One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Please,somebody explain it to me......
Page <<first <prev 3 of 6 next> last>>
Apr 24, 2019 17:12:14   #
proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
 
Clinton says Mueller Report documents crimes against all Americans!!...What crimes?????????????......Against what Americans????????...When is she will go back to the woods already??????????

Reply
Apr 24, 2019 17:17:09   #
jwrevagent
 
PeterS wrote:
Do you actually care? What's the point in telling you how he obstructed justice when in the end you could care less what he does?

If you seriously want to know here is a google search to get you started...

https://www.google.com/search?ei=WeS_XMyTKoOGsAXe84cg&q=How+did+Trump+obstruct+justice&oq=How+did+Trump+obstruct+justice&gs_l=psy-ab.3...630113.638933..639620...0.0..0.87.1976.30....2..0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67j0j0i70i251.W-sVaemxIHo


If he could care less, that means he cares a lot! If he couldn't care less, which is what I think you were saying here, then he cares not at all. And why Google? I personally do not trust them to be t***hful about ANYTHING! They are hacks for the radical left in this country. as far as I can tell. Don't use em anymore.

Reply
Apr 24, 2019 17:19:46   #
proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
 
jwrevagent wrote:
If he could care less, that means he cares a lot! If he couldn't care less, which is what I think you were saying here, then he cares not at all. And why Google? I personally do not trust them to be t***hful about ANYTHING! They are hacks for the radical left in this country. as far as I can tell. Don't use em anymore.



Reply
 
 
Apr 24, 2019 18:26:29   #
Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton
 
proud republican wrote:
Where IS Obstruction?????
Where IS Obstruction????? img src="https://static... (show quote)

How is it possible to obstruct an investigation into a crime that never was?

Reply
Apr 24, 2019 18:29:03   #
proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
 
Larry the Legend wrote:
How is it possible to obstruct an investigation into a crime that never was?


Yes, i would like to know that too.....Any ideas???

Reply
Apr 24, 2019 18:56:21   #
Mikeyavelli
 
tbutkovich wrote:
When will the “real crimes” of this past e******n get investigated. Why didn’t Mueller, the special prosecutor go after all that were involved in campaign improprieties instead of just delving into Trump and his associates. In Mueller’s investigation of collusion and obstruction charges in the Trump Campaign, he must have uncovered tons of improprieties on the side of the opposing Democrats.

The only time he deviated from his focus on Trump and his family was to chase down, Paul Manafort, George Papadopolous and Roger Stone and charged them with crimes unrelated to the Trump campaign. If he chose to deviate from his assault on Trump, why didn’t he go after all the other crooks on the Democrat Side involved in criminal actions. One side was assaulted, the other side went untouched.

The special prosecutor had the authority to investigate all aspects of the e******n, but only went after Trump. He had the authority to expose the whole can of worms, but avoided investigating the real crimes. It appears Mueller knew the Trump Dossier was false but continued the investigation in the hopes of finding something, anything that could be used to give ammunition to the Democrats and MSM to use against Trump. Mueller has absolutely no integrity, he is nothing but a Democrat political biased hack! He used the taxpayer money to grandstand and line his wallet and his crew. The money spent was a complete waste of taxpayer money.
When will the “real crimes” of this past e******n ... (show quote)


Mueller was the mule who delivered hilliar's uranium samples to the Russians. Think Mueller did that out of the kindness of his little heart?
Mueller was given two assignments. Remove Trump from office and hide any evidence of wrongdoing by the Obama administration or the Clinton campaign.
Mueller was the assassin who ran out of bullets. They are reloading now.
Trump better start fighting back with something more potent than tweets.
They are out to get rid of him, one way or another.

Reply
Apr 24, 2019 19:08:42   #
Geo
 
proud republican wrote:
Where IS Obstruction?????
Where IS Obstruction????? img src="https://static... (show quote)


Forget the Russians, the adult film stars, the Playboy bunnies, and the illegal payoffs covering up sexual misconduct. Forget the hotels full of foreigners enriching the president. And forget the convictions of his former campaign manager and his personal lawyer who may in the near future implicate the president himself in their wrongdoings.

