One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
How Can Objecting To The Mueller Investigation Which Was Initiated on A False Premise Be Considered “Obstruction Of Justice!”
Page <prev 2 of 2
Apr 23, 2019 06:24:21   #
tbutkovich
 
Blade_Runner wrote:


Mark Levin summed it up in a nutshell. The 400 page $35M Mueller report should have been reduced to one sentence: “No Collusion, No Obstruction!”

Reply
Apr 23, 2019 08:26:01   #
zombinis3 Loc: Southwest
 
Blade_Runner wrote:


I see you are still accepting the smoke as a view. Maybe if I saw the whole video I may have seen something but after listening to the first few words I figured it was going to be a waste of time. Those who wanted so badly for Trump to fail wanted the charge of Collusion to stick. But earlier on the statement was made that Collusion isn't against the law it is the smoke that lead to a problem. The report has statements that can be crossed over to the actual Law. Which if you have read it , it should give a moment of thought for the reader. If you want to read the first part report go for it. It setup conditions that caused things to have happened. This first part lends support
to Volume 2 which puts up the different siturations that are there, that could be considered breaking laws that have helped this country be what it was at one time before people stopped caring and keeping the Government accountable.

Reply
Apr 23, 2019 09:19:38   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
zombinis3 wrote:
To answer you're question the report has 11 points that do fall under the definition of obstruction all points are written in volume 2 .

About the termination of Comey as per the report
Point 2 Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn. Explains Comey was asked to drop the case against Flynn,by asking this of Comey he made Comey into an important part of the investigation .

Firing Comey

In accordance to point 4 May 3 2017 Comey testified in a congressional hearing, declined to answer questions dealing with the president , if president was personally under investigation or not. Within days president decided to terminate Comey. The white house insisted that it was on the suggestions from The AG and DAG. Before hearing from the Department of Justice he already decided to fire Comey. President told a Russian officials he had "faced a great amount of pressure because of Russia" which had been "taken off" After the firing of Comey. The next day on a Television interview he acknowledged he was going to fire Comey regardless of what the Department of Justice recommendation.

Firing Mueller, to fire there is a need for cause .

In accordance to point 5 May 17 2017 the acting attorney general for the Russian investigation appointed a special counsel to conduct the investigation and related matters. The president reacted with the statement "the end of his presidency " demanded that Sessions resigns. The president told his advisors that the special counsel had conflicts of interest he could not serve . The asserted conflicts were merit less had already been considered by the Department of Justice.

Requesting for Flynn to be left alone.

In accordance to point 10 Conduct towards Flynn and Manafort
After Flynn withdrew from joint defense agreement with the president he began cooperating with the government, the president's personal counsel left a message for Flynn's attorney reminding them of the president's warm feelings towards Flynn, he said "still remains" and then asking for a " heads up" if Flynn knew "infomation that implicates the president ". Flynn could no longer share infomation in pursuant to the joint defense agreement. President's counsel said he will let the president know Flynn actions reflected "hostility" toward the president.

Requesting Sessions to unrecuse. Depends on the reason why.

In accordance to point 8 Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation .
Sessions met with the president three times in 2017 . The summer of 2017 he was asked to reverse his recusal Sessions said no. October 2017 Met with the president a second time in the Oval office was asked to look into a investigation of Clinton. The third time in December 2017 met in the Oval Office after Flynn pleaded gulity according to notes taken by a senior advisor if Sessions unrecused and took control of the investigation he would be considered a " hero" . Then the president commented that "I'm not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly" .Sessions replied with he never seen anything "improper " on the campaign and told the president there was a "whole new leadership team" in place. He didn't unrecuse.

