Exactly what high crime or misdemeanor did President Trump commit?

[Camp]

Trump being a prolific serial compulsive malicious liar should be considered as a high crime by Congress.

There is an interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" to mean improprieties commited while in the high office, where higher standards of behaviour applies than for laymen.

But aside from that, lying to the public is not illegal.

Congress can make lying to the public as prolifically as Trump does as President a high crime.

 

[iceberg]

Excuse me dumbass, we were talking about Flynn, not Trump. Reading is fundamental. LMAO

.

I misread.

You need to let go of this lunatic Flynn-is-innocent bullshit.

FBI said Flynn lied
Trump said Flynn lied to FBI
Flynn pled guilty to lying to FBI

How ******* retarded can you get to still say that he didn’t?

Former FBI Director James Comey testified to the House Intelligence Committee that FBI agents did not believe that Michael Flynn, who was national security adviser, intentionally lied about talks with Russia’s ambassador, according to a newly unredacted report from the committee.

“Director Comey testified to the Committee that ‘the agents…discerned no physical indications of deception," said a new version of the report obtained by Fox News on Friday. "They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.’”

House Intel report: Comey testified FBI agents saw no 'physical indications of deception' by Flynn

Washington (CNN)The FBI is not expected to pursue any charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn regarding a phone call with Russia's ambassador, barring new information that changes what they know, law enforcement officials told CNN Thursday.

Flynn changed story to FBI, no charges expected - CNNPolitics

The only thing that changed was Mueller and Weissman, with threats against Flynn's son.

.

But the facts dummy. Did you forget the facts that everyone at later date said Flynn actually did lie?

Trump said Flynn lied to FBI and VP, that’s why he fired him.
Same Trump then went to pressure Comey to drop investigation on Flynn

Now what the **** do you think you are posting that refutes the clear obstruction case here?

since your standards of "OBSTRUCTION" seem to only exist to the right, no one really gives a shit about what you say.

Those are not my standards, stop lying. Although I'm a lefty, I try to be aware of my own bias and I always go the extra mile to maintain consistency in my arguments.

For example if it credibly came out that Obama was trying to pressure FBI to drop Clinton's email investigation I would not be out here pretending he didn't abuse his office. Of course there is a reason nothing like that happened and there were no major scandals that involved him directly - he was a clean operator that well understood and more importantly had some respect for ethics, not just laws.

Besides, maybe you should stop worrying about everyone else's standards and re-examine your own. Trump will not turn innocent just because someone out there has character flaws you'd like to deflect to.

but when you attack these "flaws" in one and defend them in another, yes i will call that out. it's an effort, albiet a wasted one, to get people to use the same standards in how we judge people. that ain't ever really gonna happen, unfortunately.

defend hillary for deleting 33k mails after being asked for them by a senate committee - not obstruction.
trump doing whatever he's doing - obstruction.

like you - i try to be aware of my own bias. however i have given up on you for the most part cause 90% of what you post are attacks. however, i can get caught up in that also. when some people hit this "beyond hope" measure there isn't anything left for me to try and do to have a reasonable conversation.

in all honesty - this is one of your few replies i've read that wasn't just frustrating as ****. but i do find it ironic you tell me to pay attention to my character flaws while you dodge your own.

this is what i mean - people get pissed at others for the same shit they do on a regular basis. i get caught up in that also so this isn't a slam on you - just something we're all guilty of but so few admit to.

 

[AntonToo]

I misread.

You need to let go of this lunatic Flynn-is-innocent bullshit.

FBI said Flynn lied
Trump said Flynn lied to FBI
Flynn pled guilty to lying to FBI

How ******* retarded can you get to still say that he didn’t?

Former FBI Director James Comey testified to the House Intelligence Committee that FBI agents did not believe that Michael Flynn, who was national security adviser, intentionally lied about talks with Russia’s ambassador, according to a newly unredacted report from the committee.

“Director Comey testified to the Committee that ‘the agents…discerned no physical indications of deception," said a new version of the report obtained by Fox News on Friday. "They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.’”

House Intel report: Comey testified FBI agents saw no 'physical indications of deception' by Flynn

Washington (CNN)The FBI is not expected to pursue any charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn regarding a phone call with Russia's ambassador, barring new information that changes what they know, law enforcement officials told CNN Thursday.

Flynn changed story to FBI, no charges expected - CNNPolitics

The only thing that changed was Mueller and Weissman, with threats against Flynn's son.

.

But the facts dummy. Did you forget the facts that everyone at later date said Flynn actually did lie?

Trump said Flynn lied to FBI and VP, that’s why he fired him.
Same Trump then went to pressure Comey to drop investigation on Flynn

Now what the **** do you think you are posting that refutes the clear obstruction case here?

since your standards of "OBSTRUCTION" seem to only exist to the right, no one really gives a shit about what you say.

Those are not my standards, stop lying. Although I'm a lefty, I try to be aware of my own bias and I always go the extra mile to maintain consistency in my arguments.

For example if it credibly came out that Obama was trying to pressure FBI to drop Clinton's email investigation I would not be out here pretending he didn't abuse his office. Of course there is a reason nothing like that happened and there were no major scandals that involved him directly - he was a clean operator that well understood and more importantly had some respect for ethics, not just laws.

Besides, maybe you should stop worrying about everyone else's standards and re-examine your own. Trump will not turn innocent just because someone out there has character flaws you'd like to deflect to.

but when you attack these "flaws" in one and defend them in another, yes i will call that out. it's an effort, albiet a wasted one, to get people to use the same standards in how we judge people. that ain't ever really gonna happen, unfortunately.

defend hillary for deleting 33k mails after being asked for them by a senate committee - not obstruction.
trump doing whatever he's doing - obstruction.

like you - i try to be aware of my own bias. however i have given up on you for the most part cause 90% of what you post are attacks. however, i can get caught up in that also. when some people hit this "beyond hope" measure there isn't anything left for me to try and do to have a reasonable conversation.

in all honesty - this is one of your few replies i've read that wasn't just frustrating as ****. but i do find it ironic you tell me to pay attention to my character flaws while you dodge your own.

this is what i mean - people get pissed at others for the same shit they do on a regular basis. i get caught up in that also so this isn't a slam on you - just something we're all guilty of but so few admit to.

You seem to keep missing a very simple point: Trump's obstruction IS NOT HINGED ON HILLARY.

Just as Hillary either commited obstruction or she didn't, Trump commited obstruction or he didn't. Nothing to do with each other, one does not excuse the other.

If you want to know about 33k emails just read the FBI report that specifically looked into it and concluded that, no, there is no evidence Hillary erased them in violation of the law.

The FBI Files on Clinton's Emails - FactCheck.org

 

[iceberg]

Former FBI Director James Comey testified to the House Intelligence Committee that FBI agents did not believe that Michael Flynn, who was national security adviser, intentionally lied about talks with Russia’s ambassador, according to a newly unredacted report from the committee.

“Director Comey testified to the Committee that ‘the agents…discerned no physical indications of deception," said a new version of the report obtained by Fox News on Friday. "They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.’”

House Intel report: Comey testified FBI agents saw no 'physical indications of deception' by Flynn

Washington (CNN)The FBI is not expected to pursue any charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn regarding a phone call with Russia's ambassador, barring new information that changes what they know, law enforcement officials told CNN Thursday.

Flynn changed story to FBI, no charges expected - CNNPolitics

The only thing that changed was Mueller and Weissman, with threats against Flynn's son.

.

But the facts dummy. Did you forget the facts that everyone at later date said Flynn actually did lie?

