64% think attempting and failing to obstruct justice is as bad as obstructing justice

[Pogo]

Actually, in legal terms it is, 100%.

Here's a helpful primer I happened across yesterday: I like this guy. He's a video law class.

​

He's slick, but he's also slimy, just as Mueller is. By suggesting the President may be guilty of obstruction but falsely claiming he can't indict him, despite the fact there is no case law to support that claim, and by suggesting the Democrat controlled House is where the President can get a fair hearing, Mueller makes a mockery of his own claim to "fairness".

Those were as he points out, Mueller's own ground rules from the outset. That means he can find evidence but (thinks he) cannot indict.

Now, the question of whether that's true (that a sitting POTUS can't be indicted) isn't at all settled. There's no known reason that can't happen. So it's a self-limitation.

There was no limitation at all. Mueller could have said he found adequate grounds to indict the President, if such evidence existed, but didn't because he wasn't sure he had the power to.

That's what the video and I just said. Are you a parrot?

As to fairness, you would have to be retarded to believe Trump could get a fair hearing in the Democrat controlled House as Mueller suggested.

Except he didn't.

Not sure what your point is here and I don't think you are either.

We both know what my pointis, that Mueller took a parting shot at Trump by not conceding he hadn't found sufficient evidence of obstruction and by saying it was now up to Congress, the Democrat controlled House, to decide if obstruction took place. Clearly, Mueller is a sleaze, and the law student who made the video is clearly another sleaze, and if you are not too stupid to see that, you are a third sleaze.

So you have no comment beyond "everybody's a sleaze". Thanks for the deep thought. Dismissed.

 

[Aponi]

This latest survey (post the redacted Mueller report,) is a bit of "bad news" for Trump.....not only in his attempts to obstruct justice, but ALSO of his incompetence in such attempts.

As a reminder to the simple math challenged, Trump sycophants, 64% is almost 2 out of 3 voters.

Bad news for Trump: 64% of Americans think attempting and failing to obstruct justice is as bad as obstructing justice

Much like your attempts to get laid pretty lame and pathic thsnl god you have a rubber glove and large box of tissues

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Not only did he attempt to obstruct....HE DID. All the evidence proving conspiracy with Wikileaks and Russia was destroyed...trump is happy he got away with it....

And yet Wikileaks content has never been proven to be a lie.

I believe Trump comment was more of a dumbass than being actually involved with the attack on the server.

Like he said if the Russians had Clinton other emails they should have gave those to Wikileaks instead...

 

[toomuchtime_]

Well it seem the poll has been shown for what it is and is another slanted poll the left want to use for their argument against Trump and Russia.

As I pointed out the article is from a German owned company and as another poster pointed out the polling data could be slanted.

Now with that I know Nat will defend the data and website while screaming about the possible Obstruction and Russia influence over our 2016 election..

I haven't looked at the poll but who owns the company is patently irrelevant.

And the way to determine if the poll was biased is to examine its methodology. That conclusion doesn't come from "Fingerboy posted it on a message board".

The poll is meaningless since it asked about attempts to obstruct justice that never took place.

Whether something took place in the real world or not has zero to do with whether the attempt is deemed to be as bad as the action.

Or didn't you think of that?

Not a good reader? I said no attempts took place, moron.

 

[toomuchtime_]

He's slick, but he's also slimy, just as Mueller is. By suggesting the President may be guilty of obstruction but falsely claiming he can't indict him, despite the fact there is no case law to support that claim, and by suggesting the Democrat controlled House is where the President can get a fair hearing, Mueller makes a mockery of his own claim to "fairness".

Those were as he points out, Mueller's own ground rules from the outset. That means he can find evidence but (thinks he) cannot indict.

Now, the question of whether that's true (that a sitting POTUS can't be indicted) isn't at all settled. There's no known reason that can't happen. So it's a self-limitation.

There was no limitation at all. Mueller could have said he found adequate grounds to indict the President, if such evidence existed, but didn't because he wasn't sure he had the power to.

That's what the video and I just said. Are you a parrot?

As to fairness, you would have to be retarded to believe Trump could get a fair hearing in the Democrat controlled House as Mueller suggested.

Except he didn't.

Not sure what your point is here and I don't think you are either.

We both know what my pointis, that Mueller took a parting shot at Trump by not conceding he hadn't found sufficient evidence of obstruction and by saying it was now up to Congress, the Democrat controlled House, to decide if obstruction took place. Clearly, Mueller is a sleaze, and the law student who made the video is clearly another sleaze, and if you are not too stupid to see that, you are a third sleaze.

So you have no comment beyond "everybody's a sleaze". Thanks for the deep thought. Dismissed.

I didn't say everyone, just Mueller, your law student and you.

 

[JimH52]

He's slick, but he's also slimy, just as Mueller is. By suggesting the President may be guilty of obstruction but falsely claiming he can't indict him, despite the fact there is no case law to support that claim, and by suggesting the Democrat controlled House is where the President can get a fair hearing, Mueller makes a mockery of his own claim to "fairness".

