Challenge for our leftie friends

[Oneuli]

There hasn't been any obstruction of justice administration. Mouthing moronic media narratives doesn't make it so.

Trump isolated Comey and then told Comey he would like it if he stopped investigating Flynn.... who Trump knew, at the time, to be guilty of a federal crime. Comey refused and then Trump fired him, admitting publicly that it was not due to the Rosenstein memo, but rather that he was thinking of the "Russia thing." That's plenty to make an obstruction of justice case. Since then, Trump's just been frosting on that cake, with things like publicly criticizing the head of the Justice Department for prosecuting criminal Republicans who could have won elections.

There are a number of other crimes for which a case might be made against Trump (the most serious being the allegation, backed by sworn statements from two women that he raped a child.) But the obstruction of justice case is the strongest one, at this point, since the elements of the crime can be established using nothing but Trump's own public statements.

 

[Truth Detector]

Yeah, I'm sure you're in the know.

Then why withhold them or dump 42,000 of them at the last second?

Lying moron thinks Democrats haven't already decided not to vote for him.

You're not even clever in your stupidity.

 

[Truth Detector]

You could argue Obama did nominate a conservative. Many on the left were upset that Obama went with such a centrist pick.

 

[Truth Detector]

Yeah and when you pack the court with a bunch of ignorant neanderthals who know nothing about the law and just enforce their ideology, expect a counterpacking. The constitution exists, I'm sorry. We will ensure our rights are enforced. You will never have the freedomless dictatorship of your dreams.

 

[Truth Detector]

Trump isolated Comey and then told Comey he would like it if he stopped investigating Flynn.... who Trump knew, at the time, to be guilty of a federal crime. Comey refused and then Trump fired him, admitting publicly that it was not due to the Rosenstein memo, but rather that he was thinking of the "Russia thing." That's plenty to make an obstruction of justice case. Since then, Trump's just been frosting on that cake, with things like publicly criticizing the head of the Justice Department for prosecuting criminal Republicans who could have won elections.

Sorry, but the investigation was never hampered by Comey's firing and the Exec can hire and fire anyone he desires at any time. It is laughably moronic to suggest that this would qualify as obstruction.

You need to stop listening to the morons on CNN and MSNBC.

There are a number of other crimes for which a case might be made against Trump (the most serious being the allegation, backed by sworn statements from two women) that he raped a child.

They are bullshit allegations which is why they haven't found their way into a courtroom. Apparently you are not only gullible, but prone to parroting the moronic lies you are being fed by leftist blogs.

But the obstruction of justice case is the strongest one, at this point, since the elements of the crime can be established using nothing but Trump's own public statements.

Wrong; the obstruction claim is almost as lame and moronic as the rape claim. It is obvious you have TDS and gullibly parrot any moronic drivel you hear about Trump.

 

[Oneuli]

Sorry, but the investigation was never hampered by Comey's firing

Actually succeeding in obstructing the investigation isn't a necessary element of the crime, for obvious reasons. For example, if someone were to hide evidence they're legally required to disclose, but then later someone else found it, such that it didn't impede the investigation, the decision to willfully hide that evidence would still be the crime of obstruction of justice.

and the Exec can hire and fire anyone he desires at any time

Yes, but not for any reason. That's the key distinction. If I'm an employer in an employment at will state, I can fire someone for something as petty as not enjoying working with him. But I can't fire him for, say, being a Vietnam Vet, or a Jew, or a whistle-blower. The general rule that a person can fire someone at will does not mean he can fire him for any reason. There are illegitimate reasons, and an intent to obstruct justice is one.

It is laughably moronic to suggest that this would qualify as obstruction.

No. You'll find a wide variety of legal scholars publicly taking the position that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...an-prove-it-heres-how/?utm_term=.2448236a4417

You need to stop listening to the morons on CNN and MSNBC.

Step outside your conservative media bubble.

They are bullshit allegations which is why they haven't found their way into a courtroom.

There's an ongoing investigation. However, even when that's done, it may not go to court, because the Justice Department has a policy memo saying that a sitting president can't be indicted. I think that's an indefensible position, but with a far-right-winger like Sessions heading up the Justice Department, it's hard to picture that changing. Still, it's obstruction of justice.

Wrong; the obstruction claim is almost as lame and moronic as the rape claim. It is obvious you have TDS and gullibly parrot any moronic drivel you hear about Trump.

If you can think of a counter-argument, just let me know. As surely your realize, personal attacks completely miss the mark.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

the difference is that the republicans arguing that knew it was bullshit. it was politics and about exerting power.

liberals ACTUALLY BELIEVE it though. they ACTUALLY believe in "fairness" when it comes to this process. LOL.