Trump said Flynn lied to FBI and VP, that’s why he fired him.
Same Trump then went to pressure Comey to drop investigation on Flynn

Now what the **** do you think you are posting that refutes the clear obstruction case here?

since your standards of "OBSTRUCTION" seem to only exist to the right, no one really gives a shit about what you say.

Those are not my standards, stop lying. Although I'm a lefty, I try to be aware of my own bias and I always go the extra mile to maintain consistency in my arguments.

For example if it credibly came out that Obama was trying to pressure FBI to drop Clinton's email investigation I would not be out here pretending he didn't abuse his office. Of course there is a reason nothing like that happened and there were no major scandals that involved him directly - he was a clean operator that well understood and more importantly had some respect for ethics, not just laws.

Besides, maybe you should stop worrying about everyone else's standards and re-examine your own. Trump will not turn innocent just because someone out there has character flaws you'd like to deflect to.

but when you attack these "flaws" in one and defend them in another, yes i will call that out. it's an effort, albiet a wasted one, to get people to use the same standards in how we judge people. that ain't ever really gonna happen, unfortunately.

defend hillary for deleting 33k mails after being asked for them by a senate committee - not obstruction.
trump doing whatever he's doing - obstruction.

like you - i try to be aware of my own bias. however i have given up on you for the most part cause 90% of what you post are attacks. however, i can get caught up in that also. when some people hit this "beyond hope" measure there isn't anything left for me to try and do to have a reasonable conversation.

in all honesty - this is one of your few replies i've read that wasn't just frustrating as ****. but i do find it ironic you tell me to pay attention to my character flaws while you dodge your own.

this is what i mean - people get pissed at others for the same shit they do on a regular basis. i get caught up in that also so this isn't a slam on you - just something we're all guilty of but so few admit to.

You seem to keep missing a very simple point: Trump's obstruction IS NOT HINGED ON HILLARY.

Just as Hillary either commited obstruction or she didn't, Trump commited obstruction or he didn't. Nothing to do with each other, one does not excuse the other.

If you want to know about 33k emails just read the FBI report that specifically looked into it and concluded that, no, there is no evidence Hillary erased them in violation of the law.

The FBI Files on Clinton's Emails - FactCheck.org

no - but the focus on OBSTRUCTION is on trump when others have done far worse.

*that* is my point. to shout trump is OBSTRUCTING while defending hillary - wasted time. the left will do things and cry ALL GOOD but when the right does the same thing, or not even as bad, the left goes apeshit batty all of a sudden caring about such things.

like i said - this is more human nature than anything else.

and factcheck can blow balls. in looking at the timeline of events, a senate committee looking into behghazi saw she was using a private server and asked for her mail in June of 2014. she stalled and tried to see if she can edit the header info on her e-mails. she then got to pick and choose what to delete and turn over.

the left was fine with that. now i ask you - are you ok if trump does this too? standard has been set that there are "conditions" that make this ok. once you "ok" something it's now OK for all, not just your own use.

that's what keeps getting missed in our rush to get "do as i say not as i do" out more.

now - what if we find obama and co told the FBI to NOT go after hillary? how big an issue is that?

 

[AntonToo]

But the facts dummy. Did you forget the facts that everyone at later date said Flynn actually did lie?

Trump said Flynn lied to FBI and VP, that’s why he fired him.
Same Trump then went to pressure Comey to drop investigation on Flynn

Now what the **** do you think you are posting that refutes the clear obstruction case here?

since your standards of "OBSTRUCTION" seem to only exist to the right, no one really gives a shit about what you say.

Those are not my standards, stop lying. Although I'm a lefty, I try to be aware of my own bias and I always go the extra mile to maintain consistency in my arguments.

For example if it credibly came out that Obama was trying to pressure FBI to drop Clinton's email investigation I would not be out here pretending he didn't abuse his office. Of course there is a reason nothing like that happened and there were no major scandals that involved him directly - he was a clean operator that well understood and more importantly had some respect for ethics, not just laws.

Besides, maybe you should stop worrying about everyone else's standards and re-examine your own. Trump will not turn innocent just because someone out there has character flaws you'd like to deflect to.

but when you attack these "flaws" in one and defend them in another, yes i will call that out. it's an effort, albiet a wasted one, to get people to use the same standards in how we judge people. that ain't ever really gonna happen, unfortunately.

defend hillary for deleting 33k mails after being asked for them by a senate committee - not obstruction.
trump doing whatever he's doing - obstruction.

like you - i try to be aware of my own bias. however i have given up on you for the most part cause 90% of what you post are attacks. however, i can get caught up in that also. when some people hit this "beyond hope" measure there isn't anything left for me to try and do to have a reasonable conversation.

in all honesty - this is one of your few replies i've read that wasn't just frustrating as ****. but i do find it ironic you tell me to pay attention to my character flaws while you dodge your own.

this is what i mean - people get pissed at others for the same shit they do on a regular basis. i get caught up in that also so this isn't a slam on you - just something we're all guilty of but so few admit to.

You seem to keep missing a very simple point: Trump's obstruction IS NOT HINGED ON HILLARY.

Just as Hillary either commited obstruction or she didn't, Trump commited obstruction or he didn't. Nothing to do with each other, one does not excuse the other.

If you want to know about 33k emails just read the FBI report that specifically looked into it and concluded that, no, there is no evidence Hillary erased them in violation of the law.

The FBI Files on Clinton's Emails - FactCheck.org

no - but the focus on OBSTRUCTION is on trump when others have done far worse.

*that* is my point.

I know thats your point, but your point is just a moot tangent.

Trump either commited Obstruction or he did not.

You want to keep arguing about Hillary, who was cleared by FBI? Fine, go perform necromancy on some old thread about that. I've spent enough time on the details of that case and you will not change my mind repeating very same inacuracies rightwingers were arguing 3 years ago.

FBI did not clear Trump on Obstruction and what the Special Investigator reported walks and talks like text book corruption and Obstruction of Justice.

 

[iceberg]

since your standards of "OBSTRUCTION" seem to only exist to the right, no one really gives a shit about what you say.

Those are not my standards, stop lying. Although I'm a lefty, I try to be aware of my own bias and I always go the extra mile to maintain consistency in my arguments.

For example if it credibly came out that Obama was trying to pressure FBI to drop Clinton's email investigation I would not be out here pretending he didn't abuse his office. Of course there is a reason nothing like that happened and there were no major scandals that involved him directly - he was a clean operator that well understood and more importantly had some respect for ethics, not just laws.

Besides, maybe you should stop worrying about everyone else's standards and re-examine your own. Trump will not turn innocent just because someone out there has character flaws you'd like to deflect to.

but when you attack these "flaws" in one and defend them in another, yes i will call that out. it's an effort, albiet a wasted one, to get people to use the same standards in how we judge people. that ain't ever really gonna happen, unfortunately.

defend hillary for deleting 33k mails after being asked for them by a senate committee - not obstruction.
trump doing whatever he's doing - obstruction.

like you - i try to be aware of my own bias. however i have given up on you for the most part cause 90% of what you post are attacks. however, i can get caught up in that also. when some people hit this "beyond hope" measure there isn't anything left for me to try and do to have a reasonable conversation.

in all honesty - this is one of your few replies i've read that wasn't just frustrating as ****. but i do find it ironic you tell me to pay attention to my character flaws while you dodge your own.

this is what i mean - people get pissed at others for the same shit they do on a regular basis. i get caught up in that also so this isn't a slam on you - just something we're all guilty of but so few admit to.

You seem to keep missing a very simple point: Trump's obstruction IS NOT HINGED ON HILLARY.

Just as Hillary either commited obstruction or she didn't, Trump commited obstruction or he didn't. Nothing to do with each other, one does not excuse the other.

