Almost Too Stupid To Check: Dems Says Trump Using Court System Is Obstruction

[easyt65]

According to the latest Liberal Trump-hating 'genius', an American who uses the Justice System's courts to defend themselves from unfair, Un-Constitutional, and / or illegal targeting and attack from others is committing the crime of 'Obstruction of Justice'.

Specifically, in this case, the President of the United States, who did NOT forfeit his Rights as an American citizen when he won the Presidency, is committing the crime of 'Obstruction' by using the court systems to halt the continued targeting of the President to engage in political 'fishing expeditions' in an attempt to find anything they can use to remove him from office.


'The President is attempting to use the US Legal System to stop us from engaging in yet another 'fishing trip'-driven political coup attempt. We think his legal attempt to stop us from undermining his Presidency and plotting and affecting his removal from office should be / is a crime.'


?!



Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.) argued Friday that President Donald Trump seeking legal recourse in U.S. courts amounts "in and of itself [to] obstruction of justice."

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.) argued Friday that President Donald Trump seeking legal recourse in U.S. courts amounts "in and of itself [to] obstruction of justice."



Another Democrat lost to 'Terminal TDS'...







Dem Rep: Trump 'Trying to Use the Court System' Is 'Obstruction of Justice'

 

[BS Filter]

Democrats appeal to the dumbest and most perverse in our society.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Democrats appeal to the dumbest and most perverse in our society.

And there is no shortage of that today unfortunately

 

[Rambunctious]

The dems are flailing away....

 

[easyt65]

Dems accuse you of cries without a crime, without evidence, without witnesses...

If you say nothing, believing you are innocent until proven guilty - which Democrats do not believe - then you are obviously guilty and are hiding something.

If you attempt to exercise your Constitutional and legal rights to defend yourself then you are Obstructing Justice.

Democrats have proven that under their Socialist Democrat Rule
- Conservatives/Republicans are GUILTY until PROVEN Innocent
- An actual crime is not needed to accuse Conservatives / Republicans of committing one
- An accusation is all that is needed to justify an investigation into every inch of Conservatives' / Republicans' lives
- Their investigations can ./ will last until they find ... or manufacture ... a crime
- Exercising one's Constitutional Rights in their defense is 'Obstruction' / not permitted'
- No evidence of a crime having been committed is needed - just disagreement with their beliefs / agendas
- No witnesses are needed
- Conservatives / Republicans can be investigated based on an anonymous claim
- Hearsay against Conservatives / Republicans is considered 'verified fact'
- Conservatives / Republicans not their legal counsel cannot attend closed-door Democrat inquisitions
- Conservatives / Republicans can not ask non-witnesses against them any questions not pre-approved by their accusers
- Conservatives / Republicans can not call their own witnesses, especially Democrats exposed as having committed crimes
- Political coups against Conservatives / Republicans can be conducted and last as long as they are needed to get the job done
- Impeachment can be started based on Hearsay, not evidence of possible 'High Crimes & Misdemeanors'
- Opposition to a Conservative / Republican President's Foreign Policy constitutes 'High Crimes & Misdemeanors'
- Defeating a hand-picked, protected Democrat / any Democrat is an election is considered 'High Crimes & Misdemeanors'

Welcome to Barry's / Socialist Democrats 'Fundamentally Changed' America.......

 

[colfax_m]

Trump’s legal arguments are not made in good faith. It’s merely an attempt to run out the clock.

Counts as obstruction if you ask me.

 

[berg80]

According to the latest Liberal Trump-hating 'genius', an American who uses the Justice System's courts to defend themselves from unfair, Un-Constitutional, and / or illegal targeting and attack from others is committing the crime of 'Obstruction of Justice'.

Specifically, in this case, the President of the United States, who did NOT forfeit his Rights as an American citizen when he won the Presidency, is committing the crime of 'Obstruction' by using the court systems to halt the continued targeting of the President to engage in political 'fishing expeditions' in an attempt to find anything they can use to remove him from office.


'The President is attempting to use the US Legal System to stop us from engaging in yet another 'fishing trip'-driven political coup attempt. We think his legal attempt to stop us from undermining his Presidency and plotting and affecting his removal from office should be / is a crime.'


?!



Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.) argued Friday that President Donald Trump seeking legal recourse in U.S. courts amounts "in and of itself [to] obstruction of justice."

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.) argued Friday that President Donald Trump seeking legal recourse in U.S. courts amounts "in and of itself [to] obstruction of justice."



