Investigating the investigators? Why not?

CharacterAssassin said:
I love it when asshats who know I have them on ignore still post to me.

It's their way of saying they're my bitch.

Fun!!!
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Howard the Duck said:
Uh, no, Mueller did no such thing. Otherwise, he would have made a criminal referral.
Click to expand...

Wrong. He was prevented from doing so by the OLC's policy. That's why he laid out the obstruction part of the report as he did: so Congress could take it and run with it.

He would never have been able to make any such referral due to that asinine policy, so he wrote his report accordingly.
 
CharacterAssassin said:
Wrong. He was prevented from doing so by the OLC's policy. That's why he laid out the obstruction part of the report as he did: so Congress could take it and run with it.

He would never have been able to make any such referral due to that asinine policy, so he wrote his report accordingly.
Click to expand...

You know, let's go with your incorrect interpretations, here.

If there's one think I'd like to spend my political 2019 doing, it's watching the Congressional Dems bring articles of impeachment against Douchebag Donald. Fucking entertaining shit, and I get to watch two of the entities that I hate the most embarrassing themselves on national television.
 
Howard the Duck said:
You know, let's go with your incorrect interpretations, here.
Click to expand...

Except for the pesky fact, of course, that the report confirms what I've stated.
If there's one think I'd like to spend my political 2019 doing, it's watching the Congressional Dems bring articles of impeachment against Douchebag Donald. Fucking entertaining shit, and I get to watch two of the entities that I hate the most embarrassing themselves on national television.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to anything I've posted.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Really? Please list all of the instances of actual obstruction. Trump ordering guys like McGahn to fire Mueller doesn't count, because the orders were ignored.
Click to expand...

LOL! Absolutely and hilariously wrong. All that's required according to the federal statutes is that he make an attempt. It doesn't have to be a successful one. If he gave the orders, that's all the law requires.
 
Into the Night said:
Testify to what? What is there to testify to?
Click to expand...

Why not start with his tax records that he is lying about? Why not start with the 36 questions he failed to answer when Mueller requested them?

I r4ealize that the only liars, and cowards, that matter to the likes of you are Democrats, but hell, at least show a little, even a teeny weeny little bit, of integrity.

And when you grow up maybe you could grow a set of balls, and become a patriot.
 
Into the Night said:
What law? Please be specific.
Click to expand...

You poor right wingers are scared shitless of the truth:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1503

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/obstruction-of-justice.html

Obstruction of justice is defined by federal statute as any "interference with the orderly administration of law and justice" and governed by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1521. Federal code identifies more than 20 specific types of obstruction, including "Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees" (18 U.S.C. § 1505), the specific code section cited in the Nixon and Clinton articles of impeachment.

Other ways an individual may commit this offense include, but are not limited to, the following acts:

Influencing or injuring an officer or juror generally (18 U.S.C. § 1503)
Obstruction of criminal investigations (18 U.S.C. § 1510)
Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant (18 U.S.C. § 1512)
Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant (18 U.S.C. § 1513)
Destruction of corporate audit records (18 U.S.C. § 1520)

The crime can take any number of forms, whether it's bribery, tampering with evidence, lying to investigators, abusing one's power, or some other act intended to impede a criminal investigation. The federal obstruction of justice statute is written broadly and focuses more on the effect (or intended effect) of a particular action rather than the specific act itself. Therefore, seemingly innocuous acts could be construed as criminal activity if they have the intended effect of impeding justice.

Elements of an Obstruction of Justice Charge

The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge differ slightly by code section. For instance, prosecutors must prove the following elements for a conviction under section 1503 of the federal statute (influencing or injuring an officer or juror):

There was a pending federal judicial proceeding;
The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.

But regardless of the specific section of federal law (1501 through 1521) cited in a particular case, the prosecution need not prove any actual obstruction -- the defendant's attempt to obstruct is enough. The element of intent, which is central to such cases, is also usually the most difficult to prove; although memos, phone calls, and recorded conversations may be used as evidence to establish this.
 
Last edited:
Poor Richard Saunders said:
So if an investigation doesn't find any evidence to charge someone with a crime it is corrupt but if the investigation does find evidence and charges people with crimes it is a witch hunt. What an interesting world you live in.
Click to expand...

Actually the crimes charged were never the quest of the investigation, they were purely to squeeze the arrested to deliver a crime done by the President. the arrest were all about intimidation. solitary confinement for Manifort? Why? A terrorist hit squad, body armor and armored police vehicles and AR15 weapons burnished at 6 AM to arrest Rodger Stone? What's that all about? The interesting world I live in is the special treatment Hillary Clinton got from the Obama Justice Department as compared to the Treatment Donald Trump and friends got from the Obama Justice Department leftovers and the Never Trumpers in the government, not to mention the double standard media coverage.
 
