Trump Suggests DoJ shouldn't indict Republicans close to an election

[time4fun]

This one is just...horrible. Even by this wacko's standards:

Trump criticized Sessions today (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-escalates-attacks-attorney-general-57578467) because the DoJ indicted two sitting Congressional Republicans a few months before the election:

via Twitter:

Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff.

This is in apparent reference to Duncan Hunter and Chris Collins-
two of his earliest backers in Congress (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/03/politics/donald-trump-jeff-sessions-justice-department/index.html). Collins was charged with 13 counts of securities fraud, wire fraud and making false statements related to an alleged insider trading scheme.
Hunter was indicted for using campaign funds for personal use and were charged with counts of wire fraud, falsifying records, campaign finance violations and conspiracy.

He's already pressured the DoJ to go after his political enemies and former opponents. This is also the same guy who has repeatedly argued that the Mueller investigation is plagued by political bias. Let that one sink in for a moment.

This isn't what draining the swamp looks like. This is what corruption looks like.

[cwolff]

Hopefully we are nearing the beginning of the end. This dude's off his rocker. Blue Lives Matter unless they prosecute trumps buddies. His sycophants won't mind though. They are morally flexible.

[time4fun]

That tweet- alone- should warrant impeachment.

[Fortybox]

This one is just...horrible. Even by this wacko's standards:

Trump criticized Sessions today (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-escalates-attacks-attorney-general-57578467) because the DoJ indicted two sitting Congressional Republicans a few months before the election:

via Twitter:


This is in apparent reference to Duncan Hunter and Chris Collins-
two of his earliest backers in Congress (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/03/politics/donald-trump-jeff-sessions-justice-department/index.html). Collins was charged with 13 counts of securities fraud, wire fraud and making false statements related to an alleged insider trading scheme.
Hunter was indicted for using campaign funds for personal use and were charged with counts of wire fraud, falsifying records, campaign finance violations and conspiracy.

He's already pressured the DoJ to go after his political enemies and former opponents. This is also the same guy who has repeatedly argued that the Mueller investigation is plagued by political bias. Let that one sink in for a moment.

This isn't what draining the swamp looks like. This is what corruption looks like.

https://media.giphy.com/media/osQDEjU2ftAWs/giphy.gif

[Androidpk]

Mueller indictments inc

[Avaia]

He acts like a wannabe Mafia Don.

[Androidpk]

Teflon Don.

[time4fun]

He acts like a wannabe Mafia Don.

Yeah. At this point in time he's so drunk on his own sense of importance that he actually thought that tweet would be a good idea. I can't believe I now live in a country where the President feels comfortable directing the Justice Department not to indict anyone of the majority party before an election.

I can't believe I live in a country where about 1/3 of the voters are likely okay with that fact.

[cwolff]

That tweet- alone- should warrant impeachment.

Seriously! The republicans don't have enough patriots for it to work out though. Maybe they'll swap it up later if/when it becomes politically feasible to turn on trump.

[time4fun]

Seriously! The republicans don't have enough patriots for it to work out though. Maybe they'll swap it up later if/when it becomes politically feasible to turn on trump.

If they have even an ounce of dignity and patriotism, they'll stand up and start holding this man accountable. This is NOT okay. And there's no way to spin this- it's naked political corruption.

[Fortybox]

If they have even an ounce of dignity and patriotism, they'll stand up and start holding this man accountable. This is NOT okay. And there's no way to spin this- it's naked political corruption.

I give this fake outrage about 4 of 10 stars. You really can do better.

Next time try harder please.

[Fortybox]

https://youtu.be/Po5DN_A8oyQ

[Astray]

No, Fox news is bias.

Also, the title of this topic is disingenuous as it's pure speculation and/or opinion. Here's the first paragraph of ABC.


President Donald Trump escalated his attacks on Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday, suggesting the Department of Justice put Republicans in midterm jeopardy with recent indictments of two GOP congressmen.

That's not indicative of an escalation and it's honest. Good job, ABC. Very informative but not quite what T4F was looking for so she went to her go-to and got her opinion and title from CNN


President Donald Trump on Monday blasted his Attorney General Jeff Sessions and lamented the indictments of two lawmakers who were his earliest supporters in Congress during the 2016 election, suggesting they should not have been charged because they are Republicans.

Which is contradiction in the first paragraph.

