Former Republican Prosecutors Release Damning Video Calling For Trumps Prosecution For Obsruction

[nat4900]

If these assholes need help changing their party, I'm more than happy to help them out.

Above is an example of why there is NO LONGER a Republican Party....Instead, it has morphed into a Trump CULT.......shrinking the once decent GOP into a bunch of Trump ass kissers who parrot Mussolini's adage that "either you're with me or against me."

 

[skews13]

A group of former Republican federal prosectors has combined efforts to push for the further investigation and possible prosecution of Trump for obstruction of justice. Calling itself Republicans for the Rule of Law, the group has released a video highlighting the case against Trump as set out in the Mueller report. The former deputy attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, Donald Ayer; the former deputy assistant secretary of homeland security under President George W. Bush, Paul Rosenzweig; and the former deputy associate attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, Jeffrey Harris, are all featured in the video, explaining in the most simple of terms how insanely corrupt a picture the Mueller report paints of the current administration.




I was wondering how long this was going to take.

This forum is filled with Trump ass kissers who will NEVER accept reality, opting instead for any excuse to "defend" their mistale in siding with a fuckhead for president.

NOT ONE of these sycophants would ever admit what they would be today stating IF Obama was under the same scrutiny and accusations as Trump is currently.

If there was ANY objectivity among these Trump cult members, they too would have closely listened to that video and admit that......

.....regarding obstruction there is FIRST, Trump OPENLY admitting that he fired Comey because Comey would not let up on investigating Flynn.

Second, Trump instructed McGahn to go and fire Mueller

Third, Trump instructed McGahn to write a memo to cover up his initial instruction to go and fire Mueller.

These IDIOTS will instead say that since Trump is the president, he has "every right" to obstruct justice because he is president.

For democrats it really boils down to this........

Politically, impeaching this orange scum bucket is dangerous because it would make Trump a martyr in the eyes of his base and some independent voters.....

Ethically and morally, democrats should impeach Trump regardless of the political repercussions.

Unfortunately, the above is a very hard choice and democrats don't have the guts to risk their reelection for the sale of a moral/ethical issue.

Yes. I know these idiots well. I have been a source of their butt hurt online for years now. My goal, as should be every normal persons goal, is to monitor right wing narratives, and counter them effectively, so as each new generation arises, they are not gaining any new members into the cult.

The hey day of Reagan conservatism, and freakazoid rightwing radio and fox noise are waning. Keep your foot firmly on it's neck until it stops breathing.

 

[Crepitus]

Where is the obstruction?...the swamp says Trump obstructed the investigation but no one is saying how or what he did?.....they will have to prove their case in the court of public opinion so tell the public specifically what the man did....

Are you kidding me?

Read the ******* report you idiot!

I'm so sick of you fools saying "where's the proof" when it's right there in front of you, online for free in a dozen different formats, discussed daily on nearly every real news program, and even available on Amazon in hardback, paperback, and electronic formats.

Stop being wilfully ignorant. That is the very definition of being stupider than you have to be.

 

[Maxdeath]

But what did Trump do to obstruct the investigation that wasn't obstructed?....are you insane?....

He didn't have to obstruct it, all he had to do was try. That is how obstruction is defined by law.

No I'm not insane. It's called being objective. Apparently that is a foreign concept to you so you don't recognize it.

I will make a big assumption here that you can read. You may have noticed the word ACT. You can talk about anything you like but until you ACT then there is nothing. Kind of like if you talk about robbing a bank. You can talk all you want but until you ACT there is nothing.

Notice how that crazy word ACT keeps coming up?

Telling White House counsel to fire Mueller was an act. As was instructing him to falsify the record.

As much as the crazy left want to make it so, thought is still not a crime. You can tell a lawyer to do something that is illegal believing it to be legal it is not a crime. Had his thought been ACTED on then that would have been a problem. You can not be arrested for thoughts or words only ACTIONS.

The act was in telling the counsel what to do. At which point the counsel has to act. His act was to defy the order and resign. Which was the principled thing to do. Had he covered up for Trump, in any way, he would have been complicit.

Look I understand that the left does not like that thing called the first amendment unless it works in their favor but he can say anything he likes. He could suggest anything but if it is not ACTED on it is not a crime. I could suggest on television that my accountant falsify my tax return but there is no problem unless he ACTS on it.

 

[mikegriffith1]

IOW, a few Establishment Judas-goat Republican lawyers are siding with the Democrats against Trump.

 

[Tehon]

He didn't have to obstruct it, all he had to do was try. That is how obstruction is defined by law.

