And...had Nixon destroyed the tapes as he was advised to do, he'd be as free as Hillary the C is today after destroying several phones, servers, and emails.
From the you can't make this up folder
- Thread starter TopSecretBoiler
- Start date
Or all the evidence shows that there was obstruction and the only reason Trump wasn't charged is because he's the President. Do you ever get tired of being completely and utterly wrong in your posts?
When you become objective on this board, that will be a first. In your mind I am wrong because I disagree with your premise. All you do is bitch and whine about Trump continually. How do you obstruct justice on Russian collusion when the very basis for the investigation was fraudulent to begin with? The “fruit of the poisonous tree” legal doctrine likely does apply here.
You like to paint this as black and white, but it’s not at all. Trump hasn’t been charged with a crime for Russian collusion or conspiracy to commit ..... because the case hasn’t been made. If the Ds had a case it would have already been made crystal clear.
They are going into other areas like bank records which have nothing to do with Russian collusion now because they know they have nothing.
I can’t wait for your complete meltdown when the IG and John Durham release their findings. The conspirators from the Obama Administration will be called to account for their malfeasance.
repost from fox news, may 2019:
video.foxnews.com/v/6029505643001/#sp=show-clips
“The statute making obstruction criminal prohibits interfering or attempting to interfere with a criminal prosecution or investigation that the government is conducting… so when Bob Mueller said the president of the United States did about a dozen things to slow down, impede, negate, or interfere with the investigation of his campaign, or of his former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn, that’s a serious allegation of criminal activity.
Whether the obstruction was completed, does not matter, as even attempting to thwart an investigation “for a corrupt or self-serving purpose” counts as obstruction of justice.
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.
Trump was not charged because Attorney General William Barr “would have blocked such a charge,” even though that view is at odds with the criminal statute and standard legal practice. Barr “only believes obstruction can occur if you’re interfering with a criminal investigation of yourself.”
On obstruction, Barr is wrong. The president’s job is to enforce federal law. If he had ordered its violation to save innocent life or preserve human freedom, he would have a moral defense. But ordering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behavior is unlawful, defenseless and condemnable
Instead of recommending charges, Mueller tasked Congress with determining whether Trump should be held accountable for his actions through the process of impeachment.”
video.foxnews.com/v/6029505643001/#sp=show-clips
“The statute making obstruction criminal prohibits interfering or attempting to interfere with a criminal prosecution or investigation that the government is conducting… so when Bob Mueller said the president of the United States did about a dozen things to slow down, impede, negate, or interfere with the investigation of his campaign, or of his former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn, that’s a serious allegation of criminal activity.
Whether the obstruction was completed, does not matter, as even attempting to thwart an investigation “for a corrupt or self-serving purpose” counts as obstruction of justice.
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.
Trump was not charged because Attorney General William Barr “would have blocked such a charge,” even though that view is at odds with the criminal statute and standard legal practice. Barr “only believes obstruction can occur if you’re interfering with a criminal investigation of yourself.”
On obstruction, Barr is wrong. The president’s job is to enforce federal law. If he had ordered its violation to save innocent life or preserve human freedom, he would have a moral defense. But ordering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behavior is unlawful, defenseless and condemnable
Instead of recommending charges, Mueller tasked Congress with determining whether Trump should be held accountable for his actions through the process of impeachment.”
Thank God we'll have the Republican Party playing REGULAR politics in trying to win 2020.
instead of the PARTISAN politics those indecent Democrats will be employing
Because if ANYTHING screams integrity and nobility in politics, it's Donald Trump.
Haha, so that's where you've set the bar now? Someone can not have commented a crime unless they are charged? I'll remember that the next time you come on here touting another of your right wing conspiracy theories.
I guess this means you have evolved and don't think the Clintons did anything illegal in Whitewater, with emails or any deaths... and were wrong. Or are you saying that you give yourself wiggle room by simply implying wrong doing?
I'll go with these prosecutors over your "Law and Order" interpretation of the law. But I will admit that when Jill Hennessy and/or Angie Harmon says, "fruit of the poisonous tree..." there is something sexy about it, with you it just shows how little you know.
So a bunch of D and Never Trumper former prosecutors wrote a letter saying that in their opinions Trump obstructed justice during a bogus Russian collusion investigation. OK, got it. It’s a nice reference point but it really doesn’t matter.
What matters is that Trump hasn’t been charged and likely won’t be for Russian collusion or “conspiracy to commit...”.
Haha, are you stating unequivocally that you know the motives of every individual, and that they could never be professional in their views, only simpletons who ignore facts and twist realty to fit their world view? Seems to me that you may be projecting here.