She swears by the media, of course. In their unbiased crusade to let light and truth into the World.

[cwolff]

If they have even an ounce of dignity and patriotism, they'll stand up and start holding this man accountable. This is NOT okay. And there's no way to spin this- it's naked political corruption.

I hope you're right. The thing is that the've seen enough to know trump's anti American. It's not exactly written in strange hieroglyphics. He puts it out into the world ALL CAPS.

[Fortybox]

No, Fox news is bias.

Also, the title of this topic is disingenuous as it's pure speculation and/or opinion. Here's the first paragraph of ABC.



That's not indicative of an escalation and it's honest. Good job, ABC. Very informative but not quite what T4F was looking for so she went to her go-to and got her opinion and title from CNN



Which is contradiction in the first paragraph.

She swears by the media, of course. In their unbiased crusade to let light and truth into the World.

Media outlets are biased all the time.

It's about selective, purposeful, inaccurate reporting to mislead an audience. That's fake news and that's what CNN is all about. It's what worms like T4F are all about.

Of course Fox is biased. It's a right-leaning media outlet. Duh.

[Astray]

Media outlets are biased all the time.

It's about selective, purposeful, inaccurate reporting to mislead an audience. That's fake news and that's what CNN is all about. It's what worms like T4F are all about.

Of course Fox is biased. It's a right-leaning media outlet. Duh.

I know, it would be obvious but we gotta explain things for certain folk.

Also, yer mum.

Edit - Wall of Text incoming that's full of emotion and bias from OP. It won't explain anything but it'll definitely shed some light on how we are all "wrong", I'm sure.

[time4fun]

No, Fox news is bias.

Also, the title of this topic is disingenuous as it's pure speculation and/or opinion. Here's the first paragraph of ABC.



That's not indicative of an escalation and it's honest. Good job, ABC. Very informative but not quite what T4F was looking for so she went to her go-to and got her opinion and title from CNN



Which is contradiction in the first paragraph.

She swears by the media, of course. In their unbiased crusade to let light and truth into the World.

Jesus. Are you serious right now?

You do realize I quoted the tweet directly, right? This entire reply is the definition of disingenuous.


He's criticizing the Attorney General for indicting two Republicans this close to the election because it hurts the GOP's chances in the election. I genuinely do not understand what you think you're arguing right now.

[Astray]

He's criticizing the Attorney General for indicting two Republicans this close to the election because it hurts the GOP's chances in the election.

Honesty, at last.

[time4fun]

Honesty, at last.


Are you drunk right now?

[Fortybox]

I know, it would be obvious but we gotta explain things for certain folk.

Also, yer mum.

Edit - Wall of Text incoming that's full of emotion and bias from OP. It won't explain anything but it'll definitely shed some light on how we are all "wrong", I'm sure.

Annddddddd ... right on queue, LOL.


Wall of Text full of emotion - post #17

[Avaia]

Jesus. Are you serious right now?
9140

[Fortybox]

Honesty, at last.

Makes me wonder what September and October surprises we have looking forward to seeing.

Honestly, this whole thing is entertaining and soy4pk make it a blockbluster.

[Tgo01]

Trump suggests absolutely nothing in his tweet, time4fun insists he did and is confused why someone calls out her shit.

[Avaia]

It’s been well over a year, if he was going to reveal something directly against Trump it would have been by this Labor day.

The Watergate investigation took over two years. Whatever the outcome of the Mueller investigation, a year and change is only the beginning.

[cwolff]

It’s been well over a year, if he was going to reveal something directly against Trump it would have been by this Labor day. You have to prepare yourself with the now very high possibility that Mueller will not be bringing any charges directly against President Trump. I have a couple of very progressive friends who are expecting an indictment by the Mueller team against Trump for high treason like they’re waiting for a bus at the bus-stop, it’s absolutely bizzare. The possibility of Mueller finding Trump not guilty just doesn’t exist in any possible dimension or form in their minds.

That's a great point. I've never thought he'd bring an indictment against trump but the idea that he may exonerate trump is an uncomfortable thought. It could happen though and people are going to freak out if it does.

Anyway you slice it though there is no exoneration for trump. If he's innocent just think of all the damage he's done by making the special counsel, DOJ and FBI seem like enemies. He could have just chilled, praised them for their service and come out of this looking magnanimous and like a real leader.

