(07-26-2019 06:16 AM)gdunn Wrote: I was listening to Fox News (free SXM trial with my new truck) this morning to work. Halfway I stopped and got breakfast.. I heard them hit on the subject of DeBlasio challenging Trump to a debate in NY (seems like they all want a shot at the champ until they don't), conditions at the border and how it's now how it's being portrayed on 99% of the other networks (apparently they're taking time and going to several along the border to prove AOC and her ilk wrong), Brexit, and a couple other minor things I didn't pay attention to. I got back in the truck and flipped it over to CNN. It's Friday, they're all still mulling over Mueller's testimony with the one takeaway that our resident Never Ever Trumper sounded off on earlier in the week, if Trump wasn't President he'd be indicted. That was the rest of the ride that and how Russians have interfered with the 2016 and will interfere with the 2020 elections and how Trump won't do anything.
Hello the last guy didn't. And apparently they missed the part Wednesday where Bob said they couldn't prove Trump committed a crime, so I'd like to know what they'd indict for. That's our talking points, Trump goes to jail when he's no longer in office for a crime not yet named and Russia.
There is one component to the, "if Trump wasn't President he'd be indicted," argument that gets too often ignored. Some of the things Trump did were exercises of constitutional powers. If he weren't President, he wouldn't have those powers. That's the flaw in the argument that goes, "what if the police were investigating your son and you pulled strings to get the chief of police fired?" You don't have the legal power to fire the chief of police. Trump has the constitutional power to fire anyone in the executive branch.
If he is exercising a constitutional power, then that is not criminal intent, unless there is some underlying criminal motive. That's why the failure to find collusion/conspiracy makes obstruction hard to prove.
The frustrating thing to many of us is the ignorance of so many of the citizens of this great country. What you are pointing out is absolutely the truth yet the MSM completely ignores it. I watch that crap occasionally and it is treasonous how they ‘report the news’.
JR is right. We have let the country down by allowing the left to dumb down our population with totally inadequate public education. You can only take over this country if the population is stupid.
(07-26-2019 06:16 AM)gdunn Wrote: I was listening to Fox News (free SXM trial with my new truck) this morning to work. Halfway I stopped and got breakfast.. I heard them hit on the subject of DeBlasio challenging Trump to a debate in NY (seems like they all want a shot at the champ until they don't), conditions at the border and how it's now how it's being portrayed on 99% of the other networks (apparently they're taking time and going to several along the border to prove AOC and her ilk wrong), Brexit, and a couple other minor things I didn't pay attention to. I got back in the truck and flipped it over to CNN. It's Friday, they're all still mulling over Mueller's testimony with the one takeaway that our resident Never Ever Trumper sounded off on earlier in the week, if Trump wasn't President he'd be indicted. That was the rest of the ride that and how Russians have interfered with the 2016 and will interfere with the 2020 elections and how Trump won't do anything.
Hello the last guy didn't. And apparently they missed the part Wednesday where Bob said they couldn't prove Trump committed a crime, so I'd like to know what they'd indict for. That's our talking points, Trump goes to jail when he's no longer in office for a crime not yet named and Russia.
There is one component to the, "if Trump wasn't President he'd be indicted," argument that gets too often ignored. Some of the things Trump did were exercises of constitutional powers. If he weren't President, he wouldn't have those powers. That's the flaw in the argument that goes, "what if the police were investigating your son and you pulled strings to get the chief of police fired?" You don't have the legal power to fire the chief of police. Trump has the constitutional power to fire anyone in the executive branch.
If he is exercising a constitutional power, then that is not criminal intent, unless there is some underlying criminal motive. That's why the failure to find collusion/conspiracy makes obstruction hard to prove.
What really shows their delusion is all the comments about "he wanted to do X, but his advisors told him not to." If someone wanted to rob a bank, but his friends told him it was illegal and he didn't do it, its NOT a crime.
You just wonder how these Democrats are able to function in real life with such limited capacity for independent thinking.
(07-26-2019 06:16 AM)gdunn Wrote: I was listening to Fox News (free SXM trial with my new truck) this morning to work. Halfway I stopped and got breakfast.. I heard them hit on the subject of DeBlasio challenging Trump to a debate in NY (seems like they all want a shot at the champ until they don't), conditions at the border and how it's now how it's being portrayed on 99% of the other networks (apparently they're taking time and going to several along the border to prove AOC and her ilk wrong), Brexit, and a couple other minor things I didn't pay attention to. I got back in the truck and flipped it over to CNN. It's Friday, they're all still mulling over Mueller's testimony with the one takeaway that our resident Never Ever Trumper sounded off on earlier in the week, if Trump wasn't President he'd be indicted. That was the rest of the ride that and how Russians have interfered with the 2016 and will interfere with the 2020 elections and how Trump won't do anything.
