re: Contrary to Barr's view, DoJ issues Obstruction indictment w/o underlying crime

So, in your mind, Hillary trafficking in secrets on her private server, then all kind of shenanigans to cover that up are fine (because Comey couldn't determine "intent" which is the silliest thing I've ever heard from a senior law enforcement official discussing a federal status crime - GROSS MISHANDLING OF CLASSIFIED MATERIAL DOESN'T REQUIRE INTENT), but Trump thinking about firing Mueller (and Mueller found no evidence of collusion after all) is somehow obstruction?

Good to know...

quote:

---

named as an unindicted co-conspirator

---

You are a sad person if you don’t see a difference here, and the terrorist they were investigating. Just in awe of the depression you are experiencing and what a melt if you think this is remotely relevant....

You, like every other weak minded Democrat, are trying to throw anything and everything at the wall to see if something will stick. NO OBSTRUCTION you idiot.

Mr. Wehelie was questioned in an investigation into criminal activity by his sons. HE LIED. He gets charged with obstruction. Trump didn’t lie. He just called the investigation a sham. Apparently it hurt your feelings.

LET IT GO!!!

Here's Barr's quote:

quote:

---

While not determinative, the absence of … evidence [of collusion] bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction.”

---

That is from your Washington Post article. You (and the shite Post") ignore the words "While not determinative". There. This is exactly what ticks me off. If you were CNN espousing this blatant dishonesty, half the country would take it and run. (Not saying you are being dishonest. I suspect you saw this in some partisan article and assumed it to be true...even though it isnt.) A retraction would be nice though, to stop the cycle of b.s.

Prosecutors choose to not to pursue every possible charge all the time, that’s not some grand revelation. If you are pulled over for speeding and the officer finds cocaine in your car, it’s extremely likely that you just get charged with possession without receiving a speeding ticket. Even though you weren’t charged with speeding, speeding did occur and it justified the future revelation of cocaine possession.

That’s different from what happened with the president. He wasn’t speeding, and mueller didn’t elect to simply not prosecute a committed offense. Meuller concluded that trump did not collude (i.e. he was erroneously pulled over), and so there was no justification for the initial search to begin.

In both cases of this analogy, law enforcement did not issue a formal charge for speeding. But when the speeding actually occurred, it opened the door for a legitimate search and lead to prosecution of a different crime. When the speeding claim was proved to be erroneous, the DA loses his or her claim to any evidence collected in the following illegal search.




Long story short, being charged with an underlying crime is not what matters. That an underlying crime occurred is.

quote:

---

Wehelie is charged with making false statements to government officials and obstruction of a federal investigation.

---

quote:

---

Making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) is the common name for the United States federal process crime laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the federal government of the United States,[1] even by merely denying guilt when asked by a federal agent.[2] A number of notable people have been convicted under the section, including Martha Stewart,[3] Rod Blagojevich,[4] Michael T. Flynn,[5] Rick Gates,[6] Scooter Libby,[7] Bernard Madoff,[8] and Jeffrey Skilling.[9]

This statute is used in many contexts. Most commonly, prosecutors use this statute to reach cover-up crimes such as perjury, false declarations, and obstruction of justice and government fraud cases.[10]

---

Get yourself gone.

I figured after the first 1003 times of being embarrassed, this guy wouldn’t come back. I was wrong

Link to where Trump was convicted of a Federal Election Violation. You are doing it again. Did you read that in the Post as well? Good God man, you are making the hole bigger!!!