Trump cannot be Guilty of Obstruction concerning Comey

[Sunni Man]

In this 4 minute video.

Constitution professor Alan Dershowitz explains how Trump is within his presidential rights, and not obstruction of justice, when it comes to Comey. ......

 

[Eaglewings]

In this 4 minute video.

Constitution professor Alan Dershowitz explains how Trump is within his presidential rights, and not obstruction of justice, when it comes to Comey. ......

A president can not tell the FBI who to prosecute or not to prosecute that is just crazy..


QUESTION OF INTENT

To build a criminal obstruction of justice case, federal law requires prosecutors to show that a person acted with "corrupt" intent. It does not matter whether the person succeeds in impeding an investigation.

While a sitting president is unlikely to face criminal prosecution, obstruction of justice could form the basis for impeachment.

Comey account could fuel obstruction accusations against Trump: legal experts

 

[Sunni Man]

A president can not tell the FBI who to prosecute or not to prosecute that is just crazy..

Try watching the video before you comment. .....

 

[Iceweasel]

In this 4 minute video.

Constitution professor Alan Dershowitz explains how Trump is within his presidential rights, and not obstruction of justice, when it comes to Comey. ......

A president can not tell the FBI who to prosecute or not to prosecute that is just crazy..


QUESTION OF INTENT

Yes, we know how good Comey is with intent. But Trump didn't tell him to not prosecute, nor does the FBI prosecute anybody. Like all lefties you know nothing that hasn't been spoon fed to you by your mind masters.

 

[Mudda]

In this 4 minute video.

Constitution professor Alan Dershowitz explains how Trump is within his presidential rights, and not obstruction of justice, when it comes to Comey. ......

So basically, he's saying that Trump can protect all his criminal friends through the Constitution. Um... no.

Btw, isn't it a sin for a muslim to support a kafir?

 

[Eaglewings]

A president can not tell the FBI who to prosecute or not to prosecute that is just crazy..

Try watching the video before you comment. .....

Ok I did watch the whole thing Sunny and if this were the case Nixon would have gotten off Scott free.. We are going to be overloaded with lawyers and scholars and their opinions..

His comment about the president has the power to prosecute or not , would cause a lot of corruption with framing people or letting them off..

 

[Eaglewings]

In this 4 minute video.

Constitution professor Alan Dershowitz explains how Trump is within his presidential rights, and not obstruction of justice, when it comes to Comey. ......

A president can not tell the FBI who to prosecute or not to prosecute that is just crazy..


QUESTION OF INTENT

Yes, we know how good Comey is with intent. But Trump didn't tell him to not prosecute, nor does the FBI prosecute anybody. Like all lefties you know nothing that hasn't been spoon fed to you by your mind masters.

Well at least you admit today that Trump did ask Comey to let it go...haaa ..we are getting somewhere.

 

[Sunni Man]

Ok I did watch the whole thing Sunny and if this were the case Nixon would have gotten off Scott free..

Nixon's situation was very different. He tampered with evidence, and lied while attempting to cover up a criminal act. .....

 

[cnelsen]

So basically, he's saying that Trump can protect all his criminal friends through the Constitution. Um... no.

Isn't it a sin for a Jew to deceive. Oh, that's right. Only another Jew, huh?

 

[Eaglewings]

In this 4 minute video.

Constitution professor Alan Dershowitz explains how Trump is within his presidential rights, and not obstruction of justice, when it comes to Comey. ......

A president can not tell the FBI who to prosecute or not to prosecute that is just crazy..


QUESTION OF INTENT

Yes, we know how good Comey is with intent. But Trump didn't tell him to not prosecute, nor does the FBI prosecute anybody. Like all lefties you know nothing that hasn't been spoon fed to you by your mind masters.

Trump did exactly what Nixon did and tried to interfere or influence the FBI investigation ... Maybe what the lefties have been saying all along about Trump and the Russian's connections have truth to it as well..

We are just beginning to see the heads roll...

 

[cnelsen]

Ok I did watch the whole thing Sunny and if this were the case Nixon would have gotten off Scott free..

Nixon's situation was very different. He tampered with evidence, and lied while attempting to cover up a criminal act. .....

Nixon was innocent as well and would never have been convicted in a real court of law. Unfortunately, neither the Congress nor the media cares about justice. Watergate was the Jewish Triumphal March into the capital city.

