What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

ScoobyDoo said:
It was never confirmed until now. Yeah, it was out there but you have to be very careful with assumptions nowadays. Now it's fact. He can't run. He can try lying some more but he can't do that either.
Click to expand...

it's still not confirmed. It's just Comey saying he did.

To remove Trumpy from office, we're gonna need cold hard paper trails of him working with the Russians, and hopefully, surveillance footage of him wacking himself in the corner while Russian hookers are ******ing on a mattress
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

unofan said:
The obstruction is him asking Comey to stop looking at Flynn.
Click to expand...
Let me ask this, and I really don't know the answer because I'm not familiar with criminal law. If I (or Trump) go to an investigator or the head of the FBI and say, "you know, there really is nothing to this whole Flynn thing, I think you should just let it go," is that technically obstruction of justice? Doesn't it take something more? Doesn't it take something like also connecting to that request the discussion with Comey about keeping his job, or his later termination? I know we have the Trump comments about why he fired Comey, so maybe they make that connection, but don't they actually need that connection?

If someone in Trumps position simply argues that there is nothing that Flynn did that is illegal and the investigation should be dropped, or even makes that statement to Comey but does nothing more (no threats to Comey or no actual interference in the investigation), that can't alone be obstruction, is it?
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

rufus said:
it's still not confirmed. It's just Comey saying he did.

To remove Trumpy from office, we're gonna need cold hard paper trails of him working with the Russians, and hopefully, surveillance footage of him wacking himself in the corner while Russian hookers are ******ing on a mattress
Click to expand...

Based on credibility it's been confirmed as far as I'm concerned. Quite frankly I could give two ****s about getting him out of office with Pence in the wings. I just want any traction on anything stopped and that's getting more and more likely every day. I also want more and more scrutiny and oversight and that's getting more and more likely every day.

As far as I'm concerned today and tomorrow are huge wins for the halting of American Stupidity.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

SJHovey said:
Let me ask this, and I really don't know the answer because I'm not familiar with criminal law. If I (or Trump) go to an investigator or the head of the FBI and say, "you know, there really is nothing to this whole Flynn thing, I think you should just let it go," is that technically obstruction of justice? Doesn't it take something more? Doesn't it take something like also connecting to that request the discussion with Comey about keeping his job, or his later termination? I know we have the Trump comments about why he fired Comey, so maybe they make that connection, but don't they actually need that connection?

If someone in Trumps position simply argues that there is nothing that Flynn did that is illegal and the investigation should be dropped, or even makes that statement to Comey but does nothing more (no threats to Comey or no actual interference in the investigation), that can't alone be obstruction, is it?
Click to expand...

At a minimum it's highly unethical and at this point we need some things that are left at a high ethical standard. It's Congress' job to make that happen. That becomes more and more likely every day no matter what Turtle Boy and Ryan the scumbag say.
 
SJHovey said:
Let me ask this, and I really don't know the answer because I'm not familiar with criminal law. If I (or Trump) go to an investigator or the head of the FBI and say, "you know, there really is nothing to this whole Flynn thing, I think you should just let it go," is that technically obstruction of justice? Doesn't it take something more? Doesn't it take something like also connecting to that request the discussion with Comey about keeping his job, or his later termination? I know we have the Trump comments about why he fired Comey, so maybe they make that connection, but don't they actually need that connection?

If someone in Trumps position simply argues that there is nothing that Flynn did that is illegal and the investigation should be dropped, or even makes that statement to Comey but does nothing more (no threats to Comey or no actual interference in the investigation), that can't alone be obstruction, is it?
Click to expand...

You mean something like firing the FBI Director who didn't "just let it go?"
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

unofan said:
You mean something like firing the FBI Director who didn't just"let it go?"
Click to expand...

