Russiagate

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

5 hours ago, kallend said:

Some people would consider that a tangled web of incompetence, vindictiveness,  lies and deceit was against the public good.  Apparently you are not one of them.

Well, in fairness to Trump, he failed.

He couldn't manage to obstruct justice, any more than he could run a casino.

[yobnoc 142]

On 4/25/2019 at 9:52 AM, wolfriverjoe said:

Well, in fairness to Trump, he failed.

He couldn't manage to obstruct justice, any more than he could run a casino.

Except those pesky details, like attempting to obstruct justice is a violation of the statute.  It's like robbing a bank.  If you attempt to rob a bank, but aren't successful, you're still in a heap of legal trouble. 

RM3 made it pretty damn clear that the only reason he couldn't arrest David Dennison is that he's a sitting president.  What a shit Justice Department guideline.  Nobody is above the law.  Our system is robust enough to handle the president being arrested.

Edited April 26, 2019 by yobnoc
Grammar fix

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Very true. My reply was mostly 'tongue-in-cheek'.

[rushmc 18]

Attempting to obstruct is now a crime. Where the fuck are we heading?

 

Not to mention that's not even what really happened but, the lefty loonies got to have something to go on

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by rushmc

[rushmc 18]

Others talk about no one is above the law. But we have a left-wing candidate who deleted 30,000 subpoenaed emails. Had an illegal server that had classified and higher than classified emails on it. We have a president that lied about knowing that Hillary had a private server because he emailed her and that's now known to be fact and yet you say nobody is above the law. That is so fucking laughable it wants to make me puke

Edited April 27, 2019 by rushmc

[yobnoc 142]

32 minutes ago, rushmc said:

Attempting to obstruct is now a crime. Where the fuck are we heading?

 

Not to mention that's not even what really happened but, the lefty loonies got to have something to go on

 

18USC1510:

(a)

Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

 

See the word "endeavors?"  That includes attempts. And implicitly dangling pardons in public view is the bribery part.

[billvon 2,395]

1 hour ago, rushmc said:

Attempting to obstruct is now a crime. Where the fuck are we heading?

Towards the Rule of Law.

If you give a judge $1000 to convict your competitor, and he goes to the cops instead - you are still guilty of obstruction of justice.  I know, totally unfair, right?  You should be able to get your money back.  But under the Rule of Law, not so much.

[rushmc 18]

20 hours ago, billvon said:

Towards the Rule of Law.

If you give a judge $1000 to convict your competitor, and he goes to the cops instead - you are still guilty of obstruction of justice.  I know, totally unfair, right?  You should be able to get your money back.  But under the Rule of Law, not so much.

Not even close to what happened.

[rushmc 18]

21 hours ago, yobnoc said:

18USC1510:

(a)

Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

 

See the word "endeavors?"  That includes attempts. And implicitly dangling pardons in public view is the bribery part.

 Again. First off the whole claim is disputed as to whether is even said second you can talk about things with your lawyers and get told what’s right and what’s not and that’s what happened but you guys want to be thought police because you can’t stand anybody disagreeing with you. It’s getting sickening 

[rushmc 18]

21 hours ago, yobnoc said:

18USC1510:

(a)

Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

 

See the word "endeavors?"  That includes attempts. And implicitly dangling pardons in public view is the bribery part.

 By the way I had a whole bunch of notifications that you replied to me and none of them could be found! Did they get deleted new band for a while? 

[kallend 1,623]

On 4/27/2019 at 6:13 PM, rushmc said:

Not even close to what happened.

Do you actually understand plain English?

[normiss 622]

6 hours ago, kallend said:

Do you actually understand plain English?

"They got deleted new band for a while."

I take that as a no.

[gowlerk 1,905]

22 hours ago, normiss said:

"They got deleted new band for a while."

I take that as a no.

When rushmc feels like making an effort he shows as quite literate. However he generally can not be bothered to show the group that common courtesy. That's one of the reason's I have chosen to hide his posts. I only see what he writes when someone quotes him. It cleans up my feed nicely.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

On 4/26/2019 at 6:23 PM, rushmc said:

But we have a left-wing candidate who deleted 30,000 subpoenaed emails.

Trump has been known to delete and shred lots of subpoenaed evidence in law suits concerned Trump Inc. 

[billvon 2,395]

30 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Trump has been known to delete and shred lots of subpoenaed evidence in law suits concerned Trump Inc. 

Indeed, Trump is currently being sued by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for illegally deleting emails.

[gowlerk 1,905]

21 minutes ago, billvon said:

Indeed, Trump is currently being sued by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for illegally deleting emails.

Lock him up!

[yobnoc 142]

On 4/27/2019 at 7:14 PM, rushmc said:

 By the way I had a whole bunch of notifications that you replied to me and none of them could be found! Did they get deleted new band for a while? 

I haven't been banned. I don't engage in such a way that I have to worry about that.

[kallend 1,623]

David Leonhardt (NYT) 5/2

Barr went before the Senate to testify yesterday, and he didn’t do well.

