Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part III Covfefe

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
34,495
Maybe but it was done when there was no investigation into Trump at the time therefore it cant be considered obstruction of justice. It did warrant an investigation though, which is what it got.
The investigation into Michael Flynn was a threat to Trump, else he wouldn't have had any need to shut it down. How can it not be considered obstruction of justice?

Im still not sure how you've showed that.
Because of the basic fact that Nixon's obstruction amounted to a much smaller number of incidents centred around a short period of time. Trump's successful and unsuccessful attempts to obstruct happened over 2 years and 10 documented incidents.

The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests. [James] Comey did not end the investigation of [Michael] Flynn, which ultimately resulted in Flynn’s prosecution and conviction for lying to the FBI. [Don] McGahn did not tell the Acting Attorney General that the Special Counsel must be removed, but was instead prepared to resign over the President’s order. [Corey] Lewandowski and [Rick] Dearborn did not deliver the President’s message to [Jeff] Sessions that he should confine the Russia investigation to future election meddling only. And McGahn refused to accede from his recollections about events surrounding the President’s direction to have the Special Counsel removed, despite the President’s multiple demands that he do so.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
34,495
https://thehill.com/policy/national...o-block-official-from-congressional-testimony

The White House has told a former official who supervised security clearances not to appear before the House Oversight Committee as part of a sprawling probe into the Trump administration’s security clearance process.

“There is no reason to go any further, and especially in Congress where it’s very partisan – obviously very partisan,” Trump told the Post. “I don’t want people testifying to a party, because that is what they’re doing if they do this.”
 

neoprema

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
1,952
I love the way the Democrats and their own backyard news channel, CNN, keep highlighting Trumps failures all the time and how terrible it is now that he's president of the USA.

Like the previous presidents of the USA had all solved hunger, reduced taxes, increased income for everyone, brought peace to the world and had Kumbaya sing-a-longs with the Mexicans on the border every Friday night...

People are so fickle and easily bought by propaganda its amazing.
 

Pegasus

Expert Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
1,239
There was no Russian Collusion, as if that was a surprise to anyone other than those in the Democrat Part and their mouthpiece surrogates in the media (CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, CBS News, Washington Post, The New York Times, Mediaite, etc).
There was no obstruction either. The administration co-operated with the investigation and provided more than they were legal required to. Assuming these reports of Trump being upset about the investigation and wanting to end it were true (and there are conflicting statements as to the accuracy of that), it is still not illegal and no obstruction was committed because nothing was acted upon. The FBI director Comey was fired for being a liar and a leeker; to say nothing his role in sweeping Hilary Clinton's crimes and obstruction of justice under the table which the current Attorney General should reinvestigate (plus it it within the Preisident's legal authority to fire the FBI director at his sole discretion. As an example, he could in theory fire the FBI director every 24 hours and replace him and it would be perfectly within the legal bounds of his presidential powers). To reitterate this obstruction claim, one cannot obstruct by thinking thoughts or even voicing them to someone if said thoughts were not acted upon. That would be like you thinking of smashing someone's bonnet with a gorilla lock and then pulling them out of the car and assaulting them for overtaking you on the road, and then being jailed or tried in court for the thought despite the fact that you continued driving and never acted upon the impulse.

The seond volume of the ridiculously over-bloated 400 page report is pure political spin on the part of Mueller for the indulgence of those Democrats on the congressional committees and for their doppelgangers in the mainstream media.
It’s also only one side of the story.
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
15,446
The porous border is responsible for them taking the law into their own hands? Truly agentless, these vigilantes.
would there be vigilantes patrolling the border if the border was not porous?
no

that doesn't justify their actions, but it IS the root cause, which is to say prosecuting vigilantes would be akin to treating the symptom, fixing the porous border would be treating the disease
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
34,495
would there be vigilantes patrolling the border if the border was not porous?
no

that doesn't justify their actions, but it IS the root cause, which is to say prosecuting vigilantes would be akin to treating the symptom, fixing the porous border would be treating the disease
You could also treat the cause by not demonizing and fearmongering immigrants, riling up the local populations to take the law into their own hands. Is the root cause of 9/11 American capitalistic greed?
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
15,446
You could also treat the cause by not demonizing and fearmongering immigrants, riling up the local populations to take the law into their own hands. Is the root cause of 9/11 American capitalistic greed?
You can not demonize them all you want, they are still going to come over the border illegally and you will still have vigilantes stopping them. That's a guarantee until you either plug the border or you sell open borders to the US people.

As Trump's jab at sanctuary cities so amply demonstrated: nobody wants open borders, not even the most liberal of liberals. That leaves only one option.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
34,495
And lynchings were caused by racism. Wanting secure borders is not racist however.
It's the same thing, in principle. Taking the law into your own hands because of a perception that you have doesn't make the people you're targeting responsible for your actions.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
34,495
You can not demonize them all you want, they are still going to come over the border illegally and you will still have vigilantes stopping them. That's a guarantee until you either plug the border or you sell open borders to the US people.
Or crack down on vigilante groups instead of winking past their behaviour.
 
Top