Why obstruction and cover-up charges smack of desperation

[BULLDOG]

Face it, the left would be having a shitfit regardless. They are deranged by their hatred and their lemming-like trek behind their deranged, so-called leadership. Whether guilty, or not, President Trump will face rabid, unreasonable opposition. He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't so what does it matter whether he protests his innocence?

Trying to illegally shut down an investigation is not just protesting his innocence. You don't get that?

No, because I am not wholly owned by the leftist machine and I certainly don't buy into the current leftard/socialist narrative. But you obviously are and do, so...carry on.

So under what circumstances do you think investigation of a president is acceptable? Should Nixon have been able to shut down the Watergate investigation? He said he was innocent too.

when there's an honest basis for his crime. your saying THIS IS HONEST so far has not turned up ANYTHING to show there was ever an issue to investigate.

so to counter your question - at what point are INVESTIGATIONS *not* an investigation but merely any method possible to oust an elected president?

NOTHING was found to warrant the investigation. NOTHING. but we have found a lot of strange behaviors on those who conducted it that are NOT normal of ANY investigation. this OBSTRUCTION would be fine except going for it clearly shows the utter failure of ANY russian collusion.

so - the left needs to know crying INVESTIGATE w/o a proper basis to call for one is bullshit. now you can hand me benghazi but we have an event to question, not theory and maybe. we also had those being investigated deleting evidence and the like.

when someone does that, investigate. but to make up bullshit to just scream about is so kavanaugh and last year. that path needs to be shut down before we go irreversibly out of control.

Plenty of reason to investigate. There is no reason to doubt Russia interfered in our elections, only a fool would doubt that. Many of Trump's campaign committee were proven to have had extensive contact with Putin connected actors, and repeatedly lied about that contact. It would have been a dereliction of duty not to investigate.

 

[B. Kidd]

Why obstruction and cover-up charges smack of desperation

we have point and counter point from sharyl attkisson. of course she doesn't take a side but just explains how each point of view could play out.

trump haters hate her also because she doesn't join in so please spare met he RIGHT WING SHILL crap.

only thing i can hope for are people who cry OBSTRUCTION will put their "i must be right" goggles down and consider other reasons for actions that also make sense.

-----
If you were a person of some authority and murdered someone, and prosecutors set out to investigate, and if you spoke publicly against the investigation, proclaiming your innocence and calling the probe a “witch hunt,” and if you worked behind the scenes to use your influence to fire the lead investigator on the murder case — that would seem to be a pretty clear case of obstruction of justice. You, as a guilty man, would be trying to stop authorities from finding out the truth.

But imagine, on the other hand, that you are innocent — accused of a murder you didn’t commit. Not only that, imagine you knew there was no murder to begin with because you saw the victim walking around after the supposed murder. Then, imagine you found yourself the target of the murder investigation by a team that included people who had declared you to be their sworn enemy and expressed strong desires to take you out. Then, imagine this team that included biased investigators began leaking false information to the national media to implicate you in this crime that you knew you didn’t commit.
-----
so if you didn't commit these crimes, would you not defend yourself along the way?

the left is not listening to reason - only hate. if you feel otherwise please show me examples of giving trump the benefit of doubt as say hillary or obama. if you do the WELL HILLARY AND OBAMA DIDN'T GET IT then you are simply telling me this is about revenge to you, not right or wrong and ending the hate.

A distinction without a difference. It's obstruction in either case. Guilt is not a statutory requirement.
Mueller outlined all of the elements required for obstruction. At least four of the ten instances outlined by Mueller met all of the elements.

You speak the truth but Trumpers see their DICTATOR as a 'God' that has all power over all beings.

Lord 'God' Trump is above ANY & ALL law.

Trump has 6 more years of power over your lumpenproletariat ass.
Sleep well.

 

[BULLDOG]

Why obstruction and cover-up charges smack of desperation

we have point and counter point from sharyl attkisson. of course she doesn't take a side but just explains how each point of view could play out.

trump haters hate her also because she doesn't join in so please spare met he RIGHT WING SHILL crap.

only thing i can hope for are people who cry OBSTRUCTION will put their "i must be right" goggles down and consider other reasons for actions that also make sense.

-----
If you were a person of some authority and murdered someone, and prosecutors set out to investigate, and if you spoke publicly against the investigation, proclaiming your innocence and calling the probe a “witch hunt,” and if you worked behind the scenes to use your influence to fire the lead investigator on the murder case — that would seem to be a pretty clear case of obstruction of justice. You, as a guilty man, would be trying to stop authorities from finding out the truth.