If you want to know about 33k emails just read the FBI report that specifically looked into it and concluded that, no, there is no evidence Hillary erased them in violation of the law.

The FBI Files on Clinton's Emails - FactCheck.org

no - but the focus on OBSTRUCTION is on trump when others have done far worse.

*that* is my point.

I know thats your point, but your point is just a moot tangent.

Trump either commited Obstruction or he did not.

You want to keep arguing about Hillary, who was cleared by FBI? Fine, go perform necromancy on some old thread about that. I've spent enough time on that and there is nothing new that you are telling me here.

define obstruction then in a manner which releases hillary from what she did and condemns trump.

no - i'm not going to play this dual standard game. if trump committed obstruction then yes, he would need to face that. but the left saying he's doing it is a joke considering their own levels of obstruction they do on a daily basis.

we've pushed the meanings of words to a point where you have to wonder if they are in fact beyond repair.

i want to hold us all to the same laws and standards. when you attack someone for their actions, it needs to be for non-partisan reasons. not hate, not revenge and not cause you want him gone. it's because he did something that he needs to be held accountable for.

hate of trump isn't on that list as far as i am concerned.

so define what obstruction is and let's hold all to it. like i said, i'm not defending trump, but it gets taken that way when i don't join in the attacks.

when proven he did something wrong by someone w/o an axe to grind, i'll listen.

 

[AntonToo]

Those are not my standards, stop lying. Although I'm a lefty, I try to be aware of my own bias and I always go the extra mile to maintain consistency in my arguments.

For example if it credibly came out that Obama was trying to pressure FBI to drop Clinton's email investigation I would not be out here pretending he didn't abuse his office. Of course there is a reason nothing like that happened and there were no major scandals that involved him directly - he was a clean operator that well understood and more importantly had some respect for ethics, not just laws.

Besides, maybe you should stop worrying about everyone else's standards and re-examine your own. Trump will not turn innocent just because someone out there has character flaws you'd like to deflect to.

but when you attack these "flaws" in one and defend them in another, yes i will call that out. it's an effort, albiet a wasted one, to get people to use the same standards in how we judge people. that ain't ever really gonna happen, unfortunately.

defend hillary for deleting 33k mails after being asked for them by a senate committee - not obstruction.
trump doing whatever he's doing - obstruction.

like you - i try to be aware of my own bias. however i have given up on you for the most part cause 90% of what you post are attacks. however, i can get caught up in that also. when some people hit this "beyond hope" measure there isn't anything left for me to try and do to have a reasonable conversation.

in all honesty - this is one of your few replies i've read that wasn't just frustrating as ****. but i do find it ironic you tell me to pay attention to my character flaws while you dodge your own.

this is what i mean - people get pissed at others for the same shit they do on a regular basis. i get caught up in that also so this isn't a slam on you - just something we're all guilty of but so few admit to.

You seem to keep missing a very simple point: Trump's obstruction IS NOT HINGED ON HILLARY.

Just as Hillary either commited obstruction or she didn't, Trump commited obstruction or he didn't. Nothing to do with each other, one does not excuse the other.

If you want to know about 33k emails just read the FBI report that specifically looked into it and concluded that, no, there is no evidence Hillary erased them in violation of the law.

The FBI Files on Clinton's Emails - FactCheck.org

no - but the focus on OBSTRUCTION is on trump when others have done far worse.

*that* is my point.

I know thats your point, but your point is just a moot tangent.

Trump either commited Obstruction or he did not.

You want to keep arguing about Hillary, who was cleared by FBI? Fine, go perform necromancy on some old thread about that. I've spent enough time on that and there is nothing new that you are telling me here.

define obstruction then in a manner which releases hillary from what she did and condemns trump.

Seriously?

Trump tried to influence an officer of the law to end an investigation.
Clinton did not.

Trump fired FBI director under false pretenses, because he was conducting investigation.
Clinton did not.

Trump repeatedly tried to fire Special Investigator and narrow the scope of investigation, failing only because his subordinates refused his orders.
Clinton did not.

Trump ordered creation of false records re. his orders to fire Specail Investigator.
Clinton did not.

Trump was dangling pardons to influence witnesses.
Clinton did not.

Trump refused interview with the investigators, refused to answer any questons on Obstruction even in written form.
Clinton did not.

Clinton erasing emails (or ordering it) after subpoena WOULD BE Obstruction. But there was simply no evidence she did that. Her office ordered emails in question to be erased 3 months BEFORE subpoena and this was confirmed by FBI.

 

[iceberg]

but when you attack these "flaws" in one and defend them in another, yes i will call that out. it's an effort, albiet a wasted one, to get people to use the same standards in how we judge people. that ain't ever really gonna happen, unfortunately.

defend hillary for deleting 33k mails after being asked for them by a senate committee - not obstruction.
trump doing whatever he's doing - obstruction.

like you - i try to be aware of my own bias. however i have given up on you for the most part cause 90% of what you post are attacks. however, i can get caught up in that also. when some people hit this "beyond hope" measure there isn't anything left for me to try and do to have a reasonable conversation.

in all honesty - this is one of your few replies i've read that wasn't just frustrating as ****. but i do find it ironic you tell me to pay attention to my character flaws while you dodge your own.

this is what i mean - people get pissed at others for the same shit they do on a regular basis. i get caught up in that also so this isn't a slam on you - just something we're all guilty of but so few admit to.

You seem to keep missing a very simple point: Trump's obstruction IS NOT HINGED ON HILLARY.

Just as Hillary either commited obstruction or she didn't, Trump commited obstruction or he didn't. Nothing to do with each other, one does not excuse the other.

If you want to know about 33k emails just read the FBI report that specifically looked into it and concluded that, no, there is no evidence Hillary erased them in violation of the law.

The FBI Files on Clinton's Emails - FactCheck.org

no - but the focus on OBSTRUCTION is on trump when others have done far worse.

*that* is my point.

I know thats your point, but your point is just a moot tangent.

Trump either commited Obstruction or he did not.

You want to keep arguing about Hillary, who was cleared by FBI? Fine, go perform necromancy on some old thread about that. I've spent enough time on that and there is nothing new that you are telling me here.

define obstruction then in a manner which releases hillary from what she did and condemns trump.

Seriously?

Trump tried to influence an offcer of the law to end an investigation.
Clinton did not.

Trump fired FBI director under false pretenses, because he was conducting investigation.
Clinton did not.

Trump repeatedly tried to fire Special Investigator and narrow the scope of investigation, failing only because his subordinates refused his orders.
Clinton did not.

Trump was dangling pardons to influence witnesses.
Clinton did not.

Clinton erasing emails (or ordering it) after subpoena WOULD BE Obstruction. But there was simply no evidence she did that. Her office ordered emails in question to be erased 3 months BEFORE subpoena and this was confirmed by FBI.

seriously?

this is all micro-sliced bullshit to me. i can list the same hillary did and all you'll do that i can see at this point is say TRUMP ONLY and dismiss her w/o going into details.

i'll just say this and see how you deny it and go from there:

Hillary Clinton’s Email: the Definitive Timeline | Sharyl Attkisson

2014
May 5: Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., is named head of the House Benghazi Committee to investigate the 2012 terrorist attacks.

May 8: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, formally announces formation of House Benghazi Committee.

June 13: Judicial Watch files a FOI request with State Dept. seeking Benghazi information and Clinton notes.

August: State Dept. provides House Benghazi Committee with eight emails to or from Clinton that, for the first time, show her use of a private email account.

Sept. 4: Judicial Watch sues State Dept. for failure to respond to a June 13, 2014 FOI request seeking Benghazi records and Clinton notes.