Both sides make arguments based more on how much control they have at a given time. The libbies have none now, so of course they're making the fairness arguments & all that. They really can't do anything about anything when it comes to this process.

The GOP was shortsighted w/ Garland, though. Just like other precedents that have been set, it's likely they'll regret that one.

 

[Truth Detector]

Actually succeeding in obstructing the investigation isn't a necessary element of the crime, for obvious reasons. For example, if someone were to hide evidence they're legally required to disclose, but then later someone else found it, such that it didn't impede the investigation, the decision to willfully hide that evidence would still be the crime of obstruction of justice.

Actually, there has to be obstruction for there to be a charge which is why NOTHING has been brought regarding that by the Independent Counsel. Are you willfully stupid, or just like looking the part?

Yes, but not for any reason. That's the key distinction. If I'm an employer in an employment at will state, I can fire someone for something as petty as not enjoying working with him. But I can't fire him for, say, being a Vietnam Vet, or a Jew, or a whistle-blower. The general rule that a person can fire someone at will does not mean he can fire him for any reason. There are illegitimate reasons, and an intent to obstruct justice is one.[/quote]

Wrong again; there does not need to be any cause to fire the FBI chief. Please find me the clause that states otherwise. Are you ignorant?

No. You'll find a wide variety of legal scholars publicly taking the position that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice.

I can find a wide variety of legal scholars who will tell you that is a moronic argument and claim as well. Of course, if you are a willful ignoramus, you're bound to believe just about anything in order to appease your narrow myopic view of the world and feed your TDS.

Step outside your conservative media bubble.

Ironic in that you are wallowing in your leftist media bubble. Take your head out of your ass; that tiny microscopic brain could use the oxygen.

There's an ongoing investigation. However, even when that's done, it may not go to court, because the Justice Department has a policy memo saying that a sitting president can't be indicted. I think that's an indefensible position, but with a far-right-winger like Sessions heading up the Justice Department, it's hard to picture that changing. Still, it's obstruction of justice.

The investigation has found NOTHING related to Russian collusion/interference or obstruction. You do understand the term NOTHING don't you?

If you can think of a counter-argument, just let me know. As surely your realize, personal attacks completely miss the mark.

Ironic coming from someone who doesn't think. But when it comes to parroting the lunacy MSNBC and CNN spew, you have that down pat. My comments aren't personal attacks, they are intelligent observations of the stupidity you keep prattling on about. If you sound like an idiot, I call it as I see it, IDIOT.

 

[Truth Detector]

Both sides make arguments based more on how much control they have at a given time. The libbies have none now, so of course they're making the fairness arguments & all that. They really can't do anything about anything when it comes to this process.

The GOP was shortsighted w/ Garland, though. Just like other precedents that have been set, it's likely they'll regret that one.

How so? What was short sighted about it?

Speaking of precedents, how about the precedent Democrats are setting now in the Senate Judiciary committee and the fact that they think they can make a mockery of the Presidency, our election process and investigate Presidents when they don't like the election outcome? Does that bother you at all?

How about a sitting President using the justice department to spy on, and start an investigation on opposition parties? Are you okay with that?

How about your glaring hypocrisy and propensity to look past all the corruption and incompetence the Democratic Party of the Jackass engages in?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

How so? What was short sighted about it?

Speaking of precedents, how about the precedent Democrats are setting now in the Senate Judiciary committee and the fact that they think they can make a mockery of the Presidency, our election process and investigate Presidents when they don't like the election outcome? Does that bother you at all?

How about a sitting President using the justice department to spy on, and start an investigation on opposition parties? Are you okay with that?

How about your glaring hypocrisy and propensity to look past all the corruption and incompetence the Democratic Party of the Jackass engages in?

I didn't like what the GOP did w/ Garland, and I don't like what Dems are doing now.

This is where elections have consequences. Dems lost, and they have no real say in this. Hearings like this shouldn't be political. It should be about qualifications - ideology shouldn't be part of it. If a candidate is qualified, they should be approved, barring some extraordinary circumstance.

But I'd bet you have no problem w/ what they did w/ Garland. That was the Senate abdicating its Constitutional responsibility for politics (just so's you know).

 

[LV426]

I didn't like what the GOP did w/ Garland, and I don't like what Dems are doing now.

This is where elections have consequences. Dems lost, and they have no real say in this. Hearings like this shouldn't be political. It should be about qualifications - ideology shouldn't be part of it. If a candidate is qualified, they should be approved, barring some extraordinary circumstance.

