It is now time to bring up articles of impeachment against Trump

[BWK]

If that were true, you would have presented us with an intelligent/informative rebuttal to the truth of what the law presents to us. Since you did not, you're just another idiot who tells us nothing.

I already did and it made you into my bitch.

You lied about what the law says a I proved that fact.

Keep lying little boy

Prove what? You never say anything. You're just an idiot who never makes an intelligent point. You just make claims. You never make a logical point. You are way out of your league, and you never debate anything.

It is a perfectly logical point to say you are wrong based on the failed attempt at evidence which you posted.

If you can prove the evidence is inaccurate. Which you never did. To say it isn't so isn't worth squat. You can't even play a decent game with semantics because you never say anything.

Yes I did prove it.

He made no effort to tell others what to say in their testimony which is what the law forbids.

Semantics semantics?! You use it for your convenience, but unfortunately for you, you aren't clever enough to use it in a logical debate. The missing link you are looking for, that you really aren't looking for is understanding the con game between Trump and Stone, and the fact that the law doesn't discriminate against other evidence. Only those who wish to be out to lunch on this issue are out to lunch. The fact that Trump had an opinion about Stone is all that is needed in this criminal investigation for which Trump himself is a subject of. Anything between a witness and a subject is subject to scrutiny. And this sure is.

 

[EverCurious]

^ Incorrect wishful thinking.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I already did and it made you into my bitch.

You lied about what the law says a I proved that fact.

Keep lying little boy

Prove what? You never say anything. You're just an idiot who never makes an intelligent point. You just make claims. You never make a logical point. You are way out of your league, and you never debate anything.

It is a perfectly logical point to say you are wrong based on the failed attempt at evidence which you posted.

If you can prove the evidence is inaccurate. Which you never did. To say it isn't so isn't worth squat. You can't even play a decent game with semantics because you never say anything.

Yes I did prove it.

He made no effort to tell others what to say in their testimony which is what the law forbids.

Semantics semantics?! You use it for your convenience, but unfortunately for you, you aren't clever enough to use it in a logical debate. The missing link you are looking for, that you really aren't looking for is understanding the con game between Trump and Stone, and the fact that the law doesn't discriminate against other evidence. Only those who wish to be out to lunch on this issue are out to lunch. The fact that Trump had an opinion about Stone is all that is needed in this criminal investigation for which Trump himself is a subject of. Anything between a witness and a subject is subject to scrutiny. And this sure is.

Scrutiny sure.

But the law does not forbid opinion or communication.

You lose

 

[BWK]

Related from the former newspaper The New York Times a long while back: (Why Obstruction of Justice Is a Hard Crime to Prove)

"Any inquiry into possible obstruction will confront Supreme Court decisions that have been notably hostile to obstruction cases that push the limits of the law. There is plenty of wiggle room in the statutes that make it difficult to prove the necessary intent to obstruct justice, so gathering credible evidence to show what was in the mind of anyone who might try to impede the investigation will be paramount."

[...]

A second provision frequently used is 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), which makes it a crime for any person who corruptly “otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” Congress added this subsection in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to broaden the reach of the obstruction of justice provision to more clearly include conduct like that involving the accounting firm Arthur Andersen’s shredding of documents related to its audit of Enron.

The firm was convicted in 2002 even without this change in the law, but the Supreme Court subsequently reversed the jury verdict in Arthur Andersen v. United States because the trial judge gave a flawed instruction on what constituted “corruptly.” The court, with Chief Justice Rehnquist writing the unanimous opinion, explained that corrupt conduct was “normally associated with wrongful, immoral, depraved or evil” actions, which requires a consciousness of wrongdoing rather than just a questionable result.

There have been comparisons of Mr. Trump’s statements to the Watergate cover-up that toppled President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. The “smoking gun” recording in that case, however, was much more incriminating as Mr. Nixon told H. R. Halderman, his chief of staff, six days after the break-in that the C.I.A. needed to tell the F.B.I. “don’t go any further into this case.”

Whether Mr. Trump could be found to have the requisite intent is not clear from the memorandum Mr. Comey is reported to have written about their conversation in February. Asking the F.B.I. director to “let this go” regarding Mr. Flynn is the type of ambiguous comment that might not be interpreted as directly interfering in the investigation, and therefore insufficient to establish a corrupt intent.

United States v. Ermoian that interference in an F.B.I. investigation was not the type of proceeding the statute was meant to cover.