No I'm not insane. It's called being objective. Apparently that is a foreign concept to you so you don't recognize it.

I will make a big assumption here that you can read. You may have noticed the word ACT. You can talk about anything you like but until you ACT then there is nothing. Kind of like if you talk about robbing a bank. You can talk all you want but until you ACT there is nothing.

Notice how that crazy word ACT keeps coming up?

Telling White House counsel to fire Mueller was an act. As was instructing him to falsify the record.

As much as the crazy left want to make it so, thought is still not a crime. You can tell a lawyer to do something that is illegal believing it to be legal it is not a crime. Had his thought been ACTED on then that would have been a problem. You can not be arrested for thoughts or words only ACTIONS.

The act was in telling the counsel what to do. At which point the counsel has to act. His act was to defy the order and resign. Which was the principled thing to do. Had he covered up for Trump, in any way, he would have been complicit.

Look I understand that the left does not like that thing called the first amendment unless it works in their favor but he can say anything he likes. He could suggest anything but if it is not ACTED on it is not a crime. I could suggest on television that my accountant falsify my tax return but there is no problem unless he ACTS on it.

I don't know how else to explain, nor does it really matter, but. We are talking about law. And obstruction of justice is defined by law as communication that endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede an investigation.

Definition
18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

The act of telling (communicating to) his counsel to fire Mueller is an attempt (endeavor) to influence or impede the investigation.

The act of telling his counsel to falsify the record is an attempt to obstruct the investigation.

Crimes as defined by US law.

 

[nat4900]

I don't know how else to explain, nor does it really matter, but. We are talking about law. And obstruction of justice is defined by law as communication that endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede an investigation.

OK....you don't want to label your orange fuckhead a "criminal",,,,
How's about labeling him a corrupt, lying, unethical piece of shit....Would that make you feel all tingly about having voted for him?

 

[bodecea]

A group of former Republican federal prosectors has combined efforts to push for the further investigation and possible prosecution of Trump for obstruction of justice. Calling itself Republicans for the Rule of Law, the group has released a video highlighting the case against Trump as set out in the Mueller report. The former deputy attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, Donald Ayer; the former deputy assistant secretary of homeland security under President George W. Bush, Paul Rosenzweig; and the former deputy associate attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, Jeffrey Harris, are all featured in the video, explaining in the most simple of terms how insanely corrupt a picture the Mueller report paints of the current administration.




I was wondering how long this was going to take.

If these assholes need help changing their party, I'm more than happy to help them out.

And...there we have it. If you are for rule of law, the Republican Party is NOT for you....please leave.

 

[Tehon]

I don't know how else to explain, nor does it really matter, but. We are talking about law. And obstruction of justice is defined by law as communication that endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede an investigation.

OK....you don't want to label your orange fuckhead a "criminal",,,,
How's about labeling him a corrupt, lying, unethical piece of shit....Would that make you feel all tingly about having voted for him?

Excuse me?

I didn't vote for Trump. In fact I'm arguing that he did obstruct justice.

 

[Maxdeath]

I will make a big assumption here that you can read. You may have noticed the word ACT. You can talk about anything you like but until you ACT then there is nothing. Kind of like if you talk about robbing a bank. You can talk all you want but until you ACT there is nothing.

Notice how that crazy word ACT keeps coming up?

Telling White House counsel to fire Mueller was an act. As was instructing him to falsify the record.

As much as the crazy left want to make it so, thought is still not a crime. You can tell a lawyer to do something that is illegal believing it to be legal it is not a crime. Had his thought been ACTED on then that would have been a problem. You can not be arrested for thoughts or words only ACTIONS.

The act was in telling the counsel what to do. At which point the counsel has to act. His act was to defy the order and resign. Which was the principled thing to do. Had he covered up for Trump, in any way, he would have been complicit.

Look I understand that the left does not like that thing called the first amendment unless it works in their favor but he can say anything he likes. He could suggest anything but if it is not ACTED on it is not a crime. I could suggest on television that my accountant falsify my tax return but there is no problem unless he ACTS on it.

I don't know how else to explain, nor does it really matter, but. We are talking about law. And obstruction of justice is defined by law as communication that endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede an investigation.

Definition
18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

The act of telling (communicating to) his counsel to fire Mueller is an attempt (endeavor) to influence or impede the investigation.

The act of telling his counsel to falsify the record is an attempt to obstruct the investigation.

Crimes as defined by US law.

