Toggle sidebar

Obstruction

atlkvb

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,585
6,171
113
JWBinDC said:
No, that's not how prosecution works. Mueller did not find sufficient grounds to charge with conspiracy. That doesn't mean there was "no evidence" of a conspiracy, nor does it mean there wasn't abundant evidence of unsavory and improper contact. Again, assistance was offered and accepted. Your head would be exploding, if it was a Dem. And.....obstruction does not require the underlying crime to even exist or be successfully prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Doesn't something even have to be true in order for "obstruction" to occur? So Mueller was investigating how Trump ''colluded" to steal votes from Hillary, but simply couldn't figure out how he did it, (or at least couldn't find the evidence) but he sure as sh*t obstructed the investigation into how he did what he actually didn't do! :confused:

You're psychotic.
 
Last edited:
atlkvb

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,585
6,171
113
JWBinDC said:
Mueller did not find sufficient grounds to charge with conspiracy. That doesn't mean there was "no evidence"
Click to expand...

Translation: You can charge a crime with no evidence? :eek: What other "grounds" comprise evidence???????o_O

Read that twice, and see if it's English...then read it a third time and realize someone with a College education and a degree actually typed it. Read it a 4th time and understand the OP actually believes it! [eyeroll]
 
Last edited:
W

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,091
693
0
a sitting president can’t be indicted, but an ex-president can go to jail...

you can look it up...

Zero will find this out...
 
atlkvb

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,585
6,171
113
TarHeelEer said:
LOL! Wut?
Click to expand...

 
dave

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,601
817
113
JWBinDC said:
No, that's not how prosecution works. Mueller did not find sufficient grounds to charge with conspiracy. That doesn't mean there was "no evidence" of a conspiracy, nor does it mean there wasn't abundant evidence of unsavory and improper contact. Again, assistance was offered and accepted. Your head would be exploding, if it was a Dem. And.....obstruction does not require the underlying crime to even exist or be successfully prosecuted.
Click to expand...
Here is how prosection works.

They garher all the evidence

They review the evidence and then

A. Prosecute
B. Dont.
 
atlkvb

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,585
6,171
113
dave said:
Here is how prosection works.

They garher all the evidence

They review the evidence and then

A. Prisecute
B. Dont.
Click to expand...

Well according to @JWBinDC , you don't actually need hard evidence in order to charge a crime or even determine there's no evidence! In other words, just because you can't actually find evidence of a crime doesn't mean it's non existent or you didn't commit the crime. o_O

You can be guilty of a crime with no evidence. Just ask him.
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,230
3,298
113
JWBinDC said:
No, that's not how prosecution works. Mueller did not find sufficient grounds to charge with conspiracy. That doesn't mean there was "no evidence" of a conspiracy, nor does it mean there wasn't abundant evidence of unsavory and improper contact. Again, assistance was offered and accepted. Your head would be exploding, if it was a Dem. And.....obstruction does not require the underlying crime to even exist or be successfully prosecuted.
Click to expand...
We have the presumption of innocence. He is innocent of the crime he was investigated for. Period. Full stop.

I agree about obstruction. I just don’t care. You all set the table at collusion. You were told Collusion wasn’t a crime. You all changed to conspiracy. He is innocent of conspiracy. I don’t care about obstruction as nothing he did actually negatively impacted the investigation. Mueller was provided everything he asked for and everyone he wanted to talk to. Executive privilege wasn’t even invoked.

Mueller didn’t have enough evidence to warrant a sit down with the President.

Game over. Enjoy the politicized attempts at impeachment. That is, while the left scrambles for cover in the coming weeks and months as this sham is torn to bits, brick by brick.

Ever wonder why the NYT hasn’t released the full unredacted FISA? They’ve had it for a while. Not to worry, answers are forthcoming.
 
C

countryroads89_rivals

Sophomore
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
DvlDog4WVU said:
We have the presumption of innocence. He is innocent of the crime he was investigated for. Period. Full stop.

