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!!!

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...

Me or you...no. We have no power to make them stop or punish them for not stopping. The President does. He has power and influence that can be brought to bear.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

I really can't wait to check Twitter on my phone all day to catch the updates for today's Seinfeld remake: a big event about nothing.


Pretty sure Teflon is jealous of tDon.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

How to watch the Beginning of the End or the End of the Beginning.

I'm really glad they tunneled those dedicated T-5s to my work. If the WMA ever has a bandwidth issue, it will be today.

Also today: nobody in DC is going to get a lick of work done. I mean, worse than usual.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

aparch said:
I really can't wait to check Twitter on my phone all day to catch the updates for today's Seinfeld remake: a big event about nothing.
Click to expand...

Trump is also like Seinfeld in that he sucks and is only ever funny despite himself. Oh, and the gross thing for women too young for him, too.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

I just get the feeling that this is the end of the impeachment case against trump. Yeah, he obstructed, but we all know the spineless republicans won't impeach for that. If trump really wasn't under investigation after all, it's very unlikely he will be.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Fish's spontaneous comments on the hearing have been leaked.


President Trump feels completely and totally vindicated by Former FBI Director James Comey's opening testimony and is eager to move forward.

Director Comey's opening statement confirms he told President Trump three times that he was not under investigation. The testimony also confirms that President Trump did not impede or engage in obstruction of justice of the investigation.

President Trump knew firing Director Comey would be detrimental to his presidency, but he knew it was the right thing to do for the country so he did it anyways.

Director Comey lost confidence of both sides of the aisle, and the president was justified in firing him.

Director Comey and his deputy have even admitted under oath there was no obstruction.

Director Comey has a long history of blatant contradictions and misstatements.

There is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

While investigating the Clinton email scandal, Director Comey succumbed to political pressure from the Obama White House – this is far worse than anything President Trump is rumored to have said.

The Left and the media are using the Russia investigation as a means to obstruct the President's agenda. It is time to get back to the real issues.

We are pleased the investigative process is moving forward and are confident that when these inquiries are complete, there will still be no evidence to support any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Meanwhile, President Trump is going to continue to pursue the agenda that got him elected.
Click to expand...



Flag's spontaneous comments are not yet available.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Kepler said:
How to watch the Beginning of the End or the End of the Beginning.

I'm really glad they tunneled those dedicated T-5s to my work. If the WMA ever has a bandwidth issue, it will be today.

Also today: nobody in DC is going to get a lick of work done. I mean, worse than usual.
Click to expand...

This is a great line:
Comey’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee is scheduled to start at 10am Eastern, 7am Pacific, and 5pm Moscow time.
Click to expand...
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Handyman said:
Me or you...no. We have no power to make them stop or punish them for not stopping. The President does. He has power and influence that can be brought to bear.
Click to expand...

See, that's what I think is the really interesting question about all this. No question that as President, Trump had the ability to fire Comey on the spot. Trump knew that. Comey knew that.

So, if Trump comes in and basically says that he'd like Comey to see his way clear to stop investigating Flynn, but ends the conversation right there, is that still obstruction just because the requester was in a position of authority?

Also, if the request were all we had, and Comey doesn't accede to the request, does that matter in an obstruction charge? I think those are interesting questions.

Now, with the subsequent Comey firing it'll be hard for Trump to argue the "or else" didn't exist in his request to Comey.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

SJHovey said:
See, that's what I think is the really interesting question about all this. No question that as President, Trump had the ability to fire Comey on the spot. Trump knew that. Comey knew that.

So, if Trump comes in and basically says that he'd like Comey to see his way clear to stop investigating Flynn, but ends the conversation right there, is that still obstruction just because the requester was in a position of authority?

Also, if the request were all we had, and Comey doesn't accede to the request, does that matter in an obstruction charge? I think those are interesting questions.

Now, with the subsequent Comey firing it'll be hard for Trump to argue the "or else" didn't exist in his request to Comey.
Click to expand...

All that matters is what the Republicans think. They're in power. And they don't see a smoking gun in Comey's preliminary testimony (per all reporting I heard this morning about comments from the RNC). Trump also feels vindicated cause the idiot Comey admitted telling him he wasn't under investigation. One of the worst things Comey could have done.

The only saving grace is that gridlock is here to stay for the rest of his term.

Also, during yesterday's testimony Kamala Harris was treated like ****. Because she's a woman. Compare her section to King's for context.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/social-media-reacts-kamala-harris-075324779.html
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

SJHovey said:
Also, if the request were all we had, and Comey doesn't accede to the request, does that matter in an obstruction charge? I think those are interesting questions.
Click to expand...