Sept. 17: House Benghazi Committee holds its first public hearing. Topic: implementation of ARB recommendations.

October: State Dept. sends letters to Clinton and her three predecessors as secretary of state seeking work emails related to personal accounts.

Nov. 18: House Benghazi Committee makes additional request for Clinton emails from State Dept.

Nov. 26: President Obama signs into law an updated Federal Records Act requiring public officials to forward all work-related email to their government address.

December: House Benghazi Committee sends request to the White House for documents and communications pertaining to Benghazi.

Dec. 5: Clinton privately turns over copies of 30,490 “work-related” emails to the State Dept. totaling 55,000 printed pages. No date has been provided as to when she deleted her “private” emails, but it is presumed to be around this time frame.

Dec. 10: House Benghazi Committee holds second public hearing. Topic: implementation of ARB recommendations.

==========
and after the initial request was made, her IT company was poking around looking for how to change header information in e-mails. when they realized that can't be done, the deletions started.

given what you're after trump for above, it would stand to reason you'd never allow trump to do what hillary did.

yet, here we are.

now:
https://archives-benghazi-republica...les/Kendall.Clinton Subpoena - 2015.03.04.pdf

there's the official request to ask for what she has already deleted in anticipation of such a move. now you tell me again - how long are gov e-mails supposed to be kept? yet she also implemented a 60 day retention policy that would nuke all evidence. a retention policy like this won't care what the mail is, only delete it after 60 days.

funny - this is enough time for her to make all her moves to clean up you dismiss. but if trump did all these - they would be high crimes.

and i would agree. if trump ever deleted official mail he knew he was supposed to keep, enough suspicion from me to follow up and find out why.

 

[dudmuck]

Those are not my standards, stop lying. Although I'm a lefty, I try to be aware of my own bias and I always go the extra mile to maintain consistency in my arguments.

For example if it credibly came out that Obama was trying to pressure FBI to drop Clinton's email investigation I would not be out here pretending he didn't abuse his office. Of course there is a reason nothing like that happened and there were no major scandals that involved him directly - he was a clean operator that well understood and more importantly had some respect for ethics, not just laws.

Besides, maybe you should stop worrying about everyone else's standards and re-examine your own. Trump will not turn innocent just because someone out there has character flaws you'd like to deflect to.

but when you attack these "flaws" in one and defend them in another, yes i will call that out. it's an effort, albiet a wasted one, to get people to use the same standards in how we judge people. that ain't ever really gonna happen, unfortunately.

defend hillary for deleting 33k mails after being asked for them by a senate committee - not obstruction.
trump doing whatever he's doing - obstruction.

like you - i try to be aware of my own bias. however i have given up on you for the most part cause 90% of what you post are attacks. however, i can get caught up in that also. when some people hit this "beyond hope" measure there isn't anything left for me to try and do to have a reasonable conversation.

in all honesty - this is one of your few replies i've read that wasn't just frustrating as ****. but i do find it ironic you tell me to pay attention to my character flaws while you dodge your own.

this is what i mean - people get pissed at others for the same shit they do on a regular basis. i get caught up in that also so this isn't a slam on you - just something we're all guilty of but so few admit to.

You seem to keep missing a very simple point: Trump's obstruction IS NOT HINGED ON HILLARY.

Just as Hillary either commited obstruction or she didn't, Trump commited obstruction or he didn't. Nothing to do with each other, one does not excuse the other.

If you want to know about 33k emails just read the FBI report that specifically looked into it and concluded that, no, there is no evidence Hillary erased them in violation of the law.

The FBI Files on Clinton's Emails - FactCheck.org

no - but the focus on OBSTRUCTION is on trump when others have done far worse.

*that* is my point.

I know thats your point, but your point is just a moot tangent.

Trump either commited Obstruction or he did not.

You want to keep arguing about Hillary, who was cleared by FBI? Fine, go perform necromancy on some old thread about that. I've spent enough time on that and there is nothing new that you are telling me here.

define obstruction then in a manner which releases hillary from what she did and condemns trump.

no - i'm not going to play this dual standard game. if trump committed obstruction then yes, he would need to face that. but the left saying he's doing it is a joke considering their own levels of obstruction they do on a daily basis.

we've pushed the meanings of words to a point where you have to wonder if they are in fact beyond repair.

i want to hold us all to the same laws and standards. when you attack someone for their actions, it needs to be for non-partisan reasons. not hate, not revenge and not cause you want him gone. it's because he did something that he needs to be held accountable for.

hate of trump isn't on that list as far as i am concerned.

so define what obstruction is and let's hold all to it. like i said, i'm not defending trump, but it gets taken that way when i don't join in the attacks.

when proven he did something wrong by someone w/o an axe to grind, i'll listen.

Why isn't she in prison? For two years, we had a Republican president, a Republican DOJ, a Republican Senate, and a Republican House of Representatives.

Why isn't Hillary Clinton in prison? Could it be possible or probable, that despite investigation after investigation, not a single allegation levied against her could be proven?

 

[AntonToo]

You seem to keep missing a very simple point: Trump's obstruction IS NOT HINGED ON HILLARY.

Just as Hillary either commited obstruction or she didn't, Trump commited obstruction or he didn't. Nothing to do with each other, one does not excuse the other.

If you want to know about 33k emails just read the FBI report that specifically looked into it and concluded that, no, there is no evidence Hillary erased them in violation of the law.

The FBI Files on Clinton's Emails - FactCheck.org

no - but the focus on OBSTRUCTION is on trump when others have done far worse.

*that* is my point.

I know thats your point, but your point is just a moot tangent.

Trump either commited Obstruction or he did not.

You want to keep arguing about Hillary, who was cleared by FBI? Fine, go perform necromancy on some old thread about that. I've spent enough time on that and there is nothing new that you are telling me here.

define obstruction then in a manner which releases hillary from what she did and condemns trump.

Seriously?

Trump tried to influence an offcer of the law to end an investigation.
Clinton did not.

Trump fired FBI director under false pretenses, because he was conducting investigation.
Clinton did not.

Trump repeatedly tried to fire Special Investigator and narrow the scope of investigation, failing only because his subordinates refused his orders.
Clinton did not.

Trump was dangling pardons to influence witnesses.
Clinton did not.

Clinton erasing emails (or ordering it) after subpoena WOULD BE Obstruction. But there was simply no evidence she did that. Her office ordered emails in question to be erased 3 months BEFORE subpoena and this was confirmed by FBI.

seriously?

this is all micro-sliced bullshit to me. i can list the same hillary did and all you'll do that i can see at this point is say TRUMP ONLY and dismiss her w/o going into details.

i'll just say this and see how you deny it and go from there:

Hillary Clinton’s Email: the Definitive Timeline | Sharyl Attkisson

2014
May 5: Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., is named head of the House Benghazi Committee to investigate the 2012 terrorist attacks.

May 8: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, formally announces formation of House Benghazi Committee.

June 13: Judicial Watch files a FOI request with State Dept. seeking Benghazi information and Clinton notes.

August: State Dept. provides House Benghazi Committee with eight emails to or from Clinton that, for the first time, show her use of a private email account.

Sept. 4: Judicial Watch sues State Dept. for failure to respond to a June 13, 2014 FOI request seeking Benghazi records and Clinton notes.

Sept. 17: House Benghazi Committee holds its first public hearing. Topic: implementation of ARB recommendations.

October: State Dept. sends letters to Clinton and her three predecessors as secretary of state seeking work emails related to personal accounts.

Nov. 18: House Benghazi Committee makes additional request for Clinton emails from State Dept.