I guess simple thought is too hard for some. Nothing was done to stop the investigation. Mueller was not fired, no one ripped documents from him, no one put him in jail. Anyone can talk about something without being prosecuted. Your crazy hope that we really got him now hardly makes it true. No one falsified anything. So even though you have a dream that is all it is.in law there has to be an act. Thought nor speech is a crime at this point.

In law even trying to hire a hit man on someone requires money to change hands. That is an act. If Some one wants you to do something illegal you have to do it for you to become complicetiit in the crime.

Madonna said she wanted to blow up the White House. Others have said they wanted to Trump dead, trumps family locked up and raped. Are you now suggesting that they should be in jail?

 

[cwise76]

A group of former Republican federal prosectors has combined efforts to push for the further investigation and possible prosecution of Trump for obstruction of justice. Calling itself Republicans for the Rule of Law, the group has released a video highlighting the case against Trump as set out in the Mueller report. The former deputy attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, Donald Ayer; the former deputy assistant secretary of homeland security under President George W. Bush, Paul Rosenzweig; and the former deputy associate attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, Jeffrey Harris, are all featured in the video, explaining in the most simple of terms how insanely corrupt a picture the Mueller report paints of the current administration.




I was wondering how long this was going to take.

View attachment 263341

You will follow him into the flames gladly with no second thoughts. Wow you people are dim

 

[Tehon]

Telling White House counsel to fire Mueller was an act. As was instructing him to falsify the record.

As much as the crazy left want to make it so, thought is still not a crime. You can tell a lawyer to do something that is illegal believing it to be legal it is not a crime. Had his thought been ACTED on then that would have been a problem. You can not be arrested for thoughts or words only ACTIONS.

The act was in telling the counsel what to do. At which point the counsel has to act. His act was to defy the order and resign. Which was the principled thing to do. Had he covered up for Trump, in any way, he would have been complicit.

Look I understand that the left does not like that thing called the first amendment unless it works in their favor but he can say anything he likes. He could suggest anything but if it is not ACTED on it is not a crime. I could suggest on television that my accountant falsify my tax return but there is no problem unless he ACTS on it.

I don't know how else to explain, nor does it really matter, but. We are talking about law. And obstruction of justice is defined by law as communication that endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede an investigation.

Definition
18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

The act of telling (communicating to) his counsel to fire Mueller is an attempt (endeavor) to influence or impede the investigation.

The act of telling his counsel to falsify the record is an attempt to obstruct the investigation.

Crimes as defined by US law.

I guess simple thought is too hard for some. Nothing was done to stop the investigation. Mueller was not fired, no one ripped documents from him, no one put him in jail. Anyone can talk about something without being prosecuted. Your crazy hope that we really got him now hardly makes it true. No one falsified anything. So even though you have a dream that is all it is.in law there has to be an act. Thought nor speech is a crime at this point.

In law even trying to hire a hit man on someone requires money to change hands. That is an act. If Some one wants you to do something illegal you have to do it for you to become complicetiit in the crime.

Madonna said she wanted to blow up the White House. Others have said they wanted to Trump dead, trumps family locked up and raped. Are you now suggesting that they should be in jail?

I'm just reading the law on obstruction of justice as it is written.

It's not personal.

 

[Rambunctious]

Where is the obstruction?...the swamp says Trump obstructed the investigation but no one is saying how or what he did?.....they will have to prove their case in the court of public opinion so tell the public specifically what the man did....

Are you kidding me?

Read the ******* report you idiot!

I'm so sick of you fools saying "where's the proof" when it's right there in front of you, online for free in a dozen different formats, discussed daily on nearly every real news program, and even available on Amazon in hardback, paperback, and electronic formats.

Stop being wilfully ignorant. That is the very definition of being stupider than you have to be.

You can't tell me can you?....the talking heads on TV haven't told me...Mueller hasn't told me...all I hear is Trump was not exonerated and is guilty....but you nor anyone else can tell me what he is guilty of.....What high crime has he committed...you seem so sure so you should be able to tell me what he did....

 

[Rambunctious]

The act was in telling the counsel what to do. At which point the counsel has to act. His act was to defy the order and resign. Which was the principled thing to do. Had he covered up for Trump, in any way, he would have been complicit.

Asking your lawyer to do something unethical is not a crime unless it was carried out...what is so hard to understand?...the white house council told Trump it would be obstruction to fire Mueller and so it they didn't do it....no crime...none what so ever....

 

[Rambunctious]

Read at least the summary, it will give you examples where Tramp told his operatives to lie to Mueller. And THAT is obstruction by suborning perjury.

