The Hill: Was Loretta Lynch coordinating with James Comey in the Clinton investigation?

[theDoctorisIn]

There are at least 6 different sections of the US Code that address what could be called "Obstruction of Justice". Which are you referring to?

18 USC 1503 springs immediately to mind. Though a case can be made for 18 USC 1505 as well based on the 33,000 deleted emails while under subpoena.

Ok, we'll start with 1503.

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or 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, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

Do you have evidence of these "threats" or "force"? Who do you believe threatened who? What juror or officer of the court are you referring to?

1505 is essentially the same thing, except for administrative or congressional investigations. Same questions as above.

Threats or force aren't the only ways that one obstructs. Surely you have to know that.

What I know is that our laws - particularly our criminal laws - are very specifically written in statute to enumerate the exact elements of a crime that need to be proven.

I asked for the Title and Chapter of the law you guys believe was broken. This is what I was given.

Can you make an argument that any actions of Lynch, Comey, either Clinton, or anyone else involved meets those elements?

It depends on what was said on the clinton-lynch tarmac meeting.

So, you don't have any actual evidence that a crime was committed, you just have a narrative that you've come up with.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This MUST be the smoking gun.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Little room for doubt. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law and make them an example for all to see.

Was Lynch coordinating with Comey in the Clinton investigation?

Prosecute them for what law?

Title and Chapter, please.

Unless you're full of shit, of course.

You know quack it's funny how they get away with this, yet no republican or Democrat wants to make a law against it..

Why is that because maybe it could back fire on them?

 

[bripat9643]

Little room for doubt. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law and make them an example for all to see.

Was Lynch coordinating with Comey in the Clinton investigation?

Of course they were. The claim that they weren't doesn't pass the laugh test.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Little room for doubt. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law and make them an example for all to see.

Was Lynch coordinating with Comey in the Clinton investigation?

Prosecute them for what law?

Title and Chapter, please.

Unless you're full of shit, of course.

You know quack it's funny how they get away with this, yet no republican or Democrat wants to make a law against it..

Why is that because maybe it could back fire on them?

Make a law against what?

 

[Wyatt earp]

18 USC 1503 springs immediately to mind. Though a case can be made for 18 USC 1505 as well based on the 33,000 deleted emails while under subpoena.

Ok, we'll start with 1503.

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or 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, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

Do you have evidence of these "threats" or "force"? Who do you believe threatened who? What juror or officer of the court are you referring to?

1505 is essentially the same thing, except for administrative or congressional investigations. Same questions as above.

Threats or force aren't the only ways that one obstructs. Surely you have to know that.

What I know is that our laws - particularly our criminal laws - are very specifically written in statute to enumerate the exact elements of a crime that need to be proven.

I asked for the Title and Chapter of the law you guys believe was broken. This is what I was given.

Can you make an argument that any actions of Lynch, Comey, either Clinton, or anyone else involved meets those elements?

It depends on what was said on the clinton-lynch tarmac meeting.

So, you don't have any actual evidence that a crime was committed, you just have a narrative that you've come up with.

So a crime was not committed if it's not on the books?


It's called the spirit of the law...its called finding loop holes to not commit a crime but get around it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Ok, we'll start with 1503.

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or 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, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

Do you have evidence of these "threats" or "force"? Who do you believe threatened who? What juror or officer of the court are you referring to?

1505 is essentially the same thing, except for administrative or congressional investigations. Same questions as above.

Threats or force aren't the only ways that one obstructs. Surely you have to know that.

What I know is that our laws - particularly our criminal laws - are very specifically written in statute to enumerate the exact elements of a crime that need to be proven.

I asked for the Title and Chapter of the law you guys believe was broken. This is what I was given.

Can you make an argument that any actions of Lynch, Comey, either Clinton, or anyone else involved meets those elements?

It depends on what was said on the clinton-lynch tarmac meeting.

So, you don't have any actual evidence that a crime was committed, you just have a narrative that you've come up with.

