Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 34

Thread: 10 Times Trump May Have Obstructed Justice

  1. #1

    10 Times Trump May Have Obstructed Justice

    "May" because the Muller Report did not officially determine if Trump's direct interference in investigations did or did not constitute obstruction. It officially and specifically refused to exonerate Trump of obstruction. One would think that is what an impeachment trial would be for though- to determine if the President had violated the law or not and therefore whether to remove him from office or not. The cases where the Report found evidence of possible obstruction of justice are summarized below.

    Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team found 10 instances where President Donald Trump’s conduct raised issues of possible obstruction of justice.

    They included Trump’s request to then-White House counsel Donald McGahn to remove Mueller from his post, evidence that Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey was motivated by a desire to prevent further inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and various alleged attempts to influence witnesses such as Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort.

    The report summarized the 10 instances in the following terms:

    The Campaign’s response to reports about Russian support for Trump.

    During the 2016 presidential campaign, questions arose about the Russian government's apparent support for candidate Trump. After WikiLeaks released politically damaging Democratic Party emails that were reported to have been hacked by Russia, Trump publicly expresses skepticism that Russia was responsible for the hacks at the same time that he and other Campaign officials privately sought information [Harm to Ongoing Matter] about any further planned WikiLeaks releases. Trump also denied having any business in or connections to Russia, even though as late as June 2016 the Trump Organization had been pursuing a licensing deal for a skyscraper to be built in Russia called Trump Tower Moscow. After the election, the President expressed concerns to advisers that reports of Russia’s election interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election

    Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn.

    In mid-January 2017, incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn falsely denied to the Vice President,other administration officials, and FBI agents that he had talked to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about Russia’s response to U.S. sanctions on Russia for its election interference. On January 27, the day after the President was told that Flynn had lied to the Vice President and had made similar statements to the FBI, the President invited FBI Director Comey to a private dinner at the White House and told Comey that he needed loyalty. On February 14, the day after the President requested Flynn’s resignation, the President told an outside adviser, “Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over.” The adviser disagreed and said the investigations would continue.

    Later that afternoon, the President clear the Oval Office to have a one-on-one meeting with Comey. Referring to the FBI’s investigation of Flynn, the President said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go,” Shortly after requesting Flynn’s resignation and speaking privately to Comey, the President sought to have Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland draft an internal letter stating that the President had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. McFarland declined because she did not know whether that was true, and a White House Counsel’s Office attorney thought that the request would look like a quid pro quo for an ambassadorship she had been offered.

    The President’s reaction to the continuing Russia investigation.

    In February 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions began to assess whether he had to recuse himself from campaign-related investigations because of his role in the Trump Campaign. In early March, the President told White House Counsel Donald McGahn to stop sessions from recusing. And after Sessions announced his recusal on March 2, the President expressed anger at the decision and told advisers that he should have an Attorney General who would protect him. That weekend, the President took Sessions aside at an event and urged him to “unrecuse.” Later in March, Comey publicly disclosed at a congressional hearing that the FBI was investigating “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,” including any links or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. In the following days, the President reached out to the Director of National Intelligence and the leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) to ask them what they could do to publicly dispel the suggestion that the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort. The President also twice called Comey directly, notwithstanding guidance from McGahn to avoid direct contacts with the Department of Justice. Comey had previously assured the President that the FBI was not investigating him personally, and the President ask Comey to “lift the cloud” of the Russia investigation by saying that publicly.


    The President’s termination of Comey.

    On May 3, 2017, Comey testified in a congressional hearing, but declined to answer questions about whether the President was personally under investigation. Within days, the President decide to terminate Comey. The President insisted that the termination letter, which was written for public release, state that Comey had informed the President that he was not under investigation. The day of the firing, the White House maintained that Comey’s termination resulted from independent recommendations from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General that Comey should be discharged from mishandling the Hillary Clinton email investigation. But the President had decided to fire Comey before hearing form the Department of Justice. The day after firing Comey, the President told Russian officials that he had “faced great pressure because of Russia,” which had been “taken off” by Comey’s firing. The next day, the President acknowledged in a television interview that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the Department of Justice’s recommendation and that when he “decided to just do it,” he was thinking that “this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.” In response to a question about whether he was angry with Comey about the Russia investigation, the President said, “As far as I’m concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly,” adding that firing Comey “might even lengthen out the investigation.”

    The appointment of Special Counsel and efforts to remove him.

