Obstruction of Justice Thread and Poll

Does not colluding with Russia make Trump guilty of obstruction of justice?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 20.8%
  • No

    Votes: 14 29.2%
  • Pub Duppe

    Votes: 1 2.1%
  • Russia Russia Russia

    Votes: 26 54.2%

  • Total voters
    48
If the chief of police tells Columbo to stop investigating case A and move to case B, is that obstruction of justice?
 
Firing the guy directing the investigation into Trump’s campaign and it’s dealings with Russia to influence (i.e. win) an election does.
The issue of obstruction of justice is so obvious, it is amazing that the rightwingers on this board don't get it.

Definition: the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process ...

Trump tried to impede the investigation into Flynn's Russia connection by asking Comey to backoff. When Comey didn't back off, he fired him. He was trying to influence and impede the investigation and the legal process. His telling Comey he 'hoped' he could let the investigation go and at the same time asking Comey if he wanted to keep his job was a threat. When Comey didn't back off, he fired him.

It's really very obvious to anyone who can think about it in an unbiased way. If your boss 'suggested' you stop doing something and you continued to do it, and then he/she fired you, you would believe you were fired for not doing what the boss wanted, especially if up until that time he/she had nothing but praise for you.
So many lies in such a short post you wrote here. good grief.
/---- You mean like Billy Clintooon meeting with the AG in private on her plane talking about grandchildren? (Lynch has no grandchildren, BTW) You mean obstruction like that? How about Hildabeast breaking her blackberry with a hammer and deleting 30,0000 emails about yoga class and a wedding? You mean obstruction like that? You tool.
You're not supposed to bring up REAL crime. You're supposed to keep paying attention to the FAKE crime being spewed by the left.
/---- Is bringing up real crimes by DemocRATS considered racist?
reality.png
 
Firing the guy directing the investigation into Trump’s campaign and it’s dealings with Russia to influence (i.e. win) an election does.
The issue of obstruction of justice is so obvious, it is amazing that the rightwingers on this board don't get it.

Definition: the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process ...

Trump tried to impede the investigation into Flynn's Russia connection by asking Comey to backoff. When Comey didn't back off, he fired him. He was trying to influence and impede the investigation and the legal process. His telling Comey he 'hoped' he could let the investigation go and at the same time asking Comey if he wanted to keep his job was a threat. When Comey didn't back off, he fired him.

It's really very obvious to anyone who can think about it in an unbiased way. If your boss 'suggested' you stop doing something and you continued to do it, and then he/she fired you, you would believe you were fired for not doing what the boss wanted, especially if up until that time he/she had nothing but praise for you.

Telling someone that you "hope" they don't do something is not a threat, Esmerelda! I'm sorry but legally it's not! Did Trump fire Comey for not backing off of Flynn (who was already gone for lying to Vice President Pence) or did he fire Comey because Comey wouldn't say Trump wasn't under investigation?

As for Trump's "praise" for Comey? He tried to give Comey the benefit of the doubt...that's obvious...but what's ALSO obvious is that Comey had his own agenda with the games that he was playing previously with Loretta Lynch and Hillary Clinton and his leaks to the media. Comey's firing shouldn't have surprised anyone, quite frankly. He wasn't liked by liberals because of his late announcement that Hillary was being investigated because of the emails found on Anthony Weiner's laptop's affect on the election. He wasn't liked by conservatives because he caved to Lynch and Clinton before that and called an FBI investigation an FBI "matter" so that Hillary could claim she WASN'T under investigation! He wasn't liked by the FBI rank and file because of his tortured explanation that Clinton hadn't broken the law because she wasn't sophisticated enough to understand what she was doing! Comey needed to go years ago because Comey was an awful FBI Director for ALL sides!
 
Apparently it's always illegal for a siting president to fire the FBI director. The FBI is always in the process of an investigation, thus the president cannot fire the FBI director without obstructing justice. Fuck the constitutional powers granted to the president.
Funny thing was, is that he fired Comey while Comey was supposedly conducting an investigation that didn't involve The President, but the progs say Comey was fired over an investigation that was being conducted against the President ? I'm confused.......

Comey - The president is not under investigation. End of story.
 