OK, then, if your view needs to be reductive.....then we'll just wait until Nov. 2020 to see if it all " really doesn't matter ".
Of course I’m not saying that unequivocally, but it is not coincidental that these former prosecutors, mostly Ds, signed this letter and submitted it when they did? Like it wasn’t part of a coordinated D-led effort to paint Trump in a bad light?
What will you say when Trump wins a second term? Will your capitalized screeching ratchet up more notches?
You think Trump need fear a group of former prosecutors or anyone else to "paint (him) in a bad light " ?? Home Depot has already run out of paint from Trump's tweets, alone !
When that sorry excuse for a President goes down, I'm assuming you'll be taking your incomprehensible ignorance of government and politics back home, go out on the patio and just stare off into space.
No, you’ll be crying in your beer. And then your screeching will go to a much higher DEFCON level.
Believe me, if one of the Democrat Socialists win (which they won’t), I’ll be on here screeching about them with the same vitriol you have for Trump. Our country is forked if someone like Pocahontas, Kamala Harris, or Bernie wins. They won’t. The Ds will nominate Biden and Ol’ Sleepy Joe will lose in the same excruciating way HRC did, at least in the minds of the Progressives.
I don't drink beer. Like I said, be drinkin' CHAMPAGNE on the 2nd Tuesday in Nov., 2020. Light'n up the Cee-gar, as well.
Of course who could forget the Right's reaction to that night in Nov., 2008.
The APOCALYPSE. Remember ?? Nothing short of Doomsday, as you put it.
Limbaugh's 1st 5 minutes on Noon, that following Wednesday, sounded like someone had murdered his family in a home invasion. End of the United States, as we know it. Spawned the delightful Tea Party, of course.
Next time ?
Long time off. A Warren victory ?? The person at the desk chair in the Oval Office would have, at the very least, an IQ 50 points higher than the current
occupant.
If this great country can survive Trump....not to worry about Warren....brilliant/competent..
.........now, Bernie.....uhhhhh.........
Pocahontas is brilliant? She lied her way into Harvard by saying she was Cherokee. She likely doesn’t get in there without playing the demographics card. The Cherokee Nation says she’s not Cherokee. In fact it’s been shown that one of her ancestors helped round up Indians and drive them West in the 1830s/1840s.
She espouses Socialist policies that will destroy our country. She’s like HRC, only farther left. She will not win the nomination nor would she beat Trump.
1) Thanks for your update on the part-Cherokee matter. Loved the reference to somebody in the F'g EIGHTEEN THIRTIES !!! wtf
2)Ms. Warren is a law school graduate, with honors, and as a law professor has taught at several law schools, including Harvard. Was regarded as one of the most influential prof's in the country in the field of commercial law. Has written 3 books and co-authored 6 others, before becoming Senate Chair of the oversight committee on TARP, following the Great Recession. Has also served on a number of other Senate Committees.
3) Does a checkmark on an entrance application re: racial descent constitute "lying your way in" to a college ?? If all one needs to do in life is to lie one's way in....Donald Trump would've been the KING OF ENGLAND by now.
4) A Warren presidency -strictly hypothetical.
5)But, hey !! Lied about Cherokee connection. She's only ELEVEN THOUSAND, NINE HUNDRED AND NINETY-NINE lies behind Trump !!!
Your ignorance on every topic you post about is utterly astounding.
Wow, did you copy that horsesheiss about Warren from a sleeve of one of her books?
In the end, it doesn’t matter. The DNC and the superdelegates have already made up their minds - it will be ‘Ol Sleepy Joe Biden.
And you know in your heart of hearts that he will lose to Trump. He’s senile and too low energy to be President. He has too much political baggage. He’s a human gaffe machine. And he’s the best the Ds have! The rest of the clown car is aced out. It’s already decided. Now, it’s just about who the choice is for VP.
WHAT ?? So you think the brief bio was horseshit, huh ??
It's the truth. T...R...U...T...H... SD, you're lucky to remember the woman's NAME, much less even the most obvious part of her background. Why would you ever ask where background info for a post comes from, given the fact that you've always been too lazy to spend 60 seconds fact-checking ANYTHING on this board ??
My heart-of-hearts ??
There are professional oddsmakers in places like Nevada, Tokyo, London & several Caribbean Islands. They are responsible for putting up election odds on which HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars will eventually be wagered before 11/2020. Those odds, of course, continually change as time progresses.
As of TODAY, the (yet unknown) Democratic Party candidate is a -115/-105 FAVORITE to win.
So here's my dilemma: Whose information do I respect ?
The professionals or the message board Bozo who's demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt, virtually no knowledge whatsoever about US politics ??