But imagine, on the other hand, that you are innocent — accused of a murder you didn’t commit. Not only that, imagine you knew there was no murder to begin with because you saw the victim walking around after the supposed murder. Then, imagine you found yourself the target of the murder investigation by a team that included people who had declared you to be their sworn enemy and expressed strong desires to take you out. Then, imagine this team that included biased investigators began leaking false information to the national media to implicate you in this crime that you knew you didn’t commit.
-----
so if you didn't commit these crimes, would you not defend yourself along the way?

the left is not listening to reason - only hate. if you feel otherwise please show me examples of giving trump the benefit of doubt as say hillary or obama. if you do the WELL HILLARY AND OBAMA DIDN'T GET IT then you are simply telling me this is about revenge to you, not right or wrong and ending the hate.

Our laws provide ways to defend yourself. The subject of an investigation trying to shut it down just because he thinks he can is not an acceptable defense. He's president, not king. The laws apply to him too.

Trumpers however do NOT agree that their DICTATOR should have to abide by the law, just like the peasants do.

when you can speak intelligently about issues people may listen. til then you're just an angry 12 year old calling people names to satisfy your own stupidity.

So do you think Trump should abide by the law, or not?

 

[caddo kid]

If you knew you were innocent, why would you continue to waste other people's money to fuel your enemy's witch hunt?

I have asked MANY people that exact same question; why would an innocent person act so guilty, at every step of the investigation, such as Trump did?

Trump supporters just act like a bunch of fucking third graders saying shit like, 'well, if you were being investigated you would be mad too.'

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

to quote your hero then - "what difference does it all make now?"

i missed you bitching at hillary and her "i do not recall" record answers and her own games she played around being under inves...oh wait - they had to call it a "matter" do you'd not freak out.

If you could type something sensible I could reply but your nonsensical drivel is nothing more than first grade level bull shit.
I could converse with someone that can actually utilize language but you obviously failed English class.

 

[caddo kid]

Why obstruction and cover-up charges smack of desperation

we have point and counter point from sharyl attkisson. of course she doesn't take a side but just explains how each point of view could play out.

trump haters hate her also because she doesn't join in so please spare met he RIGHT WING SHILL crap.

only thing i can hope for are people who cry OBSTRUCTION will put their "i must be right" goggles down and consider other reasons for actions that also make sense.

-----
If you were a person of some authority and murdered someone, and prosecutors set out to investigate, and if you spoke publicly against the investigation, proclaiming your innocence and calling the probe a “witch hunt,” and if you worked behind the scenes to use your influence to fire the lead investigator on the murder case — that would seem to be a pretty clear case of obstruction of justice. You, as a guilty man, would be trying to stop authorities from finding out the truth.

But imagine, on the other hand, that you are innocent — accused of a murder you didn’t commit. Not only that, imagine you knew there was no murder to begin with because you saw the victim walking around after the supposed murder. Then, imagine you found yourself the target of the murder investigation by a team that included people who had declared you to be their sworn enemy and expressed strong desires to take you out. Then, imagine this team that included biased investigators began leaking false information to the national media to implicate you in this crime that you knew you didn’t commit.
-----
so if you didn't commit these crimes, would you not defend yourself along the way?

the left is not listening to reason - only hate. if you feel otherwise please show me examples of giving trump the benefit of doubt as say hillary or obama. if you do the WELL HILLARY AND OBAMA DIDN'T GET IT then you are simply telling me this is about revenge to you, not right or wrong and ending the hate.

A distinction without a difference. It's obstruction in either case. Guilt is not a statutory requirement.
Mueller outlined all of the elements required for obstruction. At least four of the ten instances outlined by Mueller met all of the elements.

You speak the truth but Trumpers see their DICTATOR as a 'God' that has all power over all beings.

Lord 'God' Trump is above ANY & ALL law.

Trump has 6 more years of power over your lumpenproletariat ass.
Sleep well.

So, you imply Trump is a rapist; I'm already quite aware that Trump has admitted to sexual assault.

Nothing NEW here in your assessment of rapist Trump.

 

[caddo kid]

Why obstruction and cover-up charges smack of desperation

we have point and counter point from sharyl attkisson. of course she doesn't take a side but just explains how each point of view could play out.

trump haters hate her also because she doesn't join in so please spare met he RIGHT WING SHILL crap.

only thing i can hope for are people who cry OBSTRUCTION will put their "i must be right" goggles down and consider other reasons for actions that also make sense.