[Fortybox]

The Watergate investigation took over two years. Whatever the outcome of the Mueller investigation, a year and change is only the beginning.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/wWue0rCDOphOE/giphy.gif

[Fortybox]

That's a great point. I've never thought he'd bring an indictment against trump but the idea that he may exonerate trump is an uncomfortable thought. It could happen though and people are going to freak out if it does.

Anyway you slice it though there is no exoneration for trump. If he's innocent just think of all the damage he's done by making the special counsel, DOJ and FBI seem like enemies. He could have just chilled, praised them for their service and come out of this looking magnanimous and like a real leader.

Again, showing you have absolutely no clue why he got elected in the first place.

[Astray]

Are you drunk right now?

I don't drink but I ate a cookie from Satan.


9140

Hey! You take that back, young lady.

[time4fun]

It’s been well over a year, if he was going to reveal something directly against Trump it would have been by this Labor day. You have to prepare yourself with the now very high possibility that Mueller will not be bringing any charges directly against President Trump. I have a couple of very progressive friends who are expecting an indictment by the Mueller team against Trump for high treason like they’re waiting for a bus at the bus-stop, it’s absolutely bizzare. The possibility of Mueller finding Trump not guilty just doesn’t exist in any possible dimension or form in their minds.

I don't think anyone is expecting an indictment. DoJ's official stance is that you can't indict a sitting President, and Mueller is likely going to follow that. That doesn't mean that there are no consequences for a sitting President who is found to have engaged in clearly illegal behavior.

But make no mistake here- several members of his campaign have plead or have been found guilty of felonies. There are several people who are cooperating witnesses at this point, and we've yet to actually see anything come from it- which means there's a lot we haven't seen yet. The reality of the situation is that Mueller's team isn't flipping witnesses for the fun of it. You only get a deal if you've got something serious to offer- typically on a fish bigger than yourself.

If you're under the impression that Mueller has more or less played out his hand, and things are coming to a close- then you're mistaken. Mueller is STILL flipping witnesses right now. That's not the sign that things are about done- it's the sign that things are just beginning.

In terms of Trump being "innocent"- that ship has already sailed. He's an unindicted co-conspirator in a felony campaign finance law violation. And that's the least of the things he's being investigated for. As far as his campaign goes- what are the odds that such a significant percentage of the higher ranking folks on the campaign are all criminals, but that Trump is clean as a whistle?

That just beggars belief, candidly.

[Androidpk]

Trump will be person 1 in the indictments.

[Fortybox]

I don't drink but I ate a cookie from Satan.



Hey! You take that back, young lady.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/iOGROlDst8AKOfs2ix/giphy.gif

[Astray]

Edibles are out of control, Forty.

[time4fun]

Yeah something's out of control.

"He's not saying that the DoJ shouldn't indict Republicans before an election, he's just saying it's a really bad thing that they did so, and he's really angry at Jeff Sessions for allowing it!"

Now, I have heard it all.

[Astray]

Yeah something's out of control.

"He's not saying that the DoJ shouldn't indict Republicans before an election, he's just saying it's a really bad thing that they did so, and he's really angry at Jeff Sessions for allowing it!"

Now, I have heard it all.

I was more or less pointing out that, while both are informative, only one really keeps speculation and opinion out of the report (or at least the first paragraph). I'm also pointing out that the validity in hurting ones party and outrage is warranted to Trump since he feels slighted, hence his tweet. That's the stance of the President and many people agree.

I am, unshockingly, not one of them. In the line of honest duty, things must unfold and, while unexpected, immediately. I'm not morally bankrupt, just had to wait for the pot to kick in. Now, the thought process of many people who agreed with the president is likely based out of the stance the Fox lady has.

S'all. If that makes sense.

[Fortybox]

Yeah something's out of control.

"He's not saying that the DoJ shouldn't indict Republicans before an election, he's just saying it's a really bad thing that they did so, and he's really angry at Jeff Sessions for allowing it!"

Now, I have heard it all.

Simma down now!

https://media0.giphy.com/media/26uTqM4AYQIru3G3S/giphy.gif

[time4fun]

I was more or less pointing out that, while both are informative, only one really keeps speculation and opinion out of the report (or at least the first paragraph). I'm also pointing out that the validity in hurting ones party and outrage is warranted to Trump since he feels slighted, hence his tweet. That's the stance of the President and many people agree.

