged.

Will Trump be charged with obstruction? No, as determined by Barr. Without the underlying crime, it is hard to assign him an "improper" motive for " interfering" by asking Comey to stop investigating Flynn, for example. You would have to prove state of mind which is incredibly difficult. Flynn, by the way, doesn't have to be guilty of something else. You would just need to show Trump did it believing Flynn might have. But again, proving state of mind would be an uphill battle. Especially when he basically refused to answer related questions. But there would be nothing stopping them from trying to do so.

originally posted by: trustmeimdoctor
a reply to: RadioRobert

It's disturbing how fast you can become one of those people on either side of the fence these days.

Truly. It's equal parts pathetic and alarming how elements of both sides are acting right now.

Has anyone specifically stated exactly how he obstructed justice?
Even james comey testified under oath to congress that trump had not effected the rusha investigation.
And comey hates the president.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Has anyone specifically stated exactly how he obstructed justice?
Even james comey testified under oath to congress that trump had not effected the rusha investigation.
And comey hates the president.

Any month now

Any month 😆😆

Next they'll claim they gave evidence to Mueller and it was destroyed intentionally 😆😆

There so predictable it's sad. I posted this comment a few days back, partially in jest but.............

So I wonder how they're going to spin this Investigation fail to make it Trumps fault?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Has anyone specifically stated exactly how he obstructed justice?
Even james comey testified under oath to congress that trump had not effected the rusha investigation.
And comey hates the president.

I can imagine all sorts of things that might constitute weak evidence. The problem they would have is assigning improper motive. Good luck with that jazz.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

What we can say is that Trump and his campaign staff repeatedly lied to the FBI, Congress and the American people and Russia knew they were lying.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

That makes Trump and his campaign staff compromised as hell.
...

...

The lies that "left-wingers" like to tell themselves...

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Has anyone specifically stated exactly how he obstructed justice?
Even james comey testified under oath to congress that trump had not effected the rusha investigation.
And comey hates the president.

I can imagine all sorts of things that might constitute weak evidence. The problem they would have is assigning improper motive. Good luck with that jazz.

And Democrats are in control of the weakest investigational body (the House), and have NO prosecutorial authority. NONE WHATSOEVER.

a reply to: carewemust

Not true. They can start impeachment proceedings destined to fail in the Senate.

Or more easily just continue the investigation farce and dig up anything they can remotely spin with a complicit media and keep muddying the waters until Nov 2020. Bonus points if they can some how turn any of the bazillion incoming subpoenas into a contempt, obstruction, or perjury charge.

He's not going anywhere until then (unless he does something incredibly stupid), but it hasn't stopped the # show so far.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Dig up anything out of the Mueller report that he can twist into Anti-Trump language, is exactly what Nadler is attempting to do:

The head of the House Judiciary Committee said Wednesday he is worried Attorney General William Barr will not meet Democrats' deadline to turn over the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller's probe.

"I am very concerned that it is apparent that the Department [of Justice] will not meet the April 2 deadline that we set, and I’m very disturbed by that," Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) told reporters Wednesday evening.

"I asked him when we would see it, and he couldn’t get specific. He said weeks, not months, as we’ve heard before," he added.

Nadler, who insisted the early April date is a hard deadline, would not commit to whether he would immediately use a subpoena to compel Barr to provide the documents — though Democrats have threatened to use such power if their requests are not satisfied.

"We will wait until after April 2nd, and we will make those decisions," he said.

Nadler said Barr committed to testifying before his panel during a roughly 10-minute phone call earlier Wednesday, though the timing of any appearance by the attorney general on Capitol Hill is unclear. Nadler told reporters it would be "reasonably soon."

The attorney general on Wednesday also described the length of Mueller's report that he filed with the Justice Department last week as "substantial," according to Nadler.

The chairman said that added to his concerns about Barr's summary report of the probe released to lawmakers on Sunday.

"He told me it was a 'very substantial report' — one that, in my judgment, a four-page summary would not begin to do justice to," Nadler said.

"It is unacceptable if the Congress and the people don’t see the full report, and he wouldn’t commit to that. And we are not happy about that, to put it mildly," Nadler said.

Source: thehill.com...

I hope the stress causes Nadler's stomach staples to come lose, and he balloons back up to 320lbs.

a reply to: RadioRobert

So that would be a no?
Seems a lot of hullabaloo over something that can't be described.
Almost as if it is more opinion than fact?

Personally I think he did all he could to throw shade at the investigation and make it more complicated, but not because of any collusion with Russia. I said long ago that he was much more worried about other dirt that would be dug up as a result of the investigation. And sure enough, look at all the crap that came out of it.

But I don't think he should be held accountable for obstruction - who cares, it's over. And if they simply proved that Trump is a sleaze, well, I think most already knew that, including his supporters. It didn't bother them before, I doubt it would matter now, no matter what was brought to light. It should just be dropped. And I think Trump would also be wise to all just let it die. But I doubt he will.

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: carewemust

Trump needs to take the gloves off.
Mueller report is in.
Time to DECLASS the FISA info Mr. President.

#Declass

Trump vows to release FISA docs now that Mueller probe is concluded, slams 'treasonous' FBI

www.foxnews.com...

They think he's guilty of obstructing Democrats.

They cannot bring specific charges, so they impeach him in the court of public opinion. Starting the day he descended the golden escalator to throw his top-hat and monocle into the ring.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: RadioRobert

So that would be a no?
Seems a lot of hullabaloo over something that can't be described.
Almost as if it is more opinion than fact?

It's not, "no" . It's just extremely weak evidence that has completely reasonable and legal alternative explanations. Just based on what we know, we could list his conversations with Comey about dropping the Flynn thing, his firing of Comey over "the whole Russia" thing, public/private comments to Sessions about stopping the witch hunt, etc. Those could all be evidence that he attempted to influence, delay, obstruct the investigation. There are probably even more things in the report. The problem is they'd have to put together a motive/frame of mind, and it is basically impossible to do that since they've failed to uncover an underlying crime. It's not enough to say he tried to influence the investigation. They have to show he did it improperly according to the statute. There's an additional problem because there is a strong constitutional argument that the President exercising what amounts to prosecutorial discretion is part of is delineated duties. But if they could show he lied to investigators, or produce strong evidence he thought Jr or Kushenor was guilty and tried to protect them, they could generate a charge. At this point the talking heads are now talking about "reasonable doubt", but the true consideration here is political. Hard to dispel reasonable doubt and establish motive when he won't talk to them and they can't find an underlying crime. Even harder to push a purely political impeachment in that light.

It's the only arguements they can seem to make, double down on their position trump obviously is a traitor to the nation, he said he grabbed pu$$y for gods sake! If that's not obstruction, or at least grounds to declare guilt on any and all accusation she levied against him, I don't know what is!!!


a reply to: carewemust