Nov. 26: President Obama signs into law an updated Federal Records Act requiring public officials to forward all work-related email to their government address.

December: House Benghazi Committee sends request to the White House for documents and communications pertaining to Benghazi.

Dec. 5: Clinton privately turns over copies of 30,490 “work-related” emails to the State Dept. totaling 55,000 printed pages. No date has been provided as to when she deleted her “private” emails, but it is presumed to be around this time frame.

Dec. 10: House Benghazi Committee holds second public hearing. Topic: implementation of ARB recommendations.

==========
and after the initial request was made, her IT company was poking around looking for how to change header information in e-mails. when they realized that can't be done, the deletions started.

given what you're after trump for above, it would stand to reason you'd never allow trump to do what hillary did.

yet, here we are.

now:
https://archives-benghazi-republicans-oversight.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/Kendall.Clinton Subpoena - 2015.03.04.pdf

there's the official request to ask for what she has already deleted in anticipation of such a move. now you tell me again - how long are gov e-mails supposed to be kept? yet she also implemented a 60 day retention policy that would nuke all evidence. a retention policy like this won't care what the mail is, only delete it after 60 days.

funny - this is enough time for her to make all her moves to clean up you dismiss. but if trump did all these - they would be high crimes.

and i would agree. if trump ever deleted official mail he knew he was supposed to keep, enough suspicion from me to follow up and find out why.

You seem to not apreciate the the legal entitity difference between State Department and Clinton.

Clinton is not legally responsible for what was demanded from DoS.

Clinton IS reponsible for what she personally was subpoenaed for and what FBI concluded was that there was no evidence that she detroyed records in defiance of the subpoena. Now, you may say that 60 day retention policy was designed with intention to get rid of potentially damaging records, but thats not illegal - you can destroy your own records anytime you feel like it. You just can't do it after they were a subject of a subpoena.

 

[iceberg]

but when you attack these "flaws" in one and defend them in another, yes i will call that out. it's an effort, albiet a wasted one, to get people to use the same standards in how we judge people. that ain't ever really gonna happen, unfortunately.

defend hillary for deleting 33k mails after being asked for them by a senate committee - not obstruction.
trump doing whatever he's doing - obstruction.

like you - i try to be aware of my own bias. however i have given up on you for the most part cause 90% of what you post are attacks. however, i can get caught up in that also. when some people hit this "beyond hope" measure there isn't anything left for me to try and do to have a reasonable conversation.

in all honesty - this is one of your few replies i've read that wasn't just frustrating as ****. but i do find it ironic you tell me to pay attention to my character flaws while you dodge your own.

this is what i mean - people get pissed at others for the same shit they do on a regular basis. i get caught up in that also so this isn't a slam on you - just something we're all guilty of but so few admit to.

You seem to keep missing a very simple point: Trump's obstruction IS NOT HINGED ON HILLARY.

Just as Hillary either commited obstruction or she didn't, Trump commited obstruction or he didn't. Nothing to do with each other, one does not excuse the other.

If you want to know about 33k emails just read the FBI report that specifically looked into it and concluded that, no, there is no evidence Hillary erased them in violation of the law.

The FBI Files on Clinton's Emails - FactCheck.org

no - but the focus on OBSTRUCTION is on trump when others have done far worse.

*that* is my point.

I know thats your point, but your point is just a moot tangent.

Trump either commited Obstruction or he did not.

You want to keep arguing about Hillary, who was cleared by FBI? Fine, go perform necromancy on some old thread about that. I've spent enough time on that and there is nothing new that you are telling me here.

define obstruction then in a manner which releases hillary from what she did and condemns trump.

no - i'm not going to play this dual standard game. if trump committed obstruction then yes, he would need to face that. but the left saying he's doing it is a joke considering their own levels of obstruction they do on a daily basis.

we've pushed the meanings of words to a point where you have to wonder if they are in fact beyond repair.

i want to hold us all to the same laws and standards. when you attack someone for their actions, it needs to be for non-partisan reasons. not hate, not revenge and not cause you want him gone. it's because he did something that he needs to be held accountable for.

hate of trump isn't on that list as far as i am concerned.

so define what obstruction is and let's hold all to it. like i said, i'm not defending trump, but it gets taken that way when i don't join in the attacks.

when proven he did something wrong by someone w/o an axe to grind, i'll listen.

Why isn't she in prison? For two years, we had a Republican president, a Republican DOJ, a Republican Senate, and a Republican House of Representatives.

Why isn't Hillary Clinton in prison? Could it be possible or probable, that despite investigation after investigation, not a single allegation levied against her could be proven?

why isn't trump in prison?

now - use your own conclusions and apply them here, or shut up.

 

[AntonToo]

You seem to keep missing a very simple point: Trump's obstruction IS NOT HINGED ON HILLARY.

Just as Hillary either commited obstruction or she didn't, Trump commited obstruction or he didn't. Nothing to do with each other, one does not excuse the other.

If you want to know about 33k emails just read the FBI report that specifically looked into it and concluded that, no, there is no evidence Hillary erased them in violation of the law.

The FBI Files on Clinton's Emails - FactCheck.org

no - but the focus on OBSTRUCTION is on trump when others have done far worse.

*that* is my point.

I know thats your point, but your point is just a moot tangent.

Trump either commited Obstruction or he did not.

You want to keep arguing about Hillary, who was cleared by FBI? Fine, go perform necromancy on some old thread about that. I've spent enough time on that and there is nothing new that you are telling me here.

define obstruction then in a manner which releases hillary from what she did and condemns trump.

no - i'm not going to play this dual standard game. if trump committed obstruction then yes, he would need to face that. but the left saying he's doing it is a joke considering their own levels of obstruction they do on a daily basis.

we've pushed the meanings of words to a point where you have to wonder if they are in fact beyond repair.

i want to hold us all to the same laws and standards. when you attack someone for their actions, it needs to be for non-partisan reasons. not hate, not revenge and not cause you want him gone. it's because he did something that he needs to be held accountable for.

hate of trump isn't on that list as far as i am concerned.

so define what obstruction is and let's hold all to it. like i said, i'm not defending trump, but it gets taken that way when i don't join in the attacks.

when proven he did something wrong by someone w/o an axe to grind, i'll listen.

Why isn't she in prison? For two years, we had a Republican president, a Republican DOJ, a Republican Senate, and a Republican House of Representatives.

Why isn't Hillary Clinton in prison? Could it be possible or probable, that despite investigation after investigation, not a single allegation levied against her could be proven?

why isn't trump in prison?

Because he is a sitting president and can't be indicted.

 

[iceberg]

no - but the focus on OBSTRUCTION is on trump when others have done far worse.

*that* is my point.

I know thats your point, but your point is just a moot tangent.

Trump either commited Obstruction or he did not.

You want to keep arguing about Hillary, who was cleared by FBI? Fine, go perform necromancy on some old thread about that. I've spent enough time on that and there is nothing new that you are telling me here.

define obstruction then in a manner which releases hillary from what she did and condemns trump.

Seriously?

Trump tried to influence an offcer of the law to end an investigation.
Clinton did not.

Trump fired FBI director under false pretenses, because he was conducting investigation.
Clinton did not.

Trump repeatedly tried to fire Special Investigator and narrow the scope of investigation, failing only because his subordinates refused his orders.
Clinton did not.

Trump was dangling pardons to influence witnesses.
Clinton did not.

