Dershowitz says: No Obstruction

[SAYIT]

Harvard Law prof Alan Dershowitz says the case for obstruction must be based on the commission of or attempt to commit an illegal act. As of today Trump has done neither. Firing or threatening to fire subordinates is within his authority as POTUS.

Its hard for people who back Tramp to admit he is guilty of obstruction, but you must admit the facts. Denial is not the answer for all of you trampers. You must face the truth.

**** boot licking Dershowitz.

"Dershowitz says: No Obstruction" lol
And?

And y'all had the same highly predictable knee-jerk reaction. I understand you're still struggling to digest the news that no member of the Trump fam or aides was indicted for colluding with the Russian meddlers but perhaps you should just do all the heavy lifting at one time and get it over with. You know ... No collusion, No obstruction.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Harvard Law prof Alan Dershowitz says the case for obstruction must be based on the commission of or attempt to commit an illegal act. As of today Trump has done neither. Firing or threatening to fire subordinates is within his authority as POTUS.

Its hard for people who back Tramp to admit he is guilty of obstruction, but you must admit the facts. Denial is not the answer for all of you trampers. You must face the truth.

**** boot licking Dershowitz.

"Dershowitz says: No Obstruction" lol
And?

And y'all had the same highly predictable knee-jerk reaction. I understand you're still struggling to digest the news that no member of the Trump fam or aides was indicted for colluding with the Russian meddlers but perhaps you should just do all the heavy lifting at one time and get it over with. You know ... No collusion, No obstruction.

No collusion, but plenty of obstruction and how many Trump associates went or are going to jail.

 

[SAYIT]

Harvard Law prof Alan Dershowitz says the case for obstruction must be based on the commission of or attempt to commit an illegal act. As of today Trump has done neither. Firing or threatening to fire subordinates is within his authority as POTUS.

Its hard for people who back Tramp to admit he is guilty of obstruction, but you must admit the facts. Denial is not the answer for all of you trampers. You must face the truth.

**** boot licking Dershowitz.

"Dershowitz says: No Obstruction" lol
And?

And y'all had the same highly predictable knee-jerk reaction. I understand you're still struggling to digest the news that no member of the Trump fam or aides was indicted for colluding with the Russian meddlers but perhaps you should just do all the heavy lifting at one time and get it over with. You know ... No collusion, No obstruction.

No collusion, but plenty of obstruction and how many Trump associates went or are going to jail.

None for collusion and as Harvard Law prof Alan Dershowitz noted the case for obstruction must be based on the commission of or attempt to commit an illegal act. As of today Trump has done neither. Firing or threatening to fire subordinates is within his authority as POTUS

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Harvard Law prof Alan Dershowitz says the case for obstruction must be based on the commission of or attempt to commit an illegal act. As of today Trump has done neither. Firing or threatening to fire subordinates is within his authority as POTUS.

Its hard for people who back Tramp to admit he is guilty of obstruction, but you must admit the facts. Denial is not the answer for all of you trampers. You must face the truth.

**** boot licking Dershowitz.

"Dershowitz says: No Obstruction" lol
And?

And y'all had the same highly predictable knee-jerk reaction. I understand you're still struggling to digest the news that no member of the Trump fam or aides was indicted for colluding with the Russian meddlers but perhaps you should just do all the heavy lifting at one time and get it over with. You know ... No collusion, No obstruction.

No collusion, but plenty of obstruction and how many Trump associates went or are going to jail.

None for collusion and as Harvard Law prof Alan Dershowitz noted the case for obstruction must be based on the commission of or attempt to commit an illegal act. As of today Trump has done neither. Firing or threatening to fire subordinates is within his authority as POTUS

So Dershowitz knows more than the man who actually investigated the case.

 

[Penelope]

Its hard for people who back Tramp to admit he is guilty of obstruction, but you must admit the facts. Denial is not the answer for all of you trampers. You must face the truth.

Trump's alleged obstruction is now established as "fact" in your fetid mind? Why haven't Fat Jerry and the gang cranked up the impeachment machine? What are they waiting for since they have "facts" on their side?

Or is this the same sort of "fact" as Trump's alleged collusion with Russia? Those are the kinds of facts that no can prove but they make the leftist base moisten their panties just a bit.

You guys are priceless!

Compare Trump and Nixon. With Nixon there was a crime. We know there are many Trump crimes but none has been exposed. There were the Nixon tapes. There are no Trump tapes. There isn't so much as a note. Not a witness. There is nothing. Just this roiling naked desire to find a crime, make a crime and if all else fails, imagine a crime.

