Former Republican Prosecutors Release Damning Video Calling For Trumps Prosecution For Obsruction

[Rambunctious]

He didn't have to obstruct it, all he had to do was try.

That is ridiculous as hell...his attorney advised him of the law and Trump listened....

 

[Tehon]

He didn't have to obstruct it, all he had to do was try.

That is ridiculous as hell...his attorney advised him of the law and Trump listened....

Trump listened, or the attorney defied him? How does Mueller know about this?

 

[The Purge]

 

[Maxdeath]

In the video they explain how Trump instructed his White House counsel to fire Mueller and when McGahn refuses Trump instructs him to put a false document in the file stating that Trump never gave the order.

That sounds like obstruction of justice to me.

If you tell your lawyer to do something illegal its your lawyers job to say that is not legal and you shouldn't do it....Trump obviously took McGanhan's advise so once again where is the obstruction?....if the obstruction never took place because of the wise advice of your attorney there is no obstruction....the investigation went on....it was completed....right?...what am I missing here?....

Obstruction of justice is pretty loosely defined. It comes down to intent. It sounds to me like Trump intended to obstruct justice and then cover it up.

Definition
18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

Overview
Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection.

§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal administrative agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.
Obstruction of justice

But what did Trump do to obstruct the investigation that wasn't obstructed?....are you insane?....

He didn't have to obstruct it, all he had to do was try. That is how obstruction is defined by law.

No I'm not insane. It's called being objective. Apparently that is a foreign concept to you so you don't recognize it.

I will make a big assumption here that you can read. You may have noticed the word ACT. You can talk about anything you like but until you ACT then there is nothing. Kind of like if you talk about robbing a bank. You can talk all you want but until you ACT there is nothing.

Notice how that crazy word ACT keeps coming up?

 

[Tehon]

In the video they explain how Trump instructed his White House counsel to fire Mueller and when McGahn refuses Trump instructs him to put a false document in the file stating that Trump never gave the order.

That sounds like obstruction of justice to me.

If you tell your lawyer to do something illegal its your lawyers job to say that is not legal and you shouldn't do it....Trump obviously took McGanhan's advise so once again where is the obstruction?....if the obstruction never took place because of the wise advice of your attorney there is no obstruction....the investigation went on....it was completed....right?...what am I missing here?....

Obstruction of justice is pretty loosely defined. It comes down to intent. It sounds to me like Trump intended to obstruct justice and then cover it up.

Definition
18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

Overview
Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection.

§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal administrative agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.
Obstruction of justice

But what did Trump do to obstruct the investigation that wasn't obstructed?....are you insane?....

He didn't have to obstruct it, all he had to do was try. That is how obstruction is defined by law.

No I'm not insane. It's called being objective. Apparently that is a foreign concept to you so you don't recognize it.

I will make a big assumption here that you can read. You may have noticed the word ACT. You can talk about anything you like but until you ACT then there is nothing. Kind of like if you talk about robbing a bank. You can talk all you want but until you ACT there is nothing.

Notice how that crazy word ACT keeps coming up?

Telling White House counsel to fire Mueller was an act. As was instructing him to falsify the record.

 

[edthecynic]

Where is the obstruction?...the swamp says Trump obstructed the investigation but no one is saying how or what he did?.....they will have to prove their case in the court of public opinion so tell the public specifically what the man did....

Read the Mueller report, it goes into all the details of what Tramp did to obstruct the investigation. but you knew that already.

 

[WEATHER53]

How come all the people in a position to do nothing have such valuable opinions?
Fake emotional satisfaction, that's why.

 

[WEATHER53]

Where is the obstruction?...the swamp says Trump obstructed the investigation but no one is saying how or what he did?.....they will have to prove their case in the court of public opinion so tell the public specifically what the man did....

Read the Mueller report, it goes into all the details of what Tramp did to obstruct the investigation. but you knew that already.

“Read the report” is not a rebuttal. It’s a deflection. It’s presumptive that we haven't because if we had then we would see it your way.
Who got you all hooked on”read the report”?

 

[WEATHER53]

Brilliant

 

[Rambunctious]

Where is the obstruction?...the swamp says Trump obstructed the investigation but no one is saying how or what he did?.....they will have to prove their case in the court of public opinion so tell the public specifically what the man did....

