this analogy will “make sense” to everyone

[DriveInDriveOut]

Tm There is no underlying crime with Trump to obstruct an investigation of. Trump wanting something done isn't the same as actually obstructing either.

Wrong.

 

[bbsam]

There are various ways to obstruct. But more to the point Clinton committed crimes. There is no underlying crime with Trump to obstruct an investigation of. Trump wanting something done isn't the same as actually obstructing either.

And the Democrats going on about a threat to our democracy, etc, is ludicrous. Hillary actually obstructed justice. She also violated the Espionage Act. And if we could see the 33,000 emails she deleted we'd almost certainly see her selling access to her office and presumed presidency in exchange for fat speaking fees and huge donations to her foundation. And yet y'all act like nothing happened while lambasting Trump for resisting being characterized as a traitor. This is insanity.

So if a person doesn’t like an investigation, they are free to do whatever they want to mislead investigators and promote their own revised history?

What if there is no underlying crime? If the person simply finds the investigation a nuisance or insulting. Is that ok?

No. And even less so if the person doing it happens to be the most powerful person in the world.

 

[vantexan]

• So if a person doesn’t like an investigation, they are free to do whatever they want to mislead investigators and promote their own revised history?
  
  What if there is no underlying crime? If the person simply finds the investigation a nuisance or insulting. Is that ok?
  
  No. And even less so if the person doing it happens to be the most powerful person in the world.

  He has spent over two years having people say with 100% certainty that he colluded with the Russians. Calling him every name in the book. There's actual evidence that Hillary supporters in the DOJ, FBI, and CIA colluded to bring him down. Want to talk revised history? The Steele dossier is a bunch of made up lies. Why didn't Mueller address it in his report? It was the basis of FISA warrants to spy on his campaign. The New York Times just said it looks like Russian disinformation. That's the revised history. You want to believe it so bad but it's all BS and the Mueller investigation shouldn't have happened. Even the most powerful man on Earth has rights, and every right to be angry. You might make an obstruction case if he had actually impeded the investigation. But the investigation was completed, the report filed, no one was fired, no witnesses were denied to Mueller, and over a million documents were turned over. Trump had every right to protect himself against a guy who was ruining lives in hopes of getting someone to turn on him. Hell, Nadler was insisting Barr break the law by giving him an unredacted copy of the report. Threatening him with contempt. This farce is over, but if the Democrats insist on impeaching Trump then by all means please do. 31 House seats were turned in purple States from Republican to Democrat in 2018 in districts that Trump won easily in 2016. Now that Mueller has said no collusion, and Democrats are wanting to pile on with an impeachment, good luck holding those seats in 2020.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

You might make an obstruction case if he had actually impeded the investigation.

Wrong

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Now that Mueller has said no collusion

Wrong

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Trump had every right to protect himself against a guy who was ruining lives in hopes of getting someone to turn on him.

Wrong.
Criminals often find their lives ruined when they get caught. Obstruction of Justice is not a right.

 

[vantexan]

Wrong.
Criminals often find their lives ruined when they get caught. Obstruction of Justice is not a right.

Wrong

 

[Old Man Jingles]

What if there is no underlying crime? If the person simply finds the investigation a nuisance or insulting. Is that ok?

Yes, in my opinion.
This is against the essence and intent of the 1ST Amendment!

This falls into the same bucket as police seizing and selling a person's property if they are arrested for having a joint on them,

 

[Fred's Myth]

You may like to rethink what you just posted and report back.
You're silly.

You assume there was thought involved in the first place.

 

[Fred's Myth]

I came up with this one myself:
Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get .

Ex-Lax aren't chocolates. You'll discover that soon enough.

 

[Fred's Myth]

No. And even less so if the person doing it happens to be the most powerful person in the world.

Putin?