I am, unshockingly, not one of them. In the line of honest duty, things must unfold and, while unexpected, immediately. I'm not morally bankrupt, just had to wait for the pot to kick in. Now, the thought process of many people who agreed with the president is likely based out of the stance the Fox lady has.

S'all. If that makes sense.

First, there's no speculation going on here. He's directly referencing the GOP's midterm prospects, and he's trashing Sessions for *not* obstructing justice by allowing the political party affiliations of a criminal to affect the way justice is administered. The rule here clearly only applies to Republicans.

Are you aware that this is not "just" illegal but actually flagrantly unconstitutional? The Department of Justice is not supposed to be dealing with people differently based on whether or not they belong to the majority party. That is the very definition of political corruption and a serious violation of the 1st Amendment (likely the 14th as well). And the President of the United States is not supposed to be using the DoJ as a way to help out political allies and to target political rivals.

And instead of being a decent American citizen and saying "HEY- this is incredibly screwed up!", you're playing (inaccurate) games of semantics.

You're on the wrong side of this, and you know it. You throwing in "Hey I'm not one of those people!" after validating the sentiment and criticizing people who are pointing out the corruption does not inoculate you from being called out for your obsequious response to flagrant political corruption.

[Fortybox]

First, there's no speculation going on here. He's directly referencing the GOP's midterm prospects, and he's trashing Sessions for *not* obstructing justice by allowing the political party affiliations of a criminal to affect the way justice is administered. The rule here clearly only applies to Republicans.

Are you aware that this is not "just" illegal but actually flagrantly unconstitutional? The Department of Justice is not supposed to be dealing with people differently based on whether or not they belong to the majority party. That is the very definition of political corruption and a serious violation of the 1st Amendment (likely the 14th as well). And the President of the United States is not supposed to be using the DoJ as a way to help out political allies and to target political rivals.

And instead of being a decent American citizen and saying "HEY- this is incredibly screwed up!", you're playing (inaccurate) games of semantics.

You're on the wrong side of this, and you know it. You throwing in "Hey I'm not one of those people!" after validating the sentiment and criticizing people who are pointing out the corruption does not inoculate you from being called out for your obsequious response to flagrant political corruption.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/XdKhJ4WW4uqxa/giphy.gif

[Astray]

Indicting people weakens the cause of a group was my point and Trump is fully within his rights to lash out emotionally. Nothing in that statement directly or explicitly states Sessions should have just dismissed it.

There is no sub-text. You make an ocean out of a very shallow puddle. You've gone years fixating and pretending to see between the lines when the only message there is in fine print and it's a shart rep.

[time4fun]

Indicting people weakens the cause of a group was my point and Trump is fully within his rights to lash out emotionally. Nothing in that statement directly or explicitly states Sessions should have just dismissed it.

There is no sub-text. You make an ocean out of a very shallow puddle. You've gone years fixating and pretending to see between the lines when the only message there is in fine print and it's a shart rep.

No, he's actually not within his rights. The sitting President of the United States shaming the DoJ for NOT engaging in obstruction IS an act of Obstruction, for one. And he's not just a run-of-the-mill sociopath on the street. He swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and to "faithfully execute the laws". He's pressuring the DoJ to break those laws for his own political gain.

And THIS coming from the party that has been shrieking like harpies over perceived political bias in the DoJ for the last two years.

What the hell happened to you people? 2 years ago you knew this was wrong. You have let this man destroy any standards you ever held for the office of the President and for your own democracy.

[Fortybox]

No, he's actually not within his rights. The sitting President of the United States shaming the DoJ for NOT engaging in obstruction IS an act of Obstruction, for one. And he's not just a run-of-the-mill sociopath on the street. He swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and to "faithfully execute the laws". He's pressuring the DoJ to break those laws for his own political gain.

And THIS coming from the party that has been shrieking like harpies over perceived political bias in the DoJ for the last two years.

What the hell happened to you people? 2 years ago you knew this was wrong. You have let this man destroy any standards you ever held for the office of the President and for your own democracy.

Good grief take your Xanax.

[Astray]

What the hell happened to you people?

Well, white people for one but that's beside the point. Listen, politicians are people with opinions and views and shaming is a natural part of politics. Specifically modern politics. Are they allowed? Yes. Unequivocally due to the whole God given rights. I mean Christ, the entirety of the elective environment is to shame your opponents and their views. I'm pretty sure it was like that for the 10 seconds of its invention.

