Fact Checked

[Wyatt earp]

You're echoing a meme. If you want to be believed, you need to do a lot of research and stop pretending you have any understanding of the chaos which grips The District.

Heavens:

"The firing of a liar and a phony like James Comey has no bearing on the Mueller investigation."

Of course, Comey's firing sparked the Mueller investigation in the first place, which is why that firing cannot have had a "bearing" on that investigation - it didn't exist at that time. Other than, obviously, sparking it. That's not a meme, that's just bottomless ignorance advertising itself in neon all over the sky.

No it didn't, Hillary sparked the investigation's ...

Really, with flint and steel?

Consider, if you will:

The definitive Trump-Russia timeline of events

and,

A Timeline Showing the Full Scale of Russia’s Unprecedented Interference in the 2016 Election, and Its Aftermath

and,

Russia, Trump, and the 2016 U.S. Election

Now, what evidence do you have to make the case that, "Hillary sparked the investigation's ..."?

Uhm I don't know could it be rigging a DNC nomination with US tax dollars?

 

[Wyatt earp]

My point is absurd? I’m simply citing how the law defines “obstruction of justice” and facts from Muellers report. Go read them both for yourself and tell me anything that I’ve said that’s not backed up

I've read them and am not impressed. The firing of a liar and a phony like James Comey has no bearing on the Mueller investigation. Should Trump leave a man in his position of influence after he blatantly proffered a fraudulent bit of evidence (Steele dossier) to the FISA court, for instance?

If trumped fired a guy because he wouldn’t drop an investigation then Trump is abusing his power. Just like a business owner is allowed to fire whomever he wants. But if he fires his secretary for not sleeping with him then he is breaking the law. I know you know this so stop playing dumb. It’s tiresome

Yeah it's tiresome trying to keep track of "is it the day the left loves Comey or does the left hate him today?"

 

[Wry Catcher]

My point is absurd? I’m simply citing how the law defines “obstruction of justice” and facts from Muellers report. Go read them both for yourself and tell me anything that I’ve said that’s not backed up

I've read them and am not impressed. The firing of a liar and a phony like James Comey has no bearing on the Mueller investigation. Should Trump leave a man in his position of influence after he blatantly proffered a fraudulent bit of evidence (Steele dossier) to the FISA court, for instance?

If trumped fired a guy because he wouldn’t drop an investigation then Trump is abusing his power. Just like a business owner is allowed to fire whomever he wants. But if he fires his secretary for not sleeping with him then he is breaking the law. I know you know this so stop playing dumb. It’s tiresome

I'm not sure he playing dumb.

 

[Olde Europe]

Mueller made it clear in his report that there were a lot of hurdles that had to be reckoned with to bring these types of obstruction charges against Trump.

Had there been more serious charges, I don't think DOJ policy would have been an issue.

Yes, that's part of the thorough discussion of prosecutorial decisions arising during an investigation. So what?

Obstruction carries a penalty of up to 20 years imprisonment. How much more serious do you think it can get? And no, under no circumstances would Mueller have brought charges and indicted a sitting president, given the DoJ guideline. He probably would have been fired at the first sign he is about to violate the guideline, for cause.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're echoing a meme. If you want to be believed, you need to do a lot of research and stop pretending you have any understanding of the chaos which grips The District.

Heavens:

"The firing of a liar and a phony like James Comey has no bearing on the Mueller investigation."

Of course, Comey's firing sparked the Mueller investigation in the first place, which is why that firing cannot have had a "bearing" on that investigation - it didn't exist at that time. Other than, obviously, sparking it. That's not a meme, that's just bottomless ignorance advertising itself in neon all over the sky.

No it didn't, Hillary sparked the investigation's ...

Really, with flint and steel?

Consider, if you will:

The definitive Trump-Russia timeline of events

and,

A Timeline Showing the Full Scale of Russia’s Unprecedented Interference in the 2016 Election, and Its Aftermath

and,

Russia, Trump, and the 2016 U.S. Election

Now, what evidence do you have to make the case that, "Hillary sparked the investigation's ..."?