The clearest potential violation of the law so far has been around a much less sexy issue—the issue that got President Richard Nixon in the end—obstruction of justice. In an exhaustively documented, 167-page 2nd edition of their report, “P**********l Obstruction of Justice: The Case of Donald J. Trump,” Barry H. Berke, Noah Bookbinder and Norman L. Eisen lay out the historical and legal bases for the concept and the charge. If, at some point in the future, some young lawyers on the House Judiciary Committee are instructed to draft articles of impeachment they will, no doubt, read this paper first and put its analysis to use.

For those who think obstruction of justice was something made up by the Democrats to get at President Trump, have a look at the Declaration of Independence. It begins with a long list of grievances against King George. Eighth in the list is the following: “He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.”

The first federal statute defining obstruction of justice was passed in 1831 and several have been added over the years to criminalize such conduct. Today, the authors argue, “President Trump faces the possibility of criminal liability for obstructing justice under three different theories.” The first is the obstruction of a proceeding such as congressional proceeding or a grand jury proceeding. The second is witness intimidation, and the third is conspiracy.

The clearest example of Trump possibly working to obstruct a proceeding is, obviously, his firing of FBI Director James Comey—an action Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon called, “the biggest mistake maybe in modern political history.” Berke, Bookbinder and Eisen point out that while the president has the right to fire anyone who works for him, he cannot do so if it is “done for the corrupt purpose of obstructing an investigation.” The analogy they make is to the right of an employer to fire someone but not on the basis of their race, sex, or religion.

As for witness intimidation, the authors point to a long list of p**********l tweets and statements ranging from his now familiar cry to end the “witch hunt,” to his attempts to discredit senior FBI officials, to his lawyer publicly speculating about pardons for his former colleagues, to revoking John Brennan’s security clearance because he led the “sham” Russian investigation. Witness tampering, according to the authors, “need not be explicit or overt. … Suggestive threatening, intimidating or persuasive statements are sufficient to support a case under Section 1512 (b).”


The third point the authors make has to do with corrupt intent—a phrase they admit is very vague. But here too, they cite a long list of Trump’s actions, including ordering Deputy Attorney General Rode Rosenstein to “…draft a memo on Comey’s conduct that the president would subsequently use as cover for Comey’s firing…” They go on to write that President Trump, “faces exposure under both the ‘offense clause’ and the ‘defraud clause’ of the conspiracy statute.”

Where all this goes, of course, is anyone’s guess until the full Mueller report is out (or at least submitted to Congress). According to the authors, the indictment of a sitting president “is not free from doubt.” Impeachment as a tool to discipline a president, however, is free from doubt; as is a sealed indictment which reserves prosecution for such time as the president returns to private life.

The first edition of this paper, published in October of 2017 was the first effort to lay out just how an obstruction of justice case might be made against President Trump. Now, ten months later, the second edition demonstrates that the president’s pattern of potentially obstructive conduct is even more extensive than previously realized. And there is likely more to come.

Reply
 
 
Apr 24, 2019 19:28:19   #
Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon
 
Geo wrote:
Forget the Russians, the adult film stars, the Playboy bunnies, and the illegal payoffs covering up sexual misconduct. Forget the hotels full of foreigners enriching the president. And forget the convictions of his former campaign manager and his personal lawyer who may in the near future implicate the president himself in their wrongdoings.

The clearest potential violation of the law so far has been around a much less sexy issue—the issue that got President Richard Nixon in the end—obstruction of justice. In an exhaustively documented, 167-page 2nd edition of their report, “P**********l Obstruction of Justice: The Case of Donald J. Trump,” Barry H. Berke, Noah Bookbinder and Norman L. Eisen lay out the historical and legal bases for the concept and the charge. If, at some point in the future, some young lawyers on the House Judiciary Committee are instructed to draft articles of impeachment they will, no doubt, read this paper first and put its analysis to use.

For those who think obstruction of justice was something made up by the Democrats to get at President Trump, have a look at the Declaration of Independence. It begins with a long list of grievances against King George. Eighth in the list is the following: “He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.”