Clinton erasing emails (or ordering it) after subpoena WOULD BE Obstruction. But there was simply no evidence she did that. Her office ordered emails in question to be erased 3 months BEFORE subpoena and this was confirmed by FBI.

seriously?

this is all micro-sliced bullshit to me. i can list the same hillary did and all you'll do that i can see at this point is say TRUMP ONLY and dismiss her w/o going into details.

i'll just say this and see how you deny it and go from there:

Hillary Clinton’s Email: the Definitive Timeline | Sharyl Attkisson

2014
May 5: Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., is named head of the House Benghazi Committee to investigate the 2012 terrorist attacks.

May 8: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, formally announces formation of House Benghazi Committee.

June 13: Judicial Watch files a FOI request with State Dept. seeking Benghazi information and Clinton notes.

August: State Dept. provides House Benghazi Committee with eight emails to or from Clinton that, for the first time, show her use of a private email account.

Sept. 4: Judicial Watch sues State Dept. for failure to respond to a June 13, 2014 FOI request seeking Benghazi records and Clinton notes.

Sept. 17: House Benghazi Committee holds its first public hearing. Topic: implementation of ARB recommendations.

October: State Dept. sends letters to Clinton and her three predecessors as secretary of state seeking work emails related to personal accounts.

Nov. 18: House Benghazi Committee makes additional request for Clinton emails from State Dept.

Nov. 26: President Obama signs into law an updated Federal Records Act requiring public officials to forward all work-related email to their government address.

December: House Benghazi Committee sends request to the White House for documents and communications pertaining to Benghazi.

Dec. 5: Clinton privately turns over copies of 30,490 “work-related” emails to the State Dept. totaling 55,000 printed pages. No date has been provided as to when she deleted her “private” emails, but it is presumed to be around this time frame.

Dec. 10: House Benghazi Committee holds second public hearing. Topic: implementation of ARB recommendations.

==========
and after the initial request was made, her IT company was poking around looking for how to change header information in e-mails. when they realized that can't be done, the deletions started.

given what you're after trump for above, it would stand to reason you'd never allow trump to do what hillary did.

yet, here we are.

now:
https://archives-benghazi-republicans-oversight.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/Kendall.Clinton Subpoena - 2015.03.04.pdf

there's the official request to ask for what she has already deleted in anticipation of such a move. now you tell me again - how long are gov e-mails supposed to be kept? yet she also implemented a 60 day retention policy that would nuke all evidence. a retention policy like this won't care what the mail is, only delete it after 60 days.

funny - this is enough time for her to make all her moves to clean up you dismiss. but if trump did all these - they would be high crimes.

and i would agree. if trump ever deleted official mail he knew he was supposed to keep, enough suspicion from me to follow up and find out why.

You seem to not apreciate the the legal entitity difference between State Department and Clinton.

Clinton is not legally responsible for what was demanded from DoS.

Clinton IS reponsible for what she personally was subpoenaed for and what FBI concluded was that there was no evidence that she detroyed records in defiance of the subpoena. Now, you may say that 60 day retention policy was designed with intention to get rid of potentially damaging records, but thats not illegal.

you seem to understand i'm not playing this "hide me here" games.

she was dead wrong to delete work related e-mail. until you can prove ONLY personal mail was deleted (of which her new retention policy wouldn't be able to differentiate) then she is under the same level of suspicion that you put trump under. your fight to keep her "clean" really tells me you care less about the truth and more about attacking the right.

at least that is how it is coming across.

11 Rules for Using Government Email | GovLoop

she broke a lot of those rules, did she not? her 60 day policy is also a direct slap against the 90 days to a year for most mail going through her server. if she chose to use this for her business then fine - play by the same rules as if it *WERE* a government account.

so her own 60 day policy is a violation.

next?

 

[iceberg]

no - but the focus on OBSTRUCTION is on trump when others have done far worse.

*that* is my point.

I know thats your point, but your point is just a moot tangent.

Trump either commited Obstruction or he did not.

You want to keep arguing about Hillary, who was cleared by FBI? Fine, go perform necromancy on some old thread about that. I've spent enough time on that and there is nothing new that you are telling me here.

define obstruction then in a manner which releases hillary from what she did and condemns trump.

no - i'm not going to play this dual standard game. if trump committed obstruction then yes, he would need to face that. but the left saying he's doing it is a joke considering their own levels of obstruction they do on a daily basis.

we've pushed the meanings of words to a point where you have to wonder if they are in fact beyond repair.

i want to hold us all to the same laws and standards. when you attack someone for their actions, it needs to be for non-partisan reasons. not hate, not revenge and not cause you want him gone. it's because he did something that he needs to be held accountable for.

hate of trump isn't on that list as far as i am concerned.

so define what obstruction is and let's hold all to it. like i said, i'm not defending trump, but it gets taken that way when i don't join in the attacks.

when proven he did something wrong by someone w/o an axe to grind, i'll listen.

Why isn't she in prison? For two years, we had a Republican president, a Republican DOJ, a Republican Senate, and a Republican House of Representatives.

Why isn't Hillary Clinton in prison? Could it be possible or probable, that despite investigation after investigation, not a single allegation levied against her could be proven?

why isn't trump in prison?

Because he is a sitting president and can't be indicted.

and that is now what the left is sitting on. their HE WILL BE IMPEACHED CAUSE RUSSIA fell flat. so since that "lie" was not born out, the left shifted to OBSTRUCTION *OF WHICH* is just more shit flung on the wall trying to make SOMETHING stick.

you can't attack people in this manner. allowing it done to people you hate may seem like a good idea, but it validates that being done to you. and if it continues like this, one day it will be.

good idea when you are now being attacked for whatever reason can be mustered? or do these revenge tactics need to end all around?

 

[Diver Diva]

I suggest you familiarize yourself with Part II of Mueller's investigation report, which details 11 instances of Obstructive behaviour.

Some highlights of what our POTUS has been up to:


1. Pressured FBI Director (Comey) to squash investigation into Trump's top foreign policy advisor (Flynn). Trump subsequently fired that FBI Director under false pretenses over the Russian interference investigation. The firing triggered assignment of Special Investigator and Flynn eventually pled guilty.

2. He pressured AG (Sessions) to unrecuse from Russia investigation, publicly declare it unfair, and to limit it's scope to only FUTURE election interference.

3. He ordered White House Council (McGhan) to procced with removal of Special Investigator (Mueller), when McGhan refused the order and started packing his stuff, Trump backed off, but ordered McGhan to enter false record of Trump never having ordered removal of Mueller.

4. Trump was tampering with witnesses by pardon dangling Flynn, Manafort and Cohen

Here are the 11 instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump outlined in the Mueller report

It's true that Trump failed to stop Flynn's investigation and to remove Mueller - but that is irrelevant, the only reason it didn't happen was due to the REFUSAL of his corrupt orders by his subordinates.

So where did he obstruct justice? He didn't fire anybody and he didn't interfere with the bogus investigation.

BTW, Comey is going to prison. Along with James Clapper, John Brennan, and Loretta Lynch.

 

[AntonToo]

I know thats your point, but your point is just a moot tangent.

Trump either commited Obstruction or he did not.

You want to keep arguing about Hillary, who was cleared by FBI? Fine, go perform necromancy on some old thread about that. I've spent enough time on that and there is nothing new that you are telling me here.

define obstruction then in a manner which releases hillary from what she did and condemns trump.

Seriously?

Trump tried to influence an offcer of the law to end an investigation.
Clinton did not.

Trump fired FBI director under false pretenses, because he was conducting investigation.
Clinton did not.

Trump repeatedly tried to fire Special Investigator and narrow the scope of investigation, failing only because his subordinates refused his orders.
Clinton did not.

Trump was dangling pardons to influence witnesses.
Clinton did not.

