Flynn detailed attempts to obstruct Russia probe - U.S. court filing

[bristolboy]

43 minutes ago, cbtstorm said:

so the  false narrative was created and investigated with the help of some fraudulently obtained fisa warrants so that some obstruction claims can be made when the original story doesnt quite pan out.  ok

now its going to back fire on all the perpetrators.

You don't seem to understand what obstruction of justice is. The reason it's a crime is because obstruction of justice may well succeed in obstructing justice. In other words, if in fact in turns out that there was obstruction of justice, the investigation may well have found evidence about Russian collusion. You don't get to obstruct an investigation and then get away with it because the investigation didn't find enough evidence. Mueller clearly believed there was obstruction but as he noted, under Justice Dept. rules, you can't indict a sitting President.

[usviphotography]

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You don't seem to understand what obstruction of justice is. The reason it's a crime is because obstruction of justice may well succeed in obstructing justice. In other words, if in fact in turns out that there was obstruction of justice, the investigation may well have found evidence about Russian collusion. You don't get to obstruct an investigation and then get away with it because the investigation didn't find enough evidence. Mueller clearly believed there was obstruction but as he noted, under Justice Dept. rules, you can't indict a sitting President.

There was no obstruction of Justice detailed in his report, nor is there any in these most recent Flynn claims. Obstruction of Justice is deleting files, or shredding papers, or bribing witnesses (or bleaching a server!). Objecting to an investigation that you think is politically motivated bullcrap is not "obstruction". There is simply no way shape or form that can be construed as "obstruction" and it flies in the face mainstream legal consensus. Think about it. If what Trump did is "obstruction" then what the Democrats are currently doing with respect to Barr would likewise be "obstruction", right? It is just silly. This thing was a hoax, the investigation proved it was a hoax, and the idea that the people who correctly labeled it a hoax from the beginning are somehow guilty of a crime for accurately calling it is just absurd. 

[bristolboy]

Just now, usviphotography said:

There was no obstruction of Justice detailed in his report, nor is there any in these most recent Flynn claims. Obstruction of Justice is deleting files, or shredding papers, or bribing witnesses (or bleaching a server!). Objecting to an investigation that you think is politically motivated bullcrap is not "obstruction". There is simply no way shape or form that can be construed as "obstruction" and it flies in the face mainstream legal consensus. Think about it. If what Trump did is "obstruction" then what the Democrats are currently doing with respect to Barr would likewise be "obstruction", right? It is just silly. This thing was a hoax, the investigation proved it was a hoax, and the idea that the people who correctly labeled it a hoax from the beginning are somehow guilty of a crime for accurately calling it is just absurd. 

 Why do you think the report specifically said that it did not exonerate Trump from obstruction justice. Why do you think it cited DOJ's stance that a sitting president can't be indicted? Why do you think It carefully and in detail laid out the possible instances of obstruction?

Your understanding of what constitutes obstruction of justice is utterly wrong.

[seajae]

On 5/17/2019 at 12:27 PM, mtls2005 said:

 

I'm sure Barr had a good reason to redact this information.

 

Because it looks bad?

 

 

Honestly, they would have been much better off just releasing the entire report, unredacted, along with ALL of the underlying documentation, from the get-go. Like Ken Starr did.

 

 

 

This slow bleed will be 10x more painful.

 

Flynn's congressional testimony, along with Mueller's will be entertaining.

 

Actually, maybe this is a good thing? Stretch it out, and trump is subject to a thousand cuts.

 

 

you do realize barr never redacted any of it, it was done by muellers team and a team of lawyers to comply with the US law but it seems democrats refuse to accept the truth and look to lay the blame elsewhere. Never seen such idiotic people that cant even understand the US law when a non US person knows more about it than them, you really have to stop reading only the BS propaganda  put out by the dems and try looking at real facts and laws that are required to be followed. Grand jury evidence has to be redacted by law, pure and simple and can only be released if it is approved by the courts, has nothing to do with barr, he has to follow the law as well

[Scott]

Post with unapproved sources removed along with replies.  

 

[cbtstorm]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The sources you choose to back up your arguments is impeachment enough of them.

itd be the same argument even from another domain name.

impeachment! atleast you have a sense of humour.