Good point. I had forgotten that piece. It's adding up to be quite the mess. Ideally we'll get a complete "Live Tweet" session from @realDonaldTrump tomorrow during testimony.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

unofan said:
You mean something like firing the FBI Director who didn't just"let it go?"
Click to expand...
Didn't I reference that?

But that's my point. Your initial post that the "obstruction is asking Comey to stop looking at Flynn" isn't accurate unless there is that "or else", like a firing or a threat of firing or something else.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

SJHovey said:
Didn't I reference that?

But that's my point. Your initial post that the "obstruction is asking Comey to stop looking at Flynn" isn't accurate unless there is that "or else", like a firing or a threat of firing or something else.
Click to expand...

Isn't firing enough? Or does there have to be reference to the quid pro quo first?
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

ScoobyDoo said:
Isn't firing enough? Or does there have to be reference to the quid pro quo first?
Click to expand...

Firing is the "or else" SJHovey referenced, Scooby. Does an obstruction of justice charge, in a situation like that, have to be predicated upon some punitive threat made towards the person conducting the investigation, or would simply making a request suffice?
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

St. Clown said:
Firing is the "or else" SJHovey referenced, Scooby. Does an obstruction of justice charge, in a situation like that, have to be predicated upon some punitive threat made towards the person conducting the investigation, or would simply making a request suffice?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I meant but you stated it much better.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Someone needs to cite the obstruction statute under which the charge would be brought.

edit: I see there are a number of offenses set forth in 18 U.S.C beginning with section 1503.

This from section 1505:

18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

St. Clown said:
Firing is the "or else" SJHovey referenced, Scooby. Does an obstruction of justice charge, in a situation like that, have to be predicated upon some punitive threat made towards the person conducting the investigation, or would simply making a request suffice?
Click to expand...

Yes, but Trumpy can certainly argue that firing Covey was un-related to the Russian investigation. Now you and I might not buy that, but if you're gonna make that sort of thing stick to Trump, Mueller needs to dig up the hard evidence that proves that is why he was fired.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Interesting thing about obstruction of justice charges is also there need not BE obstruction for one to be guilty, you only have to ATTEMPT to obstruct and can be found guilty of obstruction.

And of course right on cue are the mealy mouthed responses of the most patriotic of all Americans, the conservatives:
Matt Schlapp said:
This is one man's account of a conversation, it is a set of notes, it's exactly what we expect from James Comey. ... He is a grand-stander, he likes to be the honest man, he is going to play that role on Thursday,
Click to expand...

He doesn't even bother denying the validity of what Comey has previewed, because he knows trump supporters don't even care if trump is a criminal. Of course most of trump's supporters are so stupid they don't have a second brain cell that possesses the ability to think critically. We're either gonna see this 5h!t until 2021 or the media is going to suffer extreme trump fatigue and give up before the 2018 midterms.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

WeAreNDHockey said:
Interesting thing about obstruction of justice charges is also there need not BE obstruction for one to be guilty, you only have to ATTEMPT to obstruct and can be found guilty of obstruction.

And of course right on cue are the mealy mouthed responses of the most patriotic of all Americans, the conservatives:


He doesn't even bother denying the validity of what Comey has previewed, because he knows trump supporters don't even care if trump is a criminal. Of course most of trump's supporters are so stupid they don't have a second brain cell that possesses the ability to think critically. We're either gonna see this 5h!t until 2021 or the media is going to suffer extreme trump fatigue and give up before the 2018 midterms.
Click to expand...

I remember hearing this asshat talk a few weeks ago and I had to change the channel. He offers nothing of substance. I couldn't find what I remember him talking about but it was maddening.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

SJHovey said:
Let me ask this, and I really don't know the answer because I'm not familiar with criminal law. If I (or Trump) go to an investigator or the head of the FBI and say, "you know, there really is nothing to this whole Flynn thing, I think you should just let it go," is that technically obstruction of justice?
Click to expand...

Depends upon the relationship of "I (or Trump)" in this theoretical to, "an investigator or the head of the FBI".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top