Does not colluding with Russia make Trump guilty of obstruction of justice? We all know that Putin acted on his own when he used his Vote Flipping Mind Control ray on voters in FL, WI, and the other states that rightfully belonged to St Hillary. Then, because he's got a weird sense of humor, he reversed the polarity and used it in CA to give Hillary a win in the "popular vote"

Does the fact that Comey is a Clinton sock puppet and that there is no evidence of collusion mean that Trump must be guilty -- of something?

Perfect example of how POLLS present BIASED questions illiciting biased results!
The question CONCLUDES there was "COLLUSION" ! Any response justifies the conclusion!
 
Firing the guy directing the investigation into Trump’s campaign and it’s dealings with Russia to influence (i.e. win) an election does.
The issue of obstruction of justice is so obvious, it is amazing that the rightwingers on this board don't get it.

Definition: the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process ...

Trump tried to impede the investigation into Flynn's Russia connection by asking Comey to backoff. When Comey didn't back off, he fired him. He was trying to influence and impede the investigation and the legal process. His telling Comey he 'hoped' he could let the investigation go and at the same time asking Comey if he wanted to keep his job was a threat. When Comey didn't back off, he fired him.

It's really very obvious to anyone who can think about it in an unbiased way. If your boss 'suggested' you stop doing something and you continued to do it, and then he/she fired you, you would believe you were fired for not doing what the boss wanted, especially if up until that time he/she had nothing but praise for you.

Let's see your proof of ANY of those things!

Nothing burger?
 
Firing the guy directing the investigation into Trump’s campaign and it’s dealings with Russia to influence (i.e. win) an election does.
The issue of obstruction of justice is so obvious, it is amazing that the rightwingers on this board don't get it.

Definition: the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process ...

Trump tried to impede the investigation into Flynn's Russia connection by asking Comey to backoff. When Comey didn't back off, he fired him. He was trying to influence and impede the investigation and the legal process. His telling Comey he 'hoped' he could let the investigation go and at the same time asking Comey if he wanted to keep his job was a threat. When Comey didn't back off, he fired him.

It's really very obvious to anyone who can think about it in an unbiased way. If your boss 'suggested' you stop doing something and you continued to do it, and then he/she fired you, you would believe you were fired for not doing what the boss wanted, especially if up until that time he/she had nothing but praise for you.
So many lies in such a short post you wrote here. good grief.
/---- You mean like Billy Clintooon meeting with the AG in private on her plane talking about grandchildren? (Lynch has no grandchildren, BTW) You mean obstruction like that? How about Hildabeast breaking her blackberry with a hammer and deleting 30,0000 emails about yoga class and a wedding? You mean obstruction like that? You tool.
Tool ??? I'm on your side you flippin idiot.
 
If the chief of police tells Columbo to stop investigating case A and move to case B, is that obstruction of justice?

Yes if Case A is regarding the chief of police
And if the police chief is not a target of the investigation?
/---- Then of course their is no obstruction. Actual Columbo show way back when.
I often watch reruns of Columbo when I visit with my Mom on Sunday nights.
 
Firing the guy directing the investigation into Trump’s campaign and it’s dealings with Russia to influence (i.e. win) an election does.
The issue of obstruction of justice is so obvious, it is amazing that the rightwingers on this board don't get it.

Definition: the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process ...

Trump tried to impede the investigation into Flynn's Russia connection by asking Comey to backoff. When Comey didn't back off, he fired him. He was trying to influence and impede the investigation and the legal process. His telling Comey he 'hoped' he could let the investigation go and at the same time asking Comey if he wanted to keep his job was a threat. When Comey didn't back off, he fired him.

It's really very obvious to anyone who can think about it in an unbiased way. If your boss 'suggested' you stop doing something and you continued to do it, and then he/she fired you, you would believe you were fired for not doing what the boss wanted, especially if up until that time he/she had nothing but praise for you.
So many lies in such a short post you wrote here. good grief.
/---- You mean like Billy Clintooon meeting with the AG in private on her plane talking about grandchildren? (Lynch has no grandchildren, BTW) You mean obstruction like that? How about Hildabeast breaking her blackberry with a hammer and deleting 30,0000 emails about yoga class and a wedding? You mean obstruction like that? You tool.
Tool ??? I'm on your side you flippin idiot.
/---- My apologies. Sometimes it's hard to keep track of who's saying what on the board..
mistake.jpg
 

Forum List

Back
Top