Obstruction Education

[PoliticalChic]

Wow! The best hopes and prayers of the Democrats simply became another dry hole. Attaboy, Mueller! There are some pretty interesting conspiracy theories possible as to why Mueller did what he did….and it sure isn’t because he is ‘honorable.’
Rats and sinking ships comes to mind.



1.Although Mueller could have simply copied the posts we on the Right penned two years ago, still, it is invigorating to watch the tearing and ripping by the poor, poor, jilted Leftists/Democrat/Liberals as we ram the hoax back down their lying throats…..and use Mueller’s report to do it!



Today, in a pause from the reveling, the schadenfreude, and mocking, this thread will focus on two points….
a. the actual meaning of obstruction of justice, and
b.proof that both Hillary and Obama are clearly and evidently guilty of same.exactly what the phrase means: obstruction of justice.

I guarantee it.





2. First the dry part, then the fun part. The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge require prosecutors to prove the following elements:

1. There was a pending federal judicial proceeding
2. The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
3. The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding. Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw

Mueller could not do so, and therefore, as much as this disreputable servant of the Left wished, could not indict, and had no expectation of a conviction of obstruction of justice.

Pay special attention to item 3. The word ‘intent’ is key and it will prove so later.

Trump railed against the proceedings, and did tweet his vehemence…..just as any innocent man would. There is nothing corrupt about complaining.





3.“But regardless of the specific section of federal law (1501 through 1521) cited in a particular case, the prosecution need not prove any actual obstruction -- the defendant's attempt to obstruct is enough. The element of intent, which is central to such cases, is also usually the most difficult to prove; although memos, phone calls, and recorded conversations may be used as evidence to establish this.” Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw


Saying mean things, tweeting, berating Mueller, Sessions, whoever, does not constitute corrupt intent. Obstruction of Justice requires the prosecutor to show exactly what this particular charge requires.

Mueller couldn’t, as much as he wished he could.

That can be seen in the language of his report.




4.For comparison, here is Comey stating why he could not indict Hillary Clinton:

“Now let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System


Comey was lying through his teeth to allow Hillary to skate.

I’ll explain why, next.

 

[Justin Richardson]

You can thank the "Progressive" Democrats of today that are running this Party that are pretty much has been miscreant for the past decade now - under the Obama Administration.

You can thank Obama for telling the American people that it isn't him that is "dividing the country"; when in fact it has been him all along (including "Crooked" Hillary and others), when it came to Racism and the middle class.

Now that can't be some "conspiracy" from the nonsensical left, could it? Lol

 

[Moonglow]

Blame all yer troubles on someone else.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You can thank the "Progressive" Democrats of today that are running this Party that are pretty much has been miscreant for the past decade now - under the Obama Administration.

You can thank Obama for telling the American people that it isn't him that is "dividing the country"; when in fact it has been him all along (including "Crooked" Hillary and others), when it came to Racism and the middle class.

Now that can't be some "conspiracy" from the nonsensical left, could it? Lol

"Thanks" in not what I plan for the Socialist....er, Democrat Party.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Comey said this: “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

Soooo......is this criminality under the same rubric as the so-called Obstruction of Justice that Mueller suggests????

NO, IT IS NOT.



5.Here are the statues under which Hillary was being investigated.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(f)Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g)If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy




Clinton also has to worry about government rules for handling secrets. In December 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13526, which renewed the long-running rules for classifying information and the penalties for revealing it.

Under that order, agency heads like Clinton are responsible for keeping secrets safe throughout their departments. And all officers of the government can be suspended, fired or have their security clearance revoked if they “knowingly, willfully, or negligently” disclosed secrets or broke the rules in any other way.




18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(b)Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.




None of this, unlike Obstruction of Justice, require intent. Simply doing so required a jail sentence.

*the Professor is more of a legal expert than I, so if he finds other that this, I’d appreciate his view.

 

[Moonglow]

They guy who wrote the article is no legal eagle since he had a hard time showing cause and precedent the article devolves into another political hack attack to try to play the blame game like the other party does..Stupid shit wastes time yet humans continue to waste time even though it is limited.

 

[DGS49]

The other question is, Does there have to be an underlying crime?

If the police are investigating me for an armed robbery that I didn't commit, and I throw my pistol into the river so that they cannot find it, is that obstruction of justice?

No. I didn't commit the robbery, and anything I do to frustrate the investigation (other than suborning perjury and things of that nature) is my RIGHT.