Another Democrat lost to 'Terminal TDS'...







Dem Rep: Trump 'Trying to Use the Court System' Is 'Obstruction of Justice'

Hopefully you've stopped hyperventilating long enough to realize while constantly seeking appeals after his legal team's arguments are laughed out of court is not in itself obstruction, it is an transparent attempt to delay justice for the American people. As for actual obstruction, there are ample examples from both the Mueller investigation and the impeachment inquiry.

 

[easyt65]

Hopefully you've stopped hyperventilating long enough ...

When you cease attempting to pain false pictures and make false accusations about me and want to talk as a serious adult, let me know.

I am sorry you can not handle the fact that the judicial process and all of its options and avenues for Americans to pursue in their defense offends you. The reason we have a process that does not stop at lower-level partisan appointed judges is because so many judges seek to legislate and make partisan decisions from the bench, to perpetuate and protect agendas through their partisan decisions,. There is a reason the judicial system has avenues to pursue that lead all the way up to the USSC, snowflake. Pursuing those avenues does not constitute 'Obstruction of Justice' but constitutes the seeking of TRUE Justice, sometimes which can only be found / acquired by elevating cases to that level.

I understand you are frustrated that the President continues to pursue perfectly legal alternatives and options to deny the Democrats the ability to continue their never-ending fishing expedition, but doing so is NOT illegal, lil' snowflake.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Dems accuse you of cries without a crime, without evidence, without witnesses...

If you say nothing, believing you are innocent until proven guilty - which Democrats do not believe - then you are obviously guilty and are hiding something.

If you attempt to exercise your Constitutional and legal rights to defend yourself then you are Obstructing Justice.

Democrats have proven that under their Socialist Democrat Rule
- Conservatives/Republicans are GUILTY until PROVEN Innocent
- An actual crime is not needed to accuse Conservatives / Republicans of committing one
- An accusation is all that is needed to justify an investigation into every inch of Conservatives' / Republicans' lives
- Their investigations can ./ will last until they find ... or manufacture ... a crime
- Exercising one's Constitutional Rights in their defense is 'Obstruction' / not permitted'
- No evidence of a crime having been committed is needed - just disagreement with their beliefs / agendas
- No witnesses are needed
- Conservatives / Republicans can be investigated based on an anonymous claim
- Hearsay against Conservatives / Republicans is considered 'verified fact'
- Conservatives / Republicans not their legal counsel cannot attend closed-door Democrat inquisitions
- Conservatives / Republicans can not ask non-witnesses against them any questions not pre-approved by their accusers
- Conservatives / Republicans can not call their own witnesses, especially Democrats exposed as having committed crimes
- Political coups against Conservatives / Republicans can be conducted and last as long as they are needed to get the job done
- Impeachment can be started based on Hearsay, not evidence of possible 'High Crimes & Misdemeanors'
- Opposition to a Conservative / Republican President's Foreign Policy constitutes 'High Crimes & Misdemeanors'
- Defeating a hand-picked, protected Democrat / any Democrat is an election is considered 'High Crimes & Misdemeanors'

Welcome to Barry's / Socialist Democrats 'Fundamentally Changed' America.......

Yes...it's what tyrants and their boot lickers do best.

 

[WEATHER53]

Anything that seeks to prevent one from being flushed down the toilet falsely and fakely is obstruction .
Lib 101

 

[hadit]

Trump’s legal arguments are not made in good faith. It’s merely an attempt to run out the clock.

Counts as obstruction if you ask me.

If he has the right to do it...
And if it's legal for him to do it...

Then what's your problem with him doing it?

PS - What does "good faith" have to do with any of this? The democrats are not acting in "good faith", they're out to destroy him. He doesn't need to act in "good faith" to legally defend himself.

 

[colfax_m]

Trump’s legal arguments are not made in good faith. It’s merely an attempt to run out the clock.

Counts as obstruction if you ask me.

If he has the right to do it...
And if it's legal for him to do it...

Then what's your problem with him doing it?

PS - What does "good faith" have to do with any of this? The democrats are not acting in "good faith", they're out to destroy him. He doesn't need to act in "good faith" to legally defend himself.

Trump knows there’s no legal basis for his complete refusal to cooperate with any government oversight. His position is laughable. It’s preventing the government from functioning as it’s intended.

He is abusing the system to unconstitutionally avoid the checks and balances.