-----
If you were a person of some authority and murdered someone, and prosecutors set out to investigate, and if you spoke publicly against the investigation, proclaiming your innocence and calling the probe a “witch hunt,” and if you worked behind the scenes to use your influence to fire the lead investigator on the murder case — that would seem to be a pretty clear case of obstruction of justice. You, as a guilty man, would be trying to stop authorities from finding out the truth.

But imagine, on the other hand, that you are innocent — accused of a murder you didn’t commit. Not only that, imagine you knew there was no murder to begin with because you saw the victim walking around after the supposed murder. Then, imagine you found yourself the target of the murder investigation by a team that included people who had declared you to be their sworn enemy and expressed strong desires to take you out. Then, imagine this team that included biased investigators began leaking false information to the national media to implicate you in this crime that you knew you didn’t commit.
-----
so if you didn't commit these crimes, would you not defend yourself along the way?

the left is not listening to reason - only hate. if you feel otherwise please show me examples of giving trump the benefit of doubt as say hillary or obama. if you do the WELL HILLARY AND OBAMA DIDN'T GET IT then you are simply telling me this is about revenge to you, not right or wrong and ending the hate.

Our laws provide ways to defend yourself. The subject of an investigation trying to shut it down just because he thinks he can is not an acceptable defense. He's president, not king. The laws apply to him too.

Trumpers however do NOT agree that their DICTATOR should have to abide by the law, just like the peasants do.

when you can speak intelligently about issues people may listen. til then you're just an angry 12 year old calling people names to satisfy your own stupidity.

So do you think Trump should abide by the law, or not?

There is not a single Trumper that believes their little devil should abide by any single law, period.

To every Trumper, Trump is above the law & he is.

 

[iceberg]

Face it, the left would be having a shitfit regardless. They are deranged by their hatred and their lemming-like trek behind their deranged, so-called leadership. Whether guilty, or not, President Trump will face rabid, unreasonable opposition. He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't so what does it matter whether he protests his innocence?

Trying to illegally shut down an investigation is not just protesting his innocence. You don't get that?

No, because I am not wholly owned by the leftist machine and I certainly don't buy into the current leftard/socialist narrative. But you obviously are and do, so...carry on.

So under what circumstances do you think investigation of a president is acceptable? Should Nixon have been able to shut down the Watergate investigation? He said he was innocent too.

when there's an honest basis for his crime. your saying THIS IS HONEST so far has not turned up ANYTHING to show there was ever an issue to investigate.

so to counter your question - at what point are INVESTIGATIONS *not* an investigation but merely any method possible to oust an elected president?

NOTHING was found to warrant the investigation. NOTHING. but we have found a lot of strange behaviors on those who conducted it that are NOT normal of ANY investigation. this OBSTRUCTION would be fine except going for it clearly shows the utter failure of ANY russian collusion.

so - the left needs to know crying INVESTIGATE w/o a proper basis to call for one is bullshit. now you can hand me benghazi but we have an event to question, not theory and maybe. we also had those being investigated deleting evidence and the like.

when someone does that, investigate. but to make up bullshit to just scream about is so kavanaugh and last year. that path needs to be shut down before we go irreversibly out of control.

Plenty of reason to investigate. There is no reason to doubt Russia interfered in our elections, only a fool would doubt that. Many of Trump's campaign committee were proven to have had extensive contact with Putin connected actors, and repeatedly lied about that contact. It would have been a dereliction of duty not to investigate.

and hillary completely lied about her e-mail use and classified info.

i missed your common core rage there.

 

[B. Kidd]

Why obstruction and cover-up charges smack of desperation

we have point and counter point from sharyl attkisson. of course she doesn't take a side but just explains how each point of view could play out.

trump haters hate her also because she doesn't join in so please spare met he RIGHT WING SHILL crap.

only thing i can hope for are people who cry OBSTRUCTION will put their "i must be right" goggles down and consider other reasons for actions that also make sense.

-----
If you were a person of some authority and murdered someone, and prosecutors set out to investigate, and if you spoke publicly against the investigation, proclaiming your innocence and calling the probe a “witch hunt,” and if you worked behind the scenes to use your influence to fire the lead investigator on the murder case — that would seem to be a pretty clear case of obstruction of justice. You, as a guilty man, would be trying to stop authorities from finding out the truth.