Really a tough call.
Yes, and then you’ll say how the polls are showing so strongly for sleepy Joe too. Who is more likely to bet on a Presidential election right now? Ds or Rs?
Don’t you think the oddsmakers set the line to draw bets in from one side? In essence, entice them with an attractive line that can make money?
SD...my good man....let's just say that I could give you a LENGTHY tutorial -off the top of my head -about oddsmaking and wagering. TOO lengthy.
Your D's or R's ??'s are those that would require MUCH more background learning in this domain than you're likely to want to engage in.
Take my word for it.
You are real damn sure? Thats good enough for me since you said it. That is beyond laughable . You have all kinds of proof of 100% and access to his mind? You know all this right? I am sure Obama had no plans to make money off his Presidency but he sure as hell did .
He obviously had plans to WRITE A BOOK !!!!
What he obviously DIDN'T DO is go through the enormous effort to run for President, and then serve in the most important and stressful job on the face of the earth for EIGHT YEARS FOR THE PURPOSE OF.....AND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THEN BEING ABLE TO PROFIT FROM THE BOOK DETAILING HIS LIFE IN OFFICE !!!!!!!!!
Please God tell us you're smart enough to understand this.
Christ.
Last edited:
What else did he do in those eight years other than succeed in setting race relations back years? The man had once accomplishment and that was the AHCA, which destroyed many folks health care.
This is the general discussion board. Unless a poster is targeting an individual with pointed remarks or making hurtful/hateful posts directed at groups of people, I'm not going to remove them simply because individuals on both side of the political spectrum don't agree with one another. To be frank, I get almost equal amounts of 'reports' from both sides complaining how 'unreadable' the General Discussion Board has become.
Want to make it better? Police it yourself by being more open to the other side of the discussion and quite casting stones at one another and then getting offended when it occurs back at you. The reports I get from you all are mainly just complaining about individual posters who aren't technically breaking any of the guidelines. When they do, I delete the post and give a warning as needed.
Listen, I would love to have this board be a place where opinions are respected and there isn't mud-slinging...but to be honest it isn't worth my time when many of you act so juvenile in your posts that if I followed your requests, the board would be a lonely place...
I have no further interest in engaging with him but most of his post contain pointed hurtful remarks at anyone that doesn't agree 100% with him so carry on as you see fit.This is the general discussion board. Unless a poster is targeting an individual with pointed remarks or making hurtful/hateful posts directed at groups of people, I'm not going to remove them simply because individuals on both side of the political spectrum don't agree with one another. To be frank, I get almost equal amounts of 'reports' from both sides complaining how 'unreadable' the General Discussion Board has become.
Want to make it better? Police it yourself by being more open to the other side of the discussion and quite casting stones at one another and then getting offended when it occurs back at you. The reports I get from you all are mainly just complaining about individual posters who aren't technically breaking any of the guidelines. When they do, I delete the post and give a warning as needed.
Listen, I would love to have this board be a place where opinions are respected and there isn't mud-slinging...but to be honest it isn't worth my time when many of you act so juvenile in your posts that if I followed your requests, the board would be a lonely place...
You are more than welcome to use the 'ignore' feature for any poster you see fit for any reason you feel.
Oh you know, he inherited the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression...but easy peasy.
It's hilarious you fault him for poor race relations....while Donald Trump is in office. Uh ok.
Republicans hit Obama all the time for secretly being a Muslim from Africa, but somehow it’s Obama’s fault that race relations were worse. That’s the solid conservative logic one should expect.
You might want to review some of your remarks pointed my way.
Juvenile, foul, over-the-the-top dreck.
The ACHA created 15,000,000 - 20,000,000 additional health insurance customers for the country. Please describe the DESTRUCTION facts, if you will.
Likewise, could you name the 3 things he did to most impactfully set back race relations, as well.
Here's what Obama DIDN'T do:
1) kill each Mon. -Fri. morning watching Fox and Friends & other Fox programming.
2) Skip nearly every intelligence briefing meant to include him
3) Lose the golf rounds played/month frequency comparison to the other Pres. by almost a 2 to 1 margin.
You don't want the other 97, do you ??
Yes except when you have someone dominating every post with his crap it makes things unreadable . Thank you for the suggestion
Actually, squirrelguy, if you go back to review our exchanges, you'll find a preponderance of your posts drenched in foul language and almost unreadable, mangled English.
Mine were, meanwhile, heavily emphasizing the advisability of you engaging the mental health profession, in order to avoid the unpleasant option of you eventually having to go whimpering to Mommy (in the form of a board moderator) to save you from further embarrassment.
Take the advice to employ the ignore feature. You'll be glad you did.