 

[hadit]

Trump’s legal arguments are not made in good faith. It’s merely an attempt to run out the clock.

Counts as obstruction if you ask me.

If he has the right to do it...
And if it's legal for him to do it...

Then what's your problem with him doing it?

PS - What does "good faith" have to do with any of this? The democrats are not acting in "good faith", they're out to destroy him. He doesn't need to act in "good faith" to legally defend himself.

Trump knows there’s no legal basis for his complete refusal to cooperate with any government oversight. His position is laughable. It’s preventing the government from functioning as it’s intended.

He is abusing the system to unconstitutionally avoid the checks and balances.

And if the courts find that he overstepped, he'll have to back down. That's what they're there for. Likewise, if they find he did not, the democrats and their usual suspects will just have to live with that, whining and complaining the whole time.

 

[colfax_m]

Trump’s legal arguments are not made in good faith. It’s merely an attempt to run out the clock.

Counts as obstruction if you ask me.

If he has the right to do it...
And if it's legal for him to do it...

Then what's your problem with him doing it?

PS - What does "good faith" have to do with any of this? The democrats are not acting in "good faith", they're out to destroy him. He doesn't need to act in "good faith" to legally defend himself.

Trump knows there’s no legal basis for his complete refusal to cooperate with any government oversight. His position is laughable. It’s preventing the government from functioning as it’s intended.

He is abusing the system to unconstitutionally avoid the checks and balances.

And if the courts find that he overstepped, he'll have to back down. That's what they're there for. Likewise, if they find he did not, the democrats and their usual suspects will just have to live with that, whining and complaining the whole time.

Undoubtedly the courts will find he’s overstepped. It’ll take years to get to that point.

But by then it won’t matter. He will be long gone and have evaded all accountability for his actions. I don’t think the founders intended for the president to be completely unaccountable. Do you!

 

[hadit]

Trump’s legal arguments are not made in good faith. It’s merely an attempt to run out the clock.

Counts as obstruction if you ask me.

If he has the right to do it...
And if it's legal for him to do it...

Then what's your problem with him doing it?

PS - What does "good faith" have to do with any of this? The democrats are not acting in "good faith", they're out to destroy him. He doesn't need to act in "good faith" to legally defend himself.

Trump knows there’s no legal basis for his complete refusal to cooperate with any government oversight. His position is laughable. It’s preventing the government from functioning as it’s intended.

He is abusing the system to unconstitutionally avoid the checks and balances.

And if the courts find that he overstepped, he'll have to back down. That's what they're there for. Likewise, if they find he did not, the democrats and their usual suspects will just have to live with that, whining and complaining the whole time.

Undoubtedly the courts will find he’s overstepped. It’ll take years to get to that point.

But by then it won’t matter. He will be long gone and have evaded all accountability for his actions. I don’t think the founders intended for the president to be completely unaccountable. Do you!

Of course not. The accountability pieces are working as they were designed, to let both accuser and defender have their say. It's not just an avenue for democrats to attack, you know. At any rate, Trump will be gone by 2025. Just hold on until then.

 

[colfax_m]

Trump’s legal arguments are not made in good faith. It’s merely an attempt to run out the clock.

Counts as obstruction if you ask me.

If he has the right to do it...
And if it's legal for him to do it...

Then what's your problem with him doing it?

PS - What does "good faith" have to do with any of this? The democrats are not acting in "good faith", they're out to destroy him. He doesn't need to act in "good faith" to legally defend himself.

Trump knows there’s no legal basis for his complete refusal to cooperate with any government oversight. His position is laughable. It’s preventing the government from functioning as it’s intended.

He is abusing the system to unconstitutionally avoid the checks and balances.

And if the courts find that he overstepped, he'll have to back down. That's what they're there for. Likewise, if they find he did not, the democrats and their usual suspects will just have to live with that, whining and complaining the whole time.

Undoubtedly the courts will find he’s overstepped. It’ll take years to get to that point.

But by then it won’t matter. He will be long gone and have evaded all accountability for his actions. I don’t think the founders intended for the president to be completely unaccountable. Do you!

Of course not. The accountability pieces are working as they were designed, to let both accuser and defender have their say. It's not just an avenue for democrats to attack, you know. At any rate, Trump will be gone by 2025. Just hold on until then.

This is definitely not how it was “designed”. No one intended the president to obstruct any effort at congressional oversight. It was not designed to allow the president to stall for years to avoid accountability.

