Official APOLOGY THREAD for JPP Leftists DUPED by Dem Media's Russian Collusion Hoax

Bigdog said:
There was no Russian Collusion, therefore ... there was nothing to "obstruct".
Click to expand...

If I understand it right, it’s technically within the law to charge someone with obstruction on a pointless investigation but getting a jury to buy it would be a problem.

And in this case, getting the public to buy it would be a huge problem.

Another problem is Trump had a thousand and one opportunities to obstruct Mullet—and he never raised a finger. In fact, the lefties were all but begging Trump to obstruct and he didn’t bite on it.

Mullet didn’t charge him because he knew it wouldn’t go anywhere. The non-exoneration was a bone thrown to The Resistance. A sop for their tears lol.
 
anonymoose said:
Once again, how? And don't say the Comey firing.
Click to expand...

Comey's firing is the most obvious, it can't be ignored.

The clearest example of Trump possibly working to obstruct a proceeding is, obviously, his firing of FBI Director James Comey—an action Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon called, “the biggest mistake maybe in modern political history.” Berke, Bookbinder and Eisen point out that while the president has the right to fire anyone who works for him, he cannot do so if it is “done for the corrupt purpose of obstructing an investigation.” The analogy they make is to the right of an employer to fire someone but not on the basis of their race, sex, or religion.

As for witness intimidation, the authors point to a long list of presidential tweets and statements ranging from his now familiar cry to end the “witch hunt,” to his attempts to discredit senior FBI officials, to his lawyer publicly speculating about pardons for his former colleagues, to revoking John Brennan’s security clearance because he led the “sham” Russian investigation. Witness tampering, according to the authors, “need not be explicit or overt. … Suggestive threatening, intimidating or persuasive statements are sufficient to support a case under Section 1512 (b).”

The third point the authors make has to do with corrupt intent—a phrase they admit is very vague. But here too, they cite a long list of Trump’s actions, including ordering Deputy Attorney General Rode Rosenstein to “…draft a memo on Comey’s conduct that the president would subsequently use as cover for Comey’s firing…” They go on to write that President Trump, “faces exposure under both the ‘offense clause’ and the ‘defraud clause’ of the conspiracy statute.”

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...tion-of-justice-case-against-president-trump/
 
Darth Beto Omar said:
If I understand it right, it’s technically within the law to charge someone with obstruction on a pointless investigation but getting a jury to buy it would be a problem.

And in this case, getting the public to buy it would be a huge problem.

Another problem is Trump had a thousand and one opportunities to obstruct Mullet—and he never raised a finger. In fact, the lefties were all but begging Trump to obstruct and he didn’t bite on it.

Mullet didn’t charge him because he knew it wouldn’t go anywhere. The non-exoneration was a bone thrown to The Resistance. A sop for their tears lol.
Click to expand...

Read carefully, Darthy. :cool:

"Legal experts told us that a president (or anyone) could still be prosecuted for obstructing justice if they believed they might be prosecuted — even if they ultimately never are.

"You can obstruct justice even if a prosecutor ultimately finds you were not guilty of committing the crime that was the focus of the underlying investigation," said Miriam Baer, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. "Even if a prosecutor ultimately concluded that you weren’t guilty of crime X, that says nothing as to whether you thought that you might be indicted for crime X, or, for that matter, if you thought one of your friends of family members would be indicted for crime X."

Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, agreed that an obstruction prosecution could have been argued in this case.

"Suppose Trump knew that no crime had been committed but believed that the investigation would uncover politically or personally embarrassing information, or if he believed that the investigation would embarrass or implicate an ally, aide, or family member," Posner said. "Then interfering with the investigation is a crime. The reason is that the purpose of the investigation is to find the truth, and if people obstruct an investigation, then the investigation becomes more difficult, wasting government resources."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/
 
christiefan915 said:
Read carefully, Darthy. :cool:

"Legal experts told us that a president (or anyone) could still be prosecuted for obstructing justice if they believed they might be prosecuted — even if they ultimately never are.