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, cbtstorm said:

itd be the same argument even from another domain name.

impeachment! atleast you have a sense of humour.

 

 

 

The fact is the evidence is against you. The Mueller report clearly stated it did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice.

[cbtstorm]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The fact is the evidence is against you. The Mueller report clearly stated it did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice.

the investigation itself is a fraud from the get go.

of you dont like my sources, you'll just find out a little late. no worries

[usviphotography]

44 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

 Why do you think the report specifically said that it did not exonerate Trump from obstruction justice. Why do you think it cited DOJ's stance that a sitting president can't be indicted? Why do you think It carefully and in detail laid out the possible instances of obstruction?

Your understanding of what constitutes obstruction of justice is utterly wrong.

Because Mueller adopted the extreme minority position (and in truth, batshyt crazy position) that mere objection to his investigation could constitute "obstruction". When Barr was brought in he in fact called Mueller out on this in private discussions and asked if Mueller had any evidence of real obstruction, which Mueller couldn't produce. There is no allegation of actual obstruction in the report. It is just a crackpot interpretation of "obstruction" that if actually adopted by the legal system, would mean that the current Democratic Leadership of the House are all committing obstruction against Barr himself! Fortunately for them, and for all of us, Barr believes in the traditional definition of obstruction and not Mueller's crazy take. 

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

Because Mueller adopted the extreme minority position (and in truth, batshyt crazy position) that mere objection to his investigation could constitute "obstruction". When Barr was brought in he in fact called Mueller out on this in private discussions and asked if Mueller had any evidence of real obstruction, which Mueller couldn't produce. There is no allegation of actual obstruction in the report. It is just a crackpot interpretation of "obstruction" that if actually adopted by the legal system, would mean that the current Democratic Leadership of the House are all committing obstruction against Barr himself! Fortunately for them, and for all of us, Barr believes in the traditional definition of obstruction and not Mueller's crazy take. 

Clearly, you haven't read that section of the report which cites possible instances of obstruction of justice.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, cbtstorm said:

since you know a sitting president cannot be indicted and collusion does not equal to crime, why would you spend 2 years investigating if not to entrap for an obstruction charge. the goal along. 

prosecutors are known for doing this. most masic method, find a reason to investigate, you'll find something or another and if not go for obstruction.

 

game over, next we find out how this all got constructed. 

 

One of the two goals of the investigation was Russian interference in the 2016 election.  It accomplished that.  Anyone who doesn't think that should have been investigated is either a traitor or Russian troll.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, usviphotography said:

There was no obstruction of Justice detailed in his report, nor is there any in these most recent Flynn claims. Obstruction of Justice is deleting files, or shredding papers, or bribing witnesses (or bleaching a server!). Objecting to an investigation that you think is politically motivated bullcrap is not "obstruction". There is simply no way shape or form that can be construed as "obstruction" and it flies in the face mainstream legal consensus. Think about it. If what Trump did is "obstruction" then what the Democrats are currently doing with respect to Barr would likewise be "obstruction", right? It is just silly. This thing was a hoax, the investigation proved it was a hoax, and the idea that the people who correctly labeled it a hoax from the beginning are somehow guilty of a crime for accurately calling it is just absurd. 

You are not allowed to define "obstruction" in a manner that suits you.  It has been legally defined, and the actions of Trump fit the description.

 

47 minutes ago, seajae said:

you do realize barr never redacted any of it, it was done by muellers team and a team of lawyers to comply with the US law but it seems democrats refuse to accept the truth and look to lay the blame elsewhere. Never seen such idiotic people that cant even understand the US law when a non US person knows more about it than them, you really have to stop reading only the BS propaganda  put out by the dems and try looking at real facts and laws that are required to be followed. Grand jury evidence has to be redacted by law, pure and simple and can only be released if it is approved by the courts, has nothing to do with barr, he has to follow the law as well

Barr had his team spend an entire weekend redacting the report.  https://www.vox.com/2019/4/11/18304883/mueller-report-trump-russia-redaction

 

Where do you get your news from?  You obviously need better sources.