But I'd bet you have no problem w/ what they did w/ Garland. That was the Senate abdicating its Constitutional responsibility for politics (just so's you know).

We don't know if Kavanaugh is qualified because Conservatives are hiding his record and communications when he worked for Bush the Dumber.

 

[Truth Detector]

I didn't like what the GOP did w/ Garland, and I don't like what Dems are doing now.

That wasn't the question; how was it short sighted?

This is where elections have consequences. Dems lost, and they have no real say in this. Hearings like this shouldn't be political. It should be about qualifications - ideology shouldn't be part of it. If a candidate is qualified, they should be approved, barring some extraordinary circumstance.

So you agree with me that they are setting a dangerous and stupid precedent acting like spoiled little children screaming and yelling and trying to make a mockery of the Senate hearings?

But I'd bet you have no problem w/ what they did w/ Garland.

I don't know what it is you think was wrong about it. How was it short sighted?

That was the Senate abdicating its Constitutional responsibility for politics (just so's you know).

It was the Senate acting legal in every way. How was it abdicating? Be very specific. I cannot find anything in the Constitution that states that a Senate confirmation process has to be begun immediately and the Senate has to confirm anyone the President sends their way.

 

[Truth Detector]

We don't know if Kavanaugh is qualified because Conservatives are hiding his record and communications when he worked for Bush the Dumber.

This is a lie and it is lame. But then, it is expected from a brain dead leftist loon like you.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

That wasn't the question; how was it short sighted?



So you agree with me that they are setting a dangerous and stupid precedent acting like spoiled little children screaming and yelling and trying to make a mockery of the Senate hearings?



I don't know what it is you think was wrong about it. How was it short sighted?



It was the Senate acting legal in every way. How was it abdicating? Be very specific. I cannot find anything in the Constitution that states that a Senate confirmation process has to be begun immediately and the Senate has to confirm anyone the President sends their way.

What the Senate & McConnell kept saying was that they should put it off until the elections and let the people decide w/ their vote. Show me where in the Constitution it states that when it comes to SCOTUS vacancies.

It's just hyperpartisan excuse-making on your part to rationalize what they did. SCOTUS had a vacancy for a year. No, there is nothing about "immediately," but there was ample time left in their session and they had a nominee. They ignored their responsibility for politics, and that is indisputable.

And yes, it's short-sighted. Because now the precedent is set. If the party in control of the Senate is at odds w/ the chief executive, that chief executive's last year in office will now be off limits for SCOTUS nominations.

You tell me: do you think that's what the founders intended? I'm sure you'll find a way to say yes, but you'll be all blustery about it when the situation is reversed, which it inevitably will be.

 

[Truth Detector]

What the Senate & McConnell kept saying was that they should put it off until the elections and let the people decide w/ their vote. Show me where in the Constitution it states that when it comes to SCOTUS vacancies.

Do you always answer questions with questions? That is the definition of dishonest. How was it short sighted? Why is it so hard for you to answer your own claim?

I am still waiting for you to show me where it says they are obligated to hold hearings at the whim of the executive. On one hand you liberal snowflakes declare we need separation of powers and then when the shoe is on the other foot, demand we kowtow to the Exec.

You need to make up your mind which it is.

As for what Mitch McConnell said, that precedent was already set by O'Biden and Schumer.....because your liberal memory is short, here is a quick walk down memory lane:

Biden Rule on Nominees – 1992
Senator Joe Biden in 1992: "President Bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not, and not, name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

It's just hyperpartisan excuse-making on your part to rationalize what they did. SCOTUS had a vacancy for a year. No, there is nothing about "immediately," but there was ample time left in their session and they had a nominee. They ignored their responsibility for politics, and that is indisputable.

Wrong; what you are erupting with is hyper partisan bullshit, not to mention having a terribly short historic memory. See above Biden rule.

And yes, it's short-sighted. Because now the precedent is set. If the party in control of the Senate is at odds w/ the chief executive, that chief executive's last year in office will now be off limits for SCOTUS nominations.

Again, Democrats set that precedent. See above.

You tell me: do you think that's what the founders intended?

Absolutely! The founders set up a purposefully dysfunctional Government to prevent it from ruling over the citizens. Of course in liberal loser land, the Congress should work WITH the exec, BUT, only if they are a Democrat right? STFU, seriously.

If they wanted Government to work, they would have set up a Dictatorship.

I'm sure you'll find a way to say yes, but you'll be all blustery about it when the situation is reversed, which it inevitably will be.

I am sure you will find a way to tightly close your eyes, ears and mind so that you can remain ignorant.