Why should the President not be allowed to call out people? I don't understand what makes him obstructive if he's spewing emotion and not direct commands. It's such a weird double standard to have about seeing people as the President but failing to acknowledge their rights as a person.

[Androidpk]

Derp

[Astray]

Yer mum.

[time4fun]

Well, white people for one but that's beside the point. Listen, politicians are people with opinions and views and shaming is a natural part of politics. Specifically modern politics. Are they allowed? Yes. Unequivocally due to the whole God given rights. I mean Christ, the entirety of the elective environment is to shame your opponents and their views. I'm pretty sure it was like that for the 10 seconds of its invention.

Why should the President not be allowed to call out people? I don't understand what makes him obstructive if he's spewing emotion and not direct commands. It's such a weird double standard to have about seeing people as the President but failing to acknowledge their rights as a person.

So first- he lied. Those "Obama-era investigations" were both started during the Trump administration. I know you all have become extremely comfortable with the daily assault on the truth that his administration has come to embody, but it's actually not okay.

Second, obstruction is the act of interfering with the administration of justice, and it's illegal. So, no, it's not allowed. He just interfered with two ongoing investigations- potentially biasing future jurors and attempting to influence the outcome of any ongoing investigations into any sitting Republican Congresspeople (and, arguably, these two investigations in particular-
putting clear pressure on the DoJ to let the charges go). He also just violated the DoJ's own statutes.

And SCOTUS has already rules that his tweets are official statements- NOT personal statements. And we've already been over this- there are different rules for a sitting US President than for everyone else.

And all of this is on top of his repeated attempts to pressure the DoJ to go after his political rivals.

These are extraordinarily weak arguments you're making. They're neither accurate legally nor ethically.

This isn't a faithful execution of the law. It's deep political corruption right in front of your face. And the same Republicans who have been decrying "political influence" in the DoJ for the last two years are waving their hands dismissively over actual, concrete political influence on the DoJ.

I don't know why you people just gave up on democracy, but it's nauseating.

[Avaia]

Why should the President not be allowed to call out people?

"Call out people?"

This isn't someone giving his buddy a hard time for bogarting a joint, or lying about taking the last beer in the fridge, or hitting on his girl.

[Astray]

I'm gonna go brush up on some laws. Also get a snack. Healthy one. I swear.

I'll be back after a bit.

[time4fun]

"Call out people?"

This isn't someone giving his buddy a hard time for bogarting a joint, or lying about taking the last beer in the fridge, or hitting on his girl.

"calling out" the DoJ for administering the law without consideration of political party affiliation.

The "rule of law" party strikes again.

[Astray]

"Call out people?"

This isn't someone giving his buddy a hard time for bogarting a joint, or lying about taking the last beer in the fridge, or hitting on his girl.

A poor choice of words, admittedly.

[Tgo01]

The sitting President of the United States shaming the DoJ for NOT engaging in obstruction IS an act of Obstruction, for one.

You're really off your rocker.

[Astray]

So far I'm not finding anything that says a president criticizing the DOJ is considered obstruction. I found the Hatch Act but the President and Vice are exempt.

It's Google Ledger conditioning me to believe whatever I'm told! Damn you, Google!

[Tgo01]

And SCOTUS has already rules that his tweets are official statements- NOT personal statements.

What?

[time4fun]

So far I'm not finding anything that says a president criticizing the DOJ is considered obstruction. I found the Hatch Act but the President and Vice are exempt.

It's Google Ledger conditioning me to believe whatever I'm told! Damn you, Google!

That's because you're intentionally downplaying the situation and are currently looking for the wrong thing. What you're doing is the equivalent of watching someone bludgeon someone else to death with a platform shoe and then coming back and saying, "Welp, I can't find any law against having shoes!".

[Tgo01]

So far I'm not finding anything that says a president criticizing the DOJ is considered obstruction.

Because it's not obstruction. time4fun has no clue what obstruction of justice is.

The very idea that a president merely having an opinion on a court case amounts to obstruction of justice is so absurd I can't even begin to wrap my mind around it.

Remember when Obama stood before news cameras and said Trayvon Martin could have been his son? THAT did far more to possibly influence any future jurors than what Trump said. And while I thought Obama was a dick for stoking racial divisions in such a manner I never once thought "Yup, there it is. Jail time!" Because I'm a normal human being.

