PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
Wow! The best hopes and prayers of the Democrats simply became another dry hole. Attaboy, Mueller! There are some pretty interesting conspiracy theories possible as to why Mueller did what he didā¦.and it sure isnāt because he is āhonorable.ā
Rats and sinking ships comes to mind.
1.Although Mueller could have simply copied the posts we on the Right penned two years ago, still, it is invigorating to watch the tearing and ripping by the poor, poor, jilted Leftists/Democrat/Liberals as we ram the hoax back down their lying throatsā¦..and use Muellerās report to do it!
Today, in a pause from the reveling, the schadenfreude, and mocking, this thread will focus on two pointsā¦.
a. the actual meaning of obstruction of justice, and
b.proof that both Hillary and Obama are clearly and evidently guilty of same.exactly what the phrase means: obstruction of justice.
I guarantee it.
2. First the dry part, then the fun part. The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge require prosecutors to prove the following elements:
Pay special attention to item 3. The word āintentā is key and it will prove so later.
Trump railed against the proceedings, and did tweet his vehemenceā¦..just as any innocent man would. There is nothing corrupt about complaining.
3.āBut regardless of the specific section of federal law (1501 through 1521) cited in a particular case, the prosecution need not prove any actual obstruction -- the defendant's attempt to obstruct is enough. The element of intent, which is central to such cases, is also usually the most difficult to prove; although memos, phone calls, and recorded conversations may be used as evidence to establish this.ā Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw
Saying mean things, tweeting, berating Mueller, Sessions, whoever, does not constitute corrupt intent. Obstruction of Justice requires the prosecutor to show exactly what this particular charge requires.
Mueller couldnāt, as much as he wished he could.
That can be seen in the language of his report.
4.For comparison, here is Comey stating why he could not indict Hillary Clinton:
āNow let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clintonās position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later āup-classifiedā e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Governmentāor even with a commercial service like Gmail.ā
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clintonās Use of a Personal E-Mail System
Comey was lying through his teeth to allow Hillary to skate.
Iāll explain why, next.
Rats and sinking ships comes to mind.
1.Although Mueller could have simply copied the posts we on the Right penned two years ago, still, it is invigorating to watch the tearing and ripping by the poor, poor, jilted Leftists/Democrat/Liberals as we ram the hoax back down their lying throatsā¦..and use Muellerās report to do it!
Today, in a pause from the reveling, the schadenfreude, and mocking, this thread will focus on two pointsā¦.
a. the actual meaning of obstruction of justice, and
b.proof that both Hillary and Obama are clearly and evidently guilty of same.exactly what the phrase means: obstruction of justice.
I guarantee it.
2. First the dry part, then the fun part. The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge require prosecutors to prove the following elements:
- There was a pending federal judicial proceeding
- The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
- The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding. Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw
Pay special attention to item 3. The word āintentā is key and it will prove so later.
Trump railed against the proceedings, and did tweet his vehemenceā¦..just as any innocent man would. There is nothing corrupt about complaining.
3.āBut regardless of the specific section of federal law (1501 through 1521) cited in a particular case, the prosecution need not prove any actual obstruction -- the defendant's attempt to obstruct is enough. The element of intent, which is central to such cases, is also usually the most difficult to prove; although memos, phone calls, and recorded conversations may be used as evidence to establish this.ā Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw
Saying mean things, tweeting, berating Mueller, Sessions, whoever, does not constitute corrupt intent. Obstruction of Justice requires the prosecutor to show exactly what this particular charge requires.
Mueller couldnāt, as much as he wished he could.
That can be seen in the language of his report.
4.For comparison, here is Comey stating why he could not indict Hillary Clinton:
āNow let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clintonās position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later āup-classifiedā e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Governmentāor even with a commercial service like Gmail.ā
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clintonās Use of a Personal E-Mail System
Comey was lying through his teeth to allow Hillary to skate.
Iāll explain why, next.