Tell me how this is NOT an attempt to "obstruct justice"?

Look man, you had more evidence in Iran Conta....and no one went to jail in that one...it's not going to happen.....the people voted for Donald Trump and they want him to stay where he is.


Moron........in the Iran Contra affairs it was left up to George Bush to grant pardons left and right.....there were LOTS of convictions......Ask Oliver North and good ol' Casper Weinberger.

Anyway........believe what your half brain dictates.......We'll see, won't we......LOL

Ollie North has his own TV show and is a regular guest on FOX News. Maybe Flynn and Manafort will become famous too. :biggrin:
 
Ollie North has his own TV show and is a regular guest on FOX News. Maybe Flynn and Manafort will become famous too

Yep.........FOX is where most right wing has-been wind up......LOL
 
Ollie North has his own TV show and is a regular guest on FOX News. Maybe Flynn and Manafort will become famous too

Yep.........FOX is where most right wing has-been wind up......LOL

I wouldn't talk if all I had was losers like Al Sharpton and an assortment of fags, regressives, crybabies, and commie-sympathizers.

You need to quit watching all that fake news. It's obviously rotted your mind.
 
Placing aside that our current constitutional procedures have made a president somewhat above the law (except for treason and other high crimes,) Trump has obstructed the carrying out of justice based on this sequence:

1. Trump openly admitted that he fired Mike Flynn because Flynn lied to the FBI (making Flynn a confirmed felon.)

2. Prior to that open admission, Trump tried to convince Comey to let Flynn "off the hook"

3. When Comey basically refused to follow the tacit directive of Trump......Trump fired him.

The above sequence is irrefutable,
Could you explain the logical reasoning that you used to come to that ridiculous conclusion so that I may rip it to shreds and shove it up your ass?
 
When you assume something is a foregone conclusion while admitting you don’t understand all the facts, the only rational conclusion is that you don’t know what a foregone conclusion is
 
When you assume something is a foregone conclusion while admitting you don’t understand all the facts, the only rational conclusion is that you don’t know what a foregone conclusion is
I do understand the facts, jackass.
 
Could you explain the logical reasoning that you used to come to that ridiculous conclusion so that I may rip it to shreds and shove it up your ass?


I'm shaking in my Birkenstock........LOL

(I sure hope these right wing assholes don't breed too much)
 
Could you explain the logical reasoning that you used to come to that ridiculous conclusion so that I may rip it to shreds and shove it up your ass?


I'm shaking in my Birkenstock........LOL
Your concession is accepted.

(I sure hope these right wing assholes don't breed too much)
I'm delighted to dash your hopes, jackass. I have six kids and my wife wants at least two more. I also used to donate to a sperm bank regularly.
 
Last edited:
It is a foregone conclusion that Trump DID try to obstruct justice......BUT, the sticking point is whether a sitting president can ever be indicted since resignation has always been the preferred choice by previous presidents.......

Placing aside that our current constitutional procedures have made a president somewhat above the law (except for treason and other high crimes,) Trump has obstructed the carrying out of justice based on this sequence:

1. Trump openly admitted that he fired Mike Flynn because Flynn lied to the FBI (making Flynn a confirmed felon.)

2. Prior to that open admission, Trump tried to convince Comey to let Flynn "off the hook"

3. When Comey basically refused to follow the tacit directive of Trump......Trump fired him.

The above sequence is irrefutable, and although I am no fan of Comey, this guy did the right thing by recording the exchange and publicizing it right after the occurrence.

Now, as I stated, the plain facts may NOT be enough to charge a sitting president with a crime........BUT, Trump will always be known as someone who attempted to circumvent the carrying out of an investigation toward the rendering of justice.
Which is why the appropriate, Constitutional course of action is impeachment.

Impeachment is a political – not legal – process; a president may be in peached, convicted in the Senate, and compelled to resign from office absent alleged criminal wrongdoing, including obstruction of justice.

A president may be impeached and ultimately removed from office the consequence of his bad acts (misdemeanors), such as attacking the judiciary or violating his oath of office – both of which Trump has done.

Once removed from office a former president and private citizen would then be subject to criminal indictment if warranted.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution renders moot the question as to whether a sitting president may be indicted.

Good luck with that.
 
Comey is a dirty cop who got involved with the Clinton crime family and got what was coming to him
 
Trump can fire Comey for any reason he likes, even to prevent him from prosecuting Comey. Firing directors of government agencies is a power granted to the president by the Constitution.


Nitwit, first correct your moronic post in the part I bolded.......

Second, firing Comey may be Trump's prerogative BUT the REQUEST that Trump made of Comey is at best non-ethical......Remember, that Nixon ALSO had his "constitutional right" to keep firing attorneys generals who refused to fire the special counsel Fox.....and we know how THAT ended up.


So we now know Flynn didn't do anything illegal in his job. All he did was lie to the VP about the phone call.....and you guys consider this Armageddon.....he didn't do any of the Russia collusion you try to make up.

And no asking somone to go easy isn't a crime. Did he threaten....even Comey said no he did not.......
Did he fire comey over it....no....

so there is nothing there....I mean by all means start impeachment on that...I cant wait to see those hearing...


House: uh we're hear to impeach a duly elected Presidnet why?

nat4900: Because he said to comey "can you go easy on Flynn"
and then he fired Comey months later (with the recommendation from Rod Rosenstein, Comey's friend).....not related to this incident
House: uh....anything else ???

nat4900: Nope

House: Is this guy serious?????
It's hard to take these snowflakes seriously when their theories about Trump are all so absurd.
 
Look man, you had more evidence in Iran Conta....and no one went to jail in that one...it's not going to happen.....the people voted for Donald Trump and they want him to stay where he is.


Moron........in the Iran Contra affairs it was left up to George Bush to grant pardons left and right.....there were LOTS of convictions......Ask Oliver North and good ol' Casper Weinberger.

Anyway........believe what your half brain dictates.......We'll see, won't we......LOL
The convictions of North and Poindexter were thrown out of court for 5th Amendment violations.
 
Comey is a dirty cop who got involved with the Clinton crime family and got what was coming to him


IDIOT......It was Comey who handed the oval office to the orange clown.....Trump should erect a fucking statue in his honor......If not for Comey, Trump would STILL be wondering what happened to those private investigators he send to Hawaii. \

LOL
 
Comey is a dirty cop who got involved with the Clinton crime family and got what was coming to him


IDIOT......It was Comey who handed the oval office to the orange clown.....Trump should erect a fucking statue in his honor......If not for Comey, Trump would STILL be wondering what happened to those private investigators he send to Hawaii. \

LOL
Jake, show us on the doll where Putin touched you to make you change your vote.
 

Forum List

Back
Top