So a crime was not committed if it's not on the books?


It's called the spirit of the law...its called finding loop holes to not commit a crime but get around it.

Yes, if there's no law against something, then it's not a crime. I don't know what you're having a hard time understanding that.

You may feel that Clinton, Comey, Lynch or whoever committed a crime - but this is a nation of laws, not a nation of feels.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

18 USC 1503 springs immediately to mind. Though a case can be made for 18 USC 1505 as well based on the 33,000 deleted emails while under subpoena.

Ok, we'll start with 1503.

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or 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, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

Do you have evidence of these "threats" or "force"? Who do you believe threatened who? What juror or officer of the court are you referring to?

1505 is essentially the same thing, except for administrative or congressional investigations. Same questions as above.

Threats or force aren't the only ways that one obstructs. Surely you have to know that.

What I know is that our laws - particularly our criminal laws - are very specifically written in statute to enumerate the exact elements of a crime that need to be proven.

I asked for the Title and Chapter of the law you guys believe was broken. This is what I was given.

Can you make an argument that any actions of Lynch, Comey, either Clinton, or anyone else involved meets those elements?

It depends on what was said on the clinton-lynch tarmac meeting.

So, you don't have any actual evidence that a crime was committed, you just have a narrative that you've come up with.

This was comey:
"I'm not picking on the attorney general, Loretta Lynch, who I like very much, but her meeting with President Clinton on that airplane was the capper for me," he said. "And I then said, 'You know what? The department cannot, by itself, credibly end this."

It depends on what was said. Was comey privy to their tarmac meeting? One can easily deduce that it was about some emails. It depends on what comey knew and what he didn't disseminate or disclose.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Little room for doubt. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law and make them an example for all to see.

Was Lynch coordinating with Comey in the Clinton investigation?

Prosecute them for what law?

Title and Chapter, please.

Unless you're full of shit, of course.

You know quack it's funny how they get away with this, yet no republican or Democrat wants to make a law against it..

Why is that because maybe it could back fire on them?

Make a law against what?

Conspiracy? You want to play everything is fair game as long as you follow the law that's what we used to do in jail..

No difference.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Ok, we'll start with 1503.

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or 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, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

Do you have evidence of these "threats" or "force"? Who do you believe threatened who? What juror or officer of the court are you referring to?

1505 is essentially the same thing, except for administrative or congressional investigations. Same questions as above.

Threats or force aren't the only ways that one obstructs. Surely you have to know that.

What I know is that our laws - particularly our criminal laws - are very specifically written in statute to enumerate the exact elements of a crime that need to be proven.

I asked for the Title and Chapter of the law you guys believe was broken. This is what I was given.

Can you make an argument that any actions of Lynch, Comey, either Clinton, or anyone else involved meets those elements?

It depends on what was said on the clinton-lynch tarmac meeting.

So, you don't have any actual evidence that a crime was committed, you just have a narrative that you've come up with.

This was comey:
"I'm not picking on the attorney general, Loretta Lynch, who I like very much, but her meeting with President Clinton on that airplane was the capper for me," he said. "And I then said, 'You know what? The department cannot, by itself, credibly end this."

It depends on what was said. Was comey privy to their tarmac meeting? One can easily deduce that it was about some emails. It depends on what comey knew and what he didn't disseminate or disclose.

Comey was referring to the optics of the meeting, not the content of it.

As for what was said, we can't "deduce" anything - what you're doing is coming up with a story, and then saying "that sounds believable".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Little room for doubt. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law and make them an example for all to see.

Was Lynch coordinating with Comey in the Clinton investigation?

Prosecute them for what law?

Title and Chapter, please.

Unless you're full of shit, of course.

You know quack it's funny how they get away with this, yet no republican or Democrat wants to make a law against it..

Why is that because maybe it could back fire on them?

Make a law against what?

Conspiracy? You want to play everything is fair game as long as you follow the law that's what we used to do in jail..

No difference.