 

[Silent Warrior]

Typical LWNJ responses. Pretend to not understand and invent facts. Nixon and Trump situations are very different, but the left will always fail to understand and parrot the party line.

 

[Eaglewings]

Ok I did watch the whole thing Sunny and if this were the case Nixon would have gotten off Scott free..

Nixon's situation was very different. He tampered with evidence, and lied while attempting to cover up a criminal act. .....

Ouch:

The answer to the first question is: Criminal obstruction of justice is broadly defined, and according to 18 U.S. Code § 1503, includes “any threatening letter or communication [which] influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”

The Criminal Resource Manual for U.S. attorneys points out that “the Supreme Court has concluded that ‘endeavor’ is broader than ‘attempt’” — and quotes the court stating that in the statute it means “any effort or essay to accomplish the evil purpose that the section was enacted to prevent.” Therefore, says the Justice Department, “it follows that an endeavor to obstruct justice need not be successful to be criminal.”

A Short History of Presidential Obstruction of Justice

 

[cnelsen]

We are just beginning to see the heads roll...

Perhaps. And you are too ignorant to comprehend what a tragedy for us and our nation.

 

[bodecea]

Ok I did watch the whole thing Sunny and if this were the case Nixon would have gotten off Scott free..

Nixon's situation was very different. He tampered with evidence, and lied while attempting to cover up a criminal act. .....

What evidence did Nixon tamper with?

 

[Weatherman2020]

In this 4 minute video.

Constitution professor Alan Dershowitz explains how Trump is within his presidential rights, and not obstruction of justice, when it comes to Comey. ......

A president can not tell the FBI who to prosecute or not to prosecute that is just crazy..


QUESTION OF INTENT

To build a criminal obstruction of justice case, federal law requires prosecutors to show that a person acted with "corrupt" intent. It does not matter whether the person succeeds in impeding an investigation.

While a sitting president is unlikely to face criminal prosecution, obstruction of justice could form the basis for impeachment.

Comey account could fuel obstruction accusations against Trump: legal experts

FBI prosecutes no one, dufus.

 

[Eaglewings]

Ok I did watch the whole thing Sunny and if this were the case Nixon would have gotten off Scott free..

Nixon's situation was very different. He tampered with evidence, and lied while attempting to cover up a criminal act. .....

Nixon was innocent as well and would never have been convicted in a real court of law. Unfortunately, neither the Congress nor the media cares about justice. Watergate was the Jewish Triumphal March into the capital city.

So breaking into a building and hiding the evidence is not a criminal act? I disagree..

 

[cnelsen]

The answer to the first question is: Criminal obstruction of justice is broadly defined, and according to 18 U.S. Code § 1503, includes “any threatening letter or communication [which] influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”

Hey pencil-dick. The President said to James "Bitch" Comey, I hope you can let this go. Flynn is a good man who has been treated unjustly.

And that was it by Comey's own snippy testimony.

If you think that was obstruction of justice, you belong in a gulag. Idiot.

 

[cnelsen]

Ok I did watch the whole thing Sunny and if this were the case Nixon would have gotten off Scott free..

Nixon's situation was very different. He tampered with evidence, and lied while attempting to cover up a criminal act. .....

Nixon was innocent as well and would never have been convicted in a real court of law. Unfortunately, neither the Congress nor the media cares about justice. Watergate was the Jewish Triumphal March into the capital city.

So breaking into a building and hiding the evidence is not a criminal act? I disagree..

Nixon did neither.

 

[Sunni Man]

The answer to the first question is: Criminal obstruction of justice is broadly defined, and according to 18 U.S. Code § 1503, includes “any threatening letter or communication [which] influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”

The Criminal Resource Manual for U.S. attorneys points out that “the Supreme Court has concluded that ‘endeavor’ is broader than ‘attempt’” — and quotes the court stating that in the statute it means “any effort or essay to accomplish the evil purpose that the section was enacted to prevent.” Therefore, says the Justice Department, “it follows that an endeavor to obstruct justice need not be successful to be criminal.”

A Short History of Presidential Obstruction of Justice

You might attempt to watch the OP's video again.

Alan Dershowits explains in detail why Pres. Trump is within his Constitutional rights as president concerning Comey. ....