 

[hadit]

If he has the right to do it...
And if it's legal for him to do it...

Then what's your problem with him doing it?

PS - What does "good faith" have to do with any of this? The democrats are not acting in "good faith", they're out to destroy him. He doesn't need to act in "good faith" to legally defend himself.

Trump knows there’s no legal basis for his complete refusal to cooperate with any government oversight. His position is laughable. It’s preventing the government from functioning as it’s intended.

He is abusing the system to unconstitutionally avoid the checks and balances.

And if the courts find that he overstepped, he'll have to back down. That's what they're there for. Likewise, if they find he did not, the democrats and their usual suspects will just have to live with that, whining and complaining the whole time.

Undoubtedly the courts will find he’s overstepped. It’ll take years to get to that point.

But by then it won’t matter. He will be long gone and have evaded all accountability for his actions. I don’t think the founders intended for the president to be completely unaccountable. Do you!

Of course not. The accountability pieces are working as they were designed, to let both accuser and defender have their say. It's not just an avenue for democrats to attack, you know. At any rate, Trump will be gone by 2025. Just hold on until then.

This is definitely not how it was “designed”. No one intended the president to obstruct any effort at congressional oversight. It was not designed to allow the president to stall for years to avoid accountability.

Then make the courts work faster. They are there to ensure that the law is followed, and attempting to remove a duly elected president should NOT be done rapidly. If the judges feel that he is using the courts frivolously, they can reject his filings out of hand. If they, however, choose to hear the arguments and render their rulings in due time, it is their prerogative to do so. We do not want to do something like this in the heat of the moment.

Let's put it this way. Just how easy would you want removing a president to be? If the democrats succeed in removing Trump without the full concurrence of the judicial branch, and manage to win the White House (I know, it has to happen some time), how easy to you want it to be for the Republicans to find some questionable activity and ram through an impeachment of their own? You would be setting up a scenario where the only way a president could be sure of a full term is to have a majority in the House.

Anyway, it's all a moot point. The democrats haven't made a very strong case to get rid of Trump, and the further they push it like this, the worse it will be for them.

 

[colfax_m]

Trump knows there’s no legal basis for his complete refusal to cooperate with any government oversight. His position is laughable. It’s preventing the government from functioning as it’s intended.

He is abusing the system to unconstitutionally avoid the checks and balances.

And if the courts find that he overstepped, he'll have to back down. That's what they're there for. Likewise, if they find he did not, the democrats and their usual suspects will just have to live with that, whining and complaining the whole time.

Undoubtedly the courts will find he’s overstepped. It’ll take years to get to that point.

But by then it won’t matter. He will be long gone and have evaded all accountability for his actions. I don’t think the founders intended for the president to be completely unaccountable. Do you!

Of course not. The accountability pieces are working as they were designed, to let both accuser and defender have their say. It's not just an avenue for democrats to attack, you know. At any rate, Trump will be gone by 2025. Just hold on until then.

This is definitely not how it was “designed”. No one intended the president to obstruct any effort at congressional oversight. It was not designed to allow the president to stall for years to avoid accountability.

Then make the courts work faster. They are there to ensure that the law is followed, and attempting to remove a duly elected president should NOT be done rapidly. If the judges feel that he is using the courts frivolously, they can reject his filings out of hand. If they, however, choose to hear the arguments and render their rulings in due time, it is their prerogative to do so. We do not want to do something like this in the heat of the moment.

Let's put it this way. Just how easy would you want removing a president to be? If the democrats succeed in removing Trump without the full concurrence of the judicial branch, and manage to win the White House (I know, it has to happen some time), how easy to you want it to be for the Republicans to find some questionable activity and ram through an impeachment of their own? You would be setting up a scenario where the only way a president could be sure of a full term is to have a majority in the House.

Anyway, it's all a moot point. The democrats haven't made a very strong case to get rid of Trump, and the further they push it like this, the worse it will be for them.

What is the point of having the ability to impeach a president if the president can prevent Congress from investigating him?

The judicial branch has no participation in impeachment, FYI.

 

[lennypartiv]

Trump’s legal arguments are not made in good faith. It’s merely an attempt to run out the clock.
Counts as obstruction if you ask me.

Your impeachment vote doesn't count.

 

[Blackrook]

Democrats don't give unborn babies due process before they rip their arms and legs off and sell off their body parts.