Trump knew that there was NO conspiracy between him or his Campaign and any representative of the Russian Federation, and was pissed off that so much public energy was being directed at this Witch Hunt. So it is no wonder that he wanted Mueller fired for aggressively pursuing what was nothing more than a pack of lies.

But of course, HE DIDN'T FIRE MUELLER, EVEN THOUGH HE HAD THE POWER TO DO SO. He wanted to, and he even told people to do it, but those people were able to convince him to back off.

But again...no underlying crime. No collusion.

A Grand Jury will not "exonerate" anyone. That is not their role; they do not have the power to do so, although they may form an opinion in that regard. In Mueller's case, it is apparent that his Posse was a group of opposition-Deep-Staters who wanted nothing less than to prove Trump guilty of SOMETHING, but failed to do so. Their frustration seeps from the very pages of the report.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Real ‘Obstruction of Justice’



The Legal Question Over Hillary Clinton's Secret Emails

Here's What the Law Says About Hillary Clinton's Emails

There are several laws that make it a criminal offense knowingly to reveal or mishandle classified information. The main one, 18 USC 1924 reads:

Whoever being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.




"Thanks to the efforts of Judicial Watch to secure documents through the Freedom of Information Act, we now know that Comey was already drafting a letter exonerating Clinton in May 2016—prior to interviewing more than a dozen major witnesses. We also know that the FBI’s reaction to the impropriety of the tarmac meeting was not disgust, but rather anger at the person who leaked the fact of the meeting. “We need to find that guy” and bring him before a supervisor, stated one (name redacted) FBI agent. Another argued that the source should be banned from working security details. Not one email expressed concern over the meeting. An FBI director who truly had his trust shaken would have questioned the members of Lynch’s FBI security detail for the Arizona trip about how the meeting came to be. Comey didn’t bother.”
The Politicization of the FBI

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's the "No-Doubt-Obstruction-Of-Justice"


Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?

Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.

Gowdy: It was not true?

Comey: That's what I said.

Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?

Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?

Comey: There was classified information emailed.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?

Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.

Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?

Comey: No.

Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements are used for what?

Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?

Comey: That is right

Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'

 

[PoliticalChic]

And even more damaging to Americans than Hillary’s use of a private server….which caused the death of four Americans in Benghazi……is this by the snake.



6.There is, in recent history, a clear and evident case of Obstruction of Justice at the highest level of government, but it was ignored because there are two levels of ‘justice” in America, Republicans get investigated, Democrats get immunity.



“Why are more Americans than ever dying from drug overdoses? Deaths from drug overdoses in the US reached staggering new heights in 2017, according to newly published figures. Trump called the crisis a “national shame and human tragedy” – but what is fuelling it?” Why are more Americans than ever dying from drug overdoses?


“Project Cassandra is an effort led by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to undercut Hezbollah funding from illicit drug sources.[1] Launched in 2008, the project was said to be investigating the terrorist organization's funding.[2] According to the DEA, Hezbollah has become increasingly involved with drug trafficking and organized crime as a method of funding its activities.[3][4] The investigation was tracking how large sums of money were being laundered from the Americas, through Africa, and to Lebanon into Hezbollah's coffers.” Project Cassandra - Wikipedia





Now….let’s go over the requirement for an Obstruction of Justice:

1. There was a pending federal judicial proceeding;

2. The defendant knew of the proceeding; and

3. The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.


The federal law enforcement agencies were about to arrest the Hezbollah drug gangs…..that’s Project Cassandra.

It would have prevented the sale of $1 billion in cocaine from reaching our streets, and prevented terrorists from planting IEDs that killed American soldiers in the Middle East.



Guess who stopped Project Cassandra, a clear and evident example of the obstruction of justice.
Who told the DEA to leave Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, alone to see cocaine in America.....?

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Hussein Obama, in his drive to provide nuclear weapons to the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, obstructed the federal government from preventing Iran’s proxy from selling cocaine in America.


"The secret backstory of how Obama let Hezbollah off the hook

An ambitious U.S. task force targeting Hezbollah's billion-dollar criminal enterprise ran headlong into the White House's desire for a nuclear deal with Iran.


In its determination to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama administration derailed an ambitious law enforcement campaign targeting drug trafficking by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, even as it was funneling cocaine into the United States, according to a POLITICO investigation.

The campaign, dubbed Project Cassandra, ….”
The secret backstory of how Obama let Hezbollah off the hook





There is no disputing the facts: Hussein Obama obstructed justice in the service of Iran and Hezbollah.

Now where is the outrage?

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. Donald Trump and the American public have been deprived of equal treatment under the law. The media/Democrat Party Axis has been foiled in their collusion scam, and would like to pretend that there was obstruction of justice by Trump.