    On May 17, 22017, the Acting Attorney General for the Russia investigation appointed a Special Counsel to conduct the investigation and related matters. The President reacted to news that Special Counsel had been appointed by telling advisers that it was “the end of his presidency” and demanding that Sessions resign. Sessions submitted his resignation but the President ultimately did not accept it. The President told aides that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and suggested that Special Counsel therefore could not serve. The President’ advisers told him the asserted conflicts were merit less and had already been considered by the Department of Justice.

    On June 14, 2017, the media reported that the Special Counsel’s Office was investigating whether the President had obstructed justice. Press reports called this “a major turning point” in the investigation: while Comey had told the President he was not under investigation, following Comey’s firing, the President now was under investigation. The President reacted to his news with a series of tweets criticizing the Department of Justice and the special Counsel’s investigation. On June 17, 2107, the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed. McGahn did not carry about the direction, however, deciding that the would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre.

    Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence.

    In the summer of 2017, the President learned that media outlets were asking questions about the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between senior campaign officials, including Donald Trump Jr., and a Russian lawyer who was said to be offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” On several occasions, the President directed aides not to publicly disclose the emails setting up the June 9 meeting, suggesting that the email would not leak and that the number of lawyers with access to them should be limited. Before the emails became public, the President edited a press statement from Trump Jr. by deleting a line that acknowledged that the meeting was with “an individual who [Trump Jr.] was told might have information helpful to the campaign” and instead said only that the meeting was about adoptions of Russian children. When the press asked questions about the President’s involvement in Trump Jr.’s statement, the President's personal lawyer repeatedly denied the President had played any role.

    Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation.

    In early summer 2017, the President called Sessions at home and again asked him to reverse his recusal from the Russia investigation. Sessions did not reverse his recusal. In October 2017, the President met privately with Sessions in the Oval Office and asked him to “take [a] look” at investigating Clinton. In December 2017, shortly after Flynn pleaded guilty pursuant to a cooperation agreement, the President met with Sessions in the Oval Office and suggested, according to notes taken by a senior adviser, that if Sessions unrecused and took back supervision fo the Russia investigation, he would be a “hero.” The President told Sessions, “I’m not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly.” IN response, Sessions volunteered that he had never seen anything “improper” on the campaign and told the President there was a “whole new leadership team” in place. He did not unrecuse.

    Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed.

    In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed MCGahn to have the Special Counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. The President reacted to the news stories by directed WHite House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed. The President then met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the reports. In The same meeting, the President also asked McGahn why he had told the Special Counsel about the President’s efforts to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the President. McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the President to be testing his mettle.

    Conduct towards Flynn, Manafort, [HOM].

    After Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with the President and began cooperating with the government, the President's personal counsel left a message for Flynn 's attorneys reminding them of the President 's warm feelings towards Flynn, which he said "still remains," and asking for a "heads up" if Flynn knew "information that implicates the President." When Flynn 's counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information pursuant to a joint defense agreement, the President's personal counsel said he would make sure that the President knew that Flynn's actions reflected "hostility" towards the President. During Manafort 's prosecution and when the jury in his criminal trial was deliberating, the President praised Manafort in public, said that Manafort was being treated unfairly, and declined to rule out a pardon. After Manafort was convicted, the President called Manafort "a brave man" for refusing to "break" and said that "flipping" "almost ought to be outlawed. [Harm to Ongoing Matter].

    Conduct involving Michael Cohen.

    The President's conduct towards Michael Cohen, a former Trump Organization executive, changed from praise for Cohen when he falsely minimized the President's involvement in the Trump Tower Moscow project, to castigation of Cohen when he became a cooperating witness. From September 2015 to June 2016, Cohen had pursued the Trump Tower Moscow project on behalf of the Trump Organization and had briefed candidate Trump on the project numerous times, including discussing whether Trump should travel to Russia to advance the deal. In 2017, Cohen provided false testimony to Congress about the project, including stating that he had only briefed Trump on the project three times and never discussed travel to Russia with him, in an effort to adhere to a "party line" that Cohen said was developed to minimize the President's connections to Russia. While preparing for his congressional testimony. Cohen had extensive discussions with the President's personal counsel, who, according to Cohen, said that Cohen should "stay on message" and not contradict the President. After the FBI searched Cohen's home and office in April 2018, the President publicly asserted that Cohen would not "flip," contacted him directly to tell him to "stay strong," and privately passed messages of support to him. Cohen also discussed pardons with the President's personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message he would be taken care of. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, the President publicly criticized him, called him a "rat," and suggested that his family members had committed crimes.