What is in the mind of Trump is easy to infer, seeing that Trump has a habit of doing the very same thing with other witnesses. His track record gives him away.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Related from the former newspaper The New York Times a long while back: (Why Obstruction of Justice Is a Hard Crime to Prove)

"Any inquiry into possible obstruction will confront Supreme Court decisions that have been notably hostile to obstruction cases that push the limits of the law. There is plenty of wiggle room in the statutes that make it difficult to prove the necessary intent to obstruct justice, so gathering credible evidence to show what was in the mind of anyone who might try to impede the investigation will be paramount."

[...]

A second provision frequently used is 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), which makes it a crime for any person who corruptly “otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” Congress added this subsection in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to broaden the reach of the obstruction of justice provision to more clearly include conduct like that involving the accounting firm Arthur Andersen’s shredding of documents related to its audit of Enron.

The firm was convicted in 2002 even without this change in the law, but the Supreme Court subsequently reversed the jury verdict in Arthur Andersen v. United States because the trial judge gave a flawed instruction on what constituted “corruptly.” The court, with Chief Justice Rehnquist writing the unanimous opinion, explained that corrupt conduct was “normally associated with wrongful, immoral, depraved or evil” actions, which requires a consciousness of wrongdoing rather than just a questionable result.

There have been comparisons of Mr. Trump’s statements to the Watergate cover-up that toppled President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. The “smoking gun” recording in that case, however, was much more incriminating as Mr. Nixon told H. R. Halderman, his chief of staff, six days after the break-in that the C.I.A. needed to tell the F.B.I. “don’t go any further into this case.”

Whether Mr. Trump could be found to have the requisite intent is not clear from the memorandum Mr. Comey is reported to have written about their conversation in February. Asking the F.B.I. director to “let this go” regarding Mr. Flynn is the type of ambiguous comment that might not be interpreted as directly interfering in the investigation, and therefore insufficient to establish a corrupt intent.

United States v. Ermoian that interference in an F.B.I. investigation was not the type of proceeding the statute was meant to cover.

What is in the mind of Trump is easy to infer, seeing that Trump has a habit of doing the very same thing with other witnesses. His track record gives him away.

He has no such track record and there is no law forbidding someone to think something.

In fact I can infer nothing accurately being a very stupid person

 

[BWK]

Prove what? You never say anything. You're just an idiot who never makes an intelligent point. You just make claims. You never make a logical point. You are way out of your league, and you never debate anything.

It is a perfectly logical point to say you are wrong based on the failed attempt at evidence which you posted.

If you can prove the evidence is inaccurate. Which you never did. To say it isn't so isn't worth squat. You can't even play a decent game with semantics because you never say anything.

Yes I did prove it.

He made no effort to tell others what to say in their testimony which is what the law forbids.

Semantics semantics?! You use it for your convenience, but unfortunately for you, you aren't clever enough to use it in a logical debate. The missing link you are looking for, that you really aren't looking for is understanding the con game between Trump and Stone, and the fact that the law doesn't discriminate against other evidence. Only those who wish to be out to lunch on this issue are out to lunch. The fact that Trump had an opinion about Stone is all that is needed in this criminal investigation for which Trump himself is a subject of. Anything between a witness and a subject is subject to scrutiny. And this sure is.

Scrutiny sure.

But the law does not forbid opinion or communication.

You lose

Trumps communication was no opinion. It was a tactic that we have seen before from him that he has used with other witnesses. He has given away that pattern to a clear line of obstruction.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It is a perfectly logical point to say you are wrong based on the failed attempt at evidence which you posted.

If you can prove the evidence is inaccurate. Which you never did. To say it isn't so isn't worth squat. You can't even play a decent game with semantics because you never say anything.

Yes I did prove it.

He made no effort to tell others what to say in their testimony which is what the law forbids.

Semantics semantics?! You use it for your convenience, but unfortunately for you, you aren't clever enough to use it in a logical debate. The missing link you are looking for, that you really aren't looking for is understanding the con game between Trump and Stone, and the fact that the law doesn't discriminate against other evidence. Only those who wish to be out to lunch on this issue are out to lunch. The fact that Trump had an opinion about Stone is all that is needed in this criminal investigation for which Trump himself is a subject of. Anything between a witness and a subject is subject to scrutiny. And this sure is.

Scrutiny sure.

But the law does not forbid opinion or communication.

You lose

Trumps communication was no opinion. It was a tactic that we have seen before from him that he has used with other witnesses. He has given away that pattern to a clear line of obstruction.

No he has not and it was opinion only.

