- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Conservative Think Tank: Trump ‘Obstructed Justice’ When He Fired Comey
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:30 am to tigerinDC09
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:30 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
There is literally a section starting on pg 8 of the report that lays out the facts:
LINK
You want just 1 person to read that crap? Try changing your thread title to being factually correct. Otherwise, you're simply pissing in the wind.
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:31 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Comey
Sucked...that is undeniable
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:31 am to tigerinDC09
This is one of those straws y'all keep grasping for. If you read the first few paragraphs, then it says that it would only be obstruction if the motive for firing Comey were to hinder the Russia investigation.
1. It's not
2. Good luck proving it even if it was
3. Desperate is not a good color on you.
1. It's not
2. Good luck proving it even if it was
3. Desperate is not a good color on you.
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:31 am to Wtodd
quote:
You mean other than any investigation doesn't stop just bc Comey is no longer there? Hmmmmmmm, well?
From the report:
Efforts to stop an investigation fall squarely within the plain meaning of Sections 1503, 1505, and 1512(c)(2). To endeavor to “stop” something certainly fits within efforts to “influence,” “obstruct,” or “impede” it. In U.S. v. Mitchell, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the Section 1505 conviction of two brothers who accepted a payment of $50,000 to convince their uncle – a congressman – to stop a congressional investigation into a company’s eligibility for a government program designed to help “small minority businesses” by promising the company’s CEO that they would “get rid of the problem.”191 Similarly, in U.S. v. Lustyik, a defendant was found guilty of obstructing justice under Sections 1503 and 1505 where he “used his status as an FBI agent” to try to stop a government investigation into his friend and business partner, Michael Taylor, by, among other things, “attempting to establish Taylor as a confidential source [and] contact[ing] multiple individuals connected with the [] investigation to dissuade them from indicting Taylor.”1
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:32 am to tigerinDC09
Trump should have fired Comey from Day 1. But let me understand better....he fired Comey to stop an investigation that Comey assured POTUS that he was not a target. And after firing Comey the investigation continues on. Ahhhh. I do believe I see "what happened". Trump is toast!
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:32 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
After reading this, I'm convinced that Trump would be indicted if he weren't currently POTUS.
He is POTUS and a POTUS cannot obstruct justice since he has absolute pardon power.
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:32 am to tigerinDC09
So no Comey, no investigation is your gotcha?
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:33 am to tigerinDC09
I would consider Brookings mainstream left-leaning, but there are a number of sources one can peruse to research possible violations that could have arisen from the Trump campaign coordinating activities with foreign actors and/or attempting to obscure that relationship. I posted some things I'd read to BBonds based upon some work done by legal experts that went something like this. Firs, we can generally dispense with the accusations of "illegal collusion" since that's not really covered in federal law except insofar as it applies to anti-trust laws. But the list of potential violations is long. Starting with obstruction from the singular incident of firing Comey, you can add the fact that receiving things of value from a foreign power in furtherance of one's candidacy is a crime. Coordinating the use or misuse of illegally obtained information (be it derived from hacking or other means of theft) may constitute computer crimes. Knowingly making false statements to investigators, on security forms, and to congressional committees are crimes. Mail and wire fraud are crimes. Conspiracy to effect a coverup of crimes is a crime. We don't know what exactly Mueller's looking most closely at (aside from the financials of a couple of advisors) but he probably has a lot to work with.
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:33 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Efforts to stop an investigation fall squarely within the plain meaning of Sections 1503, 1505, and 1512(c)(2).
He says they do. I say they don't.
Guess what we both have in common? Our opinions don't mean shite.
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:34 am to cajunangelle
quote:
what is it like to live in the bubble? how it is you are an LSU fan?
I grew up in Louisiana and graduated LSU.
We both live in bubbles. I'm on here to step outside of mine, what do you do to get outside of yours?
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:34 am to AUstar
quote:
He is POTUS and a POTUS cannot obstruct justice since he has absolute pardon power.
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:36 am to AUstar
quote:
He is POTUS and a POTUS cannot obstruct justice since he has absolute pardon power.
Richard Nixon is laughing at you
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:36 am to tigerinDC09
quote:1. The hinge is pretty creaky considering it's primary subject already gave the entire nation a dissertation about the precarious nature of 'intent' (nee, "motivation").
The white paper’s conclusions hinge upon President Trump’s motivation for Comey’s dismissal.
2. 'White' paper is racist.
Whole thing is horse shite...
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:36 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
This whitepaper lays out all of the currently known facts and precedent from case law.
I noticed they didn't cite the well-established precedent that FBI investigations are not considered "proceedings" under the Obstruction Code they claim was violated.
Airtight you say?
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:36 am to tigerinDC09
Looks like you didn't read my post slowly and clearly.
My logic is incredible. Why didn't you post all of the articles saying he didn't obstruct justice in any way?
quote:
It's been disputed for 5 months by every legal/constitutional organization. You find one article so it's overwhelming truth and undeniable fact?
My logic is incredible. Why didn't you post all of the articles saying he didn't obstruct justice in any way?
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:37 am to Navytiger74
quote:
Navytiger74
Do you deny that the president has the power of the pardon? If you agree he has this power, then how can such a person obstruct justice?
As Dershowitz says, it makes no sense. You cannot bring charges against the POTUS for obstruction when he can just pardon anyone he wants from the outset. So either the president does NOT have the power of the pardon or he does and cannot obstruct justice.
Question: Did Bill Clinton "obstruct justice" when he pardoned international fugitive Mark Rich?
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:37 am to Centinel
quote:Hear hear. We're spectators. May as well see how it plays out.
He says they do. I say they don't.
Guess what we both have in common? Our opinions don't mean shite.
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:37 am to Navytiger74
quote:
you can add the fact that receiving things of value from a foreign power in furtherance of one's candidacy is a crime. Coordinating the use or misuse of illegally obtained information (be it derived from hacking or other means of theft) may constitute computer crimes. Knowingly making false statements to investigators, on security forms, and to congressional committees are crimes. Mail and wire fraud are crimes. Conspiracy to effect a coverup of crimes is a crime
Sounds like the Clinton Camp and Obama Admin. When does Mueller start on them?
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:38 am to Centinel
quote:
He says they do. I say they don't.
Guess what we both have in common? Our opinions don't mean shite.
Guess what, their opinion is laid out with 118 pgs of relevant facts and precedent case law, so until I see your facts, I'm leaning towards brookings.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News