Uhm I don't know could it be rigging a DNC nomination with US tax dollars?

You don't know, and yet do what, hope to start a rumor and hope it becomes a BIG LIE?

 

[Muhammed]

Barr is acting shady and definitely covering for the president but I don’t think he is doing anything illegal.

There is nothing for Trump to cover up. Period.

What exactly is it that your TDS addled mind believes is being covered up, and do you have actual proof?

 

[Tehon]

Mueller made it clear in his report that there were a lot of hurdles that had to be reckoned with to bring these types of obstruction charges against Trump.

Had there been more serious charges, I don't think DOJ policy would have been an issue.

Yes, that's part of the thorough discussion of prosecutorial decisions arising during an investigation. So what?

Obstruction carries a penalty of up to 20 years imprisonment. How much more serious do you think it can get? And no, under no circumstances would Mueller have brought charges and indicted a sitting president, given the DoJ guideline. He probably would have been fired at the first sign he is about to violate the guideline, for cause.

So, he didn't think he could get a conviction and he punted.

The Democrats should cut their losses and drop it at this point.

 

[Tehon]

How much more serious do you think it can get?

Collusion with Russian agents. That is what was being investigated, was it not?

 

[Olde Europe]

So, he didn't think he could get a conviction and he punted.

The Democrats should cut their losses and drop it at this point.

How much more serious do you think it can get?

Collusion with Russian agents. That is what was being investigated, was it not?

I am sorry to see you are not listening. Given Trump's pattern of obstructive behavior, Mueller would be heading for a near certain conviction. About a thousand (former) prosecutors went on record testifying to same. Moreover, you are also buying Trump's talking points. There was collusion aplenty - just a more or less formal agreement between the colluding parties couldn't be found so as to prove a criminal conspiracy to defraud the U.S. of A.

The Democrats should vigorously investigate this so-called President, if only to send an official warning to future office holders that corruption at the level of Trump's will not be tolerated.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Barr is acting shady and definitely covering for the president but I don’t think he is doing anything illegal.

There is nothing for Trump to cover up. Period.

What exactly is it that your TDS addled mind believes is being covered up, and do you have actual proof?

Statement: "There is nothing for Trump to cover up. Period".

Response: Really, Does sand get in your eyes?

The supporters of Trump ^^^, in caucus.
Which one are you?

 

[Geaux4it]

Convincing or not?

What Mueller, Barr Say About Obstruction of Justice - FactCheck.org

Explain and justify your response.

Justify what? The whole machine is corrupt. Find me one who is not.

I'll wait

-Geaux

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, he didn't think he could get a conviction and he punted.

The Democrats should cut their losses and drop it at this point.

How much more serious do you think it can get?

Collusion with Russian agents. That is what was being investigated, was it not?

I am sorry to see you are not listening. Given Trump's pattern of obstructive behavior, Mueller would be heading for a near certain conviction. About a thousand (former) prosecutors went on record testifying to same. Moreover, you are also buying Trump's talking points. There was collusion aplenty - just a more or less formal agreement between the colluding parties couldn't be found so as to prove a criminal conspiracy to defraud the U.S. of A.

The Democrats should vigorously investigate this so-called President, if only to send an official warning to future office holders that corruption at the level of Trump's will not be tolerated.

Yes, the Democrats in the H. or Rep. need to pursue every aspect of Trump's behavior, examine his many lies and expose him for what he is, without going on to a vote on articles of impeachment; because the Senate Republicans have proved time and again they put their career and their party before We the People of the United States.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Convincing or not?

What Mueller, Barr Say About Obstruction of Justice - FactCheck.org

Explain and justify your response.

Justify what? The whole machine is corrupt. Find me one who is not.

