Why obstruction and cover-up charges smack of desperation

[iceberg]

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.

like TRUMP BROKE LAWS - doesn't matter nothing has been proven, you're sure it's true so you demand action until you get emotionally satisfied.

i feel your dumbassness.

 

[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?

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?

Your ass-umption would be quite wrong. But your narrative-driven comments and obtuse refusal to entertain any other information is informative.
And if you cannot understand my beef with Congress, you are even more blindly obedient to your libtard/socialist masters than even I imagined. Congress has far more important jobs than "oversight" directed as a political weapon against a President they don't like because he doesn't toe their line and perform daily obeisance to their whims.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

I agree.

 

[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?

Your ass-umption would be quite wrong. But your narrative-driven comments and obtuse refusal to entertain any other information is informative.
And if you cannot understand my beef with Congress, you are even more blindly obedient to your libtard/socialist masters than even I imagined. Congress has far more important jobs than "oversight" directed as a political weapon against a President they don't like because he doesn't toe their line and perform daily obeisance to their whims.

This is your quote; I replied to it:
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?

When I replied I made three statements.
Two of my statements were questions; why?
Because I was interested in having a better understanding of what your concern was.

Well, since you want to be all 'Johnny bad ass' you can now go fuck yourself.

Next time you try to obtain information from someone, try being specific in your request, because I don't have a fucking crystal ball like you have.

 

[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?

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 obviously are TOO IGNORANT in regard to the subject: The below is taken directly from the SC Mueller report.

Second, many obstruction cases involve the attempted or actual cover-up of an underlying crime. Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had an improper obstructive purpose, see, e.g. , United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 1988), or that he contemplated an effect on an official proceeding, see, e.g., United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558, 591 (2d Cir. 2015). But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating, in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that "obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime"). Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.

There you have it folks:
No underlying crime need be proven for an obstruction case to be determined, and/or pursued.

Now, see; you learned something. You're welcome.

 

[easyt65]

'Cover Up'..... OF WHAT?

After 3+ years, 4 investigations, over 100 witnesses interviewed, thousands of documents turned over to the investigators by a compliant WH, a Special Counsel investigation, and a final report - it all resulted in ZERO evidence of any crime that happened involving the President that warranted an investigation and ZERO indictments / convictions for illegal collusion and obstruction.

So WHAT does the Speaker of the House and her fellow Dems claim is being 'COVERED UP'?

When listening to the Speaker claim that the President is involved in a 'Cover-Up', one must remember that SHE is the Speaker of the House (I believe the 1st in US History) to ever hold a vote and successfully lead the House (controlled by the Democrats) in holding the United States Attorney General - the leading Law Enforcement Officer in the United States - in 'Contempt of Congress' for REFUSING TO BREAK THE LAW.

(Quite an 'impressive' historical 'legacy' for Pelosi as Speaker of the House )

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

There is a new "BUT HILLARY" thread just for you.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Endless investigations are common. How long did we investigate Benghazi?

 

[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 obviously are TOO IGNORANT in regard to the subject: The below is taken directly from the SC Mueller report.

Second, many obstruction cases involve the attempted or actual cover-up of an underlying crime. Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had an improper obstructive purpose, see, e.g. , United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 1988), or that he contemplated an effect on an official proceeding, see, e.g., United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558, 591 (2d Cir. 2015). But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating, in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that "obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime"). Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.

There you have it folks:
No underlying crime need be proven for an obstruction case to be determined, and/or pursued.

Now, see; you learned something. You're welcome.

let me know when the FBI beats down Trumps door for this "crime".

And since the left is now showing we can make up shit and demand an investigation then great. I demand we investigate the source of an investigation that came up butkiss.

there. it's been demanded. any attempt to stop this is obstruction on the lefts part and subject to prosecution.

your rules, hos. suck on 'em.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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?

Your ass-umption would be quite wrong. But your narrative-driven comments and obtuse refusal to entertain any other information is informative.
And if you cannot understand my beef with Congress, you are even more blindly obedient to your libtard/socialist masters than even I imagined. Congress has far more important jobs than "oversight" directed as a political weapon against a President they don't like because he doesn't toe their line and perform daily obeisance to their whims.