The first federal statute defining obstruction of justice was passed in 1831 and several have been added over the years to criminalize such conduct. Today, the authors argue, “President Trump faces the possibility of criminal liability for obstructing justice under three different theories.” The first is the obstruction of a proceeding such as congressional proceeding or a grand jury proceeding. The second is witness intimidation, and the third is conspiracy.

The clearest example of Trump possibly working to obstruct a proceeding is, obviously, his firing of FBI Director James Comey—an action Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon called, “the biggest mistake maybe in modern political history.” Berke, Bookbinder and Eisen point out that while the president has the right to fire anyone who works for him, he cannot do so if it is “done for the corrupt purpose of obstructing an investigation.” The analogy they make is to the right of an employer to fire someone but not on the basis of their race, sex, or religion.

As for witness intimidation, the authors point to a long list of p**********l tweets and statements ranging from his now familiar cry to end the “witch hunt,” to his attempts to discredit senior FBI officials, to his lawyer publicly speculating about pardons for his former colleagues, to revoking John Brennan’s security clearance because he led the “sham” Russian investigation. Witness tampering, according to the authors, “need not be explicit or overt. … Suggestive threatening, intimidating or persuasive statements are sufficient to support a case under Section 1512 (b).”


The third point the authors make has to do with corrupt intent—a phrase they admit is very vague. But here too, they cite a long list of Trump’s actions, including ordering Deputy Attorney General Rode Rosenstein to “…draft a memo on Comey’s conduct that the president would subsequently use as cover for Comey’s firing…” They go on to write that President Trump, “faces exposure under both the ‘offense clause’ and the ‘defraud clause’ of the conspiracy statute.”

Where all this goes, of course, is anyone’s guess until the full Mueller report is out (or at least submitted to Congress). According to the authors, the indictment of a sitting president “is not free from doubt.” Impeachment as a tool to discipline a president, however, is free from doubt; as is a sealed indictment which reserves prosecution for such time as the president returns to private life.

The first edition of this paper, published in October of 2017 was the first effort to lay out just how an obstruction of justice case might be made against President Trump. Now, ten months later, the second edition demonstrates that the president’s pattern of potentially obstructive conduct is even more extensive than previously realized. And there is likely more to come.
Forget the Russians, the adult film stars, the Pla... (show quote)


Blah Blah Blah Blah. We've already heard r****ded Rachel Maddow say this Bullbiden.

Reply
Apr 24, 2019 19:30:18   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
Geo wrote:
Forget the Russians, the adult film stars, the Playboy bunnies, and the illegal payoffs covering up sexual misconduct. Forget the hotels full of foreigners enriching the president. And forget the convictions of his former campaign manager and his personal lawyer who may in the near future implicate the president himself in their wrongdoings.

The clearest potential violation of the law so far has been around a much less sexy issue—the issue that got President Richard Nixon in the end—obstruction of justice. In an exhaustively documented, 167-page 2nd edition of their report, “P**********l Obstruction of Justice: The Case of Donald J. Trump,” Barry H. Berke, Noah Bookbinder and Norman L. Eisen lay out the historical and legal bases for the concept and the charge. If, at some point in the future, some young lawyers on the House Judiciary Committee are instructed to draft articles of impeachment they will, no doubt, read this paper first and put its analysis to use.

For those who think obstruction of justice was something made up by the Democrats to get at President Trump, have a look at the Declaration of Independence. It begins with a long list of grievances against King George. Eighth in the list is the following: “He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.”

The first federal statute defining obstruction of justice was passed in 1831 and several have been added over the years to criminalize such conduct. Today, the authors argue, “President Trump faces the possibility of criminal liability for obstructing justice under three different theories.” The first is the obstruction of a proceeding such as congressional proceeding or a grand jury proceeding. The second is witness intimidation, and the third is conspiracy.

The clearest example of Trump possibly working to obstruct a proceeding is, obviously, his firing of FBI Director James Comey—an action Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon called, “the biggest mistake maybe in modern political history.” Berke, Bookbinder and Eisen point out that while the president has the right to fire anyone who works for him, he cannot do so if it is “done for the corrupt purpose of obstructing an investigation.” The analogy they make is to the right of an employer to fire someone but not on the basis of their race, sex, or religion.