Since we now know for sure that there was no crime, as per Mueller, ….what the heck could he be trying to ‘obstruct’???? Finding out that he was innocent?????




Invidious discrimination generally refers to treating one group of people less well than another on such grounds as their race (racism), gender (sexism), religion (religious discrimination), caste, ethnic background, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, sexual preference or behavior, results of IQ testing, age (ageism) ...or political views.





9.Proven in this thread….PROVEN….that Comey lied about a requirement of intent in Hillary’s crimes, why is there no Obstruction of Justice charge for Comey and Hillary???



10. As proven……PROVEN…..in this thread that Hussein Obama obstructed the federal agencies from charging Hezbollah and Iran as drug cartels, why is there no Obstruction of Justice charge for Obama????







This is where we lost America.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Hussein Obama, in his drive to provide nuclear weapons to the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, obstructed the federal government from preventing Iran’s proxy from selling cocaine in America.


"The secret backstory of how Obama let Hezbollah off the hook

An ambitious U.S. task force targeting Hezbollah's billion-dollar criminal enterprise ran headlong into the White House's desire for a nuclear deal with Iran.


In its determination to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama administration derailed an ambitious law enforcement campaign targeting drug trafficking by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, even as it was funneling cocaine into the United States, according to a POLITICO investigation.

The campaign, dubbed Project Cassandra, ….”
The secret backstory of how Obama let Hezbollah off the hook





There is no disputing the facts: Hussein Obama obstructed justice in the service of Iran and Hezbollah.

Now where is the outrage?

In the news today, Trump's State Department offers a reward to stop Hezbollah's finances......

How different from Obama who gave Hezbollah a franchise to sell $billion of cocaine in America.



"U.S. OFFERING $10 MILLION FOR INFO ON HEZBOLLAH'S FINANCIAL MECHANISMS
It is the first time that the department is offering a reward for information regarding Hezbollah's financial networks.


"WASHINGTON - A new program will offer up to $10 million rewards for information leading to the disruption of the global financial mechanisms of Hezbollah, the US Department of State announced Monday. It is the first time that the department is offering a reward for information regarding Hezbollah's financial networks. According to "Forbes Israel" piece from December 2017, this is the richest terror organization in the world, with an estimated annual income of $1.1 billion.

Hezbollah's revenue is a combination of Iranian support, business investments, donor networks, and money laundering activities. The State Department designated it as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in October 1997, and as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist in October 2001."
U.S. offering $10 million for info on Hezbollah's financial mechanisms

 

[PoliticalChic]

 

[HenryBHough]

Wow! The best hopes and prayers of the Democrats simply became another dry hole. Attaboy, Mueller! There are some pretty interesting conspiracy theories possible as to why Mueller did what he did….and it sure isn’t because he is ‘honorable.’
Rats and sinking ships comes to mind.



1.Although Mueller could have simply copied the posts we on the Right penned two years ago, still, it is invigorating to watch the tearing and ripping by the poor, poor, jilted Leftists/Democrat/Liberals as we ram the hoax back down their lying throats…..and use Mueller’s report to do it!



Today, in a pause from the reveling, the schadenfreude, and mocking, this thread will focus on two points….
a. the actual meaning of obstruction of justice, and
b.proof that both Hillary and Obama are clearly and evidently guilty of same.exactly what the phrase means: obstruction of justice.

I guarantee it.





2. First the dry part, then the fun part. The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge require prosecutors to prove the following elements:

1. There was a pending federal judicial proceeding
2. The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
3. The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding. Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw

Mueller could not do so, and therefore, as much as this disreputable servant of the Left wished, could not indict, and had no expectation of a conviction of obstruction of justice.

Pay special attention to item 3. The word ‘intent’ is key and it will prove so later.

Trump railed against the proceedings, and did tweet his vehemence…..just as any innocent man would. There is nothing corrupt about complaining.





3.“But regardless of the specific section of federal law (1501 through 1521) cited in a particular case, the prosecution need not prove any actual obstruction -- the defendant's attempt to obstruct is enough. The element of intent, which is central to such cases, is also usually the most difficult to prove; although memos, phone calls, and recorded conversations may be used as evidence to establish this.” Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw


Saying mean things, tweeting, berating Mueller, Sessions, whoever, does not constitute corrupt intent. Obstruction of Justice requires the prosecutor to show exactly what this particular charge requires.

Mueller couldn’t, as much as he wished he could.

That can be seen in the language of his report.




