Which of these is a more clear case of Obstruction of Justice

Let me ask you, which of these cases seem to be a more clear cut case of obstruction of justice.

Scenario #1. A President fires the FBI director whose department was investigating Russian collusion, That FBI director admits that the President himself told him to pursue anyone who acted illegally with russia, but did say he hoped one of his appointees would have his investigation dropped. After the firing, the investigation was not only not affected, but the fired person leaked to ensure a more thourough independent investigation was started, and that President and his people complied with all demands from the investigators.

Scenario #2. A secretary of state is accused of a crime, and is told to haand over evdinece to investigators. That evidence is then permanently destroyed so that the investigators can not view them.

Would you be shocked to learn that the people most hysterical about case 1 being obstruction of justice are the exact same people who yell the loudest that the scenario in number two isnt?

Regardless of your political affiliation, it seems clear to me that firing an investigator but the investigation not only kept going and was complied with is a far less clear example of obstruction than blatantly deleting requested evidence from investigators.

a reply to: Grambler

I thought then FBI has all the emails?

a reply to: Kettu

Not from Hillary. She used BleachBit and wiped the hard drive.

You know, like with a cloth?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Kettu

Not from Hillary. She used BleachBit and wiped the hard drive.

You know, like with a cloth?

TheRedneck

And she lied when she testified that she had turned over all work related emails.

Don't forget about her incompetence in Benghazi. That alone may not have been enough to fire her but it shows she is not appropriate to run for president.

I use her past actions to form my opinion as to whether she was fit to run for president. I personally do not know her or Trump and have nothing personal against either one of them. But Trump was more qualified to be president in my opinion.

a reply to: Grambler

B.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.BUT TRUMP!!!!!!!!

I'm entirely with you, but in asking this question, you're asking a group of people who have been mind wiped and programmed to see red when they're looking at Blue to correctly and logically identify the color of the sky. You'd have better luck convincing Forrest Gump that his Mama was a liar.

a reply to: Grambler

Injustice is faking the whole Trump / Russia gate thing just to win an election.

The funny part is you could do these all day.

Which of these scenaarios is a more clear exaample of colluding with Russia.

1. Candidate 1 supposedly has team members that met with russians before, and has members that met with a russian lawyer that contacted them that said she was with the russians and had dirt on hillary, and the received no dirt and left.

2. Candidate 2's team repeatedly says for a year that trying to get dirt on your opponent from russia is corrupt collusion and possibly treason, all the while having lied about the fact that they paid people to get dirt from high level russian officials against their opponent.

Well I know this may be a shock to you, but not only does most of the MSM and many other people think that number 1 is worse, but they think that there is no problem at aall with #2, and some even think anyone who has a problem with # 2 is a "traitor" that must be fought.

The double standards are amazing.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Don't forget about her incompetence in Benghazi. That alone may not have been enough to fire her but it shows she is not appropriate to run for president.

I use her past actions to form my opinion as to whether she was fit to run for president. I personally do not know her or Trump and have nothing personal against either one of them. But Trump was more qualified to be president in my opinion.

Better yet...
None of the above.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Grambler

B.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.BUT TRUMP!!!!!!!!

I'm entirely with you, but in asking this question, you're asking a group of people who have been mind wiped and programmed to see red when they're looking at Blue to correctly and logically identify the color of the sky. You'd have better luck convincing Forrest Gump that his Mama was a liar.

Maybe, but if I give up on talking to them, am I really not just taking the ifrst steps to becoming just like them and being in my own bubble?

Who knows, maybe some day some of these people will see this hypocrisy.

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: Grambler

I thought then FBI has all the emails?

So?

Obstruction of justice has nothing to do with if it was successful, it only matters if it was attempted. Saying I hope you can go easy on Flynn compared to wiping a hard drive and taking a hammer to multiple electronic devices to avoid the info being looked at are not in the same universe of intent to obstruct. Really what more did Hillary have to do to make it clear she was obstructing? Call a press conference and announce it?

It is amazing the stupid imagined technicalities, and 1984 esqe definition warping leftists will cling to to avoid the thought that anyone on their side could be in the wrong.

It really is like a cult.

Many on the left are so blinded by Trump hatred that their common sense is lost.

Any reasonable person can see that the Clinton's are guilty of influence peddling, and accepting bribes, both directly and indirectly through the foundation. Not to mention the thievery that took place in Haiti.

And look at how so many prominent people on the left, I mean celebrities, politicians, and media people have called for impeachment for Trump for this.

But not one of those people, not ONE, ever demanded hillary drop out of the race after it was proven she obstructed justice.

a reply to: Grambler


That is the conundrum we have in this country with the Left.
Everybody knows she obstructed justice with the emails but they don't care. Why?
Everybody knows the DNC and Hillary tried to cheat Sanders on the nomination, but they don't care. Why?
There is an entire laundry list of questionable acts everyone knows about, but yet they don't care. Why?
I don't know the answer but there is something wrong with these people that they would look the other way and still support her while knowing about her corruption.
But Trump said "Grab them by the pussy" and.......well you know the rest.

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: rickymouse
Don't forget about her incompetence in Benghazi. That alone may not have been enough to fire her but it shows she is not appropriate to run for president.

I use her past actions to form my opinion as to whether she was fit to run for president. I personally do not know her or Trump and have nothing personal against either one of them. But Trump was more qualified to be president in my opinion.

Better yet...
None of the above.

Yeah, we could have had a better choice than Trump and Hillary. That has to be the worst choice we have had since I started voting in the seventies.

It's a shame the opening poster doesn't actually try to hide their lust for spreading disinfo.
The hard drives etc were destroyed after they were handed over and nothing incriminating was found.

The only people still repeating and/or spreading these lies are either complicit insofar as its their paid job to lie online or just wonderfully stupid, unable to grasp facts and reality preferring instead to live in a poorly constructed fantasy.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: rickymouse
Don't forget about her incompetence in Benghazi. That alone may not have been enough to fire her but it shows she is not appropriate to run for president.

I use her past actions to form my opinion as to whether she was fit to run for president. I personally do not know her or Trump and have nothing personal against either one of them. But Trump was more qualified to be president in my opinion.

Better yet...
None of the above.

Yeah, we could have had a better choice than Trump and Hillary. That has to be the worst choice we have had since I started voting in the seventies.

Be that as it may, Trump was not a career politician.
He might be part of his own little billionaire cabal with whoever but he was not part of the political dynasties they try to force on us every election cycle.
He sometimes runs his mouth with his mind in neutral but it's refreshing to hear something different than the same old sh!t.
Will he end up being a good president...who knows?
He was far and away, the better choice.
Hell I voted for Obama the first time around, because I couldn't stand McCain...still don't.

originally posted by: Garmanarnar
It's a shame the opening poster doesn't actually try to hide their lust for spreading disinfo.
The hard drives etc were destroyed after they were handed over and nothing incriminating was found.

The only people still repeating and/or spreading these lies are either complicit insofar as its their paid job to lie online or just wonderfully stupid, unable to grasp facts and reality preferring instead to live in a poorly constructed fantasy.

“While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement.

www.politico.com...

Who is spreading lies now?

a reply to: Garmanarnar

nothing incriminating was found.

Other than the classified (at the time) material that wasn't supposed to have been there, or the emails of a certain VVIP who one (stonetear) technician tried to obliterate from the archives after having been subpoenaed.

Yeah, nothing at all.

a reply to: Grambler

I see no reason why republicans and democrats can't share the same prison cells. I'm all for bipartisanship.