"You can obstruct justice even if a prosecutor ultimately finds you were not guilty of committing the crime that was the focus of the underlying investigation," said Miriam Baer, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. "Even if a prosecutor ultimately concluded that you weren’t guilty of crime X, that says nothing as to whether you thought that you might be indicted for crime X, or, for that matter, if you thought one of your friends of family members would be indicted for crime X."

Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, agreed that an obstruction prosecution could have been argued in this case.

"Suppose Trump knew that no crime had been committed but believed that the investigation would uncover politically or personally embarrassing information, or if he believed that the investigation would embarrass or implicate an ally, aide, or family member," Posner said. "Then interfering with the investigation is a crime. The reason is that the purpose of the investigation is to find the truth, and if people obstruct an investigation, then the investigation becomes more difficult, wasting government resources."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/
Click to expand...

How do you think it would fly, politically, if they tried to charge Trump for obstructing an investigation that turned out to be pointless if not entirely bogus? Maybe the Resistance should just cut their loses on this.

Btw, how exactly did Trump ‘obstruct’ the Russian investigation?
 
christiefan915 said:
Comey's firing is the most obvious, it can't be ignored.

The clearest example of Trump possibly working to obstruct a proceeding is, obviously, his firing of FBI Director James Comey—an action Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon called, “the biggest mistake maybe in modern political history.”
Click to expand...
Lots of people made mistakes in this fiasco. I agree it was a mistake to fire Comey when he did but hindsight is 20/20. Better to have fired Comey on inauguration day. He was a bumbling, incompetent and insubordinate director. But even though Trump missed that opportunity better to have appointed an independent council, then fire him.
christiefan915 said:
P Berke, Bookbinder and Eisen point out that while the president has the right to fire anyone who works for him, he cannot do so if it is “done for the corrupt purpose of obstructing an investigation.”
Click to expand...
Yes you can make that argument but there is no doubt Comey needed to go for other reasons.
christiefan915 said:
As for witness intimidation, the authors point to a long list of presidential tweets and statements ranging from his now familiar cry to end the “witch hunt,” to his attempts to discredit senior FBI officials, to his lawyer publicly speculating about pardons for his former colleagues, to revoking John Brennan’s security clearance because he led the “sham” Russian investigation. Witness tampering, according to the authors, “need not be explicit or overt. … Suggestive threatening, intimidating or persuasive statements are sufficient to support a case under Section 1512 (b).”

The third point the authors make has to do with corrupt intent—a phrase they admit is very vague. But here too, they cite a long list of Trump’s actions, including ordering Deputy Attorney General Rode Rosenstein to “…draft a memo on Comey’s conduct that the president would subsequently use as cover for Comey’s firing…” They go on to write that President Trump, “faces exposure under both the ‘offense clause’ and the ‘defraud clause’ of the conspiracy statute.”

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...tion-of-justice-case-against-president-trump/
Click to expand...
Well good luck with that. You've presented absolutely nothing we all didn't already know. Including Mueller, Barr and Rosenstein. So why doesn't the House initiate impeachment proceedings? You know the answer.
 
Nordberg said:
The reds cannot accept the results of 12 Hillary investigations. Even after a few years. Innocent. But before the investigations are done, Trump is not guilty. WTF. His campaign manager and long term lawyer are in jail. They admitted guilt. 5 others are likely going to jail. 30 others indicted. This is just Trump doing business as usual. He leaves disasters in his wake. Others take the blame and he pockets the money. But Trump is filthy. Let's see his taxes.
Click to expand...
All we've got so far is Barr covering for Trump, which is the reason that he got the job.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
rjhenn said:
MAGA = Make America Go Away.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

55641812_657192911375819_7925120070290767872_n.jpg
 
Irish said:
When you believe a lie for 2 years, its gonna sting!
Click to expand...
You must really be hurting, after believing all of Trump's lies for so long. So far, all we've got is Barr's coverup. We don't actually know what's in the report.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
christiefan915 said:
It was a royal screw up that started with bush's AG John Ashcroft and especially Dr. Barbara Rosenberg. Mueller and Comey were just part of it, not the initiators.
Click to expand...


Hmm, they weren't bit players. They were central characters in a total cock-up, hounding Steven Hatfill who was a totally innocent man.