Clinton erasing emails (or ordering it) after subpoena WOULD BE Obstruction. But there was simply no evidence she did that. Her office ordered emails in question to be erased 3 months BEFORE subpoena and this was confirmed by FBI.

seriously?

this is all micro-sliced bullshit to me. i can list the same hillary did and all you'll do that i can see at this point is say TRUMP ONLY and dismiss her w/o going into details.

i'll just say this and see how you deny it and go from there:

Hillary Clinton’s Email: the Definitive Timeline | Sharyl Attkisson

2014
May 5: Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., is named head of the House Benghazi Committee to investigate the 2012 terrorist attacks.

May 8: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, formally announces formation of House Benghazi Committee.

June 13: Judicial Watch files a FOI request with State Dept. seeking Benghazi information and Clinton notes.

August: State Dept. provides House Benghazi Committee with eight emails to or from Clinton that, for the first time, show her use of a private email account.

Sept. 4: Judicial Watch sues State Dept. for failure to respond to a June 13, 2014 FOI request seeking Benghazi records and Clinton notes.

Sept. 17: House Benghazi Committee holds its first public hearing. Topic: implementation of ARB recommendations.

October: State Dept. sends letters to Clinton and her three predecessors as secretary of state seeking work emails related to personal accounts.

Nov. 18: House Benghazi Committee makes additional request for Clinton emails from State Dept.

Nov. 26: President Obama signs into law an updated Federal Records Act requiring public officials to forward all work-related email to their government address.

December: House Benghazi Committee sends request to the White House for documents and communications pertaining to Benghazi.

Dec. 5: Clinton privately turns over copies of 30,490 “work-related” emails to the State Dept. totaling 55,000 printed pages. No date has been provided as to when she deleted her “private” emails, but it is presumed to be around this time frame.

Dec. 10: House Benghazi Committee holds second public hearing. Topic: implementation of ARB recommendations.

==========
and after the initial request was made, her IT company was poking around looking for how to change header information in e-mails. when they realized that can't be done, the deletions started.

given what you're after trump for above, it would stand to reason you'd never allow trump to do what hillary did.

yet, here we are.

now:
https://archives-benghazi-republicans-oversight.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/Kendall.Clinton Subpoena - 2015.03.04.pdf

there's the official request to ask for what she has already deleted in anticipation of such a move. now you tell me again - how long are gov e-mails supposed to be kept? yet she also implemented a 60 day retention policy that would nuke all evidence. a retention policy like this won't care what the mail is, only delete it after 60 days.

funny - this is enough time for her to make all her moves to clean up you dismiss. but if trump did all these - they would be high crimes.

and i would agree. if trump ever deleted official mail he knew he was supposed to keep, enough suspicion from me to follow up and find out why.

You seem to not apreciate the the legal entitity difference between State Department and Clinton.

Clinton is not legally responsible for what was demanded from DoS.

Clinton IS reponsible for what she personally was subpoenaed for and what FBI concluded was that there was no evidence that she detroyed records in defiance of the subpoena. Now, you may say that 60 day retention policy was designed with intention to get rid of potentially damaging records, but thats not illegal.

you seem to understand i'm not playing this "hide me here" games.

she was dead wrong to delete work related e-mail. until you can prove ONLY personal mail was deleted (of which her new retention policy wouldn't be able to differentiate) then she is under the same level of suspicion that you put trump under. your fight to keep her "clean" really tells me you care less about the truth and more about attacking the right.

at least that is how it is coming across.

11 Rules for Using Government Email | GovLoop

she broke a lot of those rules, did she not? her 60 day policy is also a direct slap against the 90 days to a year for most mail going through her server. if she chose to use this for her business then fine - play by the same rules as if it *WERE* a government account.

so her own 60 day policy is a violation.

next?

You don't know wtf you are saying - Hillary was no longer employed by the government as of 2013, while 60 day retention policy change request was made in Dec 2014.

Also, the burden of proof is on the investigatigators, not the target. You say Clinton erased work emails in defiance of the sabpoenas? Well you can assert whatever you want to but FBI did not find evidence that this was the case.

As an examaple from my side, Special Investigator concluded that there is no sufficient evidence of Criminal Conspiracy with Russians by the Trump campaign and I accept his findings. So you claiming that I selectively belive the findings of the authorities and have a double standard is just bullshit.

 

[AntonToo]

I suggest you familiarize yourself with Part II of Mueller's investigation report, which details 11 instances of Obstructive behaviour.

Some highlights of what our POTUS has been up to:


1. Pressured FBI Director (Comey) to squash investigation into Trump's top foreign policy advisor (Flynn). Trump subsequently fired that FBI Director under false pretenses over the Russian interference investigation. The firing triggered assignment of Special Investigator and Flynn eventually pled guilty.

2. He pressured AG (Sessions) to unrecuse from Russia investigation, publicly declare it unfair, and to limit it's scope to only FUTURE election interference.

3. He ordered White House Council (McGhan) to procced with removal of Special Investigator (Mueller), when McGhan refused the order and started packing his stuff, Trump backed off, but ordered McGhan to enter false record of Trump never having ordered removal of Mueller.

4. Trump was tampering with witnesses by pardon dangling Flynn, Manafort and Cohen

Here are the 11 instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump outlined in the Mueller report

It's true that Trump failed to stop Flynn's investigation and to remove Mueller - but that is irrelevant, the only reason it didn't happen was due to the REFUSAL of his corrupt orders by his subordinates.

So where did he obstruct justice? He didn't fire anybody and he didn't interfere with the bogus investigation.

BTW, Comey is going to prison. Along with James Clapper, John Brennan, and Loretta Lynch.

...did you read what you quoted? Trump fired FBI director Comey under false pretense (screwing Hillary) over the Russia investigation.

And no silly, Comey is not indicted, let alone convicted and prison bound.

 

[AntonToo]

I know thats your point, but your point is just a moot tangent.

Trump either commited Obstruction or he did not.

You want to keep arguing about Hillary, who was cleared by FBI? Fine, go perform necromancy on some old thread about that. I've spent enough time on that and there is nothing new that you are telling me here.

define obstruction then in a manner which releases hillary from what she did and condemns trump.

no - i'm not going to play this dual standard game. if trump committed obstruction then yes, he would need to face that. but the left saying he's doing it is a joke considering their own levels of obstruction they do on a daily basis.

we've pushed the meanings of words to a point where you have to wonder if they are in fact beyond repair.

i want to hold us all to the same laws and standards. when you attack someone for their actions, it needs to be for non-partisan reasons. not hate, not revenge and not cause you want him gone. it's because he did something that he needs to be held accountable for.

hate of trump isn't on that list as far as i am concerned.

so define what obstruction is and let's hold all to it. like i said, i'm not defending trump, but it gets taken that way when i don't join in the attacks.

when proven he did something wrong by someone w/o an axe to grind, i'll listen.

Why isn't she in prison? For two years, we had a Republican president, a Republican DOJ, a Republican Senate, and a Republican House of Representatives.

Why isn't Hillary Clinton in prison? Could it be possible or probable, that despite investigation after investigation, not a single allegation levied against her could be proven?

why isn't trump in prison?

Because he is a sitting president and can't be indicted.

and that is now what the left

Spare me your musings about the left. you want to talk to me? ok, talk to me.

 

[jc456]

But the facts dummy. Did you forget the facts that everyone at later date said Flynn actually did lie?

Trump said Flynn lied to FBI and VP, that’s why he fired him.
Same Trump then went to pressure Comey to drop investigation on Flynn

Now what the **** do you think you are posting that refutes the clear obstruction case here?

since your standards of "OBSTRUCTION" seem to only exist to the right, no one really gives a shit about what you say.

Those are not my standards, stop lying. Although I'm a lefty, I try to be aware of my own bias and I always go the extra mile to maintain consistency in my arguments.