You cannot cite any such record just as you failed to cite a statute and failed to cite evidence of an illegal election

 

[BWK]

Related from the former newspaper The New York Times a long while back: (Why Obstruction of Justice Is a Hard Crime to Prove)

"Any inquiry into possible obstruction will confront Supreme Court decisions that have been notably hostile to obstruction cases that push the limits of the law. There is plenty of wiggle room in the statutes that make it difficult to prove the necessary intent to obstruct justice, so gathering credible evidence to show what was in the mind of anyone who might try to impede the investigation will be paramount."

[...]

A second provision frequently used is 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), which makes it a crime for any person who corruptly “otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” Congress added this subsection in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to broaden the reach of the obstruction of justice provision to more clearly include conduct like that involving the accounting firm Arthur Andersen’s shredding of documents related to its audit of Enron.

The firm was convicted in 2002 even without this change in the law, but the Supreme Court subsequently reversed the jury verdict in Arthur Andersen v. United States because the trial judge gave a flawed instruction on what constituted “corruptly.” The court, with Chief Justice Rehnquist writing the unanimous opinion, explained that corrupt conduct was “normally associated with wrongful, immoral, depraved or evil” actions, which requires a consciousness of wrongdoing rather than just a questionable result.

There have been comparisons of Mr. Trump’s statements to the Watergate cover-up that toppled President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. The “smoking gun” recording in that case, however, was much more incriminating as Mr. Nixon told H. R. Halderman, his chief of staff, six days after the break-in that the C.I.A. needed to tell the F.B.I. “don’t go any further into this case.”

Whether Mr. Trump could be found to have the requisite intent is not clear from the memorandum Mr. Comey is reported to have written about their conversation in February. Asking the F.B.I. director to “let this go” regarding Mr. Flynn is the type of ambiguous comment that might not be interpreted as directly interfering in the investigation, and therefore insufficient to establish a corrupt intent.

United States v. Ermoian that interference in an F.B.I. investigation was not the type of proceeding the statute was meant to cover.

What is in the mind of Trump is easy to infer, seeing that Trump has a habit of doing the very same thing with other witnesses. His track record gives him away.

He has no such track record and there is no law forbidding someone to think something.

In fact I can infer nothing accurately being a very stupid person

Donald Trump, Paul Manafort and that Pesky Witness Tampering Statute Sure he has a track record.

 

[BWK]

Related from the former newspaper The New York Times a long while back: (Why Obstruction of Justice Is a Hard Crime to Prove)

"Any inquiry into possible obstruction will confront Supreme Court decisions that have been notably hostile to obstruction cases that push the limits of the law. There is plenty of wiggle room in the statutes that make it difficult to prove the necessary intent to obstruct justice, so gathering credible evidence to show what was in the mind of anyone who might try to impede the investigation will be paramount."

[...]

A second provision frequently used is 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), which makes it a crime for any person who corruptly “otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” Congress added this subsection in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to broaden the reach of the obstruction of justice provision to more clearly include conduct like that involving the accounting firm Arthur Andersen’s shredding of documents related to its audit of Enron.

The firm was convicted in 2002 even without this change in the law, but the Supreme Court subsequently reversed the jury verdict in Arthur Andersen v. United States because the trial judge gave a flawed instruction on what constituted “corruptly.” The court, with Chief Justice Rehnquist writing the unanimous opinion, explained that corrupt conduct was “normally associated with wrongful, immoral, depraved or evil” actions, which requires a consciousness of wrongdoing rather than just a questionable result.

There have been comparisons of Mr. Trump’s statements to the Watergate cover-up that toppled President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. The “smoking gun” recording in that case, however, was much more incriminating as Mr. Nixon told H. R. Halderman, his chief of staff, six days after the break-in that the C.I.A. needed to tell the F.B.I. “don’t go any further into this case.”

Whether Mr. Trump could be found to have the requisite intent is not clear from the memorandum Mr. Comey is reported to have written about their conversation in February. Asking the F.B.I. director to “let this go” regarding Mr. Flynn is the type of ambiguous comment that might not be interpreted as directly interfering in the investigation, and therefore insufficient to establish a corrupt intent.

United States v. Ermoian that interference in an F.B.I. investigation was not the type of proceeding the statute was meant to cover.

What is in the mind of Trump is easy to infer, seeing that Trump has a habit of doing the very same thing with other witnesses. His track record gives him away.

He has no such track record and there is no law forbidding someone to think something.