 

[Oneuli]

Actually, there has to be obstruction for there to be a charge which is why NOTHING has been brought regarding that by the Independent Counsel. Are you willfully stupid, or just like looking the part?

I don't mind the insults, but if you're going to try to claim superior knowledge, shouldn't you do some reading about the topic first? For example the independent counsel law expired back in 1999, and we haven't had one since then. Mueller is a Special Counsel, which is a significantly different position, without the same independence. As part of the Justice Department, he may well feel bound by its weird internal policy of regarding the president as being above the law, for purposes of indictment.

Wrong again; there does not need to be any cause to fire the FBI chief.

Do you imagine that I said there does need to be cause? If so, what gave you that idea? I would recommend rereading what I wrote, so you can craft a response that's actually responsive to my argument.

I can find a wide variety of legal scholars who will tell you that is a moronic argument and claim as well.

Feel free to do so. I think you'll see a pattern of such scholars not being top scholars in relevant fields, but rather professional talking heads whose main roles involve paid speaking appearances telling conservatives what they'd like to think is true.

The investigation has found NOTHING related to Russian collusion/interference or obstruction.

The investigation has found plenty related to Russian collusion and interference, along with the obstruction of justice discussed above. As to Russia, there's now evidence that three of the top people in Trump's campaign colluded to meet secretly with agents of the Kremlin for the express purpose of getting valuable information for the campaign.

 

[Truth Detector]

I don't mind the insults, but if you're going to try to claim superior knowledge, shouldn't you do some reading about the topic first? For example the independent counsel law expired back in 1999, and we haven't had one since then. Mueller is a Special Counsel, which is a significantly different position, without the same independence. As part of the Justice Department, he may well feel bound by its weird internal policy of regarding the president as being above the law, for purposes of indictment.

Apparently they did bother you because you are whining about it. I am amused that you think you have knowledge of anything. Parroting MSNBC and CNN narratives is hardly intelligent, knowledgeable or factual.

I will tell you what, I am so sure of my knowledge on the topic I am willing to bet a permanent ban from the forum that Trump will never be indicted OR charged with Obstruction of Justice.

Are you just as sure of your knowledge? So far, not ONE liberal snowflake with more superior knowledge has taken me up on that bet; why do you think that is?

Do you imagine that I said there does need to be cause? If so, what gave you that idea? I would recommend rereading what I wrote, so you can craft a response that's actually responsive to my argument.

More whining; you seem to be quite full of it. When are we going to see signs of this superior knowledge you seem to think you have? When you take my permanent ban bet?

I think you'll see a pattern of such scholars not being top scholars in relevant fields, but rather professional talking heads whose main roles involve paid speaking appearances telling conservatives what they'd like to think is true.

What I see is a familiar pattern of talking heads seeing an opportunity to make money and find a moment of fame on MSNBC and CNN. I don't see a lot on intelligence behind the moronic claims that Trump has obstructed justice.

Perhaps instead of crying, you can find something that will support your moronic contention that he somehow has.

The investigation has found plenty related to Russian collusion and interference, along with the obstruction of justice discussed above.

The investigation has found NOTHING connected with the Special Councils obligations. There is ZERO evidence the Trump campaign coordinated with Russians to win the election. The investigation itself is farce based on that simple fact.

The notion that Clinton lost because the Russians helped Trump are not merely ludicrous and retarded, they defy gravity in their nonsense.

As to Russia, there's now evidence that three of the top people in Trump's campaign colluded to meet secretly with agents of the Kremlin for the express purpose of getting valuable information for the campaign.

That is another laughably stupid and moronic claim you are parroting from MSNBC and CNN. Members of a campaign can meet with ANYONE they want for ANY reason they want even if it is for opposition research. The notion that meeting in broad daylight in the Trump Tower is somehow a "secret" also defies gravity in the level of stupidity that comment makes.

But perhaps with your SUPERIOR knowledge, you can find the criminal code telling us meeting with Russians is illegal. You make me laugh with this air of superiority you wave about.

Take the bet!

 

[domer76]

read what ted cruz had to say. the documents were when he was staff secretary under the bush admin, he didn't even write them, he just passed them back and forth between the state department etc and the whitehouse.

Non-answer

 

[domer76]

advice and consent of the senate implies there needs to be consent. the senate did not consent. sorry bitch, no garland for you.

No shit, Einstein.

 

[domer76]

Lying moron thinks Democrats haven't already decided not to vote for him.

You're not even clever in your stupidity.

Irrelevant again. Still.

Dismissed, moron.