For example if it credibly came out that Obama was trying to pressure FBI to drop Clinton's email investigation I would not be out here pretending he didn't abuse his office. Of course there is a reason nothing like that happened and there were no major scandals that involved him directly - he was a clean operator that well understood and more importantly had some respect for ethics, not just laws.

Besides, maybe you should stop worrying about everyone else's standards and re-examine your own. Trump will not turn innocent just because someone out there has character flaws you'd like to deflect to.

but when you attack these "flaws" in one and defend them in another, yes i will call that out. it's an effort, albiet a wasted one, to get people to use the same standards in how we judge people. that ain't ever really gonna happen, unfortunately.

defend hillary for deleting 33k mails after being asked for them by a senate committee - not obstruction.
trump doing whatever he's doing - obstruction.

like you - i try to be aware of my own bias. however i have given up on you for the most part cause 90% of what you post are attacks. however, i can get caught up in that also. when some people hit this "beyond hope" measure there isn't anything left for me to try and do to have a reasonable conversation.

in all honesty - this is one of your few replies i've read that wasn't just frustrating as ****. but i do find it ironic you tell me to pay attention to my character flaws while you dodge your own.

this is what i mean - people get pissed at others for the same shit they do on a regular basis. i get caught up in that also so this isn't a slam on you - just something we're all guilty of but so few admit to.

You seem to keep missing a very simple point: Trump's obstruction IS NOT HINGED ON HILLARY.

Just as Hillary either commited obstruction or she didn't, Trump commited obstruction or he didn't. Nothing to do with each other, one does not excuse the other.

If you want to know about 33k emails just read the FBI report that specifically looked into it and concluded that, no, there is no evidence Hillary erased them in violation of the law.

The FBI Files on Clinton's Emails - FactCheck.org

no - but the focus on OBSTRUCTION is on trump when others have done far worse.

*that* is my point. to shout trump is OBSTRUCTING while defending hillary - wasted time. the left will do things and cry ALL GOOD but when the right does the same thing, or not even as bad, the left goes apeshit batty all of a sudden caring about such things.

like i said - this is more human nature than anything else.

and factcheck can blow balls. in looking at the timeline of events, a senate committee looking into behghazi saw she was using a private server and asked for her mail in June of 2014. she stalled and tried to see if she can edit the header info on her e-mails. she then got to pick and choose what to delete and turn over.

the left was fine with that. now i ask you - are you ok if trump does this too? standard has been set that there are "conditions" that make this ok. once you "ok" something it's now OK for all, not just your own use.

that's what keeps getting missed in our rush to get "do as i say not as i do" out more.

now - what if we find obama and co told the FBI to NOT go after hillary? how big an issue is that?

she tampered with evidence. and they all are ok with that. there isn't an honest bone in a leftist.

She also obstructed with the declaration of a video initiated the attack. as Lurch says...ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[jc456]

define obstruction then in a manner which releases hillary from what she did and condemns trump.

Seriously?

Trump tried to influence an offcer of the law to end an investigation.
Clinton did not.

Trump fired FBI director under false pretenses, because he was conducting investigation.
Clinton did not.

Trump repeatedly tried to fire Special Investigator and narrow the scope of investigation, failing only because his subordinates refused his orders.
Clinton did not.

Trump was dangling pardons to influence witnesses.
Clinton did not.

Clinton erasing emails (or ordering it) after subpoena WOULD BE Obstruction. But there was simply no evidence she did that. Her office ordered emails in question to be erased 3 months BEFORE subpoena and this was confirmed by FBI.

seriously?

this is all micro-sliced bullshit to me. i can list the same hillary did and all you'll do that i can see at this point is say TRUMP ONLY and dismiss her w/o going into details.

i'll just say this and see how you deny it and go from there:

Hillary Clinton’s Email: the Definitive Timeline | Sharyl Attkisson

2014
May 5: Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., is named head of the House Benghazi Committee to investigate the 2012 terrorist attacks.

May 8: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, formally announces formation of House Benghazi Committee.

June 13: Judicial Watch files a FOI request with State Dept. seeking Benghazi information and Clinton notes.

August: State Dept. provides House Benghazi Committee with eight emails to or from Clinton that, for the first time, show her use of a private email account.

Sept. 4: Judicial Watch sues State Dept. for failure to respond to a June 13, 2014 FOI request seeking Benghazi records and Clinton notes.

Sept. 17: House Benghazi Committee holds its first public hearing. Topic: implementation of ARB recommendations.

October: State Dept. sends letters to Clinton and her three predecessors as secretary of state seeking work emails related to personal accounts.

Nov. 18: House Benghazi Committee makes additional request for Clinton emails from State Dept.

Nov. 26: President Obama signs into law an updated Federal Records Act requiring public officials to forward all work-related email to their government address.

December: House Benghazi Committee sends request to the White House for documents and communications pertaining to Benghazi.

Dec. 5: Clinton privately turns over copies of 30,490 “work-related” emails to the State Dept. totaling 55,000 printed pages. No date has been provided as to when she deleted her “private” emails, but it is presumed to be around this time frame.

Dec. 10: House Benghazi Committee holds second public hearing. Topic: implementation of ARB recommendations.

==========
and after the initial request was made, her IT company was poking around looking for how to change header information in e-mails. when they realized that can't be done, the deletions started.

given what you're after trump for above, it would stand to reason you'd never allow trump to do what hillary did.

yet, here we are.

now:
https://archives-benghazi-republicans-oversight.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/Kendall.Clinton Subpoena - 2015.03.04.pdf

there's the official request to ask for what she has already deleted in anticipation of such a move. now you tell me again - how long are gov e-mails supposed to be kept? yet she also implemented a 60 day retention policy that would nuke all evidence. a retention policy like this won't care what the mail is, only delete it after 60 days.

funny - this is enough time for her to make all her moves to clean up you dismiss. but if trump did all these - they would be high crimes.

and i would agree. if trump ever deleted official mail he knew he was supposed to keep, enough suspicion from me to follow up and find out why.

You seem to not apreciate the the legal entitity difference between State Department and Clinton.

Clinton is not legally responsible for what was demanded from DoS.

Clinton IS reponsible for what she personally was subpoenaed for and what FBI concluded was that there was no evidence that she detroyed records in defiance of the subpoena. Now, you may say that 60 day retention policy was designed with intention to get rid of potentially damaging records, but thats not illegal.

you seem to understand i'm not playing this "hide me here" games.

she was dead wrong to delete work related e-mail. until you can prove ONLY personal mail was deleted (of which her new retention policy wouldn't be able to differentiate) then she is under the same level of suspicion that you put trump under. your fight to keep her "clean" really tells me you care less about the truth and more about attacking the right.

at least that is how it is coming across.

11 Rules for Using Government Email | GovLoop

she broke a lot of those rules, did she not? her 60 day policy is also a direct slap against the 90 days to a year for most mail going through her server. if she chose to use this for her business then fine - play by the same rules as if it *WERE* a government account.

so her own 60 day policy is a violation.

next?

You don't know wtf you are saying - Hillary was no longer employed by the government as of 2013, while 60 day retention policy change request was made in Dec 2014.

Also, the burden of proof is on the investigatigators, not the target. You say Clinton erased work emails in defiance of the sabpoenas? Well you can assert whatever you want to but FBI did not find evidence that this was the case.

As an examaple from my side, Special Investigator concluded that there is no sufficient evidence of Criminal Conspiracy with Russians by the Trump campaign and I accept his findings. So you claiming that I selectively belive the findings of the authorities and have a double standard is just bullshit.

can't make it up folks