You mean like, when someone threatens a witness not to testify, but the witness goes ahead and testifies anyway, no witness tampering really happened? That sorta thing?
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

SJHovey said:
Also, if the request were all we had, and Comey doesn't accede to the request, does that matter in an obstruction charge?
Click to expand...


Hovey, the language in at least one statute that might apply suggests that the attempt to impede or influence, along with the requisite intent, is enough:


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 [/B] . . . .
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

ScoobyDoo said:
cause the idiot Comey admitted telling him he wasn't under investigation. One of the worst things Comey could have done.
Click to expand...

No, you've fallen for a GOP talking point. It doesn't matter that Trump wasn't investigation at that time. When you go after the mafia you start with Joey Five Fingers the guy who makes people fall out of windows. Once you have him penned you work him til rats out his boss, and on up the line. At some point you reach critical mass and the entire edifice collapses.

This is even easier with Trump than it was with Nixon, because Nixon, as bizarre as it seems, inspired true belief and loyalty. Look at Pat Buchanan 40 years later still peddling lies and self-delusion. Trump OTOH has no loyalty and inspires none. Outside the immediate family his operation runs on grift and intimidation. There is no reason for any of his stooges to remain loyal because they know Trump will stab them in the back at the first trickle of sweat on his soft, fat brow. At least Uday and Qusay have Pablo Escobar's sociopathic sangfroid. The Fat Infant himself will squeal the second pressure is applied, so it's every man for himself.

There is no Omertà with Trump. There is no honor at all.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Kepler said:
No, you've fallen for a GOP talking point. It doesn't matter that Trump wasn't investigation at that time. When you go after the mafia you start with Joey Five Fingers the guy who makes people fall out of windows. Once you have him penned you work him til rats out his boss, and on up the line. At some point you reach critical mass and the entire edifice collapses.

This is even easier with Trump than it was with Nixon, because Nixon, as bizarre as it seems, inspired true belief and loyalty. Look at Pat Buchanan 40 years later still peddling lies and self-delusion. Trump OTOH has no loyalty and inspires none. Outside the immediate family his operation runs on grift and intimidation. There is no reason for any of his stooges to remain loyal because they know Trump will stab them in the back at the first trickle of sweat on his soft, fat brow. At least Uday and Qusay have Pablo Escobar's sociopathic sangfroid. The Fat Infant himself will squeal the second pressure is applied, so it's every man for himself.

There is no Omertà with Trump. There is no honor at all.
Click to expand...

Just because you and I understand that distinction doesn't mean the voting public understands. You're falling into the trap as well. The Republicans understand that only 5% of the voting public comprehend what you're saying. They will use that, and the good guys will lose in the court of public opinion.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

SJHovey said:
See, that's what I think is the really interesting question about all this. No question that as President, Trump had the ability to fire Comey on the spot. Trump knew that. Comey knew that.

So, if Trump comes in and basically says that he'd like Comey to see his way clear to stop investigating Flynn, but ends the conversation right there, is that still obstruction just because the requester was in a position of authority?

Also, if the request were all we had, and Comey doesn't accede to the request, does that matter in an obstruction charge? I think those are interesting questions.

Now, with the subsequent Comey firing it'll be hard for Trump to argue the "or else" didn't exist in his request to Comey.
Click to expand...

On its face...not sure without the context. Most likely no though it would bring all sorts of ethics issues to the forefront.

The problem Trump has (or would if there was any chance this went anywhere) is that 1) Comey knows Trump can fire him for non-compliance, 2) Trump is making it very clear he wants the FBI to be loyal to him and 3) Trump is doing a horrible job of disconnecting those two things. Trump is basically playing the old Mafia strong man game "Oh what a nice store you have...be a shame if something were to happen to it!" he just isnt very good at it :)

The only value these hearings have (cause he wont be impeached until at earliest 2018 and wont be removed ever) is to get more info out there. Donald can talk about how he wasnt being investigated til he is blue in the face but that wasnt the point anyways. The point is whether others were (they were) and whether he tried to stop said investigations. It wont go anywhere but at least we will have the facts.
 
Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

burd said:
Hovey, the language in at least one statute that might apply suggests that the attempt to impede or influence, along with the requisite intent, is enough:


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 [/B] . . . .
Click to expand...
Yeah, I read your post yesterday, and that's what I was wondering.

Does the statute read that you are guilty of obstruction if:

1. If you influence, obstruct or impede; or
2. You endeavor to influence, instruct or impede; and
3. You do so corruptly, by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication.

Or, does it read this way:

1. If you influence, obstruct or impede corruptly, by threats or force, or by threatening letter or communication; or
2. You endeavor to influence, obstruct or impede.

I think it's probably interpreted as in my first example (there needs to be a threat, and you must either endeavor in influence/impede or you actually influenced/impeded.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top