    Overarching factual issues.

    We did not make a traditional prosecution decision about these facts, but the evidence we obtained supports several general statements about the President’s conduct.

    Several features of the conduct we investigated distinguish it from typical obstruction-of-justice cases. First, the investigation concerned the President, and some of his actions, such as firing the FBI director, involved facially lawful acts within his Article II authority, which raises constitutional issues discussed below. At the same time, the President’s position as the head of the Executive Branch provided him with unique and powerful means of influencing official proceedings, subordinate officers, and potential witnesses – all of which is relevant to potential obstruction-of-justice analysis. Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President’s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct. Third, many of the President’s acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, took place in public view. That circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of obstruction laws. If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony, the harm to the justice system’s integrity is the same.

    Although the series of events we investigated involved discrete acts, the overall pattern of the President’s conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President’s acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent. In particular, the actions we investigated can be divided into two phases, reflecting a possible shift in the President’s motives. The first phase covered the period from the President’s first interactions with Comey through the President’s firing of Comey. During that time, the President had been repeatedly told he was not personally under investigation. Soon after the firing of Comey and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry. At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation. Judgments about the nature of the President’s motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence.

    STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSES

    The President’s counsel raised statutory and constitutional defenses to a possible obstruction-of-justice analysis of the conduct we investigated. We concluded that none of those legal defenses provided a basis for declining to investigate the facts.

    Statutory defenses. Consistent with precedent and the Department of Justice’s general approach to interpreting obstruction statutes, we concluded that several statutes could apply here. [list of statutory sections] Section 1512(c)(2) is an omnibus obstruction-of-justice provision that covers a range of obstructive acts directed at pending or contemplated official proceedings. No principle of statutory construction justifies narrowing the provision to cover only conduct that impairs the integrity or availability of evidence. Sections 1503 and 1505 also offer broad protection against obstructive acts directed at pending grand jury, judicial, administrative, and congressional proceedings, and they are supplemented by a provision in Section 1512(b) aimed specifically at conducted intended to prevent or hinder the communication to law enforcement of information related to a federal crime.

    Constitutional defenses. As for constitutional defenses arising from the President’s status as head of the Executive Branch, we recognized that the Department of Justice and the courts have not definitively resolved these issues. We therefore examined those issues through the framework established by Supreme Court precedent governing separation-of-powers issues. The Department of Justice and the President’s personal counsel have recognized that the President is subject to statutes that prohibit obstruction of justice by bribing a witness or suborning perjury because the conduct does not implicate his constitutional authority. With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.

    Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers . The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regardless of their source. We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President's ability to fulfill his constitutional mission. The term "corruptly " sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. A preclusion of "corrupt" official action does not diminish the President's ability to exercise Article II powers. For example, the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment, avoiding financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment. To the contrary, a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and even handed administration of the law. It also aligns with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President's conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President 's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

    CONCLUSION

    Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ustice-1281245
    I find it telling that anyone would have a problem with it. Instead of holding the most powerful politicians in the land as accountable as possible, instead of demanding exacting accordance with the law, and instead of raking them across the coals anytime they did anything that even appeared illegal and/or unconstitutional, you have people falling all over themselves to protect them at all costs and put Party before anything and everything else. They're nothing but Party cultists protecting whoever the Great Leader happens to be.
    “Maybe I forgot to mention something to you: I don’t believe in queens. You think freedom is something you can give and take on a whim. But to your people, freedom is as essential as air. And without it, there is no life. There is only darkness.” -Zaheer

    "A man chooses. A slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan

    "There are three things the parasite hates: free markets, free will, and free men."-Andrew Ryan



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    They're nothing but Party cultists protecting whoever the Great Leader happens to be.
    Horse $#@!. The Democrats and anti-Trumpers are the ones who committed the crimes and spied on an enemy campaign.

    How can you obstruct justice when you never committed a crime? If anything, Trump was aiding justice by trying to stop a sham investigation.

    Get over your TDS.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  4. #3
    Orange man so bad. He ruined the last two years of my life. I have no proof, but I know he did something impeachable.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by RJB View Post
    Orange man so bad. He ruined the last two years of my life. I have no proof, but I know he did something impeachable.
    What's wrong with you? Two years of Hillary would have been much much better!