I agree about obstruction. I just don’t care. You all set the table at collusion. You were told Collusion wasn’t a crime. You all changed to conspiracy. He is innocent of conspiracy. I don’t care about obstruction as nothing he did actually negatively impacted the investigation. Mueller was provided everything he asked for and everyone he wanted to talk to. Executive privilege wasn’t even invoked.

Mueller didn’t have enough evidence to warrant a sit down with the President.

Game over. Enjoy the politicized attempts at impeachment. That is, while the left scrambles for cover in the coming weeks and months as this sham is torn to bits, brick by brick.

Ever wonder why the NYT hasn’t released the full unredacted FISA? They’ve had it for a while. Not to worry, answers are forthcoming.
Click to expand...


That’s tarheel level of stupid.
 
S

Shirley Knott

Redshirt
May 26, 2017
12,831
0
0
atlkvb said:
Well according to @JWBinDC , you don't actually need hard evidence in order to charge a crime or even determine there's no evidence! In other words, just because you can't actually find evidence of a crime doesn't mean it's non existent or you didn't commit the crime. o_O

You can be guilty of a crime with no evidence. Just ask him.
Click to expand...
I guess if you really really really believe you can file for obstruction, and you are lib....
 
atlkvb

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,585
6,171
113

“A very exculpatory section of the Mueller Report: NO CONSPIRACY, COORDINATION or COLLUSION with the Trump Campaign and the Russians. You can’t be more clear than that!” @GreggJarrett

Ah...but that's not what @JWBinDC says:
JWBinDC said:
NO underlying crime is a necessary in order to engage in obstruction of justice
Click to expand...

JWBinDC said:
Mueller did not find sufficient grounds to charge with conspiracy. That doesn't mean there was "no evidence" of a conspiracy,
Click to expand...

See....Lawyer Greg Jarrett is wrong....Laywer JWBinDC is correct! [eyeroll]
 
J

JWBinDC

Senior
Aug 20, 2001
15,865
923
0
DvlDog4WVU said:
We have the presumption of innocence. He is innocent of the crime he was investigated for. Period. Full stop.

I agree about obstruction. I just don’t care. You all set the table at collusion. You were told Collusion wasn’t a crime. You all changed to conspiracy. He is innocent of conspiracy. I don’t care about obstruction as nothing he did actually negatively impacted the investigation. Mueller was provided everything he asked for and everyone he wanted to talk to. Executive privilege wasn’t even invoked.

Mueller didn’t have enough evidence to warrant a sit down with the President.

Game over. Enjoy the politicized attempts at impeachment. That is, while the left scrambles for cover in the coming weeks and months as this sham is torn to bits, brick by brick.

Ever wonder why the NYT hasn’t released the full unredacted FISA? They’ve had it for a while. Not to worry, answers are forthcoming.
Click to expand...
Lolz. You see what you want to see. I don't know how I allowed myself to get dragged into this cesspool section of the site. My bad.
 
dave

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,601
817
113
JWBinDC said:
Lolz. You see what you want to see. I don't know how I allowed myself to get dragged into this cesspool section of the site. My bad.
Click to expand...
Ever stop to think you might see what you want to see?
 
atlkvb

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,585
6,171
113
dave said:
Ever stop to think you might see what you want to see?
Click to expand...

What prosecutor in his right mind would charge someone with "no evidence" or even attempt a prosecution absent grounds for at least a charge based on a preponderance of some type of accusatory evidence? o_O

I mean I'm certainly not a Lawyer but do you also have to be just flat out stupid to even suggest such a thing? Maybe not. Just be like @JWBinDC [eyeroll]
 
Last edited:
dave

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,601
817
113
atlkvb said:
What prosecutor in his right mind would charge someone with "no evidence" or even attempt a prosecution absent grounds for at least a charge based on a preponderance of some type of accusatory evidence? o_O

I mean I'm certainly not a Lawyer but do you also have to be just flat out stupid to even suggest such a thing? Maybe not. Just be like @JWBinDC [eyeroll]
Click to expand...
Left has 1 course right now. Impeachment. It would be a purely political move. It could backfire bigly
 
atlkvb

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,585
6,171
113
dave said:
Left has 1 course right now. Impeachment. It would be a purely political move. It could backfire bigly
Click to expand...