[Astray]

What?

Yeah, weird fucking ruling, that.

[Tgo01]

Yeah, weird fucking ruling, that.

I mean it's the first time I'm hearing of it. I'd love to read the ruling on such a case.

[Astray]

That's because you're intentionally downplaying the situation and are currently looking for the wrong thing. What you're doing is the equivalent of watching someone bludgeon someone else to death with a platform shoe and then coming back and saying, "Welp, I can't find any law against having shoes!".

I'd like to see the same encyclopedia of Law you're looking at. Assuming its an actual encyclopedia of law and not your interpretations. Provide an actual link if I'm doing it incorrectly.

[time4fun]

Yeah, weird fucking ruling, that.

About the time that you start finding yourself thinking, "Why that Tgo- he's made a really compelling legal analysis!" is about the time you need to start questioning the life choices that led you to that point.

His characterization of what happened is wholly inaccurate. As is yours. Stop looking for laws about shoes and start looking at the statute for obstruction of justice. Then go find yourself a few SCOTUS cases on the subject to get some clarity on the boundaries of the law.

While you're at it- you can start taking a look at the 1st and 14th amendments.

Finally, go take a look at the DoJ statutes on political motives in their work. I'll give you a freebie- the President is actually legally obligated to follow all relevant DoJ statutes while they are in place. The President can *change* those statutes, but unless and until they do, they're still legally bound to abide by them.


Because no one is above the law

[Tgo01]

His characterization of what happened is wholly inaccurate.

I didn't characterize anything in regards to SCOTUS saying the president's tweets are official statements, I merely asked for a source.

[Astray]

About the time that you start finding yourself thinking, "Why that Tgo- he's made a really compelling legal analysis!" is about the time you need to start questioning the life choices that led you to that point.

Never said anyone was above the law I want to see the specific laws being broken but all you can muster is ad hominem. This is why nobody takes you seriously.

[Avaia]

The very idea that a president merely having an opinion on a court case

You are just being obtuse.

Trump said nothing about the cases themselves(other than to flat-out lie and say they started in the Obama era, when they started last year), he was angry about the timing of the indictments, which might end up costing Republicans two seats.

In case there is any confusion on that point here is a partial quote -


were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time

[Astray]

Trump said nothing about the cases themselves, he was angry about the timing of the indictments, which might end up costing Republicans two seats.

Hey look, my point.

[Tgo01]

You are just being obtuse.

Trump said nothing about the cases themselves(other than to flat-out lie and say they started in the Obama era, when they started last year), he was angry about the timing of the indictments, which might end up costing Republicans two seats.

In case there is any confusion on that point here is a partial quote -

That's still an opinion on a case. Did he instruct the DOJ to drop the charges? Did he instruct the DOJ to only go after Democrats? Did he instruct the DOJ to ignore certain types of crimes in order to shield Republicans?

As far as we know the answer is no.

Having an opinion on the timing of the charges IS just an opinion.

[Astray]

That's still an opinion on a case. Did he instruct the DOJ to drop the charges? Did he instruct the DOJ to only go after Democrats? Did he instruct the DOJ to ignore certain types of crimes in order to shield Republicans?

As far as we know the answer is no.

Having an opinion on the timing of the charges IS just an opinion.

Hey look, my point too.

[Tgo01]

This is the part of the show where time4fun pretends to not see the posts where people are asking her to prove her batshit insane theories.

She will either continue to ignore said posts, attack people for having the nerve to ask her to prove her claims, or she will wait until some minion of hers defends her statements whereupon she will reenter the fray and compliment said minion on being so smart and well educated.

[Fortybox]

Hey look, my point too.

Oh honey ...

You’re not allowed to have that. Trump is a dictator and before you know it we will be Nazi Germany in 2 years or less.

[time4fun]

Never said anyone was above the law I want to see the specific laws being broken but all you can muster is ad hominem. This is why nobody takes you seriously.

So Mr Google- you couldn't bring yourself to look up any of the obstruction statutes or case law? What exactly were you Googling? Apparently I need to do your homework for you.

There are a few relevant statutes when it comes to obstruction (there isn't just one).