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by ATruepatriot View Post
    What's wrong with you? Two years of Hillary would have been much much better!
    I wasn't joking! I will try to have more foam on my mouth when I rant next time about that abomination in the WH. NOT MY PRESIDENT!!!

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by RJB View Post
    I wasn't joking! I will try to have more foam on my mouth when I rant next time about that abomination in the WH. NOT MY PRESIDENT!!!

  8. #7
    The president retains the 5th amendment right protections against self incrimination, his uncooperative stance and derision on the investigation is not obstruction, asking others not to cooperate is not obstruction. Threats and destruction of evidence is obstruction, which did not occur. The Mueller report is simply a list of complaints that Trump refused to incriminate himself.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by spudea View Post
    The president retains the 5th amendment right protections against self incrimination, his uncooperative stance and derision on the investigation is not obstruction, asking others not to cooperate is not obstruction. Threats and destruction of evidence is obstruction, which did not occur. The Mueller report is simply a list of complaints that Trump refused to incriminate himself.
    There is an adult in the room. Constitutional fact.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    "May" because the Muller Report did not officially determine if Trump's direct interference in investigations did or did not constitute obstruction. It officially and specifically refused to exonerate Trump of obstruction.
    The Muller Report. That must be the one where they concluded that they have no evidence of Trump robbing a 7/11, but they can not totally, definitely rule out that he may have robbed a 7/11 at some point. In fact, there is video footage of him entering 7/11 multiple times, but this is not enough evidence to start a prosecution (wink, wink, but it’s enough for an impeachment).
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  12. #10
    The OP article is a prime example of baffle them with bullish!t. Throw enough words together with innuendos, put a bunch of nothing accusations together, and try to make it looks like something.

    To boil it down: “Instead of Trump wishing the the Mueller investigation good luck and his full backing, Trump tweeted some negative things, and was not fully cooperative. He resisted, thus he might be guilty of obstruction.”
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The OP article is a prime example of baffle them with bullish!t. Throw enough words together with innuendos, put a bunch of nothing accusations together, and try to make it looks like something.

    To boil it down: “Instead of Trump wishing the the Mueller investigation good luck and his full backing, Trump tweeted some negative things, and was not fully cooperative. He resisted, thus he might be guilty of obstruction.”
    It's a good lesson for us. Even the president needs to keeps his mouth shut around cops.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by RJB View Post
    It's a good lesson for us. Even the president needs to keeps his mouth shut around cops.
    I was arrested one time for being a smartass. What am I being arrested for? "Mr A you are being placed under arrest for being a smartass, put your hands behind your back for me please." lol Serious...

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by ATruepatriot View Post
    I was arrested one time for being a smartass. What am I being arrested for? "Mr A you are being placed under arrest for being a smartass, put your hands behind your back for me please." lol Serious...
    Most of Trump's troubles come from him not keeping his mouth shut when he should. However, I think that's what keeps his base intact. Smartasses live vicariously through him.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by RJB View Post
    Most of Trump's troubles come from him not keeping his mouth shut when he should. However, I think that's what keeps his base intact. Smartasses live vicariously through him.
    The generation before me, my aunts and uncles like him but don't like that he tweets like he does. I told them that I like it because I would rather be constantly updated on how he is thinking rather than have him hide in the shadows and keep us all in the dark. lol

  17. #15
    This is ridiculous.

    "holding the most powerful politicians in the land as accountable as possible" ... "accountable as possible", yeah, those are really nice words. So in the realm of possibility, we need to have prosecutors have carte blanche to investigate people, and bring them to court/Congress to prove their innocence , and not guilt? Yeah, no. What you're trying to say is what I've heard others say -- "he is held to a higher standard" . Bull$#@!. No he's not. He has the same rights as an individual does, particularly in regards to the 4th amendment.

    Yeah, no, I can't even make the joke about saying to find one of heaven's angels and we'll put them right into office. What the Democrats want is to be able to fabricate dossiers, get carte blanche to investigate people, and then find any reason at all to remove someone from office that they don't like. "Yeah, we investigated Trump, we have confirmed there was no collusion [the charge], but he wasn't fully cooperative, so we can't say that he didn't not obstruct justice , so we don't like that." And how can we 100% say that there's no collusion at this point? Because of this HACK JOB lol. If they'll go so damn far to push obstruction, you think they wouldn't be pushing the collusion at this point if they could?

