Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Moderator T

Mueller: Investigation was “not at any time curtailed, stopped, or hin

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

AntonToo

How is this...

 

ME: "Hey, Python. I'm thinking about setting fire to random pets in my neighborhood, you with me?"

 

MONTY PYTHON: "Torturing small animals to death is illegal. You do this and I'm calling the cops".

 

ME: "Fine. I won't set fire to random pets in my neighborhood."

 

 

Different from this...

 

TRUMP: “Tell Rosenstein to fire Mueller.”

 

MCGAHN: “No. And if you try to force me I’ll resign.”

 

TRUMP: “Fine. I won’t fire Meuller.”

 

 

 

If Trump committed a crime so did I. And since TG is too cowardly to answer, maybe you will: How much prison time should I serve for my Thought Crime?

 

Monty is not your subordinate, taking an order. DUH.

 

And Trump did not simply once ordered it, it was re-iterated multiple times.

 

And he didn’t just do that, there are many episodes that clearly lay out a pattern of guy very seriously intent on corruptly interfering in the justice process.

 

He was trying to squash Flynn’s investigation,

He fired FBI Director thinking it will take the pressure off of him,

He pressured Sessions to un-recuse and limit the investigation,

He ordered the firing of Mueller

He was pardon dangling Flynn, Manafort and Cohen.

 

If this is not enough for “high crimes and misdemeanors” then the only thing left is walking out to a busy street and shooting someone in broad day light.

 

But even aside from meeting the vague Constitutional standard, where is our country going when the POTUS is above the law and can with impunity corruptly interfere with the justice system?

 

Righties were chanting “drain the swamp” during campaign but are now going along with establishing a perverse swamp that will be here for generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buckwheat Jones

I realize it’s five o’clock somewhere, but I’m sure you remember why White House Counsel Don McGahn resigned.

You have this thing about calling other people drunks. It’s a recurring theme with you. I think maybe you’re projecting. Are you drinking right now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
firecoco

You have this thing about calling other people drunks. It’s a recurring theme with you. I think maybe you’re projecting. Are you drinking right now?

He likes MD 2020 and Colt 45....TG is from Dorchester Massachusetts and thats what the brothers love to drink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
catpat

More accurate (though paraphrased because I don't have time to pull the quotes):

 

TRUMP: (to McGahn) Mueller is conflicted because of a dispute over country club fees. He can't be fair to me. He has to go. Call Rod and tell him. Let me know when it's done.

 

MCGAHN: (to Reince Preibus) Trump is asking me to do crazy sh!t by directing the Deputy Attorney General to fire the Special Counsel. I'm going to resign instead.

 

TRUMP: (to McGahn) Have you done it yet?

 

 

("crazy sh!t" = "conspire to obstruct justice")

It takes two or more people to conspire. In your paraphrased quotes, you show that there was no conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrimV

Monty is not your subordinate, taking an order. DUH.

 

.

 

So my Thought Crime would get a pass, but not Trump’s Thought Crime.

 

 

He was trying to squash Flynn’s investigation,

 

Bill Clinton tried the same thing.

 

Not against the law.

 

He fired FBI Director thinking it will take the pressure off of him,

 

At Sessions’ recommendation.

 

A President can fire an FBI director for any reason they want. Or no reason at all.

 

Not against the law.

 

 

He pressured Sessions to un-recuse and limit the investigation,

 

Sessions refused. Trump asked for his resignation.

 

Not against the law.

 

He ordered the firing of Mueller

 

This is the only leverage you have, and it’s hardly a slam dunk. It could be argued either way. I’d have to look up the relevant case, but basically it boils down to this: as head Executive, he can fire any Executive subordinate he wants. However, the rules governing the removal of a Special Counsel are pretty clear, and if Trump followed through he would have violated those rules.

 

But you’re forgetting one important fact: He never followed through.

 

Making it a Thought Crime.

 

He was pardon dangling Flynn, Manafort and Cohen.

 

Dangling? Again, it could be argued either way. Fact is, he never followed through, making it yet ANOTHER Thought Crime.

 

If this is not enough for “high crimes and misdemeanors” then the only thing left is walking out to a busy street and shooting someone in broad day light.