But imagine, on the other hand, that you are innocent — accused of a murder you didn’t commit. Not only that, imagine you knew there was no murder to begin with because you saw the victim walking around after the supposed murder. Then, imagine you found yourself the target of the murder investigation by a team that included people who had declared you to be their sworn enemy and expressed strong desires to take you out. Then, imagine this team that included biased investigators began leaking false information to the national media to implicate you in this crime that you knew you didn’t commit.
-----
so if you didn't commit these crimes, would you not defend yourself along the way?

the left is not listening to reason - only hate. if you feel otherwise please show me examples of giving trump the benefit of doubt as say hillary or obama. if you do the WELL HILLARY AND OBAMA DIDN'T GET IT then you are simply telling me this is about revenge to you, not right or wrong and ending the hate.

Our laws provide ways to defend yourself. The subject of an investigation trying to shut it down just because he thinks he can is not an acceptable defense. He's president, not king. The laws apply to him too.

Trumpers however do NOT agree that their DICTATOR should have to abide by the law, just like the peasants do.

when you can speak intelligently about issues people may listen. til then you're just an angry 12 year old calling people names to satisfy your own stupidity.

So do you think Trump should abide by the law, or not?

There is not a single Trumper that believes their little devil should abide by any single law, period.

To every Trumper, Trump is above the law & he is.

Justice is blind; especially when applied to politicized IMAGINARY CRIMES.

 

[iceberg]

If you knew you were innocent, why would you continue to waste other people's money to fuel your enemy's witch hunt?

I have asked MANY people that exact same question; why would an innocent person act so guilty, at every step of the investigation, such as Trump did?

Trump supporters just act like a bunch of fucking third graders saying shit like, 'well, if you were being investigated you would be mad too.'

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

to quote your hero then - "what difference does it all make now?"

i missed you bitching at hillary and her "i do not recall" record answers and her own games she played around being under inves...oh wait - they had to call it a "matter" do you'd not freak out.

If you could type something sensible I could reply but your nonsensical drivel is nothing more than first grade level bull shit.
I could converse with someone that can actually utilize language but you obviously failed English class.

sorry - the most i can do is dumb myself down to around the 4th grade level. you'll need to catch up.

 

[iceberg]

Why obstruction and cover-up charges smack of desperation

we have point and counter point from sharyl attkisson. of course she doesn't take a side but just explains how each point of view could play out.

trump haters hate her also because she doesn't join in so please spare met he RIGHT WING SHILL crap.

only thing i can hope for are people who cry OBSTRUCTION will put their "i must be right" goggles down and consider other reasons for actions that also make sense.

-----
If you were a person of some authority and murdered someone, and prosecutors set out to investigate, and if you spoke publicly against the investigation, proclaiming your innocence and calling the probe a “witch hunt,” and if you worked behind the scenes to use your influence to fire the lead investigator on the murder case — that would seem to be a pretty clear case of obstruction of justice. You, as a guilty man, would be trying to stop authorities from finding out the truth.

But imagine, on the other hand, that you are innocent — accused of a murder you didn’t commit. Not only that, imagine you knew there was no murder to begin with because you saw the victim walking around after the supposed murder. Then, imagine you found yourself the target of the murder investigation by a team that included people who had declared you to be their sworn enemy and expressed strong desires to take you out. Then, imagine this team that included biased investigators began leaking false information to the national media to implicate you in this crime that you knew you didn’t commit.
-----
so if you didn't commit these crimes, would you not defend yourself along the way?

the left is not listening to reason - only hate. if you feel otherwise please show me examples of giving trump the benefit of doubt as say hillary or obama. if you do the WELL HILLARY AND OBAMA DIDN'T GET IT then you are simply telling me this is about revenge to you, not right or wrong and ending the hate.

Our laws provide ways to defend yourself. The subject of an investigation trying to shut it down just because he thinks he can is not an acceptable defense. He's president, not king. The laws apply to him too.

Trumpers however do NOT agree that their DICTATOR should have to abide by the law, just like the peasants do.

when you can speak intelligently about issues people may listen. til then you're just an angry 12 year old calling people names to satisfy your own stupidity.

So do you think Trump should abide by the law, or not?

i believe everyone should. if he was found guilty of ANYTHING that he was accused of, there would then be merit for said investigation. but all we got are sideshow bobs and "crimes" not even related to russia.

oh and OBSTRUCTION now for a crime that was proven to not have happened.

when you can apply the law evenly, i'll pay more attention to what you say.

 

[iceberg]

and of course the one thing i asked of the "haters" that they at least put bias aside and ask "would an innocent man act as she described" but as usual, the left can't fathom that so we go straight to ORANGE MAN BAD!!!