In accordance to point 11 Conduct involving Michael Cohen

The president 's conduct towards Michael Cohen, a former Trump Organization executive , changed from praise for Cohen when he falsely minimized the president involvement in the Trump Tower Moscow project ,to castigation of Cohen when he became a cooperating witness. From September 2015 to June 2016, Cohen pursued the Trump Tower Moscow project on the behalf of the Trump Organization and had briefed the candidate Trump on the project numerous times including the trip to Russia. In 2017 . Cohen provided false testimony to Congress about the project that he only briefed Trump three times and nothing about the trip to Russia. Which was a attempt to adhere "to party line" that was developed too minimize the president's connections to Russia. While preparing for his congressional testimony Cohen had extensive discussions with the president's personal counsel according to Cohen said that Cohen "stay on message" and not contradict the president. When the FBI searched Cohen's home and office in April 2018 , the president publicly asserted that Cohen will not "flip" contacted him directly to tell him to "stay strong" and privately passed messages of support you him. Cohen also discussed pardons with the president's personal counsel and believed if he stayed on message he would be taken care of. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, the president publicly criticized him, and called "rat" and suggested that family members had committed crimes.
These few point answer the questions in your request. If you look at what type of picture this represents it should cause a moment for thought. Ether way not all conditions have to be met on each , for a consideration of obstruction.
To answer you're question the report has 11 points... (show quote)


None of which hindered or impeded the investigation. Wanting to end the investigation is not an offense in a free nation, only where socialism and communism reign. You don't even have intent. LOL! You make an interesting argument but the fact is, Trump never crossed the line of committing obstruction.

Reply
 
 
Apr 23, 2019 19:08:49   #
zombinis3 Loc: Southwest
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
None of which hindered or impeded the investigation. Wanting to end the investigation is not an offense in a free nation, only where socialism and communism reign. You don't even have intent. LOL! You make an interesting argument but the fact is, Trump never crossed the line of committing obstruction.


One of my first statement I made at the beginning is obstruction is interpeted there is enough infomation listed throughout the points to be able to Claim Obstruction, either way the report did it's job it brought problems that are present in this administration and others to light. Three things are stopping from getting a impreachment result, First the DOJ policy of no indictments of a sitting president, Two it requires the House and Senate to decide , and Three the hardest to prove is intent.

Reply
Apr 23, 2019 19:50:41   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
zombinis3 wrote:
One of my first statement I made at the beginning is obstruction is interpeted there is enough infomation listed throughout the points to be able to Claim Obstruction, either way the report did it's job it brought problems that are present in this administration and others to light. Three things are stopping from getting a impreachment result, First the DOJ policy of no indictments of a sitting president, Two it requires the House and Senate to decide , and Three the hardest to prove is intent.


It would appear that the left will "interpret" obstruction for virtually anything, no matter how nebulous and weak or totally NOT obstruction.

As for impeachment, even if the house elects to impeach, the senate won't find Trump guilty and it will all be for naught and they would look pretty stupid. The more seasoned dem's know this but the new leftist crazies are rabid about it and just can't help themselves.

Reply
Apr 23, 2019 20:41:56   #
zombinis3 Loc: Southwest
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
It would appear that the left will "interpret" obstruction for virtually anything, no matter how nebulous and weak or totally NOT obstruction.

As for impeachment, even if the house elects to impeach, the senate won't find Trump guilty and it will all be for naught and they would look pretty stupid. The more seasoned dem's know this but the new leftist crazies are rabid about it and just can't help themselves.


The process will hurt more then help, there are to many items that have to fall into place which were listed at the end of my statement. If the dems pay attention 2020 could be a contest.

Reply
Apr 23, 2019 21:38:49   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
zombinis3 wrote:
The process will hurt more then help, there are to many items that have to fall into place which were listed at the end of my statement. If the dems pay attention 2020 could be a contest.


They won't. It won't be.

Reply
 
 
Apr 23, 2019 22:24:43   #
EmilyD
 
zombinis3 wrote:
One of my first statement I made at the beginning is obstruction is interpeted there is enough infomation listed throughout the points to be able to Claim Obstruction, either way the report did it's job it brought problems that are present in this administration and others to light. Three things are stopping from getting a impreachment result, First the DOJ policy of no indictments of a sitting president, Two it requires the House and Senate to decide , and Three the hardest to prove is intent.

"Interpretation" is one of the trigger words that the left is using.
Since the Constitution is not clear on the definition of 'Misdemeanor' then the House can try to run with whatever they manufacture as obstruction. The followup is that it goes to the Senate and if, by some strange twist of fate and tyranny the members who vote the way the deep state wants, and Trump is charged with impeachment, my questions is: What difference does it make? He won't be disbarred (not a lawyer), he won't be in office any more (they can't charge him until he is out of office), and all the efforts of the Democrats will fade away into oblivion. So why are they trying so hard to keep this "investigation" going?