This is your quote; I replied to it:
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?

When I replied I made three statements.
Two of my statements were questions; why?
Because I was interested in having a better understanding of what your concern was.

Well, since you want to be all 'Johnny bad ass' you can now go fuck yourself.

Next time you try to obtain information from someone, try being specific in your request, because I don't have a fucking crystal ball like you have.

I accept that Congress has a responsibility of oversight. But in the current situation, they have failed to state a specific reason for their requests for information. For example: why is it imperative that they review President Trump's tax and bank records? What exactly are they looking for and why?
My specific beef with Congress is, they have many more important issues to address. Why are they ignoring things that are of more importance to this nation than someone's taxes? How about a balanced budget? How about the failure of our borders? What will they do about the invasion of our country by foreigners? How about medical care for Americans? There are loads of more important (IMHO) issues that NEED desperately to be addressed but this Congress insists on initiating one investigation after another directed at one individual.
I'm pretty SAT of the constant crusade to pillory and crucify one man.

 

[BULLDOG]

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 obviously are TOO IGNORANT in regard to the subject: The below is taken directly from the SC Mueller report.

Second, many obstruction cases involve the attempted or actual cover-up of an underlying crime. Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had an improper obstructive purpose, see, e.g. , United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 1988), or that he contemplated an effect on an official proceeding, see, e.g., United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558, 591 (2d Cir. 2015). But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating, in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that "obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime"). Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.

There you have it folks:
No underlying crime need be proven for an obstruction case to be determined, and/or pursued.

Now, see; you learned something. You're welcome.

let me know when the FBI beats down Trumps door for this "crime".

And since the left is now showing we can make up shit and demand an investigation then great. I demand we investigate the source of an investigation that came up butkiss.

there. it's been demanded. any attempt to stop this is obstruction on the lefts part and subject to prosecution.

your rules, hos. suck on 'em.

An investigation that came up butkiss? You mean like Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi? Or any one of those 25 years of those Clinton investigations?

 

[easyt65]

An investigation that came up butkiss? You mean like Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi?

WHY do you and other Hillary/Obama butt-kissing snowflakes continue to claim nothing was learned / discovered from the Benghazi hearings when it has been proven repeatedly to ne a massive lie?

The more accurate statement is that the Benghazi hearings did not result in any indictments or convictions....which has everything to do with the fact that they were never criminal investigations.

 

[BULLDOG]

An investigation that came up butkiss? You mean like Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi?

WHY do you and other Hillary/Obama butt-kissing snowflakes continue to claim nothing was learned / discovered from the Benghazi hearings when it has been proven repeatedly to ne a massive lie?

The more accurate statement is that the Benghazi hearings did not result in any indictments or convictions....which has everything to do with the fact that they were never criminal investigations.

You're funny.

 

[easyt65]

You're funny.

No, I'm RIGHT.

 

[easyt65]

There is nothing to 'cover-up'.

 

[iceberg]

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 obviously are TOO IGNORANT in regard to the subject: The below is taken directly from the SC Mueller report.

Second, many obstruction cases involve the attempted or actual cover-up of an underlying crime. Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had an improper obstructive purpose, see, e.g. , United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 1988), or that he contemplated an effect on an official proceeding, see, e.g., United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558, 591 (2d Cir. 2015). But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating, in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that "obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime"). Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.

There you have it folks:
No underlying crime need be proven for an obstruction case to be determined, and/or pursued.

Now, see; you learned something. You're welcome.

let me know when the FBI beats down Trumps door for this "crime".

And since the left is now showing we can make up shit and demand an investigation then great. I demand we investigate the source of an investigation that came up butkiss.

there. it's been demanded. any attempt to stop this is obstruction on the lefts part and subject to prosecution.

your rules, hos. suck on 'em.

An investigation that came up butkiss? You mean like Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi? Or any one of those 25 years of those Clinton investigations?

so i see you can "whatabout" but no one else can.

now what? we whatabouteachother for the rest of our lives?

i agree the benghazi investigations got way out of hand. but do we answer that by going way out of hand AGAIN and doing the "hold my beer"? and if you want to keep pointing to this then great - point away.

what i will do from there is to simply say you more or less are saying you don't believe the core purpose of this investigation but you are doing it for revenge only.

when do we all grow up and stop this shit?