[heybruce]

13 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

Because Mueller adopted the extreme minority position (and in truth, batshyt crazy position) that mere objection to his investigation could constitute "obstruction". When Barr was brought in he in fact called Mueller out on this in private discussions and asked if Mueller had any evidence of real obstruction, which Mueller couldn't produce. There is no allegation of actual obstruction in the report. It is just a crackpot interpretation of "obstruction" that if actually adopted by the legal system, would mean that the current Democratic Leadership of the House are all committing obstruction against Barr himself! Fortunately for them, and for all of us, Barr believes in the traditional definition of obstruction and not Mueller's crazy take. 

Describing the obstruction described in the Mueller report as a "mere objection" is akin to describing a bank robbery as a mere withdrawal.

[cbtstorm]

9 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

Because Mueller adopted the extreme minority position (and in truth, batshyt crazy position) that mere objection to his investigation could constitute "obstruction". When Barr was brought in he in fact called Mueller out on this in private discussions and asked if Mueller had any evidence of real obstruction, which Mueller couldn't produce. There is no allegation of actual obstruction in the report. It is just a crackpot interpretation of "obstruction" that if actually adopted by the legal system, would mean that the current Democratic Leadership of the House are all committing obstruction against Barr himself! Fortunately for them, and for all of us, Barr believes in the traditional definition of obstruction and not Mueller's crazy take. 

obstruction statue is quite small.

interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) is where Barr and Mueller differ.

c) Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so [is guilty of the crime of obstruction]. (Emphasis added)

 

Barr - no official proceeding was impeded or influenced and no attempts were shown to impede any official proceedings.

 

 

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, cbtstorm said:

obstruction statue is quite small.

interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) is where Barr and Mueller differ.

c) Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so [is guilty of the crime of obstruction]. (Emphasis added)

 

Barr - no official proceeding was impeded or influenced and no attempts were shown to impede any official proceedings.

 

 

You don't think attempting to fire Mueller was an attempt to obstruct the investigation?

[cbtstorm]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

One of the two goals of the investigation was Russian interference in the 2016 election.  It accomplished that.  Anyone who doesn't think that should have been investigated is either a traitor or Russian troll.

surprised you didn't say ss,or himmler like earlier.

The goal of the investigation was to get  Trump, which is why he was not notified when the illegal surveillance started. 

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, cbtstorm said:

surprised you didn't say ss,or himmler like earlier.

The goal of the investigation was to get  Trump, which is why he was not notified when the illegal surveillance started. 

No basis in reality, so I assume you got it from your pretend news sources.

[cbtstorm]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You don't think attempting to fire Mueller was an attempt to obstruct the investigation?

well within the presidents right to fire Mueller but he didnt.

didnt even claim executive privilege one time for anything Mueller asked for.

 

what good would firing Mueller do anyway, to replace him with another prosecutor?

absurd

[usviphotography]

Just now, heybruce said:

You don't think attempting to fire Mueller was an attempt to obstruct the investigation?

No, that is exactly the sort of ridiculous interpretation that we are talking about here. Obstruction means doing something nefarious, underhanded, or corrupt to impede an investigation. The head of the Executive Branch exercising his authority to shut an investigation he believes to be a politically motivated waste of time and money is not "obstruction".  Do you think Obama would have put up with a prosecutor under his watch launching two years, 20 million dollar investigation of his birth certificate? Do you think it would have been "obstruction" if he had fired such an individual? 

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, cbtstorm said:

surprised you didn't say ss,or himmler like earlier.

The goal of the investigation was to get  Trump, which is why he was not notified when the illegal surveillance started. 

Not at all surprised that you try a cheap trick by mentioning Nazi's when heybruce said no such thing. And your belief that a possible target of an investigation should be notified is truly bizarre. And what's even more bizarre is the fact that all you calumniators  of the FBI have no explanation for why news of this investigation didn't leak before the election.

You've got nothing.

[bendejo]

9 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

Here’s what Jimmy Breslin had to say about Donald Trump decades ago 

Thanks for posting that link.

When I was a teenager NYC had it's first major blackout, no electricity from evening until the early AM.  Nine months to the day later some guy on the TV news was reporting from an overburdened maternity ward: that was the first time I heard of Breslin.  In 1969 when Norman Mailer ran for mayor Breslin was also on the ticket.

