Obstruction of Justice Thread and Poll

[jc456]

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 involves the Chief murdering his bookie.

wow

 

[Cellblock2429]

Yes, he did say that and Trump didn't become part of the investigation until after Comey was fired.

So Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey because he was in the future going to be investigated for obstruction of justice because he fired Comey?

No.

Mike Flynn broke the law. The FBI is investigating. Comey is the head of the FBI.

With me so far? Probably not. Don’t care.

Comey was told to drop it. He didn’t. Trump fired him because of that.

Thus creating a new scandal…Obstruction of Justice.

Flynn is still under investigation.
So is Trump now.

And using that logic it's always obstruction of justice for the president to fire the FBI director because the FBI is always investigating someone.

Really, how so? This should be interesting (or at least entertaining).

If the FBI is investigating Joemoma and the president fires the FBI director, then the president is obstructing justice for that case.

/----- Does the Director handle the investigations for all FBI cases? Firing him ends investigations? How does that work?

 

[jc456]

Obstruction of justice obstructs a process, no matter what the outcome of the process is.

what process was obstructed? this ought to be good.

 

[jc456]

Trump is "guilty" of defeating Hillary Clinton and making the talking heads at CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post and the New York Times look foolish!

To the left...that's UNFORGIVABLE!!!!

The investigation into his multiple scandals continues.

which ones? cause the director of the FBI stated he wasn't under investigation. so what are you talking about that the director didn't know?

 

[JoeMoma]

So Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey because he was in the future going to be investigated for obstruction of justice because he fired Comey?

No.

Mike Flynn broke the law. The FBI is investigating. Comey is the head of the FBI.

With me so far? Probably not. Don’t care.

Comey was told to drop it. He didn’t. Trump fired him because of that.

Thus creating a new scandal…Obstruction of Justice.

Flynn is still under investigation.
So is Trump now.

And using that logic it's always obstruction of justice for the president to fire the FBI director because the FBI is always investigating someone.

Really, how so? This should be interesting (or at least entertaining).

If the FBI is investigating Joemoma and the president fires the FBI director, then the president is obstructing justice for that case.

/----- Does the Director handle the investigations for all FBI cases? Firing him ends investigations? How does that work?

I'm using Candycorn logic, ask her?

 

[jc456]

No.

Mike Flynn broke the law. The FBI is investigating. Comey is the head of the FBI.

With me so far? Probably not. Don’t care.

Comey was told to drop it. He didn’t. Trump fired him because of that.

Thus creating a new scandal…Obstruction of Justice.

Flynn is still under investigation.
So is Trump now.

And using that logic it's always obstruction of justice for the president to fire the FBI director because the FBI is always investigating someone.

Really, how so? This should be interesting (or at least entertaining).

If the FBI is investigating Joemoma and the president fires the FBI director, then the president is obstructing justice for that case.

/----- Does the Director handle the investigations for all FBI cases? Firing him ends investigations? How does that work?

I'm using Candycorn logic, ask her?

she uses logic?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obstruction of justice obstructs a process, no matter what the outcome of the process is.

what process was obstructed? this ought to be good.

That's what the investigation is now trying to determine.

 

[candycorn]

Yes, he did say that and Trump didn't become part of the investigation until after Comey was fired.

So Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey because he was in the future going to be investigated for obstruction of justice because he fired Comey?

No.

Mike Flynn broke the law. The FBI is investigating. Comey is the head of the FBI.

With me so far? Probably not. Don’t care.

Comey was told to drop it. He didn’t. Trump fired him because of that.

Thus creating a new scandal…Obstruction of Justice.

Flynn is still under investigation.
So is Trump now.

And using that logic it's always obstruction of justice for the president to fire the FBI director because the FBI is always investigating someone.

Really, how so? This should be interesting (or at least entertaining).

If the FBI is investigating Joemoma and the president fires the FBI director, then the president is obstructing justice for that case.

Uh, no.

IF the Director is asked to stop investigating Joemoma and doesn’t do it and is THEN fired by the President, he is obstructing justice. There are potentially plenty of reasons to fire someone…

 

[jc456]

Obstruction of justice obstructs a process, no matter what the outcome of the process is.

what process was obstructed? this ought to be good.

That's what the investigation is now trying to determine.

so you know of no obstruction. so why are you posting that you do?

 

[jc456]

So Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey because he was in the future going to be investigated for obstruction of justice because he fired Comey?

No.

Mike Flynn broke the law. The FBI is investigating. Comey is the head of the FBI.

With me so far? Probably not. Don’t care.

Comey was told to drop it. He didn’t. Trump fired him because of that.

Thus creating a new scandal…Obstruction of Justice.

Flynn is still under investigation.
So is Trump now.

And using that logic it's always obstruction of justice for the president to fire the FBI director because the FBI is always investigating someone.

Really, how so? This should be interesting (or at least entertaining).

If the FBI is investigating Joemoma and the president fires the FBI director, then the president is obstructing justice for that case.

Uh, no.

IF the Director is asked to stop investigating Joemoma and doesn’t do it and is THEN fired by the President, he is obstructing justice. There are potentially plenty of reasons to fire someone…

so are you saying firing someone automatically concludes an investigation? really, you're going to step across that line?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

This is a legal issue, you clearly do not have a legal mind. Thank goodness I am here to help you out. Here is what a famous (liberal) legal mind thinks about your obstruction charge- your welcome.

