Investigating the investigators? Why not?

Trump's DOJ investigating Trump's DOJ. It would sound about par for the course with this three ring circus administration.
 
Old Trapper said:
You obviously are one that is too much of a fool to understand the history of your groping gawd, and the whores he married.
Click to expand...

[translation]------>
LightheartedUnevenGypsymoth-size_restricted.gif
<-----[/translation]

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif

​
 
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...

Mueller knew he had zero case for obstruction, so he decided to crank up his democrat buddies in congress and have them keep the failed investigation going! Mueller and democrats are simply Putin pawns. Vladimir is laughing his ass off at Mueller and the Democrats. They're playing right into the Putin Plan, create hate and discontent in America's political structure.
 
Old Trapper said:
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?
Click to expand...

And you believe Mueller didn't look at Trump's taxes, right? The Constitution gives every citizen the right to not be a witness against them-self. (See Amendment 5)
 
Old Trapper said:
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.
Click to expand...

But hasn't the court already determined that a President can fire any non-elected employee of any department of the executive for any reason? Just because he fires the Special Prosecutor, i.e. Mueller, why would that end the investigation? Wouldn't the AG just appoint another Special Prosecutor to continue the investigation? When a President completely cooperates with an investigation like Trump did and he can fire any non-elected member of the executive branch where's the obstruction? Why couldn't Trump fire at least half of the Democrat lawyers chosen by Mueller who had a bias against him and insist that at least half of the lawyers investigators on the investigation to be registered Republicans?

Trump has no legal duty to cooperate with the Congresses investigation, he can and will claim executive privilege and take every request by the Congress to provide witnesses or documents from the executive department will be challenged in the courts. Since all of those witnesses and documents have already been provided to Muller, the Congress will lose every court case.

If the House delivers articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Republican controlled Senate will never vote with a 2/3 majority to remove this President. Every congressional Democrat knows that and or should know that, thus All of this investigating horseshit by the Democrats is simply silly theater with an insane agenda to defame and embarrass Trump all the way to the 2020 election. I think it will just turn voters off, so have at it lefties cut your own throats!
 
CharacterAssassin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that Hillary, Obama, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Strzok, Page, Orr, McCabe, Rosenstein and maybe even Mueller need to lawyer up just in case, huh? The legitimate investigation is already under way!!!!!
 
Robo said:
And you believe Mueller didn't look at Trump's taxes, right? The Constitution gives every citizen the right to not be a witness against them-self. (See Amendment 5)
Click to expand...

Are you saying that filing a tax return is incriminating ones self? And how did Mueller get Trumps tax returns?
 
Robo said:
I think that Hillary, Obama, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Strzok, Page, Orr, McCabe, Rosenstein and maybe even Mueller need to lawyer up just in case, huh? The legitimate investigation is already under way!!!!!
Click to expand...

Well, keep in mind: you're an admitted meth addict. It explains why you'd think that.
 
Robo said:
Mueller knew he had zero case for obstruction, so he decided to crank up his democrat buddies in congress and have them keep the failed investigation going! Mueller and democrats are simply Putin pawns. Vladimir is laughing his ass off at Mueller and the Democrats. They're playing right into the Putin Plan, create hate and discontent in America's political structure.
Click to expand...

No, he actually made the case for obstruction. Many times over. It's in the report.

If you weren't cum-drunk all the time, you'd know that.

Why do you promote a Marxist USA?
 
Old Trapper said:
Why not start with his tax records that he is lying about?
Click to expand...
He is not required to show any tax records. That's the law. He has not lied about them either.
Old Trapper said:
Why not start with the 36 questions he failed to answer when Mueller requested them?
Click to expand...
He doesn't have to answer them. I wouldn't pay Mueller much attention either.
Old Trapper said:
I realize 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.
Click to expand...
No, you are lying, just like other Democrats.
Old Trapper said:
And when you grow up maybe you could grow a set of balls, and become a patriot.
Click to expand...
Already am. You are not. You wish to destroy the Constitution of the United States.
 
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...

Trump has not violated any part of this law. The prosecution does indeed need to prove obstruction. That's constitutional law.
 
CharacterAssassin said:
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.
Click to expand...

This from a liar. You lie even to yourself.
 
CharacterAssassin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Stupid and WRONG; what's required according to the federal statutes is that there actually be a reason for a cover up. There was no crime; nothing to cover up. You're a low IQ moron on steroids who has an amazing misplaced high self opinion.

giphy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top