4.For comparison, here is Comey stating why he could not indict Hillary Clinton:

“Now let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System


Comey was lying through his teeth to allow Hillary to skate.

I’ll explain why, next.

You lost any Democrat would-have-been readers when your length exceeded that which would fit on a bumper strip. A bumper strip that would fit on a SmartCar.

 

[deanrd]

Wow! The best hopes and prayers of the Democrats simply became another dry hole. Attaboy, Mueller! There are some pretty interesting conspiracy theories possible as to why Mueller did what he did….and it sure isn’t because he is ‘honorable.’
Rats and sinking ships comes to mind.



1.Although Mueller could have simply copied the posts we on the Right penned two years ago, still, it is invigorating to watch the tearing and ripping by the poor, poor, jilted Leftists/Democrat/Liberals as we ram the hoax back down their lying throats…..and use Mueller’s report to do it!



Today, in a pause from the reveling, the schadenfreude, and mocking, this thread will focus on two points….
a. the actual meaning of obstruction of justice, and
b.proof that both Hillary and Obama are clearly and evidently guilty of same.exactly what the phrase means: obstruction of justice.

I guarantee it.





2. First the dry part, then the fun part. The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge require prosecutors to prove the following elements:

1. There was a pending federal judicial proceeding
2. The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
3. The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding. Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw

Mueller could not do so, and therefore, as much as this disreputable servant of the Left wished, could not indict, and had no expectation of a conviction of obstruction of justice.

Pay special attention to item 3. The word ‘intent’ is key and it will prove so later.

Trump railed against the proceedings, and did tweet his vehemence…..just as any innocent man would. There is nothing corrupt about complaining.





3.“But regardless of the specific section of federal law (1501 through 1521) cited in a particular case, the prosecution need not prove any actual obstruction -- the defendant's attempt to obstruct is enough. The element of intent, which is central to such cases, is also usually the most difficult to prove; although memos, phone calls, and recorded conversations may be used as evidence to establish this.” Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw


Saying mean things, tweeting, berating Mueller, Sessions, whoever, does not constitute corrupt intent. Obstruction of Justice requires the prosecutor to show exactly what this particular charge requires.

Mueller couldn’t, as much as he wished he could.

That can be seen in the language of his report.




4.For comparison, here is Comey stating why he could not indict Hillary Clinton:

“Now let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System


Comey was lying through his teeth to allow Hillary to skate.

I’ll explain why, next.

For your kind Hillary’s emails are a crime. But the Russians going into the oval office after Donald Trump has it cleared out so Trump can pass them classified material without any witnesses just because they asked for it is perfectly fine.
How do we even know that happened? Because the Russians told us and they sent pictures.
And our own press corp was waiting outside the oval office. They watched who went in.

 

[Edgetho]

There's one MAJOR problem with The Forces of Goodness and Light defeating the those of Darkness and Evil...... dimocrap scum

We seldom go for revenge afterwards.

Republicans see themselves as Ladies and Gentlemen. We don't stoop to such tactics, we're too pure and clean for that nonsense.

4real That's how they feel.

dimocrap scum, OTOH, make no pretense of who and what they are -- They are scum. They don't deny it. They arre criminals. At every opportunity, they will break the Law and scoff at us while doing it.

Why? Because they know that Republicans never go for revenge or prosecution?

Why?

Because too many Republicans are afraid of the DISGUSTING FILTH. Too many have their own skeletons to worry about and too many really do think we're the Party of Ladies and Gentlemen.

If this Country is too survive.... To HELL with a political party, couldn't care less about whether Republicans survive or not.

But if this COuntry is to survive, we have to get mean. I'm talking bloody, nasty, dirty vengeful mean.

If Barr doesn't put upwards of 100 dimocrap scum in prison for decades, then this Country is doomed.

Will he?

A thread should be started on the subject. I would but too many dimocraps have me on ignore because I kick their asses every time they try to take me on.

They aren't afraid of you because you're nice I'm not

Think about it.

How many and who end up in Prison??

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wow! The best hopes and prayers of the Democrats simply became another dry hole. Attaboy, Mueller! There are some pretty interesting conspiracy theories possible as to why Mueller did what he did….and it sure isn’t because he is ‘honorable.’
Rats and sinking ships comes to mind.



1.Although Mueller could have simply copied the posts we on the Right penned two years ago, still, it is invigorating to watch the tearing and ripping by the poor, poor, jilted Leftists/Democrat/Liberals as we ram the hoax back down their lying throats…..and use Mueller’s report to do it!