Article 3
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas.

The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

 

[SAYIT]

Harvard Law prof Alan Dershowitz says the case for obstruction must be based on the commission of or attempt to commit an illegal act. As of today Trump has done neither. Firing or threatening to fire subordinates is within his authority as POTUS.

Its hard for people who back Tramp to admit he is guilty of obstruction, but you must admit the facts. Denial is not the answer for all of you trampers. You must face the truth.

**** boot licking Dershowitz.

"Dershowitz says: No Obstruction" lol
And?

And y'all had the same highly predictable knee-jerk reaction. I understand you're still struggling to digest the news that no member of the Trump fam or aides was indicted for colluding with the Russian meddlers but perhaps you should just do all the heavy lifting at one time and get it over with. You know ... No collusion, No obstruction.

No collusion, but plenty of obstruction and how many Trump associates went or are going to jail.

None for collusion and as Harvard Law prof Alan Dershowitz noted the case for obstruction must be based on the commission of or attempt to commit an illegal act. As of today Trump has done neither. Firing or threatening to fire subordinates is within his authority as POTUS

So Dershowitz knows more than the man who actually investigated the case.

Dershowitz made no material judgment on the Mueller Report but rather provided technical legal opinion on the requirements for obstruction of justice and Trump's actions do not qualify as criminal.

Furthermore the Muel Team failed to find evidence of criminality and therefore indicted no member of the Trump fam for anything. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

I understand you desperately need to believe what CNN/PMSNBC "experts" tell you and you have the right to be as butt-hurt as you clearly choose to be but there will be no happy ending for people like you in this matter.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Harvard Law prof Alan Dershowitz says the case for obstruction must be based on the commission of or attempt to commit an illegal act. As of today Trump has done neither. Firing or threatening to fire subordinates is within his authority as POTUS.

Its hard for people who back Tramp to admit he is guilty of obstruction, but you must admit the facts. Denial is not the answer for all of you trampers. You must face the truth.

**** boot licking Dershowitz.

"Dershowitz says: No Obstruction" lol
And?

And y'all had the same highly predictable knee-jerk reaction. I understand you're still struggling to digest the news that no member of the Trump fam or aides was indicted for colluding with the Russian meddlers but perhaps you should just do all the heavy lifting at one time and get it over with. You know ... No collusion, No obstruction.

No collusion, but plenty of obstruction and how many Trump associates went or are going to jail.

None for collusion and as Harvard Law prof Alan Dershowitz noted the case for obstruction must be based on the commission of or attempt to commit an illegal act. As of today Trump has done neither. Firing or threatening to fire subordinates is within his authority as POTUS

So Dershowitz knows more than the man who actually investigated the case.

Dershowitz made no material judgment on the Mueller Report but rather provided technical legal opinion on the requirements for obstruction of justice and Trump's actions do not qualify as criminal.

So his legal opinion is more valuable than Mueller's.

Furthermore the Muel Team failed to find evidence of criminality and therefore indicted no member of the Trump fam for anything. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

The only reason he didn't put Trump in cuffs was because of the DOJ policy when it comes to a sitting president. How many folks from the Trump camp have been indicted or sent to jail?

You have the right to be as butt-hurt as you clearly choose to be but there will be no happy ending for people like you in this matter.

Sounds like you are the one who is butt hurt, for the simple fact you are on here trying to use any and everyone to make excuses for the misdeeds that Trump was/is doing.

 

[SAYIT]

And y'all had the same highly predictable knee-jerk reaction. I understand you're still struggling to digest the news that no member of the Trump fam or aides was indicted for colluding with the Russian meddlers but perhaps you should just do all the heavy lifting at one time and get it over with. You know ... No collusion, No obstruction.

No collusion, but plenty of obstruction and how many Trump associates went or are going to jail.

None for collusion and as Harvard Law prof Alan Dershowitz noted the case for obstruction must be based on the commission of or attempt to commit an illegal act. As of today Trump has done neither. Firing or threatening to fire subordinates is within his authority as POTUS

So Dershowitz knows more than the man who actually investigated the case.

Dershowitz made no material judgment on the Mueller Report but rather provided technical legal opinion on the requirements for obstruction of justice and Trump's actions do not qualify as criminal.

So his legal opinion is more valuable than Mueller's..

Do you need an adult to explain my response because clearly you don't understand the discourse. Dershowitz did not opine on Mueller's material findings - which were that "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" - but rather on the law which as a Harvard professor he knows quite well.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

No collusion, but plenty of obstruction and how many Trump associates went or are going to jail.