 

[BULLDOG]

Trying to illegally shut down an investigation is not just protesting his innocence. You don't get that?

No, because I am not wholly owned by the leftist machine and I certainly don't buy into the current leftard/socialist narrative. But you obviously are and do, so...carry on.

So under what circumstances do you think investigation of a president is acceptable? Should Nixon have been able to shut down the Watergate investigation? He said he was innocent too.

when there's an honest basis for his crime. your saying THIS IS HONEST so far has not turned up ANYTHING to show there was ever an issue to investigate.

so to counter your question - at what point are INVESTIGATIONS *not* an investigation but merely any method possible to oust an elected president?

NOTHING was found to warrant the investigation. NOTHING. but we have found a lot of strange behaviors on those who conducted it that are NOT normal of ANY investigation. this OBSTRUCTION would be fine except going for it clearly shows the utter failure of ANY russian collusion.

so - the left needs to know crying INVESTIGATE w/o a proper basis to call for one is bullshit. now you can hand me benghazi but we have an event to question, not theory and maybe. we also had those being investigated deleting evidence and the like.

when someone does that, investigate. but to make up bullshit to just scream about is so kavanaugh and last year. that path needs to be shut down before we go irreversibly out of control.

Plenty of reason to investigate. There is no reason to doubt Russia interfered in our elections, only a fool would doubt that. Many of Trump's campaign committee were proven to have had extensive contact with Putin connected actors, and repeatedly lied about that contact. It would have been a dereliction of duty not to investigate.

and hillary completely lied about her e-mail use and classified info.

i missed your common core rage there.

Really? You already ran out of Hannity talking points, so you have to rely on yet another "BUT HILLARY" post? You know that will just get you laughed at, and won't change the subject anyway, don't you?

 

[BULLDOG]

Why obstruction and cover-up charges smack of desperation

we have point and counter point from sharyl attkisson. of course she doesn't take a side but just explains how each point of view could play out.

trump haters hate her also because she doesn't join in so please spare met he RIGHT WING SHILL crap.

only thing i can hope for are people who cry OBSTRUCTION will put their "i must be right" goggles down and consider other reasons for actions that also make sense.

-----
If you were a person of some authority and murdered someone, and prosecutors set out to investigate, and if you spoke publicly against the investigation, proclaiming your innocence and calling the probe a “witch hunt,” and if you worked behind the scenes to use your influence to fire the lead investigator on the murder case — that would seem to be a pretty clear case of obstruction of justice. You, as a guilty man, would be trying to stop authorities from finding out the truth.

But imagine, on the other hand, that you are innocent — accused of a murder you didn’t commit. Not only that, imagine you knew there was no murder to begin with because you saw the victim walking around after the supposed murder. Then, imagine you found yourself the target of the murder investigation by a team that included people who had declared you to be their sworn enemy and expressed strong desires to take you out. Then, imagine this team that included biased investigators began leaking false information to the national media to implicate you in this crime that you knew you didn’t commit.
-----
so if you didn't commit these crimes, would you not defend yourself along the way?

the left is not listening to reason - only hate. if you feel otherwise please show me examples of giving trump the benefit of doubt as say hillary or obama. if you do the WELL HILLARY AND OBAMA DIDN'T GET IT then you are simply telling me this is about revenge to you, not right or wrong and ending the hate.

Our laws provide ways to defend yourself. The subject of an investigation trying to shut it down just because he thinks he can is not an acceptable defense. He's president, not king. The laws apply to him too.

Trumpers however do NOT agree that their DICTATOR should have to abide by the law, just like the peasants do.

when you can speak intelligently about issues people may listen. til then you're just an angry 12 year old calling people names to satisfy your own stupidity.

So do you think Trump should abide by the law, or not?

i believe everyone should. if he was found guilty of ANYTHING that he was accused of, there would then be merit for said investigation. but all we got are sideshow bobs and "crimes" not even related to russia.

oh and OBSTRUCTION now for a crime that was proven to not have happened.

when you can apply the law evenly, i'll pay more attention to what you say.

You took Barr's word for what was in the report instead of reading it for yourself. Lots of examples of Trump's obstruction in the report. Read it.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Why obstruction and cover-up charges smack of desperation

we have point and counter point from sharyl attkisson. of course she doesn't take a side but just explains how each point of view could play out.

trump haters hate her also because she doesn't join in so please spare met he RIGHT WING SHILL crap.

only thing i can hope for are people who cry OBSTRUCTION will put their "i must be right" goggles down and consider other reasons for actions that also make sense.

