Jump to content
BANGKOK 16 June 2019 15:32
webfact

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

Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 😁

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 2

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...