And yeah, I recall in the 1980s Breslin was going off the reporters lionizing DT, and the way they gave him the title of "The."  And ever since 2016 I've been putting some of the blame for what he has become on those guys.

 

The real mystery is how DT got the yokels to consider him their saviour.  When traveling the other parts of the U.S. it is not unusual for anyone with a northeastern accent to get the hairy eyeball the minute they open their mouths.  That old line about underestimating the American public...

 

 

[heybruce]

16 minutes ago, cbtstorm said:

obstruction statue is quite small.

interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) is where Barr and Mueller differ.

c) Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so [is guilty of the crime of obstruction]. (Emphasis added)

 

Barr - no official proceeding was impeded or influenced and no attempts were shown to impede any official proceedings.

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

No, that is exactly the sort of ridiculous interpretation that we are talking about here. Obstruction means doing something nefarious, underhanded, or corrupt to impede an investigation. The head of the Executive Branch exercising his authority to shut an investigation he believes to be a politically motivated waste of time and money is not "obstruction".  Do you think Obama would have put up with a prosecutor under his watch launching two years, 20 million dollar investigation of his birth certificate? Do you think it would have been "obstruction" if he had fired such an individual? 

Read the underlined portion. 

[cbtstorm]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

No basis in reality, so I assume you got it from your pretend news sources.

Barr will straighten out the obstruction definition. his call, not Muellers.

or take it to supremecourt and sort that out.

But the origins of the investigations will be investigated. that is reality.

[cbtstorm]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Not at all surprised that you try a cheap trick by mentioning Nazi's when heybruce said no such thing. And your belief that a possible target of an investigation should be notified is truly bizarre. And what's even more bizarre is the fact that all you calumniators  of the FBI have no explanation for why news of this investigation didn't leak before the election.

You've got nothing.

he did say ss and himller earlier , go look it up.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Still hoping for a fascist political system?  While Attorney General Barr does a passable impersonation of Himmler, the officers of the Justice Department have sworn allegiance to the constitution, not to Trump.  It's not Trump's SS yet.  The investigation was legal and necessary.  Investigating the investigators will simply keep the issues of Trump's bad judgment and crooked friends in the news.

 

 

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Not at all surprised that you try a cheap trick by mentioning Nazi's when heybruce said no such thing. And your belief that a possible target of an investigation should be notified is truly bizarre. And what's even more bizarre is the fact that all you calumniators  of the FBI have no explanation for why news of this investigation didn't leak before the election.

You've got nothing.

Actually I did bring up the SS and make a Barr/Himmler comparison when addressing another gloating post about how Trump can use the Justice department as a weapon against his enemies.

[cbtstorm]

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Not at all surprised that you try a cheap trick by mentioning Nazi's when heybruce said no such thing. And your belief that a possible target of an investigation should be notified is truly bizarre. And what's even more bizarre is the fact that all you calumniators  of the FBI have no explanation for why news of this investigation didn't leak before the election.

You've got nothing.

and youve got what? collusion? obstruction? give me a break.

There was some spying on an oppostion campaign under false pretense,of russia collusion using intel paid for by dnc fusion gps that was never verified before applying for fisa warrants. 

 

[cbtstorm]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

Actually I did bring up the SS and make a Barr/Himmler comparison when addressing another gloating post about how Trump can use the Justice department as a weapon against his enemies.

thank you and I was just taking it as humor. so no objections to your colorful language.

[candide]

26 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Where do you get your news from?  You obviously need better sources.

I can guess but I am too polite to write it. ????

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, cbtstorm said:

and youve got what? collusion? obstruction? give me a break.

There was some spying on an oppostion campaign under false pretense,of russia collusion using intel paid for by dnc fusion gps that was never verified before applying for fisa warrants. 

 

There was legal surveillance of a Trump campaign staffer who had come to the attention of the intelligence services because of shady Russian dealings and there was legal paid for opposition research.

[attrayant]

8 hours ago, cbtstorm said:

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

You don't think attempting to fire Mueller was an attempt to obstruct the investigation?

 

 

well within the presidents right to fire Mueller but he didnt. 

 

 

And well within congress's right to impeach Trump for obstruction of justice, had he done that.