-----
If you were a person of some authority and murdered someone, and prosecutors set out to investigate, and if you spoke publicly against the investigation, proclaiming your innocence and calling the probe a “witch hunt,” and if you worked behind the scenes to use your influence to fire the lead investigator on the murder case — that would seem to be a pretty clear case of obstruction of justice. You, as a guilty man, would be trying to stop authorities from finding out the truth.

But imagine, on the other hand, that you are innocent — accused of a murder you didn’t commit. Not only that, imagine you knew there was no murder to begin with because you saw the victim walking around after the supposed murder. Then, imagine you found yourself the target of the murder investigation by a team that included people who had declared you to be their sworn enemy and expressed strong desires to take you out. Then, imagine this team that included biased investigators began leaking false information to the national media to implicate you in this crime that you knew you didn’t commit.
-----
so if you didn't commit these crimes, would you not defend yourself along the way?

the left is not listening to reason - only hate. if you feel otherwise please show me examples of giving trump the benefit of doubt as say hillary or obama. if you do the WELL HILLARY AND OBAMA DIDN'T GET IT then you are simply telling me this is about revenge to you, not right or wrong and ending the hate.

Our laws provide ways to defend yourself. The subject of an investigation trying to shut it down just because he thinks he can is not an acceptable defense. He's president, not king. The laws apply to him too.

Trumpers however do NOT agree that their DICTATOR should have to abide by the law, just like the peasants do.

Where's your outrage against Congress? Their psychotic investigations are intended, in part, to mask their own criminal activities. But you seem to give Congress a pass when it comes to wrong-doing. Why is that?

 

[iceberg]

No, because I am not wholly owned by the leftist machine and I certainly don't buy into the current leftard/socialist narrative. But you obviously are and do, so...carry on.

So under what circumstances do you think investigation of a president is acceptable? Should Nixon have been able to shut down the Watergate investigation? He said he was innocent too.

when there's an honest basis for his crime. your saying THIS IS HONEST so far has not turned up ANYTHING to show there was ever an issue to investigate.

so to counter your question - at what point are INVESTIGATIONS *not* an investigation but merely any method possible to oust an elected president?

NOTHING was found to warrant the investigation. NOTHING. but we have found a lot of strange behaviors on those who conducted it that are NOT normal of ANY investigation. this OBSTRUCTION would be fine except going for it clearly shows the utter failure of ANY russian collusion.

so - the left needs to know crying INVESTIGATE w/o a proper basis to call for one is bullshit. now you can hand me benghazi but we have an event to question, not theory and maybe. we also had those being investigated deleting evidence and the like.

when someone does that, investigate. but to make up bullshit to just scream about is so kavanaugh and last year. that path needs to be shut down before we go irreversibly out of control.

Plenty of reason to investigate. There is no reason to doubt Russia interfered in our elections, only a fool would doubt that. Many of Trump's campaign committee were proven to have had extensive contact with Putin connected actors, and repeatedly lied about that contact. It would have been a dereliction of duty not to investigate.

and hillary completely lied about her e-mail use and classified info.

i missed your common core rage there.

Really? You already ran out of Hannity talking points, so you have to rely on yet another "BUT HILLARY" post? You know that will just get you laughed at, and won't change the subject anyway, don't you?

ok - here's where i say fuck off cause i don't watch hannity, maddow, tucker or any of the pundits. when the best you can do is this crap, you've got nothing to say and anything i say you're going to attrib to your biggest fears and pretend i'm a dumbass who can't make their own points.

later on hos.

 

[iceberg]

Our laws provide ways to defend yourself. The subject of an investigation trying to shut it down just because he thinks he can is not an acceptable defense. He's president, not king. The laws apply to him too.

Trumpers however do NOT agree that their DICTATOR should have to abide by the law, just like the peasants do.

when you can speak intelligently about issues people may listen. til then you're just an angry 12 year old calling people names to satisfy your own stupidity.

So do you think Trump should abide by the law, or not?

i believe everyone should. if he was found guilty of ANYTHING that he was accused of, there would then be merit for said investigation. but all we got are sideshow bobs and "crimes" not even related to russia.

oh and OBSTRUCTION now for a crime that was proven to not have happened.

when you can apply the law evenly, i'll pay more attention to what you say.