Think about it. They are desperate now.

Reply
Apr 24, 2019 01:48:22   #
zombinis3 Loc: Southwest
 
EmilyD wrote:
"Interpretation" is one of the trigger words that the left is using.
Since the Constitution is not clear on the definition of 'Misdemeanor' then the House can try to run with whatever they manufacture as obstruction. The followup is that it goes to the Senate and if, by some strange twist of fate and tyranny the members who vote the way the deep state wants, and Trump is charged with impeachment, my questions is: What difference does it make? He won't be disbarred (not a lawyer), he won't be in office any more (they can't charge him until he is out of office), and all the efforts of the Democrats will fade away into oblivion. So why are they trying so hard to keep this "investigation" going?

Think about it. They are desperate now.
"Interpretation" is one of the trigger w... (show quote)


The charge of obstruction is a law that can be used at any given time on you or me , the word interpretation isn't a trigger word. The removal is what the main reason is. The investigation ended it is the next steps that are important.

Reply
Apr 24, 2019 02:01:22   #
zombinis3 Loc: Southwest
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
They won't. It won't be.


If you listen to reports dems are breaking from the line of impreachment, so as far as that concern it is still open , It happened before it can happen again. Not much to worry about but it is going to be a interesting race. Remember the only reason Trump got elected was because he listened to those who felt that they were left behind. That plus the additional changes that were made by the GOP.

Reply
Apr 24, 2019 06:17:21   #
tbutkovich
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
None of which hindered or impeded the investigation. Wanting to end the investigation is not an offense in a free nation, only where socialism and communism reign. You don't even have intent. LOL! You make an interesting argument but the fact is, Trump never crossed the line of committing obstruction.


The Democrats were waiting with bated breath for Trump to interfere with the investigation, because had he done so it would have played right into the Democrats hand and they would have cried out “Obstruction” and they would have the ammunition to “launch impeachment proceedings!” Trump was very clever letting the process run its course. He did, nevertheless, pump out a few very sensible tweets like for example: “Where is the investigation into the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal? and “Where was the investigation into the Russian Dossier? Why wasn’t information about the “false dossier” covered in the report? Why didn’t the Mueller Investigation report on the Unjust FISA warrants applications? Did the report cover these salacious questions?

Although Mueller had been given the authority to turn over every rock in his investigation, the rocks he chose to turn over were very carefully selected. He only turned over the rocks in the Trump garden. Being loyal to the Democrats who concocted this “witch hunt” he avoided turning over any rocks in the Clinton, Comey, Lynch, Podesta, Halpers, Steel, Ohr, Brennan Klapper, Obama Gardens.

The investigation was thorough, directed, focused, covered an immense amount of documentation, subpoenaed numerous people (all Republican’s or members of the campaign team), the Trump Family, but the whole investigation was totally one sided, with the unfortunate consequence that the real criminals who should have been revealed came out unscathed. Appears this so called broad based investigation was designed to go after Trump and Trump Only. The DOJ, Rosenstein under pressure from the “Old Guard Obama Loyalists) and the DNC likely told Mueller: “You will not go there!”

Reply
 
 
Apr 24, 2019 06:28:40   #
tbutkovich
 
The intense two year investigation into collusion and obstruction turning over every rock found nothing. “We still need to investigate the gardens of the opposition and we need to investigate the investigators!

Reply
Apr 25, 2019 21:29:26   #
zombinis3 Loc: Southwest
 
tbutkovich wrote:
The intense two year investigation into collusion and obstruction turning over every rock found nothing. “We still need to investigate the gardens of the opposition and we need to investigate the investigators!


Reports saying rep are going to try but won't it fall under the same cry of being unnecessary, granted like I mentioned earlier there are a lot of skeletons in both parties. Statements made by some of the GOP members are saying it's done we have to move on. Past investigations of the ones you may want have been held and nothing happened. Unless you want a whole new round grilling the ones who were actually involved and working with Mueller and of course the different departments people have claimed were on the dems side with a total hate for Trump. One thing is for sure if the investigations continue dems did this and then GOP did that. Nothing is going to get done.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
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.