Obstruction of Justice...

Whoever 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 and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

OK so I think we have agreement that the above actions are against the law, is that correct?
 
LutherF said:
18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees



Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever 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 and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.


---------
That's the definition that matters. Now, the question is does tweeting something along the lines of "Mueller is on a witch hunt" rise to that definition?

Does destroying a server that is supposed to be used as evidence against Russian hackers rise to that definition?
Click to expand...

so we have established the definition,
can you now go to the charge phase?
 
Getin the ring said:
so we have established the definition,
can you now go to the charge phase?
Click to expand...

Answering a question such as "Does everyone agree that obstruction of justice is a crime?" is useless without a definition of obstruction. Furthermore, in the context of current events and the apparent purpose of the OP, one also needs to discuss the actions which might constitute obstruction.

Now then, the "charge" seems to be that Trump has obstructed justice. If someone would like to provide a rational and cogent argument supporting that charge I'm all ears.
 
LutherF said:
Hmmm. I know I'm new here but are you always this bad at reading comprehension?
Click to expand...

He's one of the most dishonest and stupidest posters this board has likely ever had and THAT'S saying something.

Just put him on ignore and the experience here improves by magnitudes.
 
LutherF said:
18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees



Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever 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 and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.


---------
That's the definition that matters. Now, the question is does tweeting something along the lines of "Mueller is on a witch hunt" rise to that definition?

Does destroying a server that is supposed to be used as evidence against Russian hackers rise to that definition?
Click to expand...

"...willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters..."

Hillary's in trouble! :whoa:
 
Stretch said:
"...willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters..."

Hillary's in trouble! :whoa:
Click to expand...

Yeah, kind of an "all of the above" issue...or should be if Sessions ever gets around to it.
 
Jarod said:
Whoever 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 and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

OK so I think we have agreement that the above actions are against the law, is that correct?
Click to expand...

Yes we do; good luck in your flailing effort to suggest Trump has done any of this. :rofl2:
 
LutherF said:
Now then, the "charge" seems to be that Trump has obstructed justice. If someone would like to provide a rational and cogent argument supporting that charge I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

How has Trump obstructed justice? You won't get a coherent answer from Jarod. :rofl2:
 
CharacterAssassin said:
He's one of the most dishonest and stupidest posters this board has likely ever had and THAT'S saying something.

Just put him on ignore and the experience here improves by magnitudes.
Click to expand...

^Whoa Nelly; another idiot eruption unfolding. Man the life boats, the bullshit gets deep with this one! :rofl2:

giphy.gif
 
hvilleherb said:
I thought you Democrats were claiming Trump was in "collusion" with the Russians?

I don't see a law called collusion.
Click to expand...

"Collusion" is a righty term. Dems claim interference and so does the official order.

ORDER NO. 3915-2017

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515,
in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice,
and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian governments efforts to interfere in the 2016
presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

(Continued)

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
 
christiefan915 said:
"Collusion" is a righty term. Dems claim interference and so does the official order.
Click to expand...

That is a fascinating lie; compounded by the FACT that you know you are lying. Your lying is pathological. It is the leftist dishonest media and the Democrats that bloviate incessantly about "collusion."

giphy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top