 

Settle down, Drama Queen. This ain’t “Days of Our Lives”.

 

But even aside from meeting the vague Constitutional standard, where is our country going when the POTUS is above the law and can with impunity corruptly interfere with the justice system?

 

Are you learning impaired?

 

This is *EXACTLY* what Mueller said: The investigation was “not at any time curtailed, stopped, or hindered”.

 

Righties were chanting “drain the swamp” during campaign but are now going along with establishing a perverse swamp that will be here for generations

 

According to the accepted definition, I’m a member of the Swamp.

 

You’re b!tchin’ at the wrong person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erp

I love how the left was so sure Mueller was going to nail Trump, and hung the moon on him, are now totally rejecting his outcome.

 

Like children, they always thinks they know everything. And when wrong, throw hissy fits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrimV

I love how the left was so sure Mueller was going to nail Trump, and hung the moon on him, are now totally rejecting his outcome.

 

Like children, they always thinks they know everything. And when wrong, throw hissy fits.

 

Could these wanks get any more pathetic?

 

Yes.

 

Yes, they could.

 

EXHIBIT A: WaPo: House Dems grudgingly admit Mueller stunt backfired — big time

 

Hot Air excerpts this: "Among Democrats, perhaps the most disappointed in Mueller’s performance were members of the Intelligence and Judiciary committees, who questioned the former special counsel, according to conversations with several who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly. Many felt blindsided that no one warned them how much Mueller had aged"

 

"Blindsided"? They felt "blindsided"?

 

The audacity.

 

Mueller repeatedly said "the report is my testimony", and resisted all attempts at a Congressional hearing. Democrats completely ignored his wishes in a lame-ass attempt to stage their little theater, and now they have the audacity to paint themselves as victims?

 

Seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stick

Mueller does not “apparently disagree” with me.

 

You apparently do not understand a difference between successfully thwarting an investigation and taking not-successful actions to thwart and investigation.

 

From Obstruction of Justice perspective success of the Obstructive acts does not matter.

 

 

And Grim...what the f are you smoking?

 

President’s orders to his subordinates ARE NOT IN HIS THOUGHTS. What you are saying is just stupid nonsense.

 

Were the "orders" carried out, yes or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DJGoody

I love how the left was so sure Mueller was going to nail Trump, and hung the moon on him, are now totally rejecting his outcome.

 

Like children, they always thinks they know everything. And when wrong, throw hissy fits.

 

 

Just like the election. Wasn't the left throwing hissy fits at Trump because they believed he wouldn't accept the outcome of the election? *rhetorical* Now 2.5 years later who is never going to accept the outcome of ANYTHING that doesn't go their way? They have been crying since November 2016, and have been trying to impeach since. They keep losing and keep getting angrier and crazier than ever!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DJGoody

Could these wanks get any more pathetic?

 

Yes.

 

Yes, they could.

 

EXHIBIT A: WaPo: House Dems grudgingly admit Mueller stunt backfired — big time

 

Hot Air excerpts this: "Among Democrats, perhaps the most disappointed in Mueller’s performance were members of the Intelligence and Judiciary committees, who questioned the former special counsel, according to conversations with several who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly. Many felt blindsided that no one warned them how much Mueller had aged"

 

"Blindsided"? They felt "blindsided"?

 

The audacity.

 

Mueller repeatedly said "the report is my testimony", and resisted all attempts at a Congressional hearing. Democrats completely ignored his wishes in a lame-ass attempt to stage their little theater, and now they have the audacity to paint themselves as victims?

 

Seriously?

 

 

The funny thing is that if the Dems listened to anyone on the right, they were predicting this would be a disaster for them. Sometimes you just have to let the children learn the hard way. However, it isn't even true in this case. They still haven't learner, nor will they.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrimV

Were the "orders" carried out, yes or no?

 

Doesn't matter. He *thought* about it. Which is just as bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker

Monty is not your subordinate, taking an order. DUH.

 

And Trump did not simply once ordered it, it was re-iterated multiple times.

 

And he didn’t just do that, there are many episodes that clearly lay out a pattern of guy very seriously intent on corruptly interfering in the justice process.

