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

[Tehon]

The omnibus clause of 18 U .S.C. § 1503 prohibits an "endeavor" to obstruct justice, which sweeps more broadly than Section 1512's attempt provision. See United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 302 (2d Cir. 2018); United States v. Leisure, 844 F.2d 1347, 1366-1367 (8th Cir. 1988) (collecting cases). "It is well established that a[n] [obstruction-of-justice] offense is complete when one corruptly endeavors to obstruct or impede the due administration of justice; the prosecution need not prove that the due administration of justice was actually obstructed or impeded." United States v. Davis, 854 F.3d 1276, 1292 (11th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).

And I'm sure Trump's attorney informed Trump of this and no further action was taken....so once again in your own words Mr. Cut and Paste...what high crime has Trump committed?....

I already explained what I think, in my own words, based on the law as I understand it. The c&p is only to substantiate my opinion. You offer nothing.

This is what was alleged to have taken place between Trump and his counsel. It should be pointed out that his counsel did resign over this.

Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed.
In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. The President reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed. The President then met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the reports. In the same meeting, the President also asked McGahn why he had told the Special Counsel about the President's effort to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the President. McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the President to be testing his mettle.
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-con...-04.18.2019-Word-Searchable.-Reduced-Size.pdf

 

[Rambunctious]

The omnibus clause of 18 U .S.C. § 1503 prohibits an "endeavor" to obstruct justice, which sweeps more broadly than Section 1512's attempt provision. See United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 302 (2d Cir. 2018); United States v. Leisure, 844 F.2d 1347, 1366-1367 (8th Cir. 1988) (collecting cases). "It is well established that a[n] [obstruction-of-justice] offense is complete when one corruptly endeavors to obstruct or impede the due administration of justice; the prosecution need not prove that the due administration of justice was actually obstructed or impeded." United States v. Davis, 854 F.3d 1276, 1292 (11th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).

And I'm sure Trump's attorney informed Trump of this and no further action was taken....so once again in your own words Mr. Cut and Paste...what high crime has Trump committed?....

I already explained what I think, in my own words, based on the law as I understand it. The c&p is only to substantiate my opinion. You offer nothing.

This is what was alleged to have taken place between Trump and his counsel. It should be pointed out that his counsel did resign over this.

Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed.
In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. The President reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed. The President then met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the reports. In the same meeting, the President also asked McGahn why he had told the Special Counsel about the President's effort to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the President. McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the President to be testing his mettle.
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-con...-04.18.2019-Word-Searchable.-Reduced-Size.pdf

I still do not see a crime there....talking about doing something is not illegal...at least not yet....

 

[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....

Are you kidding me?

Read the fucking report you idiot!

I'm so sick of you fools saying "where's the proof" when it's right there in front of you, online for free in a dozen different formats, discussed daily on nearly every real news program, and even available on Amazon in hardback, paperback, and electronic formats.

Stop being wilfully ignorant. That is the very definition of being stupider than you have to be.

You can't tell me can you?....the talking heads on TV haven't told me...Mueller hasn't told me...all I hear is Trump was not exonerated and is guilty....but you nor anyone else can tell me what he is guilty of.....What high crime has he committed...you seem so sure so you should be able to tell me what he did....

R.
E.
A.
D.

T.
H.
E.

R.
E.
P.
O.
R.
T.

did that take you long?....

 

[Maxdeath]

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.

Look I understand that the left does not like that thing called the first amendment unless it works in their favor but he can say anything he likes. He could suggest anything but if it is not ACTED on it is not a crime. I could suggest on television that my accountant falsify my tax return but there is no problem unless he ACTS on it.

I don't know how else to explain, nor does it really matter, but. We are talking about law. And obstruction of justice is defined by law as communication that endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede an investigation.

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."

The act of telling (communicating to) his counsel to fire Mueller is an attempt (endeavor) to influence or impede the investigation.

The act of telling his counsel to falsify the record is an attempt to obstruct the investigation.

Crimes as defined by US law.

I guess simple thought is too hard for some. Nothing was done to stop the investigation. Mueller was not fired, no one ripped documents from him, no one put him in jail. Anyone can talk about something without being prosecuted. Your crazy hope that we really got him now hardly makes it true. No one falsified anything. So even though you have a dream that is all it is.in law there has to be an act. Thought nor speech is a crime at this point.