    But you know what? The Democrats control the house. $#@!ing do it. Impeach him. Why the $#@! don't you, Democrats? Oh. That's because you don't actually have a leg to stand on, so you want to screech and REEE until people agree with you. You know he won't get removed, and so you won't do it, and you won't give up, because you don't like him. So, completely unrelated to Russian collusion, now we need those TAXES. "We're not the IRS, and the IRS hasn't found any wrongdoing, and we don't have any actual probable cause that would lead to a real investigation, but because we're the House we're gonna do whatever we want". Yeah, I don't really think so, man.

    It really is Trump Derangement Syndrome. All these talking points I'm hearing, for example, sound eerily reminescent - "he's acting like a dictator", "he's not following the Constitution". What was that we said about Obama, about his executive pen and paper? Sorry, this $#@! ain't nothing new. Democrats are only sad about it now because it isn't their guy. What was that again about limited government, separation of powers, State's rights, and maybe we shouldn't have a powerful government that responds to "JUST DO SOMETHING!" because you may not like what they end up doing? Left shoe, meet right shoe.

    But you know what - I almost get what you're saying. You're saying we're acting like the right shoe on executive overreach, and that "we should come together and return to a Constitutional presidency", which the other side is saying they don't understand because the conservatives have been complaining about executive overreach for years, decades.

    Now here's the thing: they're lying. It's incredibly dishonest to put forth the unicorn of "we're coming together guys, we're going to make our presidents Constitutional again" when they're not going to charge Obama with anything. They won't talk about him at all. Or, they might defend him even more vociferously than "Trump is being defended".

    So, no. We're not Trump supporters. I can't think of anything he's done that makes me worship him at night going to bed. But the Democrats have managed to turn him into a *principle*: You can't subvert our justice system: going from proving guilt to proving innocence, you can't investigate someone carte blanche because you don't like them, and you can't use that investigation to promulgate hearsay about how bad of a person he is, create extra-judicial proceedings based on that, and remove them because you don't like them.

    Then, Democrats get to extol how evil the other side is, and how great they are, to promote their agenda. When they're the ones that are crooked as $#@!. You gotta be kidding me. No - Democrats haven't given us anything to come together on, and we're not going to roll over and be puppets in this play to make them look good and push their agenda.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by ATruepatriot View Post
    What's wrong with you? Two years of Hillary would have been much much better!
    If anything, Hillery should be arrested for obstruction of justice. She did have evidence destroyed.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.3D View Post
    If anything, Hillery should be arrested for obstruction of justice. She did have evidence destroyed.
    First charge should be the gun running in Benghazi.

  21. #18
    Hillary lost. Get over it.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Elliot's The Hollow Men

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    Hillary lost. Get over it.
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    Hillary lost. Get over it.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only show up to attack Trump when he is wrong
    DACA S**thole Dreamers - Make America Great Again?

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by RonZeplin View Post
    Wow! RonZ posts a pro-Trump meme?

    Are you off your meds?
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    "May" because the Muller Report did not officially determine if Trump's direct interference in investigations did or did not constitute obstruction. It officially and specifically refused to exonerate Trump of obstruction. One would think that is what an impeachment trial would be for though- to determine if the President had violated the law or not and therefore whether to remove him from office or not. The cases where the Report found evidence of possible obstruction of justice are summarized below.



    I find it telling that anyone would have a problem with it. Instead of holding the most powerful politicians in the land as accountable as possible, instead of demanding exacting accordance with the law, and instead of raking them across the coals anytime they did anything that even appeared illegal and/or unconstitutional, you have people falling all over themselves to protect them at all costs and put Party before anything and everything else. They're nothing but Party cultists protecting whoever the Great Leader happens to be.
    Meanwhile , what matters is that Hillary Clinton is admittedly guilty of espionage, that has also been
    unwittingly detailed by Comey, yet we not heard you wretch and whine about Hillary's ability
    to exempt herself from our laws.
    And what law did Trump break ? What crime did he commit ?
    Fo .

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratovarious View Post
    Meanwhile , what matters is that Hillary Clinton is admittedly guilty of espionage, that has also been
    unwittingly detailed by Comey, yet we not heard you wretch and whine about Hillary's ability
    to exempt herself from our laws.
    Fo .
    Seriously, wake me up when Trump has someone killed in a "botched wallet theft" in the city of D.C. where nothing of value is taken from the body.