As for witness intimidation, the authors point to a long list of p**********l tweets and statements ranging from his now familiar cry to end the “witch hunt,” to his attempts to discredit senior FBI officials, to his lawyer publicly speculating about pardons for his former colleagues, to revoking John Brennan’s security clearance because he led the “sham” Russian investigation. Witness tampering, according to the authors, “need not be explicit or overt. … Suggestive threatening, intimidating or persuasive statements are sufficient to support a case under Section 1512 (b).”


The third point the authors make has to do with corrupt intent—a phrase they admit is very vague. But here too, they cite a long list of Trump’s actions, including ordering Deputy Attorney General Rode Rosenstein to “…draft a memo on Comey’s conduct that the president would subsequently use as cover for Comey’s firing…” They go on to write that President Trump, “faces exposure under both the ‘offense clause’ and the ‘defraud clause’ of the conspiracy statute.”

Where all this goes, of course, is anyone’s guess until the full Mueller report is out (or at least submitted to Congress). According to the authors, the indictment of a sitting president “is not free from doubt.” Impeachment as a tool to discipline a president, however, is free from doubt; as is a sealed indictment which reserves prosecution for such time as the president returns to private life.

The first edition of this paper, published in October of 2017 was the first effort to lay out just how an obstruction of justice case might be made against President Trump. Now, ten months later, the second edition demonstrates that the president’s pattern of potentially obstructive conduct is even more extensive than previously realized. And there is likely more to come.
Forget the Russians, the adult film stars, the Pla... (show quote)

Excellent post, Geo. Get ready for blowback.

Reply
Apr 24, 2019 20:29:58   #
Nickolai
 
tbutkovich wrote:
When will the “real crimes” of this past e******n get investigated. Why didn’t Mueller, the special prosecutor go after all that were involved in campaign improprieties instead of just delving into Trump and his associates. In Mueller’s investigation of collusion and obstruction charges in the Trump Campaign, he must have uncovered tons of improprieties on the side of the opposing Democrats.

The only time he deviated from his focus on Trump and his family was to chase down, Paul Manafort, George Papadopolous and Roger Stone and charged them with crimes unrelated to the Trump campaign. If he chose to deviate from his assault on Trump, why didn’t he go after all the other crooks on the Democrat Side involved in criminal actions. One side was assaulted, the other side went untouched.

The special prosecutor had the authority to investigate all aspects of the e******n, but only went after Trump. He had the authority to expose the whole can of worms, but avoided investigating the real crimes. It appears Mueller knew the Trump Dossier was false but continued the investigation in the hopes of finding something, anything that could be used to give ammunition to the Democrats and MSM to use against Trump. Mueller has absolutely no integrity, he is nothing but a Democrat political biased hack! He used the taxpayer money to grandstand and line his wallet and his crew. The money spent was a complete waste of taxpayer money.
When will the “real crimes” of this past e******n ... (show quote)







The Steel dossier din not have ant thing to do with the investigation It began with an FBI investigation Carter Page and his activities in Russia then George Papadopoluse tod an Austrailian diplomat in a London bar that the Russians had dirt on Clinton and then a whole can of worms opened up and the Russian manipulartion became apparent. * members of Trumps campaign have been charges 12 Russian Nationals and 13 Russian intelligence officers three companies and two other people have been charged and a dozen instances of obstruction by Trump himself as well as 14 ongoing investigations by other prosecuters. That's a lot of smoke

Reply
Apr 24, 2019 20:31:51   #
Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon
 
Nickolai wrote:
The Steel dossier din not have ant thing to do with the investigation It began with an FBI investigation Carter Page and his activities in Russia then George Papadopoluse tod an Austrailian diplomat in a London bar that the Russians had dirt on Clinton and then a whole can of worms opened up and the Russian manipulartion became apparent. * members of Trumps campaign have been charges 12 Russian Nationals and 13 Russian intelligence officers three companies and two other people have been charged and a dozen instances of obstruction by Trump himself as well as 14 ongoing investigations by other prosecuters. That's a lot of smoke
The Steel dossier din not have ant thing to do wit... (show quote)



I agree..every time you post, it's mostly all smoke and big on mirrors too.