In fact I can infer nothing accurately being a very stupid person

He didn't think it, he spoke about it.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Related from the former newspaper The New York Times a long while back: (Why Obstruction of Justice Is a Hard Crime to Prove)

"Any inquiry into possible obstruction will confront Supreme Court decisions that have been notably hostile to obstruction cases that push the limits of the law. There is plenty of wiggle room in the statutes that make it difficult to prove the necessary intent to obstruct justice, so gathering credible evidence to show what was in the mind of anyone who might try to impede the investigation will be paramount."

[...]

A second provision frequently used is 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), which makes it a crime for any person who corruptly “otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” Congress added this subsection in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to broaden the reach of the obstruction of justice provision to more clearly include conduct like that involving the accounting firm Arthur Andersen’s shredding of documents related to its audit of Enron.

The firm was convicted in 2002 even without this change in the law, but the Supreme Court subsequently reversed the jury verdict in Arthur Andersen v. United States because the trial judge gave a flawed instruction on what constituted “corruptly.” The court, with Chief Justice Rehnquist writing the unanimous opinion, explained that corrupt conduct was “normally associated with wrongful, immoral, depraved or evil” actions, which requires a consciousness of wrongdoing rather than just a questionable result.

There have been comparisons of Mr. Trump’s statements to the Watergate cover-up that toppled President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. The “smoking gun” recording in that case, however, was much more incriminating as Mr. Nixon told H. R. Halderman, his chief of staff, six days after the break-in that the C.I.A. needed to tell the F.B.I. “don’t go any further into this case.”

Whether Mr. Trump could be found to have the requisite intent is not clear from the memorandum Mr. Comey is reported to have written about their conversation in February. Asking the F.B.I. director to “let this go” regarding Mr. Flynn is the type of ambiguous comment that might not be interpreted as directly interfering in the investigation, and therefore insufficient to establish a corrupt intent.

United States v. Ermoian that interference in an F.B.I. investigation was not the type of proceeding the statute was meant to cover.

What is in the mind of Trump is easy to infer, seeing that Trump has a habit of doing the very same thing with other witnesses. His track record gives him away.

He has no such track record and there is no law forbidding someone to think something.

In fact I can infer nothing accurately being a very stupid person

Donald Trump, Paul Manafort and that Pesky Witness Tampering Statute Sure he has a track record.

Which you cannot cite.

So no he does not.

Too easy crushing you again.

You really suck at this.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Related from the former newspaper The New York Times a long while back: (Why Obstruction of Justice Is a Hard Crime to Prove)

"Any inquiry into possible obstruction will confront Supreme Court decisions that have been notably hostile to obstruction cases that push the limits of the law. There is plenty of wiggle room in the statutes that make it difficult to prove the necessary intent to obstruct justice, so gathering credible evidence to show what was in the mind of anyone who might try to impede the investigation will be paramount."

[...]

A second provision frequently used is 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), which makes it a crime for any person who corruptly “otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” Congress added this subsection in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to broaden the reach of the obstruction of justice provision to more clearly include conduct like that involving the accounting firm Arthur Andersen’s shredding of documents related to its audit of Enron.

The firm was convicted in 2002 even without this change in the law, but the Supreme Court subsequently reversed the jury verdict in Arthur Andersen v. United States because the trial judge gave a flawed instruction on what constituted “corruptly.” The court, with Chief Justice Rehnquist writing the unanimous opinion, explained that corrupt conduct was “normally associated with wrongful, immoral, depraved or evil” actions, which requires a consciousness of wrongdoing rather than just a questionable result.

There have been comparisons of Mr. Trump’s statements to the Watergate cover-up that toppled President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. The “smoking gun” recording in that case, however, was much more incriminating as Mr. Nixon told H. R. Halderman, his chief of staff, six days after the break-in that the C.I.A. needed to tell the F.B.I. “don’t go any further into this case.”

Whether Mr. Trump could be found to have the requisite intent is not clear from the memorandum Mr. Comey is reported to have written about their conversation in February. Asking the F.B.I. director to “let this go” regarding Mr. Flynn is the type of ambiguous comment that might not be interpreted as directly interfering in the investigation, and therefore insufficient to establish a corrupt intent.

United States v. Ermoian that interference in an F.B.I. investigation was not the type of proceeding the statute was meant to cover.

What is in the mind of Trump is easy to infer, seeing that Trump has a habit of doing the very same thing with other witnesses. His track record gives him away.

He has no such track record and there is no law forbidding someone to think something.

In fact I can infer nothing accurately being a very stupid person

He didn't think it, he spoke about it.

Yes he spoke about what stone already did.

No tampering

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is that what the hate site are programming you drones to spew?