“How can Bill Barr possibly continue to lead the Department of Justice, the only federal agency with a moral value in its very name, after this shocking performance?” asked Lawfare’s Susan Hennessey.

Barr offered a litany of shocking views during his testimony, as the journalist Marcy Wheeler points out. Among those views: A president who feels wrongly accused can undermine an investigation without committing obstruction. “Several times during the hearing, it seemed [Barr] still has not read the report, as he was unfamiliar with allegations in it,” Wheeler writes.

Barr and the Trump administration have staked out the legal position that anything that rankles the president — congressional oversight, press coverage, the Mueller investigation itself — is illegitimate, writes Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick. “It’s Nixonian in scope to imply that anything Trump wants to do in order to push back against the media and protect his reputation is legal and justified,” she writes.

Neal Katyal, who wrote the special counsel regulations, offers a more optimistic take in The Times. He argues that Barr’s failure to defend his spin under congressional questioning is evidence that the system is working. “Barr’s deeply evasive testimony on Wednesday necessitates and tees up a full investigation in Congress,” Katyal writes.

Mueller’s letter of complaint about Barr was extraordinary, says Wired’s Garrett Graff, who wrote a book about Mueller’s tenure as F.B.I. director. “I’ve read just about every word Bob Mueller has ever said publicly or published. He’s written precisely one letter like the angry one he sent to Barr: It excoriated Scotland for letting the Pan Am 103 bomber out of prison,” Graff tweeted.

The Times’s editorial board writes: “For an institutionalist like Mr. Mueller, who never once spoke up to defend himself or his work from relentless attacks from the president and his Republican allies, the letter is an unusual (and welcome) breach of protocol.”

Who came out of the hearing looking good? The consensus answer seems to be Kamala Harris. “An attorney general whose slipperiness and legalistic hairsplitting had frustrated Democrats for several hours finally appeared to be caught off-guard,” The Atlantic’s Russell Berman writes.

[kallend 1,623]

And from E.J. Dionne: “For 27 days, the debate over Mueller’s findings was twisted by Barr’s poisonous distortions that implied a full exoneration of President Trump.”

[turtlespeed 212]

3 hours ago, kallend said:

And from E.J. Dionne: “For 27 days, the debate over Mueller’s findings was twisted by Barr’s poisonous distortions that implied a full exoneration of President Trump.”

Its a good thing you never post biased opinions, or statements.

[kallend 1,623]

5 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Its a good thing you never post biased opinions, or statements.

I was under the impression that one had to be indigent to qualify for a public defender.  All the evidence suggests that the billionaire in the White House has one in Bill Barr.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

the billionaire in the White House 

Hi John,

I am of the opinion that he has nowhere near the money that he says he has.  If he is so rich, let's see his tax returns.

IMO it is all smoke & mirrors.

Jerry Baumchen

[turtlespeed 212]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

I was under the impression that one had to be indigent to qualify for a public defender.  All the evidence suggests that the billionaire in the White House has one in Bill Barr.

That is as true as the supreme court justices are 100% unbiased.

[ryoder 1,381]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi John,

I am of the opinion that he has nowhere near the money that he says he has.  If he is so rich, let's see his tax returns.

IMO it is all smoke & mirrors.

Jerry Baumchen

Mr. Trump told Deutsche Bank his net worth was about $3 billion, but when bank employees reviewed his finances, they concluded he was worth about $788 million, according to documents produced during a lawsuit Mr. Trump brought against the former New York Times journalist Timothy O’Brien.

Intelligencer: Report: Trump Repeatedly Inflated His Net Worth in Deals With Deutsche Bank

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/report-trump-repeatedly-inflated-assets-in-deutsche-deals.html

[turtlespeed 212]

12 hours ago, ryoder said:

Mr. Trump told Deutsche Bank his net worth was about $3 billion, but when bank employees reviewed his finances, they concluded he was worth about $788 million, according to documents produced during a lawsuit Mr. Trump brought against the former New York Times journalist Timothy O’Brien.

Intelligencer: Report: Trump Repeatedly Inflated His Net Worth in Deals With Deutsche Bank

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/report-trump-repeatedly-inflated-assets-in-deutsche-deals.html

 

12 hours ago, ryoder said:

Mr. Trump told Deutsche Bank his net worth was about $3 billion, but when bank employees reviewed his finances, they concluded he was worth about $788 million, according to documents produced during a lawsuit Mr. Trump brought against the former New York Times journalist Timothy O’Brien.

Intelligencer: Report: Trump Repeatedly Inflated His Net Worth in Deals With Deutsche Bank

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/report-trump-repeatedly-inflated-assets-in-deutsche-deals.html

Most women I know lie about their age and their weight.

Some skydivers I know lie about their jump numbers and embellish their jump stories.

I have witnessed a lot of people exaggerate.  (Gasp) even me!!!

Who fuckin' cares?  Or are you all really all that desperate to find SOMETHING to complain about?  Has your Gotcha ammo run out and this is what you are left with?

How about we pay attention to something important, like Lying to congress, or Embezzlement, or Infringement of rights . . .