I'll wait

-Geaux

Better yet, you provide the name and evidence of a member of "the machine" who is corrupt, and your have the evidence to prove s/he is corrupt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Geaux4it]

Convincing or not?

What Mueller, Barr Say About Obstruction of Justice - FactCheck.org

Explain and justify your response.

Justify what? The whole machine is corrupt. Find me one who is not.

I'll wait

-Geaux

Better yet, you provide the name and evidence of a member of "the machine" who is corrupt, and your have the evidence to prove s/he is corrupt beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's the conundrum. The machine has a system that prevents that. Maybe Barr will prove me wrong but the jury is still out

-Geaux

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not sure how declassifying FISAgate is "obstruction" or a cover up

 

[Wry Catcher]

Mueller made it clear in his report that there were a lot of hurdles that had to be reckoned with to bring these types of obstruction charges against Trump.

Had there been more serious charges, I don't think DOJ policy would have been an issue.

Yes, that's part of the thorough discussion of prosecutorial decisions arising during an investigation. So what?

Obstruction carries a penalty of up to 20 years imprisonment. How much more serious do you think it can get? And no, under no circumstances would Mueller have brought charges and indicted a sitting president, given the DoJ guideline. He probably would have been fired at the first sign he is about to violate the guideline, for cause.

So, he didn't think he could get a conviction and he punted.

The Democrats should cut their losses and drop it at this point.

The Democrats should continue to pass legislation which our nation needs badly, and continue to investigate the issue of Obstruction of Justice by The President.

Mueller's investigation is not the be all, end all of investigating Trump. The President continues to claim his innocence, which the Mueller Report failed to opine.

Trump claims he is the victim of the "never-Trumpers", the mainstream media as one of them. What he never explains is why so many of us are "never-Trumpers" and why he plays the victim card.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How much more serious do you think it can get?

Collusion with Russian agents. That is what was being investigated, was it not?

No, it's not the primary cause for the investigation. See:

Russia, Trump, and the 2016 U.S. Election

"APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS"​

 

[Slade3200]

My point is absurd? I’m simply citing how the law defines “obstruction of justice” and facts from Muellers report. Go read them both for yourself and tell me anything that I’ve said that’s not backed up

I've read them and am not impressed. The firing of a liar and a phony like James Comey has no bearing on the Mueller investigation. Should Trump leave a man in his position of influence after he blatantly proffered a fraudulent bit of evidence (Steele dossier) to the FISA court, for instance?

If trumped fired a guy because he wouldn’t drop an investigation then Trump is abusing his power. Just like a business owner is allowed to fire whomever he wants. But if he fires his secretary for not sleeping with him then he is breaking the law. I know you know this so stop playing dumb. It’s tiresome

Yeah it's tiresome trying to keep track of "is it the day the left loves Comey or does the left hate him today?"

How exactly do you gauge who the “left” loves or hates? And does your small mind just attribute those sentiments to everybody who supports liberal ideologies?

 

[Muhammed]

Barr is acting shady and definitely covering for the president but I don’t think he is doing anything illegal.

There is nothing for Trump to cover up. Period.

What exactly is it that your TDS addled mind believes is being covered up, and do you have actual proof?

Statement: "There is nothing for Trump to cover up. Period".

Response: Really, Does sand get in your eyes?

The supporters of Trump ^^^, in caucus.
Which one are you?

^^^

Obvious projection.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Convincing or not?

What Mueller, Barr Say About Obstruction of Justice - FactCheck.org

Explain and justify your response.

Justify what? The whole machine is corrupt. Find me one who is not.

I'll wait

-Geaux

Better yet, you provide the name and evidence of a member of "the machine" who is corrupt, and your have the evidence to prove s/he is corrupt beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's the conundrum. The machine has a system that prevents that. Maybe Barr will prove me wrong but the jury is still out

-Geaux

"The Machine"? A Deep State reference? Why not stick to facts, and dismiss the conspiracy theories.