Those were as he points out, Mueller's own ground rules from the outset. That means he can find evidence but (thinks he) cannot indict.

Now, the question of whether that's true (that a sitting POTUS can't be indicted) isn't at all settled. There's no known reason that can't happen. So it's a self-limitation.

There was no limitation at all. Mueller could have said he found adequate grounds to indict the President, if such evidence existed, but didn't because he wasn't sure he had the power to.

That's what the video and I just said. Are you a parrot?

As to fairness, you would have to be retarded to believe Trump could get a fair hearing in the Democrat controlled House as Mueller suggested.

Except he didn't.

Not sure what your point is here and I don't think you are either.

We both know what my pointis, that Mueller took a parting shot at Trump by not conceding he hadn't found sufficient evidence of obstruction and by saying it was now up to Congress, the Democrat controlled House, to decide if obstruction took place. Clearly, Mueller is a sleaze, and the law student who made the video is clearly another sleaze, and if you are not too stupid to see that, you are a third sleaze.

So you have no comment beyond "everybody's a sleaze". Thanks for the deep thought. Dismissed.

"Well your honor....he shot at the guy but missed."

"Okay! Then there is no crime here! Case dismissed."

"Thank you Judge Barr."

 

[toomuchtime_]

Those were as he points out, Mueller's own ground rules from the outset. That means he can find evidence but (thinks he) cannot indict.

Now, the question of whether that's true (that a sitting POTUS can't be indicted) isn't at all settled. There's no known reason that can't happen. So it's a self-limitation.

There was no limitation at all. Mueller could have said he found adequate grounds to indict the President, if such evidence existed, but didn't because he wasn't sure he had the power to.

That's what the video and I just said. Are you a parrot?

As to fairness, you would have to be retarded to believe Trump could get a fair hearing in the Democrat controlled House as Mueller suggested.

Except he didn't.

Not sure what your point is here and I don't think you are either.

We both know what my pointis, that Mueller took a parting shot at Trump by not conceding he hadn't found sufficient evidence of obstruction and by saying it was now up to Congress, the Democrat controlled House, to decide if obstruction took place. Clearly, Mueller is a sleaze, and the law student who made the video is clearly another sleaze, and if you are not too stupid to see that, you are a third sleaze.

So you have no comment beyond "everybody's a sleaze". Thanks for the deep thought. Dismissed.

"Well your honor....he shot at the guy but missed."

"Okay! Then there is no crime here! Case dismissed."

"Thank you Judge Barr."

But in this case no shots were fired.

 

[Flopper]

This latest survey (post the redacted Mueller report,) is a bit of "bad news" for Trump.....not only in his attempts to obstruct justice, but ALSO of his incompetence in such attempts.

As a reminder to the simple math challenged, Trump sycophants, 64% is almost 2 out of 3 voters.

Bad news for Trump: 64% of Americans think attempting and failing to obstruct justice is as bad as obstructing justice

Actually, in legal terms it is, 100%.

Here's a helpful primer I happened across yesterday: I like this guy. He's a video law class.

​

He's slick, but he's also slimy, just as Mueller is. By suggesting the President may be guilty of obstruction but falsely claiming he can't indict him, despite the fact there is no case law to support that claim, and by suggesting the Democrat controlled House is where the President can get a fair hearing, Mueller makes a mockery of his own claim to "fairness".

Those were as he points out, Mueller's own ground rules from the outset. That means he can find evidence but (thinks he) cannot indict.

Now, the question of whether that's true (that a sitting POTUS can't be indicted) isn't at all settled. There's no known reason that can't happen. So it's a self-limitation.

The framers of the constitution gave us a way to remove a president, impeachment. After impeachment, he certainly can be charged. This is way it should be done.

Although the constitution does not address the issue of criminal prosecution of a president, it gives no mechanism for handling the problems. The first problem is who is going to charge the president, arrest the president, and indict the president. All of the principals involved work for the president. If there were a legal move against the president, council would go to court claiming the infrastructural of the constitution would make it unconstitutional to indict a president. The most probable outcome would be the supreme court would agree. However, if the court refused to rescue the president, then we would see a series legal moves by the president to delay action and that could take years. However, suppose all this fails and the case goes to court. Who is going to be running goverment etc. Congress would have to act to impeach the president, something that should have been done to begin with. This is why impeachment is by far the best and the only practical way to remove a president other than an election.

 

[DGS49]

Reading the bits about Trump ordering the firing of Mueller and it not actually happening reminded me of the characters in fiction whom the boss "fires" every couple weeks, but he remains employed because everyone knows the boss either wasn't serious, or would change his mind after thinking it over.

For quite a long time I've understood that with Trump, you have to watch what he actually DOES, and pretty much ignore what he SAYS. It's all for effect.

 

[bripat9643]

No prosecutor in the Country would charge someone with 'attempted theft'

The never-ending jon of educating Trump cultists who gather their legal knowledge from the back of a cereal box......Here:

An attempt to commit a crime occurs if a criminal has an intent to commit the crime and takes a substantial step toward completing the crime, but for reasons not intended by the criminal, the final resulting crime does not occur. Attempt to commit a particular crime is a crime....