Truth Detector said:
Something else stuck me about what was lacking in Mueller's investigation; the fact that his department was leaking like a sieve to the NYT's and he did and said NOTHING about it. Even in his report.

He said NOTHING about the FBI cabal or looked into the corrupt FISA warrants.
Click to expand...

There was never any intention to actually investigate collusion or conspiracy, they knew that dog didn't hunt from the get go. Rosenstein, Mueller, Comey and other crooked cops in the Justice Department are all a cabal of holier-than-thou elitist scum who think they're the county's true patriots who attempted to protect America from Trump. their Special Prosecutor investigation was never to find a criminal that tried to influence an election,, it was all about finding a crime to pin on Trump. All of the collusion and conspiracy was in the Democrats and Clinton's corner. Mueller could have arrested a dozen or more conspirators who attempted to rig the election. You never saw any of that because it had nothing to do with the real agenda, frame Trump!!!!!
 
CharacterAssassin said:
None of that is credible evidence of your asinine claims, silly whore, and most of it is pure fantasy. "FISA abuse'?!?!? What a sucker.

And your instance that there was a coup is simply more evidence that you're desperately pulling things straight out of your ass in an attempt to distract from the fact that you have nothing.

Christ, have you always been this stupid?

It's really got to sting for you, considering the current active 20 state and federal investigations into Trump, his family, his admin, his businesses and his inauguration.

To say nothing for the clear case that he committed obstruction.
Click to expand...

Stand by lefty, If Barr is as straight a shooter as is claimed, the shit is about to hit the Democrat's and Never Trump Republican's fan. I'm looking at several indictments of Obama's Justice Department and FBI dirty cops and likely indictments of intel top cops and possibly Hillary Clinton and even Obama. We shall see Lefty!!!!!
 
Robo said:
Stand by lefty, If Barr is as straight a shooter as is claimed, the shit is about to hit the Democrat's and Never Trump Republican's fan. I'm looking at several indictments of Obama's Justice Department and FBI dirty cops and likely indictments of intel top cops and possibly Hillary Clinton and even Obama. We shall see Lefty!!!!!
Click to expand...

A. No one rational, familiar with Barr's record, thinks he's a straight shooter, ya Marxist.
B. No shit is going to hit the dems or NT's fan.
C. You're not looking at any such indictments. None exist.
D. Obama's DOJ and the FBI committed no offenses, nor can you show that they did.

Marxists like you are such pathetic suckers.
 
Old Trapper said:
You poor right wingers are scared shitless of the truth:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1503

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/obstruction-of-justice.html

Obstruction of justice is defined by federal statute as any "interference with the orderly administration of law and justice" and governed by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1521. Federal code identifies more than 20 specific types of obstruction, including "Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees" (18 U.S.C. § 1505), the specific code section cited in the Nixon and Clinton articles of impeachment.

Other ways an individual may commit this offense include, but are not limited to, the following acts:

Influencing or injuring an officer or juror generally (18 U.S.C. § 1503)
Obstruction of criminal investigations (18 U.S.C. § 1510)
Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant (18 U.S.C. § 1512)
Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant (18 U.S.C. § 1513)
Destruction of corporate audit records (18 U.S.C. § 1520)

The crime can take any number of forms, whether it's bribery, tampering with evidence, lying to investigators, abusing one's power, or some other act intended to impede a criminal investigation. The federal obstruction of justice statute is written broadly and focuses more on the effect (or intended effect) of a particular action rather than the specific act itself. Therefore, seemingly innocuous acts could be construed as criminal activity if they have the intended effect of impeding justice.

Elements of an Obstruction of Justice Charge

The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge differ slightly by code section. For instance, prosecutors must prove the following elements for a conviction under section 1503 of the federal statute (influencing or injuring an officer or juror):

There was a pending federal judicial proceeding;
The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.

But regardless of the specific section of federal law (1501 through 1521) cited in a particular case, the prosecution need not prove any actual obstruction -- the defendant's attempt to obstruct is enough. The element of intent, which is central to such cases, is also usually the most difficult to prove; although memos, phone calls, and recorded conversations may be used as evidence to establish this.
Click to expand...

You're wasting your time.

That retarded troll is retarded.
 
Old Trapper said:
Only problem is that the low IQ types like you wish Mueller had said it was a "witch hunt" just as your dick sucking President has declared. But he didn't. And he was not exonerated on any charges especially the obstruction charges as you will find out of the Democrats have the balls to go forward with impeachment.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...ueller-said-trump-had-to-engage-in-witch-hunt
Click to expand...

" dick sucking President " ..... So you are talking about Obama right ?

Because he is the ONLY President caught getting his dick sucked !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top