You took Barr's word for what was in the report instead of reading it for yourself. Lots of examples of Trump's obstruction in the report. Read it.

then as people say about the FBI not going after hillary - how come no one is going after trump except the left who continues to refuse to accept outcomes they don't like?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Why obstruction and cover-up charges smack of desperation

we have point and counter point from sharyl attkisson. of course she doesn't take a side but just explains how each point of view could play out.

trump haters hate her also because she doesn't join in so please spare met he RIGHT WING SHILL crap.

only thing i can hope for are people who cry OBSTRUCTION will put their "i must be right" goggles down and consider other reasons for actions that also make sense.

-----
If you were a person of some authority and murdered someone, and prosecutors set out to investigate, and if you spoke publicly against the investigation, proclaiming your innocence and calling the probe a “witch hunt,” and if you worked behind the scenes to use your influence to fire the lead investigator on the murder case — that would seem to be a pretty clear case of obstruction of justice. You, as a guilty man, would be trying to stop authorities from finding out the truth.

But imagine, on the other hand, that you are innocent — accused of a murder you didn’t commit. Not only that, imagine you knew there was no murder to begin with because you saw the victim walking around after the supposed murder. Then, imagine you found yourself the target of the murder investigation by a team that included people who had declared you to be their sworn enemy and expressed strong desires to take you out. Then, imagine this team that included biased investigators began leaking false information to the national media to implicate you in this crime that you knew you didn’t commit.
-----
so if you didn't commit these crimes, would you not defend yourself along the way?

the left is not listening to reason - only hate. if you feel otherwise please show me examples of giving trump the benefit of doubt as say hillary or obama. if you do the WELL HILLARY AND OBAMA DIDN'T GET IT then you are simply telling me this is about revenge to you, not right or wrong and ending the hate.

Our laws provide ways to defend yourself. The subject of an investigation trying to shut it down just because he thinks he can is not an acceptable defense. He's president, not king. The laws apply to him too.

Trumpers however do NOT agree that their DICTATOR should have to abide by the law, just like the peasants do.

when you can speak intelligently about issues people may listen. til then you're just an angry 12 year old calling people names to satisfy your own stupidity.

So do you think Trump should abide by the law, or not?

Perhaps he should abide by the laws using the same criteria that Congressional representatives use. They are fine, upstanding, law-abiding citizens, I'm sure...
Not only should he abide by the law as the Congressional reps do, he should be held equally accountable!

 

[caddo kid]

Why obstruction and cover-up charges smack of desperation

we have point and counter point from sharyl attkisson. of course she doesn't take a side but just explains how each point of view could play out.

trump haters hate her also because she doesn't join in so please spare met he RIGHT WING SHILL crap.

only thing i can hope for are people who cry OBSTRUCTION will put their "i must be right" goggles down and consider other reasons for actions that also make sense.

-----
If you were a person of some authority and murdered someone, and prosecutors set out to investigate, and if you spoke publicly against the investigation, proclaiming your innocence and calling the probe a “witch hunt,” and if you worked behind the scenes to use your influence to fire the lead investigator on the murder case — that would seem to be a pretty clear case of obstruction of justice. You, as a guilty man, would be trying to stop authorities from finding out the truth.

But imagine, on the other hand, that you are innocent — accused of a murder you didn’t commit. Not only that, imagine you knew there was no murder to begin with because you saw the victim walking around after the supposed murder. Then, imagine you found yourself the target of the murder investigation by a team that included people who had declared you to be their sworn enemy and expressed strong desires to take you out. Then, imagine this team that included biased investigators began leaking false information to the national media to implicate you in this crime that you knew you didn’t commit.
-----
so if you didn't commit these crimes, would you not defend yourself along the way?

the left is not listening to reason - only hate. if you feel otherwise please show me examples of giving trump the benefit of doubt as say hillary or obama. if you do the WELL HILLARY AND OBAMA DIDN'T GET IT then you are simply telling me this is about revenge to you, not right or wrong and ending the hate.

Our laws provide ways to defend yourself. The subject of an investigation trying to shut it down just because he thinks he can is not an acceptable defense. He's president, not king. The laws apply to him too.

Trumpers however do NOT agree that their DICTATOR should have to abide by the law, just like the peasants do.

Where's your outrage against Congress? Their psychotic investigations are intended, in part, to mask their own criminal activities. But you seem to give Congress a pass when it comes to wrong-doing. Why is that?

I assume you are referring to the Congressional responsibility of oversight?
If that is what you speak of, that is a function they are charged with.
What is your (specific) beef with Congress?