Today, in a pause from the reveling, the schadenfreude, and mocking, this thread will focus on two points….
a. the actual meaning of obstruction of justice, and
b.proof that both Hillary and Obama are clearly and evidently guilty of same.exactly what the phrase means: obstruction of justice.

I guarantee it.





2. First the dry part, then the fun part. The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge require prosecutors to prove the following elements:

1. There was a pending federal judicial proceeding
2. The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
3. The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding. Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw

Mueller could not do so, and therefore, as much as this disreputable servant of the Left wished, could not indict, and had no expectation of a conviction of obstruction of justice.

Pay special attention to item 3. The word ‘intent’ is key and it will prove so later.

Trump railed against the proceedings, and did tweet his vehemence…..just as any innocent man would. There is nothing corrupt about complaining.





3.“But regardless of the specific section of federal law (1501 through 1521) cited in a particular case, the prosecution need not prove any actual obstruction -- the defendant's attempt to obstruct is enough. The element of intent, which is central to such cases, is also usually the most difficult to prove; although memos, phone calls, and recorded conversations may be used as evidence to establish this.” Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw


Saying mean things, tweeting, berating Mueller, Sessions, whoever, does not constitute corrupt intent. Obstruction of Justice requires the prosecutor to show exactly what this particular charge requires.

Mueller couldn’t, as much as he wished he could.

That can be seen in the language of his report.




4.For comparison, here is Comey stating why he could not indict Hillary Clinton:

“Now let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System


Comey was lying through his teeth to allow Hillary to skate.

I’ll explain why, next.

For your kind Hillary’s emails are a crime. But the Russians going into the oval office after Donald Trump has it cleared out so Trump can pass them classified material without any witnesses just because they asked for it is perfectly fine.
How do we even know that happened? Because the Russians told us and they sent pictures.
And our own press corp was waiting outside the oval office. They watched who went in.

Since the 32nd President, you Democrats have been joined at the hip to the Soviet Communists.

When Roosevelt was told that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy, he promoted him.


Russia?????????

Rule #2
To know what the Left is guilty of, just watch what they blame the other side of doing.





Now, write soon, y'hear!

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Hillary “Needs to be Investigated, She Needs to be Indicted, and She Needs to be in Jail”

Hillary claimed it’s “clear” in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report that President Donald Trump obstructed justice, but Rush had some decent reminders for the failed candidate.


Here is what Hillary said:

HILLARY: There’s enough there that any other person who had engaged, ummm, in those acts, umm, would certainly, uh, have been indicted. The whole matter of obstruction was very directly, uhhh, sent to the Congress. I mean, if you read that part of the report, it could not be clearer.

Limbaugh responded:

RUSH: You know, this is the irony. Hillary Clinton is who tried to rig a presidential election, Martha. Hillary Clinton and her pals in the Obama Department of Justice and the FBI, they are the ones who colluded with the Russians. They are the ones that gave us this entirely, totally bogus Steele dossier.

For Hillary — you talk about irony — for Hillary Clinton to be talking about impeaching Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton needs to be investigated, she needs to be indicted, and she needs to be in jail, and many of her co-conspirators in this whole sordid affair, which amounted to nothing more than a silent coup to overturn the election results of 2016. Hillary Clinton demanding that Trump — you talk about sour grapes, this is a woman that’s been rejected by the American people twice, rejected by her party in 2008.

She had to rig the primaries against Crazy Bernie in 2016 to get the nomination. She is the last person who ought to be listened to about what ought to happen to Donald Trump. She hasn’t accomplished anything anywhere near what Donald Trump has accomplished. She is in no position to sit here and say what she saw in the Mueller — well, she can say it, she’s an American. But she doesn’t have any credibility on any of this as far as I am concerned. And I’m not alone there."
Rush: Hillary "Needs to be Investigated, She Needs to be Indicted, and She Needs to be in Jail"

 

[Edgetho]

Since the 32nd President, you Democrats have been joined at the hip to the Soviet Communists.

When Roosevelt was told that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy, he promoted him.


Russia?????????

Rule #2
To know what the Left is guilty of, just watch what they blame the other side of doing.





Now, write soon, y'hear!

Typical dimocraps.

Julius Rosenberg was an engineer for the U.S. Army Signal Corps who was born in New York on May 12, 1918. His wife, born Ethel Greenglass, also in New York, on September 28, 1915, worked as a secretary. The couple met as members of the Young Communist League, married in 1939 and had two sons. Julius Rosenberg was arrested on suspicion of espionage on June 17, 1950, and accused of heading a spy ring that passed top-secret information concerning the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union.

What they got was merciful, IMO.