Tweets don't "fill that bill,"

But you know what does? Suborning perjury by Grand Inquisitor Mewler-Torquemada.

There is an actual criminal complaint against Torquemada, unlike the President.

Lol! The law has got you by the balls and there is nothing you can do about it.

The law disputes YOU it does not prove your claim.

So now we know the election was legal and you are as confessed liar every time you say other wise.

Then you're just an uneducated idiot who has zero understanding of the law. Nothing I can do about that.

If the law disputed me, you would have injected an intelligent explanation as to how. You didn't, because you can't. Which proves you are the one lying.

Oh traitor, you simply aren't in a position to lecture others on the law. You sitting up, barking, and clapping your flippers while some little Goebbels on one of the hate stations preaches utter stupidity to you drooling retards is no substitute for actual thought.

No doubt some pile of shit like Don Lemon (IQ 41) probably did tell you retards that "tweeting is an attempt to alter testimony," but these vile pigs prey on the stupid, evil fucks like you who are brimming over with hatred but have no capacity for thought.

Speaking of thought, minus your own ignorant rant that tells us nothing about real facts, can you produce any links that tell us you are actually thinking about anything, other than your own ignorance and hate?

DERP

Tweeting iz dah obstrucshunizing of juicetits... Raquel Madcow dun sedz sew....

You fucking retard.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Trump is totally unhinged and out of control because his team has zero defense for him;Trump goes after Mueller probe in Friday tweets

https://media1.s-

Mewler-Torquemada is a pile of shit, a mobbed up scumbag. What does that have to do with anything?

You allege that Trump has committed a crime. Then you come up with this fucking idiotic claim he "violated 1512 U.S. Code." You being too stupid to know there is no such code.

Then you crawl back to the hate site you are ignorantly trying to use to prop up your stupidity and trot out Title 18, section 1512. You heard one of the Heinreich Himmlers on the hate stations say something that you didn't understand, but it filled you with hate and rage, as everything does. So you stomped in here and declared "Trump will be arrested for 1512" Then you did your best to recite the idiotic and absurd reasoning of the Nazi you were listening to , "tweets obstruct justice or something.."

No fucktard, a tweet does not influence testimony. Bill Clinton threatening Betty Currie by telling her that if she didn't perjure herself for him he would fire her and make sure she lost her pension, THAT obstructed justice. A tweet, uh no, you drooling fucking retard.

You are just a low IQ Communist, heart filled with hatred and head filled with shit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The law is clear and the crime is clear, as are the opinions of law experts; Is Donald Trump's Tweet About Roger Stone Witness Tampering?

Trump hailed Roger Stone for standing up to Mueller. Some legal experts said that's tampering.

George Conway Suggests New Donald Trump Tweet May Break The Law | HuffPost

Is President Trump Tampering With Witnesses Through Twitter?

Trump's praise for Roger Stone could amount to witness tampering – experts

The Heinreich Himmlers at Huffing Glue and the other rabid hate site post all sorts of vile slander.

Only a fucking idiot believes that shit.

 

[PredFan]

He needs no defense as you cannot show a crime her has commited

You are right. I haven't. The law has.

And what crime is that?

Witness tampering dumb ass!

There is no witness tampering dumbass.

If that were true, you would have presented us with an intelligent/informative rebuttal to the truth of what the law presents to us. Since you did not, you're just another idiot who tells us nothing.

I can't prove a negative dumbass.

 

[PredFan]

Please let the House waste all their time on a baseless and wasteful impeachment over absolutely nothing. Then the GOP will take the House back and re-elect Trump on 2020

No they won't, because the rule of law and the truth are more powerful than those criminals in the WH. This election proved that.

Lol, a liberal talking about truth and rule of law? Two things you assholes absolutely hate. You hate them because those two things always thwart your efforts.

 

[PredFan]

You are right. I haven't. The law has.

And what crime is that?

Witness tampering dumb ass!

There is no witness tampering dumbass.

If that were true, you would have presented us with an intelligent/informative rebuttal to the truth of what the law presents to us. Since you did not, you're just another idiot who tells us nothing.

I already did and it made you into my bitch.

You lied about what the law says a I proved that fact.

Keep lying little boy

He's none too bright. Probably why he's a lib.

 

[Wyatt earp]

[
He was right. Trump's election has already been found illegal. He is not a real president, and the law will bear that truth out.

What law is that traitor?

The fact is that you Marxist scum simply won't accept the results of an election.

An election stolen illegally is no election.

As long as it stopped Hillary, we are good