 

[sartre play]

We the American public cant get an honest answer about ANYTHING, because the tit for tat, lock step, my way or the highway gangs from each side of the isle continue to act like children playing pretend politics.

 

[BULLDOG]

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 obviously are TOO IGNORANT in regard to the subject: The below is taken directly from the SC Mueller report.

Second, many obstruction cases involve the attempted or actual cover-up of an underlying crime. Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had an improper obstructive purpose, see, e.g. , United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 1988), or that he contemplated an effect on an official proceeding, see, e.g., United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558, 591 (2d Cir. 2015). But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating, in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that "obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime"). Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.

There you have it folks:
No underlying crime need be proven for an obstruction case to be determined, and/or pursued.

Now, see; you learned something. You're welcome.

let me know when the FBI beats down Trumps door for this "crime".

And since the left is now showing we can make up shit and demand an investigation then great. I demand we investigate the source of an investigation that came up butkiss.

there. it's been demanded. any attempt to stop this is obstruction on the lefts part and subject to prosecution.

your rules, hos. suck on 'em.

An investigation that came up butkiss? You mean like Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi? Or any one of those 25 years of those Clinton investigations?

so i see you can "whatabout" but no one else can.

now what? we whatabouteachother for the rest of our lives?

i agree the benghazi investigations got way out of hand. but do we answer that by going way out of hand AGAIN and doing the "hold my beer"? and if you want to keep pointing to this then great - point away.

what i will do from there is to simply say you more or less are saying you don't believe the core purpose of this investigation but you are doing it for revenge only.

when do we all grow up and stop this shit?

Don't know. Probably when Trump quits threatening to investigate everyone who doesn't kiss his ass. Investigate SNL? Even you gotta see that is insane.

 

[iceberg]

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 obviously are TOO IGNORANT in regard to the subject: The below is taken directly from the SC Mueller report.

Second, many obstruction cases involve the attempted or actual cover-up of an underlying crime. Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had an improper obstructive purpose, see, e.g. , United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 1988), or that he contemplated an effect on an official proceeding, see, e.g., United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558, 591 (2d Cir. 2015). But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating, in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that "obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime"). Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.

There you have it folks:
No underlying crime need be proven for an obstruction case to be determined, and/or pursued.

Now, see; you learned something. You're welcome.

let me know when the FBI beats down Trumps door for this "crime".

And since the left is now showing we can make up shit and demand an investigation then great. I demand we investigate the source of an investigation that came up butkiss.

there. it's been demanded. any attempt to stop this is obstruction on the lefts part and subject to prosecution.

your rules, hos. suck on 'em.

An investigation that came up butkiss? You mean like Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi? Or any one of those 25 years of those Clinton investigations?

so i see you can "whatabout" but no one else can.

now what? we whatabouteachother for the rest of our lives?

i agree the benghazi investigations got way out of hand. but do we answer that by going way out of hand AGAIN and doing the "hold my beer"? and if you want to keep pointing to this then great - point away.

what i will do from there is to simply say you more or less are saying you don't believe the core purpose of this investigation but you are doing it for revenge only.

when do we all grow up and stop this shit?

Don't know. Probably when Trump quits threatening to investigate everyone who doesn't kiss his ass. Investigate SNL? Even you gotta see that is insane.

so you can investigate for any given reason YOU feel appropriate but no one else can.

WHY are we this fucked up again? OH YEA.

cause of this shit.

Yes SNL was stupid. and i can certainly where his commentary earned him a "dude, shut up" - but it was also in conjunction with overall bias in the news. now please don't tell me you can't see that bias.

well you probably can't.

 

[iceberg]

We the American public cant get an honest answer about ANYTHING, because the tit for tat, lock step, my way or the highway gangs from each side of the isle continue to act like children playing pretend politics.

as you can see from bulldog, THEY GOTTA STOP BEING MEAN!!!! no one wants to just be the one to grow the fuck up and move on from the playground. someone else has to come tell them what fucked up 9 year olds they're acting like cause they can't see it for themselves. ALL AROUND.