I think they're calculating their chances with it even as we speak. I'm not one to encourage them to avoid self destruction.
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,230
3,298
113
JWBinDC said:
Feel free to do the same with mine. I find it amusing the lengths trumpies will go to defend him for abhorrent behavior. Please proceed.
Click to expand...
I already made my position statement which countered aspects and agreed with aspects. I’m waiting on your rebuttal. It’s kind of how a debate works.
 
M

mule_eer

Freshman
May 6, 2002
20,439
59
48
DvlDog4WVU said:
We have the presumption of innocence. He is innocent of the crime he was investigated for. Period. Full stop.

I agree about obstruction. I just don’t care. You all set the table at collusion. You were told Collusion wasn’t a crime. You all changed to conspiracy. He is innocent of conspiracy. I don’t care about obstruction as nothing he did actually negatively impacted the investigation. Mueller was provided everything he asked for and everyone he wanted to talk to. Executive privilege wasn’t even invoked.

Mueller didn’t have enough evidence to warrant a sit down with the President.

Game over. Enjoy the politicized attempts at impeachment. That is, while the left scrambles for cover in the coming weeks and months as this sham is torn to bits, brick by brick.

Ever wonder why the NYT hasn’t released the full unredacted FISA? They’ve had it for a while. Not to worry, answers are forthcoming.
Click to expand...
Based on what you do for a living, I know you have filled out paperwork to gain a clearance. You know they differentiate between you being found not guilty and not being found guilty of a crime. So an 18-year old enlistee has to live up to a higher standard than POTUS?

Having said that, I'm fine with Congress looking into the report and deciding how to proceed. I also think that impeachment would be a fool's move. First, the Senate will not vote to remove him from office. They just won't. Second, the process plays perfectly into Trump's cries about how he's a victim of pretty much everyone and everything. It helps him politically moving forward.
 
atlkvb

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,585
6,171
113
mule_eer said:
I also think that impeachment would be a fool's move. First, the Senate will not vote to remove him from office. They just won't. Second, the process plays perfectly into Trump's cries about how he's a victim of pretty much everyone and everything. It helps him politically moving forward.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with this. Impeachment at its core is a "political" process. Democrats are trying to use it as a "criminal" procedure to get rid of Trump which is a "political" objective. If they were truly interested in upholding the Law, they'd immediately re-open Hillary's use of that illegal server and charge her with obstruction of Justice, sedition and or/treason as well as perjury to Congress.

But your analysis on them impeaching Trump is spot on.:eek:kay:
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,230
3,298
113
mule_eer said:
Based on what you do for a living, I know you have filled out paperwork to gain a clearance. You know they differentiate between you being found not guilty and not being found guilty of a crime. So an 18-year old enlistee has to live up to a higher standard than POTUS?

Having said that, I'm fine with Congress looking into the report and deciding how to proceed. I also think that impeachment would be a fool's move. First, the Senate will not vote to remove him from office. They just won't. Second, the process plays perfectly into Trump's cries about how he's a victim of pretty much everyone and everything. It helps him politically moving forward.
Click to expand...
I honestly don’t understand the point you were trying to make in the first paragraph.
 
G

Gunny46

All-Conference
Jul 2, 2018
61,001
4,021
113
DvlDog4WVU said:
I honestly don’t understand the point you were trying to make in the first paragraph.
Click to expand...
I think he is saying it's not fair that military members get charged for mishandling classified material when Hillary as Secretary of State had a non government server in her broom closet or he doesn't really understand how Security Clearances actually work ?
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,230
3,298
113
Gunny46 said:
I think he is saying it's not fair that military members get charged for mishandling classified material when Hillary as Secretary of State had a non government server in her broom closet or he doesn't really understand how Security Clearances actually work ?
Click to expand...
No idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom