Obstruction of Justice
- Thread starter Merge
- Start date
Just noticing now that you paraphrased from Comey's testimony as if it were your original thought and an absolute truth.
Comey's testemony: ""I think if our — if the agents, as good as they are, heard the president of the United States did that ... there's a real risk of a chilling effect on their work."
It is this type of comment that shows your colors. It is those who do not have the facts nor the law on their side always rely on an ad hominem attack. I could care less of what you think of me. But, Stand up for your country for God's sake.
Makes me laugh that people like you would probably hang a guy like John Gotti on the word of his underboss the Sammy the Bull Gravano who killed over 20 people and lied hundreds of times. Yet, Jim Comey's testimony you have problems with. This is laughable.
SPK, you are just repeating talking points of the White House. If you are not very troubled with what you have seen so far, is baffling.
Isn't this one of those ad hominem attacks you so detest, LOL?
You don't have any problems with Comey? You sure did 7-8 months ago.
Aren't they all untrustworthy?
The key is collusion with Russia and the election. Obstruction of justice is important as well but no one, not even Comey, believes that to be the case. How can you prosecute when your prime witness refutes that?
You attacked me first...and don't lecture me about caring for this country because you don't know jack. Keep making up your own facts in your alternate reality world. It seems to work for you.
Last edited:
Comey did not say that at all. In his last testimony he said he believes he was fired by Trump because of the Russia investigation(because Trump said so), and it was not up to him to say it that was obstruction or not.
I don't see how it isn't obstruction based on the definition of the word. Did Trump "endeavor to influence" the investigation by firing the guy in charge of it when he told the press he was fired because of the Russia investigation?
Again, I have a problem with how Comey handled things. No doubt about that. However, the fact that I believe he made bad choices doesn't mean he is untrustworthy. I believe what he has to say and never questioned whether he was telling the truth. I had a problem with how he decided to go about his job. Those are two different things.
While the collusion is certainly very important, so is the obstruction. In law enforcement, it's the cover up that will get people in trouble in terms of evidence. Not necessarily the underlying crime.
He caved into Loretta Lynch....... he caved in to Trump...... right now he is all about saving his "legacy" so you can trust him????? at best he's feckless.....
If you ask me, Obama's people need to be coming before the special prosecutor explaining why they did nothing when they knew all about the Russian hacking well before the election. Oh... of course they thought that Clinton was going to win then. What phonies and hypocrites.
Obama made a mistake by not revealing this investigation into Russian hacking into the DNC. I would imagine in his lofty ideals that he did not want step on the scales of the election and look too partisan. However, that is BS. They knew that the Russians hacked into the DNC, then they should have revealed that. Obama made numerous mistakes and this is just one of them.
It should not have come as a surprise that the Russians were meddling. We should be defending against that at all times. What seems to be emerging is that their tactics and coordination improved at least compared to previous elections.
Even National Elections are local affairs. There was neither time nor resources to revamp how a district protected its data. That is supposed to be an ongoing process.
The high profile hacks that we knew about were all targeted to Democratic employees. Whether the ultimate source of the hacks were the Russians or someone else, there was no real incentive for Democratic operatives to lay back since they seemed to be the primary targets.
Even National Elections are local affairs. There was neither time nor resources to revamp how a district protected its data. That is supposed to be an ongoing process.
The high profile hacks that we knew about were all targeted to Democratic employees. Whether the ultimate source of the hacks were the Russians or someone else, there was no real incentive for Democratic operatives to lay back since they seemed to be the primary targets.
You had me until you said "Obama's lofty ideals"....lol. Seriously, it makes no sense why they didn't pursue this earlier.
Cyber warfare has been pursued and defended against every day in the public and private sector for at least 10 years. Making an announcement about it is not an issue.
SPK has it right. It's the collusion point. If they find the connection to where the Trump campaign team knew and were the willing beneficiaries of the Russian hack, it'll open up everything else. Who knows how long such an investigation will take.
The most effective piece of evidence on the obstruction charge is what, Comey's testimony - seemingly validated by Sessions to some degree yesterday - and then Trump's interview with Lester Holt? I doubt that's enough.
The most effective piece of evidence on the obstruction charge is what, Comey's testimony - seemingly validated by Sessions to some degree yesterday - and then Trump's interview with Lester Holt? I doubt that's enough.
But, but, we took away their resorts!! Lmao.
Reminds me of when Obama said nothing for what, a week after Benghazi in the lead up to the 2012 Presidential Election? Or even going back further when the USS Cole was bombed shortly before the 2000 Presidential Election and was largely ignored in terms of a response.
Election Year politics, sadly.
Probably not enough to be a slam dunk case, but was apparently enough to warrant an investigation specifically about potential obstruction.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...8_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.7d71203bc334
why would you think that?
You think from everything that has come out so far that the special prosecutor wouldn't be required to investigate potential obstruction? Also Trump tweeted about it, so safe to say the story is real.
I agree completely.
However, Rosenstein was already on the list to be interviewed.
The fake news is that it is now widening.
The other point is that they are saying the "Russian probe is now widening".
This is not about the Russians. It is about a potential obstruction charge because of Trump's meeting with Comey. The issue is, "Did Trump interfere with the investigation"? The subject of the investigation does not matter. It is the potential interference that matters. For all we care, the investigation could have been about who took the strawberries from the pantry on the ship. Interference is interference.
The press is trying to keep the Russian collusion theory alive by continuing the bring up what the investigation was about. That does not matter.
As I see it the obstruction investigation is inextricably linked to the Russians. If Flynn wasn't being investigated about his alleged involvement with Russia, there would have been no need for the President and the FBI Director to speak.
As recently as Tuesday, there was a spirited discussion on this very board as to whether the President should be investigated for obstruction. It was not clear to us whether or not it could or even should be done.
The Washington Post story is the first indication that the potential obstruction of justice is in fact being investigated as part of the bigger issue of potential Russian collusion.
Unless the Post is wrong, the news itself is not fake and by definition, the investigation is now wider than it was one month ago. Special Counselor Mueller can refute this claim should he choose to.
As recently as Tuesday, there was a spirited discussion on this very board as to whether the President should be investigated for obstruction. It was not clear to us whether or not it could or even should be done.
The Washington Post story is the first indication that the potential obstruction of justice is in fact being investigated as part of the bigger issue of potential Russian collusion.
Unless the Post is wrong, the news itself is not fake and by definition, the investigation is now wider than it was one month ago. Special Counselor Mueller can refute this claim should he choose to.
The way it was reported was fine. The special prosecutor in charge of the investigation into Russian involvement in the election is now investigating Trump for possibly attempting to obstruct the same investigation. The scope widened when Trump fired Comey. Not sure why you have an issue with that? Seems silly.
Last edited:
I understand what you are saying. The problem isn't the reporting, per se. The problem is in the structure of the investigations. What appears to be reported is
1a. Russia collusion
1b. Obstruction
What you prefer is
1. Russia collusion
2. Obstruction
If you are correct and these are two separate investigations, then the reporting is, in fact, misleading.
Dershowitz is wrong. Trying to equate a pardon with trying to stop an investigation is not the same. Yes, Trump can come out and pardon Flynn. No question about it. But what he can't do is interfere with the investigation without pardoning. By saying Trump can pardon and thus interfere with the investigation is intellectually dishonest.
With regard to the Russian investigation and collusion, that is still ongoing. Kushner will have to be interviewed and that hasn't been done. What you two may be arguing is a matter of semantics. Although the Russian collusion aspect and obstruction are tied together for the moment, it may be in the future that they do not find enough evidence of collusion but the Obstruction case does survive independently.
With regard to the Russian investigation and collusion, that is still ongoing. Kushner will have to be interviewed and that hasn't been done. What you two may be arguing is a matter of semantics. Although the Russian collusion aspect and obstruction are tied together for the moment, it may be in the future that they do not find enough evidence of collusion but the Obstruction case does survive independently.
Didn't Ken Star start off investigating a land deal in Arkansas and ended up with Lewinsky? I doubt people on this board complained how that investigation started or changed or ended.
Seems there are a bunch of "snowflakes" on this board since the election.