In law even trying to hire a hit man on someone requires money to change hands. That is an act. If Some one wants you to do something illegal you have to do it for you to become complicetiit in the crime.

Madonna said she wanted to blow up the White House. Others have said they wanted to Trump dead, trumps family locked up and raped. Are you now suggesting that they should be in jail?

I'm just reading the law on obstruction of justice as it is written.

It's not personal.

Um no what you were doing was trying to read a partisan lean into the law. So I call bull on the nothing personal.

 

[Tehon]

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.

Look I understand that the left does not like that thing called the first amendment unless it works in their favor but he can say anything he likes. He could suggest anything but if it is not ACTED on it is not a crime. I could suggest on television that my accountant falsify my tax return but there is no problem unless he ACTS on it.

I don't know how else to explain, nor does it really matter, but. We are talking about law. And obstruction of justice is defined by law as communication that endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede an investigation.

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."

The act of telling (communicating to) his counsel to fire Mueller is an attempt (endeavor) to influence or impede the investigation.

The act of telling his counsel to falsify the record is an attempt to obstruct the investigation.

Crimes as defined by US law.

I guess simple thought is too hard for some. Nothing was done to stop the investigation. Mueller was not fired, no one ripped documents from him, no one put him in jail. Anyone can talk about something without being prosecuted. Your crazy hope that we really got him now hardly makes it true. No one falsified anything. So even though you have a dream that is all it is.in law there has to be an act. Thought nor speech is a crime at this point.

In law even trying to hire a hit man on someone requires money to change hands. That is an act. If Some one wants you to do something illegal you have to do it for you to become complicetiit in the crime.

Madonna said she wanted to blow up the White House. Others have said they wanted to Trump dead, trumps family locked up and raped. Are you now suggesting that they should be in jail?

I'm just reading the law on obstruction of justice as it is written.

It's not personal.

Um no what you were doing was trying to read a partisan lean into the law. So I call bull on the nothing personal.

I couldn't care less what Trump's fate is.

 

[Staidhup]

Attorneys, what more needs to be said. This country is run by attorneys, legal lobbyists control the seat of government, hold total control over the entire justice and legal system, what do we have to show for their esteemed self righteousness and leadership? Not much.

 

[Maxdeath]

Look I understand that the left does not like that thing called the first amendment unless it works in their favor but he can say anything he likes. He could suggest anything but if it is not ACTED on it is not a crime. I could suggest on television that my accountant falsify my tax return but there is no problem unless he ACTS on it.

I don't know how else to explain, nor does it really matter, but. We are talking about law. And obstruction of justice is defined by law as communication that endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede an investigation.

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."

The act of telling (communicating to) his counsel to fire Mueller is an attempt (endeavor) to influence or impede the investigation.

The act of telling his counsel to falsify the record is an attempt to obstruct the investigation.

Crimes as defined by US law.

I guess simple thought is too hard for some. Nothing was done to stop the investigation. Mueller was not fired, no one ripped documents from him, no one put him in jail. Anyone can talk about something without being prosecuted. Your crazy hope that we really got him now hardly makes it true. No one falsified anything. So even though you have a dream that is all it is.in law there has to be an act. Thought nor speech is a crime at this point.

In law even trying to hire a hit man on someone requires money to change hands. That is an act. If Some one wants you to do something illegal you have to do it for you to become complicetiit in the crime.

Madonna said she wanted to blow up the White House. Others have said they wanted to Trump dead, trumps family locked up and raped. Are you now suggesting that they should be in jail?

I'm just reading the law on obstruction of justice as it is written.

It's not personal.

Um no what you were doing was trying to read a partisan lean into the law. So I call bull on the nothing personal.

I couldn't care less what Trump's fate is.

I once again call bull. But I must compliment you on the generous amount you spread.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Why was your video disabled?


Fake news?


.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Their opinions and 5 bucks will get them and you a cup of coffee most places. The two lawyers who's opinions actually count have already spoken. NO OBSTRUCTION!

.

 

[Rambunctious]