Reply
 
 
Apr 24, 2019 20:39:20   #
Nickolai
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
A Google search??? Wow, man. You attack members for posting links or copy & paste, you're like "Can't you CCs think for yourselves?" Google is a lib prog search engine and you want us to do a fkng Google search???

What does your Google search give us? The NYT, WaPo, Time, NPR, "needtoimpeach", the lawfare blog??? Damn, we ain't that stupid.

President Trump had every right within his authority as POTUS to fire Mueller, Rosenstein, or anyone else in the Executive Branch, but he didn't, did he? He fired Comey on recommendation from acting AG Rosenstein. And, that firing was well-deserved and absolutely necessary.

President Trump gave Mueller everything he asked for, every document, memo, or communication that was case pertinent. Even wasted his time answering a batch of written questions.

President Trump allowed Mueller to interview any member of his campaign staff or the WH staff he wished. Including the WH Counsel, Don McGahn, who spent 30 hours under Mueller's hot lights. Damn near a work week, and what of McGahn's testimony made it into Mueller's report? A couple of lines of text. Wow, man. Wonder what McGahn actually told his interrogators during that long session?

President Trump could have exercised his right to executive privilege in any number of instances, but he didn't, not once, did he?

Astounding, isn't it, that every one of Obama's top dogs in the DOJ and FBI are gone, a bit of the swamp has been drained.

So, with all the logic you can muster, and with your superior intellect, tell us, O great Oracle, in your own words, what did President Trump obstruct???
A Google search??? Wow, man. You attack members fo... (show quote)





Rosenstein didn't recommend Trump fire Comey he was instructed to write that memo in order to cover up the fact he was being fired because he would not swear his loyalty to Trump and worse would not back off Mike Flynn and the Russher thing as he describes it to Lester Holt on TV. Reality has a well known liberal bias. That’s fine if you don’t have to make anything that works. But if you’re concerned with functionality, as engineers are, you have to go where the evidence takes you. And to conservatives, that will make you appear l*****t. American conservatism, especially over the last 30 years, has come to value ideology over evidence.

Reply
Apr 24, 2019 20:51:12   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
Nickolai wrote:
The Steel dossier din not have ant thing to do with the investigation It began with an FBI investigation Carter Page and his activities in Russia then George Papadopoluse tod an Austrailian diplomat in a London bar that the Russians had dirt on Clinton and then a whole can of worms opened up and the Russian manipulartion became apparent. * members of Trumps campaign have been charges 12 Russian Nationals and 13 Russian intelligence officers three companies and two other people have been charged and a dozen instances of obstruction by Trump himself as well as 14 ongoing investigations by other prosecuters. That's a lot of smoke
The Steel dossier din not have ant thing to do wit... (show quote)
You really are Hillaryous, dude. The Steele dossier was the principle evidentiary instrument with which Comey obtained the FISA warrant with Carter Page's name on it.

Reply
Apr 24, 2019 22:10:53   #
Mikeyavelli
 
byronglimish wrote:
I agree..every time you post, it's mostly all smoke and big on mirrors too.


Now Trump is pissed. He waited for the mueller report to come out to see the reactions of the kommiecrats. They shuddered and shrieked when one of their own failed to make a case to remove Trump from office. So they are going through state courts and congressional investigations to further harrass Trump and hopefully remove him from office.
Trump is going to release the FISA documents and other information about the obama administration's actions to stop candidate Trump and then to remove him from office.
This will be a devastating exposure of s******n and treason leading all the way to obama.

Reply
Apr 24, 2019 22:21:48   #
Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon
 
Mikeyavelli wrote:
Now Trump is pissed. He waited for the mueller report to come out to see the reactions of the kommiecrats. They shuddered and shrieked when one of their own failed to make a case to remove Trump from office. So they are going through state courts and congressional investigations to further harrass Trump and hopefully remove him from office.
Trump is going to release the FISA documents and other information about the obama administration's actions to stop candidate Trump and then to remove him from office.
This will be a devastating exposure of s******n and treason leading all the way to obama.
Now Trump is pissed. He waited for the mueller rep... (show quote)



I pray that justice is served..brutally cold.

The s******n keepers will be spewing new bullbiden on a hourly basis when the Schitf hits the fan.

A few higher ups in the conspiring mob, deserve the ultimate punishment.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.