He never told them to lie and they didn't lie...Mueller has no evidence he told them to lie or Mueller would have charged him....Mueller knew a charge like that would never stand up in court....because it was an opinion not a proven fact...remember an impeachment is a criminal trial...and a lack of evidence is not something to take into court....Trump and his team has been 100% cooperative...compared to Obama and Holder....

 

[Tehon]

The act was in telling the counsel what to do. At which point the counsel has to act. His act was to defy the order and resign. Which was the principled thing to do. Had he covered up for Trump, in any way, he would have been complicit.

Asking your lawyer to do something unethical is not a crime unless it was carried out...what is so hard to understand?...the white house council told Trump it would be obstruction to fire Mueller and so it they didn't do it....no crime...none what so ever....

The omnibus clause of 18 U .S.C. § 1503 prohibits an "endeavor" to obstruct justice, which sweeps more broadly than Section 1512's attempt provision. See United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 302 (2d Cir. 2018); United States v. Leisure, 844 F.2d 1347, 1366-1367 (8th Cir. 1988) (collecting cases). "It is well established that a[n] [obstruction-of-justice] offense is complete when one corruptly endeavors to obstruct or impede the due administration of justice; the prosecution need not prove that the due administration of justice was actually obstructed or impeded." United States v. Davis, 854 F.3d 1276, 1292 (11th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).

 

[theHawk]

A group of former Republican federal prosectors has combined efforts to push for the further investigation and possible prosecution of Trump for obstruction of justice. Calling itself Republicans for the Rule of Law, the group has released a video highlighting the case against Trump as set out in the Mueller report. The former deputy attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, Donald Ayer; the former deputy assistant secretary of homeland security under President George W. Bush, Paul Rosenzweig; and the former deputy associate attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, Jeffrey Harris, are all featured in the video, explaining in the most simple of terms how insanely corrupt a picture the Mueller report paints of the current administration.




I was wondering how long this was going to take.

The old guard GOP want President Pence.

I’m not surprised you leftwingers are with them.

 

[Rambunctious]

The omnibus clause of 18 U .S.C. § 1503 prohibits an "endeavor" to obstruct justice, which sweeps more broadly than Section 1512's attempt provision. See United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 302 (2d Cir. 2018); United States v. Leisure, 844 F.2d 1347, 1366-1367 (8th Cir. 1988) (collecting cases). "It is well established that a[n] [obstruction-of-justice] offense is complete when one corruptly endeavors to obstruct or impede the due administration of justice; the prosecution need not prove that the due administration of justice was actually obstructed or impeded." United States v. Davis, 854 F.3d 1276, 1292 (11th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).

And I'm sure Trump's attorney informed Trump of this and no further action was taken....so once again in your own words Mr. Cut and Paste...what high crime has Trump committed?....

 

[Crepitus]

Where is the obstruction?...the swamp says Trump obstructed the investigation but no one is saying how or what he did?.....they will have to prove their case in the court of public opinion so tell the public specifically what the man did....

Are you kidding me?

Read the ******* report you idiot!

I'm so sick of you fools saying "where's the proof" when it's right there in front of you, online for free in a dozen different formats, discussed daily on nearly every real news program, and even available on Amazon in hardback, paperback, and electronic formats.

Stop being wilfully ignorant. That is the very definition of being stupider than you have to be.

You can't tell me can you?....the talking heads on TV haven't told me...Mueller hasn't told me...all I hear is Trump was not exonerated and is guilty....but you nor anyone else can tell me what he is guilty of.....What high crime has he committed...you seem so sure so you should be able to tell me what he did....

R.
E.
A.
D.

T.
H.
E.

R.
E.
P.
O.
R.
T.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

But what did Trump do to obstruct the investigation that wasn't obstructed?....are you insane?....

He didn't have to obstruct it, all he had to do was try. That is how obstruction is defined by law.

No I'm not insane. It's called being objective. Apparently that is a foreign concept to you so you don't recognize it.

I will make a big assumption here that you can read. You may have noticed the word ACT. You can talk about anything you like but until you ACT then there is nothing. Kind of like if you talk about robbing a bank. You can talk all you want but until you ACT there is nothing.

Notice how that crazy word ACT keeps coming up?

Telling White House counsel to fire Mueller was an act. As was instructing him to falsify the record.

No it isn't Tehon....

It's not? Telling someone to do something or giving instruction is an action. The verb in the sentence gives it away.

Bullshit.
It's akin to asking your mechanic to put twin 130 mm turbos on a stock 4 banger.......aaaaaahh,NO!