Dershowitz, also a criminal law expert and the author of more than 30 books, said, “The president could have told Comey, you are commanded, directed, to drop the prosecution against Flynn. The president has the right to do that. Comey acknowledges that. He says in the statement that historically, historically presidents have done that to the Justice Department."

“But in the last few years, we've had a tradition of separation, but that tradition doesn't create crime," said Dershowitz. "Remember also what the president could have done. He could have said to Comey, stop this investigation, I am now pardoning Flynn."
Liberal Dershowitz on Trump: It's Not 'Obstruction,' There's No 'Crime'

Dershowitz is not the authority on this issue.

 

[candycorn]

No.

Mike Flynn broke the law. The FBI is investigating. Comey is the head of the FBI.

With me so far? Probably not. Don’t care.

Comey was told to drop it. He didn’t. Trump fired him because of that.

Thus creating a new scandal…Obstruction of Justice.

Flynn is still under investigation.
So is Trump now.

And using that logic it's always obstruction of justice for the president to fire the FBI director because the FBI is always investigating someone.

Really, how so? This should be interesting (or at least entertaining).

If the FBI is investigating Joemoma and the president fires the FBI director, then the president is obstructing justice for that case.

/----- Does the Director handle the investigations for all FBI cases? Firing him ends investigations? How does that work?

I'm using Candycorn logic, ask her?

You should try using Candycorn memory. I recall Comey saying that Trump told him to drop it. When did didn’t; he was fired shortly thereafter.

You seem to be immune from understanding that detail.

 

[JoeMoma]

Obstruction of justice obstructs a process, no matter what the outcome of the process is.

what process was obstructed? this ought to be good.

That's what the investigation is now trying to determine.

So anyone can be investigated for obstruction of justice at any time to determine if obstruction of justice occurred or not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obstruction of justice obstructs a process, no matter what the outcome of the process is.

what process was obstructed? this ought to be good.

That's what the investigation is now trying to determine.

so you know of no obstruction. so why are you posting that you do?

I posted that obstruction of justice can occur even if the obstructer didn't commit any other crime.

Want to debate that?

 

[candycorn]

No.

Mike Flynn broke the law. The FBI is investigating. Comey is the head of the FBI.

With me so far? Probably not. Don’t care.

Comey was told to drop it. He didn’t. Trump fired him because of that.

Thus creating a new scandal…Obstruction of Justice.

Flynn is still under investigation.
So is Trump now.

And using that logic it's always obstruction of justice for the president to fire the FBI director because the FBI is always investigating someone.

Really, how so? This should be interesting (or at least entertaining).

If the FBI is investigating Joemoma and the president fires the FBI director, then the president is obstructing justice for that case.

Uh, no.

IF the Director is asked to stop investigating Joemoma and doesn’t do it and is THEN fired by the President, he is obstructing justice. There are potentially plenty of reasons to fire someone…

so are you saying firing someone automatically concludes an investigation? really, you're going to step across that line?

Only if you re-arrange my letters and add some of your own dumbass.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obstruction of justice obstructs a process, no matter what the outcome of the process is.

what process was obstructed? this ought to be good.

That's what the investigation is now trying to determine.

So anyone can be investigated for obstruction of justice at any time to determine if obstruction of justice occurred or not.

lol. English please.

 

[jc456]

Obstruction of justice obstructs a process, no matter what the outcome of the process is.

what process was obstructed? this ought to be good.

That's what the investigation is now trying to determine.

So anyone can be investigated for obstruction of justice at any time to determine if obstruction of justice occurred or not.

I guess so.

 

[JoeMoma]

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.

This is a legal issue, you clearly do not have a legal mind. Thank goodness I am here to help you out. Here is what a famous (liberal) legal mind thinks about your obstruction charge- your welcome.

Dershowitz, also a criminal law expert and the author of more than 30 books, said, “The president could have told Comey, you are commanded, directed, to drop the prosecution against Flynn. The president has the right to do that. Comey acknowledges that. He says in the statement that historically, historically presidents have done that to the Justice Department."

“But in the last few years, we've had a tradition of separation, but that tradition doesn't create crime," said Dershowitz. "Remember also what the president could have done. He could have said to Comey, stop this investigation, I am now pardoning Flynn."
Liberal Dershowitz on Trump: It's Not 'Obstruction,' There's No 'Crime'

Dershowitz is not the authority on this issue.

None of us are the authority on this issue either, so let's close this tread.

 

[candycorn]

Obstruction of justice obstructs a process, no matter what the outcome of the process is.

what process was obstructed? this ought to be good.

That's what the investigation is now trying to determine.

So anyone can be investigated for obstruction of justice at any time to determine if obstruction of justice occurred or not.

Usually obstruction of justice charges come as an offshoot of another investigation into wrong doing. Much like Watergate; it was a burglary that was being investigated. Then Nixon started firing people and then you had OOJ.

 

[jc456]

And using that logic it's always obstruction of justice for the president to fire the FBI director because the FBI is always investigating someone.

Really, how so? This should be interesting (or at least entertaining).

If the FBI is investigating Joemoma and the president fires the FBI director, then the president is obstructing justice for that case.

Uh, no.

IF the Director is asked to stop investigating Joemoma and doesn’t do it and is THEN fired by the President, he is obstructing justice. There are potentially plenty of reasons to fire someone…

so are you saying firing someone automatically concludes an investigation? really, you're going to step across that line?

Only if you re-arrange my letters and add some of your own dumbass.

badda bing, badda boom.