Hello the last guy didn't. And apparently they missed the part Wednesday where Bob said they couldn't prove Trump committed a crime, so I'd like to know what they'd indict for. That's our talking points, Trump goes to jail when he's no longer in office for a crime not yet named and Russia.
There is one component to the, "if Trump wasn't President he'd be indicted," argument that gets too often ignored. Some of the things Trump did were exercises of constitutional powers. If he weren't President, he wouldn't have those powers. That's the flaw in the argument that goes, "what if the police were investigating your son and you pulled strings to get the chief of police fired?" You don't have the legal power to fire the chief of police. Trump has the constitutional power to fire anyone in the executive branch.
If he is exercising a constitutional power, then that is not criminal intent, unless there is some underlying criminal motive. That's why the failure to find collusion/conspiracy makes obstruction hard to prove.
What really shows their delusion is all the comments about "he wanted to do X, but his advisors told him not to." If someone wanted to rob a bank, but his friends told him it was illegal and he didn't do it, its NOT a crime.
You just wonder how these Democrats are able to function in real life with such limited capacity for independent thinking.
Irrelevant. He had the constitutional right to fire him anytime he wanted. And he had cause obviously also. And a new SC would have been assigned. Saying you wanted to fire somebody you have a right and reason to fire is far from illegal.
(07-26-2019 06:16 AM)gdunn Wrote: I was listening to Fox News (free SXM trial with my new truck) this morning to work. Halfway I stopped and got breakfast.. I heard them hit on the subject of DeBlasio challenging Trump to a debate in NY (seems like they all want a shot at the champ until they don't), conditions at the border and how it's now how it's being portrayed on 99% of the other networks (apparently they're taking time and going to several along the border to prove AOC and her ilk wrong), Brexit, and a couple other minor things I didn't pay attention to. I got back in the truck and flipped it over to CNN. It's Friday, they're all still mulling over Mueller's testimony with the one takeaway that our resident Never Ever Trumper sounded off on earlier in the week, if Trump wasn't President he'd be indicted. That was the rest of the ride that and how Russians have interfered with the 2016 and will interfere with the 2020 elections and how Trump won't do anything.
Hello the last guy didn't. And apparently they missed the part Wednesday where Bob said they couldn't prove Trump committed a crime, so I'd like to know what they'd indict for. That's our talking points, Trump goes to jail when he's no longer in office for a crime not yet named and Russia.
There is one component to the, "if Trump wasn't President he'd be indicted," argument that gets too often ignored. Some of the things Trump did were exercises of constitutional powers. If he weren't President, he wouldn't have those powers. That's the flaw in the argument that goes, "what if the police were investigating your son and you pulled strings to get the chief of police fired?" You don't have the legal power to fire the chief of police. Trump has the constitutional power to fire anyone in the executive branch.
If he is exercising a constitutional power, then that is not criminal intent, unless there is some underlying criminal motive. That's why the failure to find collusion/conspiracy makes obstruction hard to prove.
The frustrating thing to many of us is the ignorance of so many of the citizens of this great country. What you are pointing out is absolutely the truth yet the MSM completely ignores it. I watch that crap occasionally and it is treasonous how they ‘report the news’.
JR is right. We have let the country down by allowing the left to dumb down our population with totally inadequate public education. You can only take over this country if the population is stupid.
Once you realize the bold is done on purpose to drive an agenda, it isn't surprising. The really sad part is that people now KNOW they are being constantly lied to by the MSM yet continue to follow blindly. It's like a drug they can't shake.
(07-26-2019 09:54 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: Irrelevant. He had the constitutional right to fire him anytime he wanted. And he had cause obviously also. And a new SC would have been assigned. Saying you wanted to fire somebody you have a right and reason to fire is far from illegal.
Most relevant question:
Was your investigation curtailed, stopped, or hindered at any point?
MUELLER: No.
(07-26-2019 09:54 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: Irrelevant. He had the constitutional right to fire him anytime he wanted. And he had cause obviously also. And a new SC would have been assigned. Saying you wanted to fire somebody you have a right and reason to fire is far from illegal.
Most relevant question:
Was your investigation curtailed, stopped, or hindered at any point?
MUELLER: No.
(07-26-2019 09:54 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: Irrelevant. He had the constitutional right to fire him anytime he wanted. And he had cause obviously also. And a new SC would have been assigned. Saying you wanted to fire somebody you have a right and reason to fire is far from illegal.
Most relevant question:
Was your investigation curtailed, stopped, or hindered at any point?
MUELLER: No.
YEp. that one-word answer torpedoed any further talk of obstruction of justice.
Without knowing the law it seems like that one question and answer takes care of the wording of the law
Quote: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 (2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection.
§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal administrative agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.
![[Image: h95wiayapmc31.png]](https://i.redd.it/h95wiayapmc31.png)
![[Image: nqpnl77hrmc31.jpg]](https://i.redd.it/nqpnl77hrmc31.jpg)