I don't know what you're babbling about. Could you try again, in English this time?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Threats or force aren't the only ways that one obstructs. Surely you have to know that.

What I know is that our laws - particularly our criminal laws - are very specifically written in statute to enumerate the exact elements of a crime that need to be proven.

I asked for the Title and Chapter of the law you guys believe was broken. This is what I was given.

Can you make an argument that any actions of Lynch, Comey, either Clinton, or anyone else involved meets those elements?

It depends on what was said on the clinton-lynch tarmac meeting.

So, you don't have any actual evidence that a crime was committed, you just have a narrative that you've come up with.

So a crime was not committed if it's not on the books?


It's called the spirit of the law...its called finding loop holes to not commit a crime but get around it.

Yes, if there's no law against something, then it's not a crime. I don't know what you're having a hard time understanding that.

You may feel that Clinton, Comey, Lynch or whoever committed a crime - but this is a nation of laws, not a nation of feels.

I betcha you got your law hand book growing up, and threw out the bible and quaran ..



You go by the government's laws and find any loop hole you can ...


Kind of sick don't you think?

 

[The Original Tree]

Don’t forget that Crowd Strike and Fusion GPS were simultaneously working with The FBI, DOJ, DNC and The Clinton Campaign!

Nah, no
Coincidences there.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Little room for doubt. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law and make them an example for all to see.

Was Lynch coordinating with Comey in the Clinton investigation?

Prosecute them for what law?

Title and Chapter, please.

Unless you're full of shit, of course.

You know quack it's funny how they get away with this, yet no republican or Democrat wants to make a law against it..

Why is that because maybe it could back fire on them?

Make a law against what?

Conspiracy? You want to play everything is fair game as long as you follow the law that's what we used to do in jail..

No difference.

I don't know what you're babbling about. Could you try again, in English this time?

I don't speak rap, sorry now address my retort and use critical thinking skills and don't play the spelling and grammar game..


It makes you look stupid.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What I know is that our laws - particularly our criminal laws - are very specifically written in statute to enumerate the exact elements of a crime that need to be proven.

I asked for the Title and Chapter of the law you guys believe was broken. This is what I was given.

Can you make an argument that any actions of Lynch, Comey, either Clinton, or anyone else involved meets those elements?

It depends on what was said on the clinton-lynch tarmac meeting.

So, you don't have any actual evidence that a crime was committed, you just have a narrative that you've come up with.

So a crime was not committed if it's not on the books?


It's called the spirit of the law...its called finding loop holes to not commit a crime but get around it.

Yes, if there's no law against something, then it's not a crime. I don't know what you're having a hard time understanding that.

You may feel that Clinton, Comey, Lynch or whoever committed a crime - but this is a nation of laws, not a nation of feels.

I betcha you got your law hand book growing up, and threw out the bible and quaran ..



You go by the government's laws and find any loop hole you can ...


Kind of sick don't you think?

No, I don't think using the law to determine whether a crime was committed is "sick".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Prosecute them for what law?

Title and Chapter, please.

Unless you're full of shit, of course.

You know quack it's funny how they get away with this, yet no republican or Democrat wants to make a law against it..

Why is that because maybe it could back fire on them?

Make a law against what?

Conspiracy? You want to play everything is fair game as long as you follow the law that's what we used to do in jail..

No difference.

I don't know what you're babbling about. Could you try again, in English this time?

I don't speak rap, sorry now address my retort and use critical thinking skills and don't play the spelling and grammar game..


It makes you look stupid.

What "retort" do you think that you've made?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Threats or force aren't the only ways that one obstructs. Surely you have to know that.

What I know is that our laws - particularly our criminal laws - are very specifically written in statute to enumerate the exact elements of a crime that need to be proven.

I asked for the Title and Chapter of the law you guys believe was broken. This is what I was given.

Can you make an argument that any actions of Lynch, Comey, either Clinton, or anyone else involved meets those elements?

It depends on what was said on the clinton-lynch tarmac meeting.

So, you don't have any actual evidence that a crime was committed, you just have a narrative that you've come up with.