    Perspective is something a lot of folks don't possess.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Elliot's The Hollow Men



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    Seriously, wake me up when Trump has someone killed in a "botched wallet theft" in the city of D.C. where nothing of value is taken from the body.

    Perspective is something a lot of folks don't possess.
    Exactly (also Clinton Chronicles; youtube)

    Liberals hate Trump, so jaywalking is 'High Crimes' , they love Hillary , so selling out (Uranium)
    to Russia* , Espionage, 'actual' Obstruction of Justice (email deletes), 'true' and meaningful
    conspiracy, are ignored.

    * Considered Mortal enemies historically , by many.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    "May" because the Muller Report did not officially determine if Trump's direct interference in investigations did or did not constitute obstruction. It officially and specifically refused to exonerate Trump of obstruction. One would think that is what an impeachment trial would be for though- to determine if the President had violated the law or not and therefore whether to remove him from office or not. The cases where the Report found evidence of possible obstruction of justice are summarized below.



    I find it telling that anyone would have a problem with it. Instead of holding the most powerful politicians in the land as accountable as possible, instead of demanding exacting accordance with the law, and instead of raking them across the coals anytime they did anything that even appeared illegal and/or unconstitutional, you have people falling all over themselves to protect them at all costs and put Party before anything and everything else. They're nothing but Party cultists protecting whoever the Great Leader happens to be.
    So why you bitching at us?

    Quitcherbitchin and call Pelosi's office to have him impeached.

    She's the one stonewalling, not me.

    I'm really curious to see what the reaction will be...if any.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratovarious View Post
    Exactly (also Clinton Chronicles; youtube)

    Liberals hate Trump, so jaywalking is 'High Crimes' , they love Hillary , so selling out (Uranium)
    to Russia* , Espionage, 'actual' Obstruction of Justice (email deletes), 'true' and meaningful
    conspiracy, are ignored.

    * Considered Mortal enemies historically , by many.
    Libbies supposedly hate giant corporations ruling over the country, but if it's a giant corporation censoring conservatives, then suddenly they love private property rights. Until it's them also censored for not being libbie enough and by then it's too late.
    A savage barbaric tribal society where thugs parade the streets and illegally assault and murder innocent civilians, yeah that is the alternative to having police. Oh wait, that is the police

    We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
    - Edward R. Murrow

    ...I think we have moral obligations to disobey unjust laws, because non-cooperation with evil is as much as a moral obligation as cooperation with good. - MLK Jr.

    How to trigger a liberal: "I didn't get vaccinated."

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post

    Yea, sort of like bold Bush-Cheny years 2004-2008, putting Conervatives+Neocons First.



    Followed by 8 years of anguish.








    Has there been any polling, how many of hardcore MAGA fans were also hardcore Bush-Cheney fans?
    Besides Hannity, Levin and Lindsey Graham that is.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by spudea View Post
    The president retains the 5th amendment right protections against self incrimination, his uncooperative stance and derision on the investigation is not obstruction, [b]asking others not to cooperate is not obstruction[/i]. Threats and destruction of evidence is obstruction, which did not occur. The Mueller report is simply a list of complaints that Trump refused to incriminate himself.
    Actually, under the law it is considered witness tampering and therefore is an act of obstruction. I don't have an opinion of whether it's "right" or "wrong" to do that but yes, asking (instructing?) potential witnesses to not cooperate is an act of obstruction. That topic became a centerpoint during the hearings on the Congressional 9th District election fraud case recently. The tamperer was indicted for directing witnesses not to cooperate.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    Visiting the Outer Banks of NC?
    Outer Banks NC Fishing Boat Rentals

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Warrior_of_Freedom View Post
    Libbies supposedly hate giant corporations ruling over the country, but if it's a giant corporation censoring conservatives, then suddenly they love private property rights. Until it's them also censored for not being libbie enough and by then it's too late.
    Fact, In Spades......

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Trump CANNOT Be Charged With Obstruction of Justice
    By jllundqu in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-29-2019, 08:19 PM
  2. Trump Lawyer: President Cannot Obstruct Justice
    By Zippyjuan in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-04-2017, 07:45 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-26-2017, 06:10 PM
  4. Debate lying: Trump lies 34 times. Clinton 4 times.
    By sdsubball23 in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 09-27-2016, 05:36 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-21-2011, 11:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •