This is a phony impeachment inquiry.

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
28,544
Reaction score
14,231
Points
2,445
Location
Land of the sane.
since donny refused to answer the majority of the written questions posed to him....
I'm sorry -- I don't see Mueller's factual determination of corrupt intent.
Well?
lol... no worries, donny may not have skirted that 'rusher' thing once the full report is unredacted...
You understand that, absent a factual determination of corrupt intent, there can be no obstruction of justice - right?
And, since Mueller made no such factual determination, there is no factual basis for a charge of obstruction of justice - right?
you don't understand that he was a special counsel - not a prosecutor.
This does not affect what I said in any way.
No factual determination of corrupt intent = no obstruction of justice.
The crime can take any number of forms, whether it's bribery, tampering with evidence, lying to investigators, abusing one's power, or some other act intended to impede a criminal investigation. The federal obstruction of justice statute is written broadly and focuses more on the effect (or intended effect) of a particular action rather than the specific act itself. Therefore, seemingly innocuous acts could be construed as criminal activity if they have the intended effect of impeding justice.

Elements of an Obstruction of Justice Charge

The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge differ slightly by code section. For instance, prosecutors must prove the following elements for a conviction under section 1503 of the federal statute (influencing or injuring an officer or juror):

  1. There was a pending federal judicial proceeding;
  2. The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
  3. The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.
But regardless of the specific section of federal law (1501 through 1521) cited in a particular case, the prosecution need not prove any actual obstruction -- the defendant's attempt to obstruct is enough. The element of intent, which is central to such cases, is also usually the most difficult to prove; although memos, phone calls, and recorded conversations may be used as evidence to establish this.

Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
25,772
Reaction score
2,474
Points
275
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
I'm sorry -- I don't see Mueller's factual determination of corrupt intent.
Well?
lol... no worries, donny may not have skirted that 'rusher' thing once the full report is unredacted...
You understand that, absent a factual determination of corrupt intent, there can be no obstruction of justice - right?
And, since Mueller made no such factual determination, there is no factual basis for a charge of obstruction of justice - right?
you don't understand that he was a special counsel - not a prosecutor.
This does not affect what I said in any way.
No factual determination of corrupt intent = no obstruction of justice.
Elements of an Obstruction of Justice Charge
The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge differ slightly by code section. For instance, prosecutors must prove the following elements for a conviction under section 1503 of the federal statute (influencing or injuring an officer or juror):
  1. There was a pending federal judicial proceeding;
  2. The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
  3. The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.
You understand that, absent a factual determination of corrupt intent, there can be no obstruction of justice - right?
And, since Mueller made no such factual determination, there is no factual basis for a charge of obstruction of justice - right?
 

Zorro!

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
7,221
Reaction score
999
Points
245
Nunes?

Isn’t he suing a cow?

which should tell y’all everything about Nunes.
It’s no coincidence that Democrats have gone apoplectic about the memo. It clearly shows that the FBI, under the direction of then-Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andy McCabe, presented paid political dirt to the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Court in order to obtain warrants to spy on American citizens.

'Nunes memo' revelations prove the FBI makes up its own rules
Schiff: Hey, how could I know that the FBI’s FISA applications were so bad?



Nunes: “your rehabilitation will be a long, arduous process.”

Nunes [URL='https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/02/the-full-nunes-memo-annotated/']wrote a memo in February 2018 detailing allegations against the FBI of abusing the FISA process, Schiff issued a detailed rebuttal and went on a national tour to defend the FBI, claiming that he knew “the FBI acted appropriately in seeking a warrant on Carter Page.” Schiff insisted that the FBI did nothing wrong right up to the moment in which Horowitz made it clear that there was serious misconduct in the warrant applications — and that it was basically just as bad as Nunes had warned all along.[/URL]

Chris Wallace asked Schiff on Fox News Sunday to explain how he could have gotten this so wrong. “I think it’s only fair to judge what we knew at the time,” Schiff replied, “not what would be revealed two years later.” What who knew at the time?

It takes a lot of cheek to claim that Horowitz’ report debunks Nunes’ criticisms. Even the Washington Post threw cold water on that revisionist history. The Nunes memo turned out to be vindicated, not debunked, Aaron Blake wrote at the time. The only thing debunked was Schiff’s attempt at debunking Nunes.

It takes even more cheek for Schiff to tell Wallace that he’d have gladly called out the FBI at the time had he only known of these issues:

Given what you know now — we talked earlier to Director Comey, and he basically said, “I was wrong in what I represented back in 2018.” Are you willing to admit that you were wrong in your defense of the FBI’s FISA process?​

Adam Schiff: Oh, I’m certainly willing to admit that the Inspector General found serious abuses of FISA that I was unaware of. Had I known of them, Chris, yes, I would have called out the FBI at the same time. But I think it’s only fair to judge what we knew at the time, not what would be revealed two years later. But yes, there were very serious abuses of the FISA process. They need to be corrected; we need to make sure they never happen again.​

This is nonsense on stilts. Nunes knew enough about these misrepresentations and omissions to write a detailed memo warning that the Page FISA warrants had been secured on false premises. How did Nunes know about this “two years earlier” and not Schiff? Was it because Nunes actually did his job and Schiff was only concerned about pursuing a nonsense conspiracy theory in an effort to reverse the 2016 election?

We certainly know what Nunes thinks. He sent Schiff a letter recommending “rehabilitation,” but that requires an admission of having a problem in the first place. Good luck with that as Schiff’s latest impeachment rationalization wends its way through the House of Representatives.
 
Last edited:

regent

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
10,459
Reaction score
1,123
Points
245
Do Republicans believe the American citizens are this stupid that they will fall for a cheap con-job such as this?
 

Zorro!

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
7,221
Reaction score
999
Points
245
Do Republicans believe the American citizens are this stupid that they will fall for a cheap con-job such as this?
The American Electorate picked Trump and picked well. Trump is having an Amazing Presidency. We've never had it so good!

The American Electorate Will See Right Through This: TOM STEYER: I IDENTIFY AS POOR!

It’s come to this: Tom Steyer, one of the flailing Democratic presidential candidates who remains in the race only because he is rich and has plenty of money to spend on a vanity candidacy, tells an Iowa audience:

“I know that people describe me as being a rich person, but that isn’t how I think of myself. My mom was from Minneapolis, Minnesota….”​

If Steyer identifies as a poor man, he should go all the way and identify as a poor trans teenager. He might have a shot.

Can you imagine what President Trump would have to say about Steyer’s poor-man identification? It would be worth the price of admission to hear him mock Steyer, but he probably doesn’t rise to a level where Trump will bother.

If this whole president thing doesn’t work out for Steyer, he could star in a remake of “The Jerk.”

 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top