None for collusion and as Harvard Law prof Alan Dershowitz noted the case for obstruction must be based on the commission of or attempt to commit an illegal act. As of today Trump has done neither. Firing or threatening to fire subordinates is within his authority as POTUS

So Dershowitz knows more than the man who actually investigated the case.

Dershowitz made no material judgment on the Mueller Report but rather provided technical legal opinion on the requirements for obstruction of justice and Trump's actions do not qualify as criminal.

So his legal opinion is more valuable than Mueller's..

Do you need an adult to explain my response because clearly you don't understand the discourse. Dershowitz did not opine on Mueller's material findings - which were that "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" - but rather on the law which as a Harvard professor he knows quite well.

Well stop posting the kiddie bullshit, I am pretty sure Mueller knows the law quite well himself. Trump was trying to obstruct this investigation and you know it, I know it, Mueller knows it, Dershowitz knows it and America knows it.

 

[SAYIT]

You have the right to be as butt-hurt as you clearly choose to be but there will be no happy ending for people like you in this matter.

Sounds like you are the one who is butt hurt, for the simple fact you are on here trying to use any and everyone to make excuses for the misdeeds that Trump was/is doing.

Except the Mueller Report did not find the "misdeeds" you so desperately need to believe Trump "was/is doing." In fact, Mueller found the direct opposite and stated "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime."
We both understand nothing will ever change your mind about the man you hate with some great passion and I am not here to defend him but rather to help you remove your head from your buttocks. It seems the jaws of life may be required.

 

[SAYIT]

None for collusion and as Harvard Law prof Alan Dershowitz noted the case for obstruction must be based on the commission of or attempt to commit an illegal act. As of today Trump has done neither. Firing or threatening to fire subordinates is within his authority as POTUS

So Dershowitz knows more than the man who actually investigated the case.

Dershowitz made no material judgment on the Mueller Report but rather provided technical legal opinion on the requirements for obstruction of justice and Trump's actions do not qualify as criminal.

So his legal opinion is more valuable than Mueller's..

Do you need an adult to explain my response because clearly you don't understand the discourse. Dershowitz did not opine on Mueller's material findings - which were that "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" - but rather on the law which as a Harvard professor he knows quite well.

Well stop posting the kiddie bullshit, I am pretty sure Mueller knows the law quite well himself. Trump was trying to obstruct this investigation and you know it, I know it, Mueller knows it, Dershowitz knows it and America knows it.

One last time for the terminally butt-hurt: Mueller did not find obstruction by Trump and was quite specific that "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime." Now read that a few times and let it sink in and if you still can't comprehend what it means you may be an acute TDS sufferer:

Many here at USMB, including myself, mimic and/or ridicule those who have regular outbursts of irrationality often regarding the POTUS, his fam, his policies, his tweets, his appearance, his ... well ... his everything. As the phenomenon is widespread - afflicting millions of Americans including much of NY, Cali, the media, and WashDC - Psychology Today tackled the issue of whether TDS is a real mental disorder. In that the mass hysteria is readily observable behavior, the author concludes that "Such people may need mental health support."

If you still cry yourself to sleep every ******* night, awake on the angry, bitter side of the bed every ******* morning, and obsess all day long I respectfully suggest you at least consider committing yourself for observation.

Is "Trump Derangement Syndrome" a Real Mental Condition?
"Many have argued that some people have been seriously disturbed and distressed by the policies, speech, behavior and tweets of President Trump, so much so that it has affected their cognitive, affective and behavioral functioning. Such people may need mental health support." - Rob Whitley, Ph.D.

 

[Rustic]

**** boot licking Dershowitz.

... and still no Russian connection

 

[Rustic]

Dershowitz voted for Hillary...and has stated that Trump/Russia witch hunt is bullshit.

Dershowitz got OJ acquitted.... need I say more?

Dershowitz also got child molester and rapist and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, so to say, ''off the hook'' too...

You can tell he likes defending all the 'good guys', eh?

Lol
Slick Willy and Jeffrey Epstein are two peas in the pod... ******* child molesting rapists.
So Shut the **** up

 

[Rustic]

Harvard Law prof Alan Dershowitz says the case for obstruction must be based on the commission of or attempt to commit an illegal act. As of today Trump has done neither. Firing or threatening to fire subordinates is within his authority as POTUS.

Its hard for people who back Tramp to admit he is guilty of obstruction, but you must admit the facts. Denial is not the answer for all of you trampers. You must face the truth.

**** boot licking Dershowitz.

"Dershowitz says: No Obstruction" lol
And?

And y'all had the same highly predictable knee-jerk reaction. I understand you're still struggling to digest the news that no member of the Trump fam or aides was indicted for colluding with the Russian meddlers but perhaps you should just do all the heavy lifting at one time and get it over with. You know ... No collusion, No obstruction.

No collusion, but plenty of obstruction and how many Trump associates went or are going to jail.

... and still no Russian connection

 

[Superbadbrutha]

No collusion, but plenty of obstruction and how many Trump associates went or are going to jail.

None for collusion and as Harvard Law prof Alan Dershowitz noted the case for obstruction must be based on the commission of or attempt to commit an illegal act. As of today Trump has done neither. Firing or threatening to fire subordinates is within his authority as POTUS

So Dershowitz knows more than the man who actually investigated the case.

Dershowitz made no material judgment on the Mueller Report but rather provided technical legal opinion on the requirements for obstruction of justice and Trump's actions do not qualify as criminal.

So his legal opinion is more valuable than Mueller's..

Do you need an adult to explain my response because clearly you don't understand the discourse. Dershowitz did not opine on Mueller's material findings - which were that "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" - but rather on the law which as a Harvard professor he knows quite well.

This line says it all.

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.

 

[SAYIT]

None for collusion and as Harvard Law prof Alan Dershowitz noted the case for obstruction must be based on the commission of or attempt to commit an illegal act. As of today Trump has done neither. Firing or threatening to fire subordinates is within his authority as POTUS

So Dershowitz knows more than the man who actually investigated the case.

Dershowitz made no material judgment on the Mueller Report but rather provided technical legal opinion on the requirements for obstruction of justice and Trump's actions do not qualify as criminal.

So his legal opinion is more valuable than Mueller's..

Do you need an adult to explain my response because clearly you don't understand the discourse. Dershowitz did not opine on Mueller's material findings - which were that "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" - but rather on the law which as a Harvard professor he knows quite well.

This line says it all.

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.

The Muel Team wasn't investigating anyone's innocence but rather evidence of criminality and in the process found - and I quote - "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime."

2 yrs, unlimited resources, dozens of prosecutors and FBI investigators and they found no evidence of Trump or Trump family crimes.

At some point you must either stop behaving like a petulant child or seek professional help to do so or risk having your mental & emotional infirmity become permanent.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

So Dershowitz knows more than the man who actually investigated the case.

Dershowitz made no material judgment on the Mueller Report but rather provided technical legal opinion on the requirements for obstruction of justice and Trump's actions do not qualify as criminal.

So his legal opinion is more valuable than Mueller's..

Do you need an adult to explain my response because clearly you don't understand the discourse. Dershowitz did not opine on Mueller's material findings - which were that "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" - but rather on the law which as a Harvard professor he knows quite well.

This line says it all.

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.

The Muel Team wasn't investigating anyone's innocence but rather evidence of criminality and in the process found - and I quote - "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime."

2 yrs, unlimited resources, dozens of prosecutors and FBI investigators and they found no evidence of Trump or Trump family crimes.

At some point you must either stop behaving like a petulant child or seek professional help to do so or risk having your mental & emotional infirmity become permanent.

You are trying to hide from the obvious, sorry.

According to Mueller’s report (p. 72, volume 2), Sessions and Rosenstein told McGahn they were concerned about this narrative that Rosenstein initiated the effort to fire Comey: "The White House Counsel's Office agreed that it was factually wrong to say that the Department of Justice had initiated Corney's termination, and McGahn asked attorneys in the White House Counsel's Office to work with the press office to correct the narrative."

Mueller’s report (p. 82, volume 2) outlines instances when Trump consulted with multiple people about firing Mueller before his August remarks.

"On Monday, June 12, 2017, Christopher Ruddy, the chief executive of Newsmax Media and a longtime friend of the President's, met at the White House with (Reince) Priebus and Bannon. Ruddy recalled that they told him the President was strongly considering firing the Special Counsel and that he would do so precipitously, without vetting the decision through Administration officials. Ruddy asked Priebus if Ruddy could talk publicly about the discussion they had about the Special Counsel, and Priebus said he could."

Former White House counsel Don McGahn also told the special counsel’s office that Trump in June 2017 repeatedly pressed him about firing Mueller.

Mr. Trump began trying to get rid of Mr. Mueller, only to be thwarted by his staff. In instance after instance, his staff acted as a bulwark against Mr. Trump’s most destructive impulses. In June 2017, the president instructed Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, to remove Mr. Mueller, but Mr. McGahn resisted. Rather than carry out the president’s order, he decided he would rather resign.

Two days later, Mr. Trump asked another trusted adviser, Corey Lewandowski, to tell Mr. Sessions to end the investigation. Mr. Lewandowski did not want to, so he punted to a colleague, Rick Dearborn. He, too, “was uncomfortable with the task and did not follow through.”

 

[SAYIT]

Dershowitz made no material judgment on the Mueller Report but rather provided technical legal opinion on the requirements for obstruction of justice and Trump's actions do not qualify as criminal.

So his legal opinion is more valuable than Mueller's..

Do you need an adult to explain my response because clearly you don't understand the discourse. Dershowitz did not opine on Mueller's material findings - which were that "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" - but rather on the law which as a Harvard professor he knows quite well.

This line says it all.

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.

The Muel Team wasn't investigating anyone's innocence but rather evidence of criminality and in the process found - and I quote - "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime."

2 yrs, unlimited resources, dozens of prosecutors and FBI investigators and they found no evidence of Trump or Trump family crimes.

At some point you must either stop behaving like a petulant child or seek professional help to do so or risk having your mental & emotional infirmity become permanent.

You are trying to hide from the obvious, sorry.

According to Mueller’s report (p. 72, volume 2), Sessions and Rosenstein told McGahn they were concerned about this narrative that Rosenstein initiated the effort to fire Comey: "The White House Counsel's Office agreed that it was factually wrong to say that the Department of Justice had initiated Corney's termination, and McGahn asked attorneys in the White House Counsel's Office to work with the press office to correct the narrative."

Mueller’s report (p. 82, volume 2) outlines instances when Trump consulted with multiple people about firing Mueller before his August remarks.

"On Monday, June 12, 2017, Christopher Ruddy, the chief executive of Newsmax Media and a longtime friend of the President's, met at the White House with (Reince) Priebus and Bannon. Ruddy recalled that they told him the President was strongly considering firing the Special Counsel and that he would do so precipitously, without vetting the decision through Administration officials. Ruddy asked Priebus if Ruddy could talk publicly about the discussion they had about the Special Counsel, and Priebus said he could."

Former White House counsel Don McGahn also told the special counsel’s office that Trump in June 2017 repeatedly pressed him about firing Mueller.

Mr. Trump began trying to get rid of Mr. Mueller, only to be thwarted by his staff. In instance after instance, his staff acted as a bulwark against Mr. Trump’s most destructive impulses. In June 2017, the president instructed Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, to remove Mr. Mueller, but Mr. McGahn resisted. Rather than carry out the president’s order, he decided he would rather resign.

Two days later, Mr. Trump asked another trusted adviser, Corey Lewandowski, to tell Mr. Sessions to end the investigation. Mr. Lewandowski did not want to, so he punted to a colleague, Rick Dearborn. He, too, “was uncomfortable with the task and did not follow through.”

I don't care how you slice, dice, parse, and interpret Mueller's findings. Mueller understands them far better than any deranged 'tard and he was unambiguous about them: "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime."

It is within the president's authority to fire his subordinates for any reason therefore firing Comey was his prerogative and had he fired Mueller that too would have been legit.

Now if Mueller says Trump committed no crime, why would any rational American continue to carry on as though he had?

Answer: no rational person would.

 

[blastoff]

None for collusion and as Harvard Law prof Alan Dershowitz noted the case for obstruction must be based on the commission of or attempt to commit an illegal act. As of today Trump has done neither. Firing or threatening to fire subordinates is within his authority as POTUS

So Dershowitz knows more than the man who actually investigated the case.

Dershowitz made no material judgment on the Mueller Report but rather provided technical legal opinion on the requirements for obstruction of justice and Trump's actions do not qualify as criminal.

So his legal opinion is more valuable than Mueller's..

Do you need an adult to explain my response because clearly you don't understand the discourse. Dershowitz did not opine on Mueller's material findings - which were that "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" - but rather on the law which as a Harvard professor he knows quite well.

Well stop posting the kiddie bullshit, I am pretty sure Mueller knows the law quite well himself. Trump was trying to obstruct this investigation and you know it, I know it, Mueller knows it, Dershowitz knows it and America knows it.

Your stupid ******* opinion duly noted.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Its hard for people who back Tramp to admit he is guilty of obstruction, but you must admit the facts. Denial is not the answer for all of you trampers. You must face the truth.

I can't wait to see you meltdown. When you realize the truth, that Trump will be YOUR president till 2024!

And largely because of lunatics like.....never mind.