This was comey:
"I'm not picking on the attorney general, Loretta Lynch, who I like very much, but her meeting with President Clinton on that airplane was the capper for me," he said. "And I then said, 'You know what? The department cannot, by itself, credibly end this."

It depends on what was said. Was comey privy to their tarmac meeting? One can easily deduce that it was about some emails. It depends on what comey knew and what he didn't disseminate or disclose.

Comey was referring to the optics of the meeting, not the content of it.

As for what was said, we can't "deduce" anything - what you're doing is coming up with a story, and then saying "that sounds believable".

I don't have a story or narrative. Yes, conclusions based on a perceived notion is not proof. But again, it depends on what comey knew from lynch. Oh, one other thing, you don't have to put quotes around my words. Thats junior high stuff.

 

[The Original Tree]

Comey basically was fired for trying to intimidate and blackmail President Trump with the Fake Fusion GPS Dossier.

That and conducting a Fake Investigation and coverup operation of Clinton.

All so he could keep his job and help he and his Obama Cromies cover up their illicit activities.

Little room for doubt. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law and make them an example for all to see.

Was Lynch coordinating with Comey in the Clinton investigation?

Prosecute them for what law?

Title and Chapter, please.

Unless you're full of shit, of course.

Obstruction of Justice for starters. But that seems sort of obvious. Don't you think?

There are at least 6 different sections of the US Code that address what could be called "Obstruction of Justice". Which are you referring to?

18 USC 1503 springs immediately to mind. Though a case can be made for 18 USC 1505 as well based on the 33,000 deleted emails while under subpoena.

Ok, we'll start with 1503.

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or 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, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

Do you have evidence of these "threats" or "force"? Who do you believe threatened who? What juror or officer of the court are you referring to?

1505 is essentially the same thing, except for administrative or congressional investigations. Same questions as above.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You know quack it's funny how they get away with this, yet no republican or Democrat wants to make a law against it..

Why is that because maybe it could back fire on them?

Make a law against what?

Conspiracy? You want to play everything is fair game as long as you follow the law that's what we used to do in jail..

No difference.

I don't know what you're babbling about. Could you try again, in English this time?

I don't speak rap, sorry now address my retort and use critical thinking skills and don't play the spelling and grammar game..


It makes you look stupid.

What "retort" do you think that you've made?

The one you refuse to address.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What I know is that our laws - particularly our criminal laws - are very specifically written in statute to enumerate the exact elements of a crime that need to be proven.

I asked for the Title and Chapter of the law you guys believe was broken. This is what I was given.

Can you make an argument that any actions of Lynch, Comey, either Clinton, or anyone else involved meets those elements?

It depends on what was said on the clinton-lynch tarmac meeting.

So, you don't have any actual evidence that a crime was committed, you just have a narrative that you've come up with.

This was comey:
"I'm not picking on the attorney general, Loretta Lynch, who I like very much, but her meeting with President Clinton on that airplane was the capper for me," he said. "And I then said, 'You know what? The department cannot, by itself, credibly end this."

It depends on what was said. Was comey privy to their tarmac meeting? One can easily deduce that it was about some emails. It depends on what comey knew and what he didn't disseminate or disclose.

Comey was referring to the optics of the meeting, not the content of it.

As for what was said, we can't "deduce" anything - what you're doing is coming up with a story, and then saying "that sounds believable".

I don't have a story or narrative. Yes, conclusions based on a perceived notion is not proof. But again, it depends on what comey knew from lynch. Oh, one other thing, you don't have to put quotes around my words. Thats junior high stuff.

When I put quotes around your words, it's usually my way of indicating that I believe you're using those words incorrectly.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Little room for doubt. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law and make them an example for all to see.

Was Lynch coordinating with Comey in the Clinton investigation?

Prosecute them for what law?

Title and Chapter, please.

Unless you're full of shit, of course.

I don't know the exact law of the FBI attempting to interfere in the national election of the President. What was that treason statute number again?