 

He was trying to squash Flynn’s investigation,

He fired FBI Director thinking it will take the pressure off of him,

He pressured Sessions to un-recuse and limit the investigation,

He ordered the firing of Mueller

He was pardon dangling Flynn, Manafort and Cohen.

 

If this is not enough for “high crimes and misdemeanors” then the only thing left is walking out to a busy street and shooting someone in broad day light.

 

But even aside from meeting the vague Constitutional standard, where is our country going when the POTUS is above the law and can with impunity corruptly interfere with the justice system?

 

Righties were chanting “drain the swamp” during campaign but are now going along with establishing a perverse swamp that will be here for generations.

Put the muzzle against your temple. This is all over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stick

Doesn't matter. He *thought* about it. Which is just as bad.

 

What Anton is really getting at is there wasn't collusion or obstruction, but there was insubordination! How dare these guys not fall for Trump's emotional outbursts and knee-jerk reactions to the fishing expedition investigation. In fact, I'll bet you that Trump recognized right away that his "orders" weren't being followed and something should've been done. Now the question is WHO? WHO needs to act when Trump's people are insubordinate? Oh, that's right -- TRUMP! Trump's inaction to deal with his insubordinates will come back to bite....er....Trump.

:bullwhip:

 

I dunno, Anton, where are we supposed to go from here. :sailor:

 

It comes down to a political situation where people form opinions and will decide it at the next ballot. LIKE IT'S SUPPOSED TO.

 

I do enjoy watching you guys lose your marbles any time Trump breathes. :comfort:

Edited by stick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo

He’s saying you don’t have to successfully obstruct justice in order to be charged/convicted of obstructing justice. The outcome of the attempt to obstruct does not matter to the crime of the obstruction.

 

I’m not taking a non-lawyers word for granted on this. I’d prefer a lawyer to advise if this is a) accurate, and b ) common practice to charge even though no actual obstruction took place, and c ) how likely a conviction would be on a charge of obstruction when nothing was actually obstructed.

 

...you know, there is actually such a thing as search engines nowadays. Everything you want to learn is a few clicks away.

 

Definition

18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "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."

 

Overview

Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know

 

(1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and - CHECK

(2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding - CHECK

(3)and the person must have knowledge of this connection. - CHECK

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice

 

 

Here is a legal analyst (also lawyer, and a judge) on FOX NEWS no less explaining to you that yes, Muellers report does lay out sufficient evidence that Trump Obstructed of Justice:

 

Obstruction is a rare crime that is rarely completed. Stated differently, the obstructer need not succeed in order to be charged with obstruction. That's because the statute itself prohibits attempting to impede or interfere with any government proceeding for a corrupt or self-serving purpose...

 

Mueller laid out at least a half-dozen crimes of obstruction committed by Trump -- from asking former Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter about the reason for Flynn's chat with Kislyak, to asking Corey Lewandowski and then-former White House Counse lDon McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn to lie about it, to firing Comey to impede the FBI's investigations, to dangling a pardon in front of Michael Cohen to stay silent, to ordering his aides to hide and delete records.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-did-president-trump-obstruct-justice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

...you know, there is actually such a thing as search engines nowadays. Everything you want to learn is a few clicks away.

 

Definition

18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "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."

 

Overview

Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know

 

(1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and - CHECK

(2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding - CHECK

(3)and the person must have knowledge of this connection. - CHECK

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice

 

 

Here is a legal analyst (also lawyer, and a judge) on FOX NEWS no less explaining to you that yes, Muellers report does lay out sufficient evidence that Trump Obstructed of Justice:

 

Obstruction is a rare crime that is rarely completed. Stated differently, the obstructer need not succeed in order to be charged with obstruction. That's because the statute itself prohibits attempting to impede or interfere with any government proceeding for a corrupt or self-serving purpose...

 

Mueller laid out at least a half-dozen crimes of obstruction committed by Trump -- from asking former Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter about the reason for Flynn's chat with Kislyak, to asking Corey Lewandowski and then-former White House Counse lDon McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn to lie about it, to firing Comey to impede the FBI's investigations, to dangling a pardon in front of Michael Cohen to stay silent, to ordering his aides to hide and delete records.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-did-president-trump-obstruct-justice

 

NOTE - Do not use 6-point type when you quote or cite references, or you run the risk of being banned from reading threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin

Mueller does not “apparently disagree” with me.