This, too, was an enormously complex case. But here are some facts: Despite the jihadist slogans accompanying the mailed anthrax, it had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein or any foreign element; the FBI ignored a 2002 tip from a scientific colleague of the actual anthrax killer, who turned out to be a Fort Detrick scientist named Bruce Edwards Ivins; the reason is that they had quickly obsessed on an innocent man named Steven Hatfill; the bureau was bullied into focusing on the government scientist by Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy (whose office, along with that of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, was targeted by an anthrax-laced letter) and was duped into focusing on Hatfill by two sources – a conspiracy-minded college professor with a political agenda who’d never met Hatfill and by Nicholas Kristof, who put his conspiracy theories in the paper while mocking the FBI for not arresting Hatfill.

In truth, Hatfill was an implausible suspect from the outset. He was a virologist who never handled anthrax, which is a bacterium. (Ivins, by contrast, shared ownership of anthrax patents, was diagnosed as having paranoid personality disorder, and had a habit of stalking and threatening people with anonymous letters – including the woman who provided the long-ignored tip to the FBI). So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they’d “alerted” on Hatfill and that he must be the killer.

You’d think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who’d been convicted -- and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative book on the case, a California judge who’d tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution’s dog handler “as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen.”

Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell – the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was “absolutely certain” they weren’t making a mistake.

Such certitude seems to be Comey’s default position in his professional life. Mueller didn’t exactly distinguish himself with contrition, either. In 2008, after Ivins committed suicide as he was about to be apprehended for his crimes, and the Justice Department had formally exonerated Hatfill – and paid him $5.82 million in a legal settlement – Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case’s resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. “I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation,” he said, adding that it would be erroneous “to say there were mistakes.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Teflon Don said:
Even if you did you and Trans Right NeverTrumpers will never be forgiven

I want your side to keep running forward.

Keep attacking Trump with bogus investigations

Push for reparations

Push for eliminating the Electoral College

Now cue the “yeah but Hillary” whine
Click to expand...
Cue it? trump uses it at every klan rally. Not sure why you believe anyone has to be 'forgiven'? You think '18 was a result of the fact that Mueller was investigating the trump family?

You're in for a big surprise.
 
Althea said:
Cue it? trump uses it at every klan rally. Not sure why you believe anyone has to be 'forgiven'? You think '18 was a result of the fact that Mueller was investigating the trump family?

You're in for a big surprise.
Click to expand...
Post the link with attribution that proves that “ trump uses it at every klan rally.” Otherwise, you have committed libel against President Trump.
 
Althea said:
Cue it? trump uses it at every klan rally. Not sure why you believe anyone has to be 'forgiven'? You think '18 was a result of the fact that Mueller was investigating the trump family?

You're in for a big surprise.
Click to expand...

The Left claims that because the Repub party is mostly White, therefore ... they are racist. This, of course, is a logical fallacy.

Furthermore ... the Congressional Black Caucus is not only 100% Black, but actually bans Whites ...

" Although the bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, former and current members of the caucus agreed that the group should remain "exclusively black". In response to the decision, Rep. Cohen referred to his campaign promise as "a social faux pas" because "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in. You need to be invited."[15]

Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr., Democrat of Missouri, the son of Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., a co-founder of the caucus, said: "Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He's white and the caucus is black. It's time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It's an unwritten rule. It's understood." Clay also issued the following statement:

Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept—there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives.[16]

Later the same week Representative Tom Tancredo, Republican of Colorado, objected to the continued existence of the CBC as well as the Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Republican Congressional Hispanic Conference arguing that "It is utterly hypocritical for Congress to extol the virtues of a color-blind society while officially sanctioning caucuses that are based solely on race. If we are serious about achieving the goal of a colorblind society, Congress should lead by example and end these divisive, race-based caucuses."[17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus#Non-Black_membership

Who are the racists now, Punk?
 
Now that the Republicans are trying to cover up Mueller's report we obviously know there's something really bad in it
 
From Stretch:

"Status of the Department's Review
The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel's report will be a "confidential report" to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038, 37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel's report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.
Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to "matter occurring before grand jury." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B) Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g. 18 U.S.C. 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.
Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.
* * *
As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that "the Attorney General may determine that public release of" notifications to your respective Committees "would be in the public interest." 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top