Trump possibly commits Witness tampering twice; No one cares

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: BlackJackal

You are reading the law wrong
1
2
3

(3) The punishment for an offense under this subsection is—

you are quoting from 3

you dont get to skip 1 and 2
you have to prove 1 or 2 to get to 3

You really are that dense. It goes (a)(1)(2)(3) (b)(1).......

I quoted from (d) and do you really believe that that only way that you can be guilty of harassing someone is after you have murdered someone? Really?

a reply to: BlackJackal

3 describes the punishments for being found guilty of 1 or 2

without being guilty of 1 or 2 you do not get to 3

please demonstrate how trump is guilty of 1 or 2

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: BlackJackal

3 describes the punishments for being found guilty of 1 or 2

without being guilty of 1 or 2 you do not get to 3

please demonstrate how trump is guilty of 1 or 2

Look at section (d). Also, go back and look at what I quoted.

No one really cares because the little boy has cried wolf one too many times.

a reply to: JinMI

no not zero proof.... just zero acceptance of the truth... there is a BIG difference.
Because there is plenty of proof and you know it... deny deny deny

a reply to: ketsuko

the friggin media didnt make an oath to the american people though.... this asshole did.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

So we got news earlier today that Michael Cohen has indefinitely postponed his upcoming congressional testimony. Why?

Because he's a liar. No OP needed for that. It's common sense by now.

But guess what? Legal experts have already stated that the above set of tweets is probably witness tampering.

Legal experts aka CNN anonymous sources.

The Trump witness tweets blasting Cohen and hailing Stone drew criticism from legal analysts who said it looks the president – who has pardon powers – is trying to influence or threaten people

It can also be called Freedom of Speech. Not that you guys care about that tho. Just pointing out facts.

So, let that sink in for just a moment.

No, but thanks. I'd rather preserve my IQ.

Now go get a job unrelated to Trump, and you might find joy in your life.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: BlackJackal

Hmmmm...... Are you really that dense? Law is not a checklist in which you must tick every box in order to be charged.

I am going to leave this here for you.
It will make sense to you sometime in the future.
When it does your apology will be accepted.

Thanks for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't have the intelligence to even understand simple law. This will be the last time I ever respond to one of your posts because it's not worth my time to explain concepts that are beyond your grasp. Who knows maybe one day you will redeem yourself but that day is definitely not today.

you should remove the shovel and stop digging
you are quoting from this section

(3) The punishment for an offense under this subsection is—

your possibly requires

(1) Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person, with intent to—
etcetera
shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).

or

(2) Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to—
etcetera
shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).

please post evidence of violation of 1 or 2
then you can get to 3

a reply to: Iscool

well all I can say is this crowd is wrong again... like they usually are about these things.
Yes its witness tampering when he makes a threat about someone who isnt even under investigation saying they should be.
Trump is scared to death of what Cohen knows and will reveal or has revealed...
I dont think Mueller was too pleased that he had agreed to testify now anyway. I believe he would rather Cohen wait until his investigation has been completed so that Cohen doesnt give anything away.

a reply to: BlackJackal

Help me understand your point of view. Why does the accumulation of evidence, circumstances, issues, and reporting linking Trump to Russia, while not conclusive, lead you to the conclusion that nothing happened with Russia?

First, let me explain my default position in this and ALL political matters: Every single solitary critter in DC is rotten to the core, and if the Feds are involved in ANYTHING, then the Feds are at fault. Period. Left, right, liberal, conservative, up, down or all around. In accordance with the founding principles, the people are innocent until proven guilty... the feds are guilty until proven innocent.

Regarding Trump and Russian collusion specifically, the only conclusion I've come to is that there has been no conclusive evidence or proof of Trump colluding with the Russians. There very well could be. But we haven't seen that proof. So I am left to wonder if there is proof which is being hidden from the public for some reason... probably to use as leverage against Trump for political gain... or there is no collusion and it's all a show for political gain.

As I said, show me the proof that Trump colluded with Russia against our nation, and I'll lock him up and throw away the key myself.

In regards to witness tampering, what difference does it make knowing the information from the "investigation"? No where in the law does it say, "witness tampering is only valid if the public knows the outcome of the investigation". So why do you believe that applies here?

Because investigations -- and plea deals -- are only as valid as their weakest link. I have no reason to believe that the Mueller investigations are legitimate or that real crimes have been found, or that any genuine crimes were committed by Trump. For all I know, Mueller used crimes committed by others without Trump's knowledge nor consent to blackmail and coerce others to give false testimony about Trump. The devil is in the details.

For all I know, Trump isn't "witness tampering" so much as "whistleblowing."

And it all goes back to transparency, and the need for the government to prove -- beyond any and all reasonable doubt -- that someone is guilty to a jury of our peers. Not because someone says so.

As long as all this is being conducted in secrecy, with both "authorized" and "unauthorized" leaks from shady federal officials, and the public is not given the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so that we can judge the evidence -- NOT the propaganda and rhetoric -- it's all talk. And talk is cheap.

Either Mueller's got nothing, or he's playing political games. And that's all on Mueller, NOT Trump.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Yes its witness tampering when he makes a threat about someone who isnt even under investigation saying they should be.

You will be so kind as to source this "threat"?

a reply to: xuenchen

guess you gotta get your money's worth out of that huh? Its already old hat... Hey I know.. why dont you look for a girl blowing smoke up your...... oh wait you have her already...

a reply to: Sillyolme



TRIGGERED ALERT.

I see you still mad at the fiasco of the BuzzFeed story you were pushing as true.

You should just get used to being wrong at this point.

Raging on the internet isn't good for the heart.

originally posted by: Gothmog

Trump possibly commits Witness tampering twice; No one cares

Only a "possibility" ?
Why should one care for a theoretical ?
There is a probability one will get hit sitting and watching tv at home by a meteor. While watching Armageddon.
How much does that concern you ?

You've heard the newest "most overused" phrase from the left though... "If true."

a reply to: shooterbrody

its on his twitter feed and on tape.... you'll just deny it anyway so why should I get it for you?
go get it yourself... if you dare...
you dont....

a reply to: vinifalou

ha ha you have no idea what triggered means do you?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

its on his twitter feed and on tape.... you'll just deny it anyway so why should I get it for you?
go get it yourself... if you dare...
you dont....

so you have nothing....again
typical

watch that train perhaps you should stay off the tracks

a reply to: BlackJackal

Can you explain how your President has harrassed Cohen?
I don't want your feelings here as they are irrelevant, rather the legality of it.
I just would like to know how you would position a case...

President Trump harrassed Cohen because:...

Note : The question is only for the purposes of debate as a President can not be indicted, which means the only route is to impeach him. Is that what you are asking for.. Impeach because of a tweet?

I do think one part of your title is correct - "No one cares", but it's not for any other reason that there is actually no witness tampering or harrassment here, just the latest crazy leftist wet dream.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Well cursing on online forums seems a pretty good example to me.