 

Yes, he does. You didn't listen to his testimony.

 

You apparently do not understand a difference between successfully thwarting an investigation and taking not-successful actions to thwart and investigation.

 

From Obstruction of Justice perspective success of the Obstructive acts does not matter.

Show us the law

 

 

President’s orders to his subordinates ARE NOT IN HIS THOUGHTS. What you are saying is just stupid nonsense.

 

Punishing thoughts now? How wonderfully Orwellian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

Punishing thoughts now?

 

FYI - The Special Counsel reported that, "the President called McGahn and directed him to have the Special Counsel removed because of asserted conflicts of interest," and that, "because the President is the head of the Executive Branch, when he says that he hopes a subordinate will do something, it is reasonable to expect that the subordinate will do what the President wants."

Edited by That_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tikk

...you know, there is actually such a thing as search engines nowadays. Everything you want to learn is a few clicks away.

 

Definition

18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "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."

 

Overview

Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know

 

(1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and - CHECK

(2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding - CHECK

(3)and the person must have knowledge of this connection. - CHECK

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice

 

 

Here is a legal analyst (also lawyer, and a judge) on FOX NEWS no less explaining to you that yes, Muellers report does lay out sufficient evidence that Trump Obstructed of Justice:

 

Obstruction is a rare crime that is rarely completed. Stated differently, the obstructer need not succeed in order to be charged with obstruction. That's because the statute itself prohibits attempting to impede or interfere with any government proceeding for a corrupt or self-serving purpose...

 

Mueller laid out at least a half-dozen crimes of obstruction committed by Trump -- from asking former Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter about the reason for Flynn's chat with Kislyak, to asking Corey Lewandowski and then-former White House Counse lDon McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn to lie about it, to firing Comey to impede the FBI's investigations, to dangling a pardon in front of Michael Cohen to stay silent, to ordering his aides to hide and delete records.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-did-president-trump-obstruct-justice

 

 

You're absolutely right. You should contact your representatives and ask ..... no not ask, demand that they do nothing else but pursue impeachment. Do this every hour of every day at every level of government. The entire focus of politics until after 2020 should be Trump's impeachment!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51

FYI - The Special Counsel reported that, "the President called McGahn and directed him to have the Special Counsel removed because of asserted conflicts of interest," and that, "because the President is the head of the Executive Branch, when he says that he hopes a subordinate will do something, it is reasonable to expect that the subordinate will do what the President wants."

 

Did he??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

Obviously not to DOJ in this case. . .

 

As the Special Counsel reported, "a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions in violation of the constitutional separation of powers. Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. 515; 28 C.F.R. this Office accepted legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction."

Edited by That_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

This is really to Anton and TG, but there’s absolutely no point in quoting either because I don’t get the courtesy of a response from either one.

 

Obstruction of justice really needs the person being investigated to materially obstruct the investigators or declared witnesses. If the person tells people who aren’t witnesses or who aren’t doing the investigation to do or not do something, this is not obstruction of justice.

 

That’s why Trump is being charged with a thought crime by democrats, media, and some nevertrumpers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo

You're absolutely right. You should contact your representatives and ask ..... no not ask, demand that they do nothing else but pursue impeachment. Do this every hour of every day at every level of government. The entire focus of politics until after 2020 should be Trump's impeachment!

 

"do nothing else?" why the hell would I ask that?

 

As it happens we've seen very productive Congress during Nixon's and Clinton's impeachment proceedings

 

But I absolutely will ask that Congress do it's damn job and hold the Presdent accountable for his crimes, because as Mueller's report layed out, only they can do that.

 

 

 

But enough about me, let me ask you a question about you - are you pulling a lever for a criminal in the next election?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MTP Reggie
But enough about me, let me ask you a question about you - are you pulling a lever for a criminal in the next election?

 

obama can't run again and I doubt hillary will make it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...