Obstruction of IN-Justice

[DGS49]

Imagine we have a person who is wrongfully accused of a crime. The police and the district attorney subject him to a figurative colonoscopy of investigations. They check his bank accounts, his club memberships, his academic records, his emails and text messages, his social media accounts, his tax returns, and interview everyone he has ever known since high school.

But again, he is innocent of any crime, and has been wrongfully accused.

In an attempt to defend himself against this "legal" siege, he contacts his friends and tells them to reveal only the barest details of what they know, he tells his bank to examine the warrant with a fine tooth comb, and to refuse to provide anything but the bare minimum of information. He tells his Alma Mater to withhold everything possible from his academic records, providing only what is absolutely required. And so on.

Is he "obstructing justice"? Hell no, he is just trying to protect himself against a malicious prosecution.

To coin a phrase, he is obstructing INJUSTICE, which is not only NOT a crime; it is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.

Does any of this seem familiar?

 

[emilynghiem]

Imagine we have a person who is wrongfully accused of a crime. The police and the district attorney subject him to a figurative colonoscopy of investigations. They check his bank accounts, his club memberships, his academic records, his emails and text messages, his social media accounts, his tax returns, and interview everyone he has ever known since high school.

But again, he is innocent of any crime, and has been wrongfully accused.

In an attempt to defend himself against this "legal" siege, he contacts his friends and tells them to reveal only the barest details of what they know, he tells his bank to examine the warrant with a fine tooth comb, and to refuse to provide anything but the bare minimum of information. He tells his Alma Mater to withhold everything possible from his academic records, providing only what is absolutely required. And so on.

Is he "obstructing justice"? Hell no, he is just trying to protect himself against a malicious prosecution.

To coin a phrase, he is obstructing INJUSTICE, which is not only NOT a crime; it is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.

Does any of this seem familiar?

Dear DGS49
It's more than just that.
Firing people in his administration at any stage during the investigations
is within his executive authority,
but it will ALWAYS LOOK BAD OR SUSPECT in the eyes of critics.

Trump cannot change this image that he was firing
people because of the investigation, not because of things they were doing incompetently or unethically.

People opposed to Trump are NOT going to believe this wasn't obstructionism.

Just like people opposed to Clinton are always going to see
criminal intent behind anything that goes wrong there as well!

Instead of arguing back and forth, when we all know that's not going to change
minds or public opinion, what we need to focus on
is making sure all officials and agencies ACT ETHICALLY
and totally AVOID any appearance or RISK of conflict of interest.

In law, lawyers and judges are known to RECUSE themselves
to avoid appearing in conflict. We need to go back to making
policies based on solutions that effectively work for all sides for the public interest,
and quit this business of taking sides for political expedience by one group over another!

www.ethics-commission.net

 

[caddo kid]

Imagine we have a person who is wrongfully accused of a crime. The police and the district attorney subject him to a figurative colonoscopy of investigations. They check his bank accounts, his club memberships, his academic records, his emails and text messages, his social media accounts, his tax returns, and interview everyone he has ever known since high school.

But again, he is innocent of any crime, and has been wrongfully accused.

In an attempt to defend himself against this "legal" siege, he contacts his friends and tells them to reveal only the barest details of what they know, he tells his bank to examine the warrant with a fine tooth comb, and to refuse to provide anything but the bare minimum of information. He tells his Alma Mater to withhold everything possible from his academic records, providing only what is absolutely required. And so on.

Is he "obstructing justice"? Hell no, he is just trying to protect himself against a malicious prosecution.

To coin a phrase, he is obstructing INJUSTICE, which is not only NOT a crime; it is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.

Does any of this seem familiar?

Plenty of citizens in AmeriKKKa have been CONVICTED of brutal crimes, let alone "accused," served decades in prison, only to be found NOT GUILTY via DNA.

Sad ass fact is most Republicans wanna keep these innocent folk in prison.

So, big shit ..............

what's your point?