Read the Mueller report, it goes into all the details of what Tramp did to obstruct the investigation. but you knew that already.

No you tell me in your own words....if you can without sounding silly...

 

[Rambunctious]

If you tell your lawyer to do something illegal its your lawyers job to say that is not legal and you shouldn't do it....Trump obviously took McGanhan's advise so once again where is the obstruction?....if the obstruction never took place because of the wise advice of your attorney there is no obstruction....the investigation went on....it was completed....right?...what am I missing here?....

Obstruction of justice is pretty loosely defined. It comes down to intent. It sounds to me like Trump intended to obstruct justice and then cover it up.

Definition
18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

Overview
Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection.

§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal administrative agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.
Obstruction of justice

But what did Trump do to obstruct the investigation that wasn't obstructed?....are you insane?....

He didn't have to obstruct it, all he had to do was try. That is how obstruction is defined by law.

No I'm not insane. It's called being objective. Apparently that is a foreign concept to you so you don't recognize it.

I will make a big assumption here that you can read. You may have noticed the word ACT. You can talk about anything you like but until you ACT then there is nothing. Kind of like if you talk about robbing a bank. You can talk all you want but until you ACT there is nothing.

Notice how that crazy word ACT keeps coming up?

Telling White House counsel to fire Mueller was an act. As was instructing him to falsify the record.

No it isn't Tehon....

 

[Tehon]

Obstruction of justice is pretty loosely defined. It comes down to intent. It sounds to me like Trump intended to obstruct justice and then cover it up.

Definition
18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

Overview
Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection.

§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal administrative agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.
Obstruction of justice

But what did Trump do to obstruct the investigation that wasn't obstructed?....are you insane?....

He didn't have to obstruct it, all he had to do was try. That is how obstruction is defined by law.

No I'm not insane. It's called being objective. Apparently that is a foreign concept to you so you don't recognize it.

I will make a big assumption here that you can read. You may have noticed the word ACT. You can talk about anything you like but until you ACT then there is nothing. Kind of like if you talk about robbing a bank. You can talk all you want but until you ACT there is nothing.

Notice how that crazy word ACT keeps coming up?

Telling White House counsel to fire Mueller was an act. As was instructing him to falsify the record.

No it isn't Tehon....

It's not? Telling someone to do something or giving instruction is an action. The verb in the sentence gives it away.

 

[Rambunctious]

It's not? Telling someone to do something or giving instruction is an action. The verb in the sentence gives it away.

If I ask my white house attorney to fire someone that is investigating me for a crime I didn't commit and he tells me that would be obstruction so I back off I have not committed a crime.....no jury would ever consider that I did....

 

[edthecynic]

Where is the obstruction?...the swamp says Trump obstructed the investigation but no one is saying how or what he did?.....they will have to prove their case in the court of public opinion so tell the public specifically what the man did....

Read the Mueller report, it goes into all the details of what Tramp did to obstruct the investigation. but you knew that already.

“Read the report” is not a rebuttal. It’s a deflection. It’s presumptive that we haven't because if we had then we would see it your way.
Who got you all hooked on”read the report”?

Every detail of Tramp's obstruction is laid out in the report along with the corroborating evidence. You can only play too dumb to know what the obstruction was if you never read even the official Mueller summary of the report.

 

[edthecynic]

It's not? Telling someone to do something or giving instruction is an action. The verb in the sentence gives it away.

If I ask my white house attorney to fire someone that is investigating me for a crime I didn't commit and he tells me that would be obstruction so I back off I have not committed a crime.....no jury would ever consider that I did....

But if you then ask that attorney to LIE to the investigators about whether you were asked to fire the head of the investigation, that that WOULD be the CRIME of obstruction and any jury would convict you, and nobody knows that better than you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

2 years later and obstructing Hillary from the White House is still not a crime

 

[edthecynic]

Where is the obstruction?...the swamp says Trump obstructed the investigation but no one is saying how or what he did?.....they will have to prove their case in the court of public opinion so tell the public specifically what the man did....

Read the Mueller report, it goes into all the details of what Tramp did to obstruct the investigation. but you knew that already.

No you tell me in your own words....if you can without sounding silly...

Read at least the summary, it will give you examples where Tramp told his operatives to lie to Mueller. And THAT is obstruction by suborning perjury.