 

[BULLDOG]

So under what circumstances do you think investigation of a president is acceptable? Should Nixon have been able to shut down the Watergate investigation? He said he was innocent too.

when there's an honest basis for his crime. your saying THIS IS HONEST so far has not turned up ANYTHING to show there was ever an issue to investigate.

so to counter your question - at what point are INVESTIGATIONS *not* an investigation but merely any method possible to oust an elected president?

NOTHING was found to warrant the investigation. NOTHING. but we have found a lot of strange behaviors on those who conducted it that are NOT normal of ANY investigation. this OBSTRUCTION would be fine except going for it clearly shows the utter failure of ANY russian collusion.

so - the left needs to know crying INVESTIGATE w/o a proper basis to call for one is bullshit. now you can hand me benghazi but we have an event to question, not theory and maybe. we also had those being investigated deleting evidence and the like.

when someone does that, investigate. but to make up bullshit to just scream about is so kavanaugh and last year. that path needs to be shut down before we go irreversibly out of control.

Plenty of reason to investigate. There is no reason to doubt Russia interfered in our elections, only a fool would doubt that. Many of Trump's campaign committee were proven to have had extensive contact with Putin connected actors, and repeatedly lied about that contact. It would have been a dereliction of duty not to investigate.

and hillary completely lied about her e-mail use and classified info.

i missed your common core rage there.

Really? You already ran out of Hannity talking points, so you have to rely on yet another "BUT HILLARY" post? You know that will just get you laughed at, and won't change the subject anyway, don't you?

ok - here's where i say fuck off cause i don't watch hannity, maddow, tucker or any of the pundits. when the best you can do is this crap, you've got nothing to say and anything i say you're going to attrib to your biggest fears and pretend i'm a dumbass who can't make their own points.

later on hos.

I understand. You have to say "BUT HILLARY" so many times a day, and there never seems to be a good place to do it, so you just throw it out there and hope for the best. I feel your pain.

 

[iceberg]

Why obstruction and cover-up charges smack of desperation

we have point and counter point from sharyl attkisson. of course she doesn't take a side but just explains how each point of view could play out.

trump haters hate her also because she doesn't join in so please spare met he RIGHT WING SHILL crap.

only thing i can hope for are people who cry OBSTRUCTION will put their "i must be right" goggles down and consider other reasons for actions that also make sense.

-----
If you were a person of some authority and murdered someone, and prosecutors set out to investigate, and if you spoke publicly against the investigation, proclaiming your innocence and calling the probe a “witch hunt,” and if you worked behind the scenes to use your influence to fire the lead investigator on the murder case — that would seem to be a pretty clear case of obstruction of justice. You, as a guilty man, would be trying to stop authorities from finding out the truth.

But imagine, on the other hand, that you are innocent — accused of a murder you didn’t commit. Not only that, imagine you knew there was no murder to begin with because you saw the victim walking around after the supposed murder. Then, imagine you found yourself the target of the murder investigation by a team that included people who had declared you to be their sworn enemy and expressed strong desires to take you out. Then, imagine this team that included biased investigators began leaking false information to the national media to implicate you in this crime that you knew you didn’t commit.
-----
so if you didn't commit these crimes, would you not defend yourself along the way?

the left is not listening to reason - only hate. if you feel otherwise please show me examples of giving trump the benefit of doubt as say hillary or obama. if you do the WELL HILLARY AND OBAMA DIDN'T GET IT then you are simply telling me this is about revenge to you, not right or wrong and ending the hate.

Our laws provide ways to defend yourself. The subject of an investigation trying to shut it down just because he thinks he can is not an acceptable defense. He's president, not king. The laws apply to him too.

Trumpers however do NOT agree that their DICTATOR should have to abide by the law, just like the peasants do.

when you can speak intelligently about issues people may listen. til then you're just an angry 12 year old calling people names to satisfy your own stupidity.

So do you think Trump should abide by the law, or not?

Perhaps he should abide by the laws using the same criteria that Congressional representatives use. They are fine, upstanding, law-abiding citizens, I'm sure...
Not only should he abide by the law as the Congressional reps do, he should be held equally accountable!

no one should be above the law. but to say SOMEONE BROKE THE LAW every time you don't like someone and force an investigation - well that only carries as far as your credibility and for the left, that is shot.

what needs to end are these constant investigations and politics of revenge where we do it again cause the last guy had it done to them. if the left is using this as a political weapon also, like spying is turning out to be illegal and a weapon, then they need to pay the price for breaking the law and trying to unseat an elected President.

if / when trump breaks the law - punish him by whatever is common for that. or just say "he didn't intend to" and let it go. that precedent has also now been established.