 

[newfie]

What if there is no underlying crime? If the person simply finds the investigation a nuisance or insulting. Is that ok?

yes , dont use an investigation to create a crime. theres some real issues here.

mike flynn for instance .
investigators took advantage of his ignorance stepping into a new position
told him they had a few questions never told him he had a right to have the white house counsel there.
backdoor conversation "a couple of guys just want to ask you a few questions"
those guys were the FBI who said they felt Flynn was honest
suddenly Mueller has the investigation and says Flynn lied to try to turn him
in the process he ruins Flynn with legal fee's.

all to investigate a crime that never happened

 

[bbsam]

yes , dont use an investigation to create a crime. theres some real issues here.

mike flynn for instance .
investigators took advantage of his ignorance stepping into a new position
told him they had a few questions never told him he had a right to have the white house counsel there.
backdoor conversation "a couple of guys just want to ask you a few questions"
those guys were the FBI who said they felt Flynn was honest
suddenly Mueller has the investigation and says Flynn lied to try to turn him
in the process he ruins Flynn with legal fee's.

all to investigate a crime that never happened

Damn! He was kidnapping people for money!

WTF are you defending that piece of crap for?

 

[It will be fine]

Damn! He was kidnapping people for money!

WTF are you defending that piece of crap for?

Because the former head of the DNI is just a poor unsophisticated farm boy caught up in the web of the evil Bob Mueller.

 

[Babagounj]

Bob Mueller is evil.
He could have released 4 innocent men from jail, but decided not to.
In 1968 they were convicted and 2 died in prison; Peter Limone, spent 33 years , while Joseph Salvati, spent 29 years in prison.

The men were exonerated after the discovery of secret friend.B.I. memos that were never turned over to state prosecutors or defense lawyers during the trial in 1968.

The federal government had to pay $101.8 million to make amends for framing four men for a murder they did not commit.

U.S. Told to Pay $101 Million for Framing 4 Men

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Obstruction of Justice is not a right.

Wrong

So you think obstructing Justice is a criminal's right.

Lol.

 

[rod]

Samantha B. is a C.

 

[BrownArmy]

• 
  He has spent over two years having people say with 100% certainty that he colluded with the Russians. Calling him every name in the book. There's actual evidence that Hillary supporters in the DOJ, FBI, and CIA colluded to bring him down. Want to talk revised history? The Steele dossier is a bunch of made up lies. Why didn't Mueller address it in his report? It was the basis of FISA warrants to spy on his campaign. The New York Times just said it looks like Russian disinformation. That's the revised history. You want to believe it so bad but it's all BS and the Mueller investigation shouldn't have happened. Even the most powerful man on Earth has rights, and every right to be angry. You might make an obstruction case if he had actually impeded the investigation. But the investigation was completed, the report filed, no one was fired, no witnesses were denied to Mueller, and over a million documents were turned over. Trump had every right to protect himself against a guy who was ruining lives in hopes of getting someone to turn on him. Hell, Nadler was insisting Barr break the law by giving him an unredacted copy of the report. Threatening him with contempt. This farce is over, but if the Democrats insist on impeaching Trump then by all means please do. 31 House seats were turned in purple States from Republican to Democrat in 2018 in districts that Trump won easily in 2016. Now that Mueller has said no collusion, and Democrats are wanting to pile on with an impeachment, good luck holding those seats in 2020.

Relax, you seem mad.

You clearly haven't read the report.

Why don't you start with the summaries.

This will likely still be a heavy lift for you, but, ffs, you sound like a m oron talking with confidence about something you don't know about first-hand.

There's a lot of stuff going on, and you're getting left out of the loop because you're just repeating incorrect sht that other people said.

Read the report.

 

[El Correcto]

Relax, you seem mad.

You clearly haven't read the report.

Why don't you start with the summaries.

This will likely still be a heavy lift for you, but, ffs, you sound like a m oron talking with confidence about something you don't know about first-hand.

There's a lot of stuff going on, and you're getting left out of the loop because you're just repeating incorrect sht that other people said.

Read the report.

I got better things to do than read a 600 page government report written by hillary supporters that do everything they can to hand the house impeachment based on obstruction. Look how they investigated Trump, then look at how they “investigated” Hillary and worded the report on her emails.

Itll probably be worse than the first chapter of Howard Zinn’s book. He made that thing unreadable for anyone with an IQ over 90. Seriously, anyone who knows how the google works can debunk that non sense.

 

[BrownArmy]

I got better things to do than read a 600 page government report written by hillary supporters that do everything they can to hand the house impeachment based on obstruction. Look how they investigated Trump, then look at how they “investigated” Hillary and worded the report on her emails.

Itll probably be worse than the first chapter of Howard Zinn’s book. He made that thing unreadable for anyone with an IQ over 90. Seriously, anyone who knows how the google works can debunk that non sense.

Wrong.