Jump to content
BANGKOK 24 June 2019 23:14
webfact

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

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

D2SyOhBXgAUXG_F.png

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post with unapproved sources removed along with replies.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...