 

[leftwinger]

Imagine we have a person who is wrongfully accused of a crime. The police and the district attorney subject him to a figurative colonoscopy of investigations. They check his bank accounts, his club memberships, his academic records, his emails and text messages, his social media accounts, his tax returns, and interview everyone he has ever known since high school.

But again, he is innocent of any crime, and has been wrongfully accused.

In an attempt to defend himself against this "legal" siege, he contacts his friends and tells them to reveal only the barest details of what they know, he tells his bank to examine the warrant with a fine tooth comb, and to refuse to provide anything but the bare minimum of information. He tells his Alma Mater to withhold everything possible from his academic records, providing only what is absolutely required. And so on.

Is he "obstructing justice"? Hell no, he is just trying to protect himself against a malicious prosecution.

To coin a phrase, he is obstructing INJUSTICE, which is not only NOT a crime; it is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.

Does any of this seem familiar?

Plenty of citizens in AmeriKKKa have been CONVICTED of brutal crimes, let alone "accused," served decades in prison, only to be found NOT GUILTY via DNA.

Sad ass fact is most Republicans wanna keep these innocent folk in prison.

So, big shit ..............

what's your point?

DJT is the one who actually took a look to give second chances. He implemented some official Justice Refotprm. What DId Mr.1% do? Over 8 years? Go golfing in Palm Springs?

Pound sand TDS victim.

 

[caddo kid]

Imagine we have a person who is wrongfully accused of a crime. The police and the district attorney subject him to a figurative colonoscopy of investigations. They check his bank accounts, his club memberships, his academic records, his emails and text messages, his social media accounts, his tax returns, and interview everyone he has ever known since high school.

But again, he is innocent of any crime, and has been wrongfully accused.

In an attempt to defend himself against this "legal" siege, he contacts his friends and tells them to reveal only the barest details of what they know, he tells his bank to examine the warrant with a fine tooth comb, and to refuse to provide anything but the bare minimum of information. He tells his Alma Mater to withhold everything possible from his academic records, providing only what is absolutely required. And so on.

Is he "obstructing justice"? Hell no, he is just trying to protect himself against a malicious prosecution.

To coin a phrase, he is obstructing INJUSTICE, which is not only NOT a crime; it is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.

Does any of this seem familiar?

Plenty of citizens in AmeriKKKa have been CONVICTED of brutal crimes, let alone "accused," served decades in prison, only to be found NOT GUILTY via DNA.

Sad ass fact is most Republicans wanna keep these innocent folk in prison.

So, big shit ..............

what's your point?

DJT is the one who actually took a look to give second chances. He implemented some official Justice Refotprm. What DId Mr.1% do? Over 8 years? Go golfing in Palm Springs?

Pound sand TDS victim.

Innocence Project was around loooooooooooooooong before jack ass Trump ............

 

[DGS49]

I suppose the point of this thread is the lack of an underlying crime destroying the accusations of Obstruction of Justice. The Mueller team has emphatically taken the MINORITY view in the criminal justice community, one that no jury in the world would support in a formal trial.

 

[BlackFlag]

Imagine we have a person who is wrongfully accused of a crime. The police and the district attorney subject him to a figurative colonoscopy of investigations. They check his bank accounts, his club memberships, his academic records, his emails and text messages, his social media accounts, his tax returns, and interview everyone he has ever known since high school.

But again, he is innocent of any crime, and has been wrongfully accused.

In an attempt to defend himself against this "legal" siege, he contacts his friends and tells them to reveal only the barest details of what they know, he tells his bank to examine the warrant with a fine tooth comb, and to refuse to provide anything but the bare minimum of information. He tells his Alma Mater to withhold everything possible from his academic records, providing only what is absolutely required. And so on.

Is he "obstructing justice"? Hell no, he is just trying to protect himself against a malicious prosecution.

To coin a phrase, he is obstructing INJUSTICE, which is not only NOT a crime; it is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.

Does any of this seem familiar?

Lol look at the retarded peasant defending a guy who has spent his life losing lawsuits against people that he's cheated