 

[Maxdeath]

If you tell your lawyer to do something illegal its your lawyers job to say that is not legal and you shouldn't do it....Trump obviously took McGanhan's advise so once again where is the obstruction?....if the obstruction never took place because of the wise advice of your attorney there is no obstruction....the investigation went on....it was completed....right?...what am I missing here?....

Obstruction of justice is pretty loosely defined. It comes down to intent. It sounds to me like Trump intended to obstruct justice and then cover it up.

Definition
18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

Overview
Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection.

§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal administrative agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.
Obstruction of justice

But what did Trump do to obstruct the investigation that wasn't obstructed?....are you insane?....

He didn't have to obstruct it, all he had to do was try. That is how obstruction is defined by law.

No I'm not insane. It's called being objective. Apparently that is a foreign concept to you so you don't recognize it.

I will make a big assumption here that you can read. You may have noticed the word ACT. You can talk about anything you like but until you ACT then there is nothing. Kind of like if you talk about robbing a bank. You can talk all you want but until you ACT there is nothing.

Notice how that crazy word ACT keeps coming up?

Telling White House counsel to fire Mueller was an act. As was instructing him to falsify the record.

As much as the crazy left want to make it so, thought is still not a crime. You can tell a lawyer to do something that is illegal believing it to be legal it is not a crime. Had his thought been ACTED on then that would have been a problem. You can not be arrested for thoughts or words only ACTIONS.

 

[Tehon]

Obstruction of justice is pretty loosely defined. It comes down to intent. It sounds to me like Trump intended to obstruct justice and then cover it up.

Definition
18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

Overview
Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection.

§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal administrative agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.
Obstruction of justice

But what did Trump do to obstruct the investigation that wasn't obstructed?....are you insane?....

He didn't have to obstruct it, all he had to do was try. That is how obstruction is defined by law.

No I'm not insane. It's called being objective. Apparently that is a foreign concept to you so you don't recognize it.

I will make a big assumption here that you can read. You may have noticed the word ACT. You can talk about anything you like but until you ACT then there is nothing. Kind of like if you talk about robbing a bank. You can talk all you want but until you ACT there is nothing.

Notice how that crazy word ACT keeps coming up?

Telling White House counsel to fire Mueller was an act. As was instructing him to falsify the record.

As much as the crazy left want to make it so, thought is still not a crime. You can tell a lawyer to do something that is illegal believing it to be legal it is not a crime. Had his thought been ACTED on then that would have been a problem. You can not be arrested for thoughts or words only ACTIONS.

The act was in telling the counsel what to do. At which point the counsel has to act. His act was to defy the order and resign. Which was the principled thing to do. Had he covered up for Trump, in any way, he would have been complicit.

 

[nat4900]

A group of former Republican federal prosectors has combined efforts to push for the further investigation and possible prosecution of Trump for obstruction of justice. Calling itself Republicans for the Rule of Law, the group has released a video highlighting the case against Trump as set out in the Mueller report. The former deputy attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, Donald Ayer; the former deputy assistant secretary of homeland security under President George W. Bush, Paul Rosenzweig; and the former deputy associate attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, Jeffrey Harris, are all featured in the video, explaining in the most simple of terms how insanely corrupt a picture the Mueller report paints of the current administration.




I was wondering how long this was going to take.

This forum is filled with Trump ass kissers who will NEVER accept reality, opting instead for any excuse to "defend" their mistale in siding with a fuckhead for president.

NOT ONE of these sycophants would ever admit what they would be today stating IF Obama was under the same scrutiny and accusations as Trump is currently.

If there was ANY objectivity among these Trump cult members, they too would have closely listened to that video and admit that......

.....regarding obstruction there is FIRST, Trump OPENLY admitting that he fired Comey because Comey would not let up on investigating Flynn.

Second, Trump instructed McGahn to go and fire Mueller

Third, Trump instructed McGahn to write a memo to cover up his initial instruction to go and fire Mueller.

These IDIOTS will instead say that since Trump is the president, he has "every right" to obstruct justice because he is president.

For democrats it really boils down to this........

Politically, impeaching this orange scum bucket is dangerous because it would make Trump a martyr in the eyes of his base and some independent voters.....

Ethically and morally, democrats should impeach Trump regardless of the political repercussions.

Unfortunately, the above is a very hard choice and democrats don't have the guts to risk their reelection for the sake of a moral/ethical issue.