Criminal Law - Cases and Materials, 7th ed. 2012, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business; John Kaplan (law professor), Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder, ISBN 978-1-4548-0698-1

What "substantial step" did Trump take, moron?

 

[nat4900]

Now with that I know Nat will defend the data and website while screaming about the possible Obstruction and Russia influence over our 2016 election.

NO, nitwit, I am not "defending" either the data or the website of Business Insider.....

All I did was to cite ONE survey (flawed or not) that DOES indicate that besides being a corrupt slime ball, Trump is an INCOMPETENT corrupt slime ball.............LOL

 

[Wyatt earp]

Now with that I know Nat will defend the data and website while screaming about the possible Obstruction and Russia influence over our 2016 election.

NO, nitwit, I am not "defending" either the data or the website of Business Insider.....

All I did was to cite ONE survey (flawed or not) that DOES indicate that besides being a corrupt slime ball, Trump is an INCOMPETENT corrupt slime ball.............LOL

So incompetent he beat hillary huh?



.

 

[nat4900]

....the left will not speak out against their own when wrongdoing has occurred.

Really????...............Who, recently, got rid of two relatively "decent" lawmakers like Franken and Conyers???

 

[JimH52]

There was no limitation at all. Mueller could have said he found adequate grounds to indict the President, if such evidence existed, but didn't because he wasn't sure he had the power to.

That's what the video and I just said. Are you a parrot?

As to fairness, you would have to be retarded to believe Trump could get a fair hearing in the Democrat controlled House as Mueller suggested.

Except he didn't.

Not sure what your point is here and I don't think you are either.

We both know what my pointis, that Mueller took a parting shot at Trump by not conceding he hadn't found sufficient evidence of obstruction and by saying it was now up to Congress, the Democrat controlled House, to decide if obstruction took place. Clearly, Mueller is a sleaze, and the law student who made the video is clearly another sleaze, and if you are not too stupid to see that, you are a third sleaze.

So you have no comment beyond "everybody's a sleaze". Thanks for the deep thought. Dismissed.

"Well your honor....he shot at the guy but missed."

"Okay! Then there is no crime here! Case dismissed."

"Thank you Judge Barr."

But in this case no shots were fired.

Oh....there were plenty shots fired...in addition to the Junior meeting there were many shots fired....and we don't know which ones hit and deleted evidence....

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Now with that I know Nat will defend the data and website while screaming about the possible Obstruction and Russia influence over our 2016 election.

NO, nitwit, I am not "defending" either the data or the website of Business Insider.....

All I did was to cite ONE survey (flawed or not) that DOES indicate that besides being a corrupt slime ball, Trump is an INCOMPETENT corrupt slime ball.............LOL

Says the person that melts like Trump on twitter...

 

[The Original Tree]

80% of America thingk The Democrat Party Scuttled their own ship for 2020 by putting all their Eggs in Hillary Clinton's Russian Collusion Easter Basket.

 

[nat4900]

So what is stopping Pelosi?

Why is she failing you Nat?

I happen to agree 100% with Pelosi stating that as of now, NO IMPEACHMENT of Trump.........for 3 reasons....

1. Paraphrasing Napoleon, when your enemy is about to commit suicide........get out of his way.......and Trump has not yet fully screwed up the GOP

2. The never-ending subpoenas by the House, upcoming live testimonies, the stalling by the WH and the refusal to hand over further documentation (like the tax returns) by the Trump stooge-cabinet is an EXCELLENT format to remind voters on a daily basis that this administration is CORRUPT......

3. A much better scenario for the House, is to enact articles of impeachment on such cabinet members as Barr, Mnuchin and a couple of other stooges to elicit from them either blind loyalty of the orange clown.....or the spilling of the "truth" a-la Michael Cohen.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

So what is stopping Pelosi?

Why is she failing you Nat?

I happen to agree 100% with Pelosi stating that as of now, NO IMPEACHMENT of Trump.........for 3 reasons....

1. Paraphrasing Napoleon, when your enemy is about to commit suicide........get out of his way.......and Trump has not yet fully screwed up the GOP

2. The never-ending subpoenas by the House, upcoming live testimonies, the stalling by the WH and the refusal to hand over further documentation (like the tax returns) by the Trump stooge-cabinet is an EXCELLENT format to remind voters on a daily basis that this administration is CORRUPT......

3. A much better scenario for the House, is to enact articles of impeachment on such cabinet members as Barr, Mnuchin and a couple of other stooges to elicit from them either blind loyalty of the orange clown.....or the spilling of the "truth" a-la Michael Cohen.

And when your side does not impeach any of the Cabinet what will you do Nat?

 

[nat4900]

So incompetent he beat hillary huh?

Yep.......Hillary was awful......lol

 

[bripat9643]

Not only did he attempt to obstruct....HE DID. All the evidence proving conspiracy with Wikileaks and Russia was destroyed...trump is happy he got away with it....

So you admit you have no evidence that he obstructed anything.

Thanks for playing!