The most obvious statutes to this situation are 18 U.S. Code § 1512(b), 1512(c), and 1512(d):



(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to—
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or
(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings

(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—
(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
(2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation 1 supervised release,,1 parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
(3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or
(4) causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding

There are a few decades of case law going back and forth on what constitutes an "official proceeding", but in this instance we're talking about two people who have already been indicted. So that's a moot point. And since he was targeting Jeff Sessions specifically- it also circumvents some of the genuinely confusing case law and statutory law regarding obstruction and FBI Investigations as Sessions and the DoJ lawyers have subpoena power and are directly responsible for communicating to the Judiciary about crimes potentially committed.

In this case, proving the corrupt intent is insanely easy (which is rarely the case when it comes to obstruction- great job Trump). The fact that Trump blatantly factored in the political affiliation of the people being indicted and gave a clear preference for how these cases (and similar ones) should be handled (which, again, is a violation of the 1st Amendment), he has met the bar here. And since he did it loudly, to billions of people, there's no questioning that he said what he said.

Now do I need to do your dishes for you too, or are you ready to start doing your own homework?

[Tgo01]

So Mr Google- you couldn't bring yourself to look up any of the obstruction statutes or case law? What exactly were you Googling? Apparently I need to do your homework for you.

There are a few relevant statutes when it comes to obstruction (there isn't just one).

The most obvious statutes to this situation are 18 U.S. Code § 1512(b), 1512(c), and 1512(d):



There are a few decades of case law going back and forth on what constitutes an "official proceeding", but in this instance we're talking about two people who have already been indicted. So that's a moot point. And since he was targeting Jeff Sessions specifically- it also circumvents some of the genuinely confusing case law and statutory law regarding obstruction and FBI Investigations as Sessions and the DoJ lawyers have subpoena power and are directly responsible for communicating to the Judiciary about crimes potentially committed.

In this case, proving the corrupt intent is insanely easy. The fact that Trump blatantly factored in the political affiliation of the people being indicted (which, again, is a violation of the 1st Amendment), he has met the bar here. And since he did it loudly, to billions of people, there's no questioning that he said what he said.

Now do I need to do your dishes for you too, or are you ready to start doing your own homework?

time4fun now thinks a 280 character tweet from the president amounts to "intimidating, threatening, or corruptly persuading another person." Please provide some examples in those "decades of case law" that shows a president offering his opinion on a matter constitutes obstruction of justice.

Since you're getting around to providing sources can you provide one for what you said about SCOTUS and the president's tweets? I want to read that one.

[Astray]

Now do I need to do your dishes for you too, or are you ready to start doing your own homework?

I have a dish washer already but you can always like, I dunno unload and load the dish washer? I mean that's the only laborious part.

Also, surprisingly, there's no correlation to the examples given because:


Trump said nothing about the cases themselves, he was angry about the timing of the indictments, which might end up costing Republicans two seats.

and


That's still an opinion on a case. Did he instruct the DOJ to drop the charges? Did he instruct the DOJ to only go after Democrats? Did he instruct the DOJ to ignore certain types of crimes in order to shield Republicans?

As far as we know the answer is no.

Having an opinion on the timing of the charges IS just an opinion.

I mean, I know one is from that absolute animal Tgo but one is from someone you agree with, frequently.

[time4fun]

Hey look, my point too.

If you want to know how to handle a situation like this- all you have to do is ask yourself what outcome Trump was hoping to achieve. In this instance, he made it incredibly clear that these cases- and similar ones- should be treated differently for the "corrupt purpose" of administering justice differently depending on your political affiliation. He doesn't even have to know if there are any ongoing investigations into Congressional Republicans (or Democrats- his use of political affiliation is illegal on both sides), as he meets the "reasonably should have known" standard.

And 1512 is specifically geared towards both current and future proceedings.

Contrary to Tgo's attempts at analysis- you don't actually need to explicitly give instructions on what to do as long as a reasonable person would have interpreted their words as instructions. In this instance, he was expressing a clear preference for the proceedings NOT to happen. That's enough to satisfy the statute for both the two cases explicitly mentioned as well as all of the actual or potential cases that meet the same criteria.

[Fortybox]

If you want to know how to handle a situation like this- all you have to do is ask yourself what outcome Trump was hoping to achieve. In this instance, he made it incredibly clear that these cases- and similar ones- should be treated differently for the "corrupt purpose" of administering justice differently depending on your political affiliation. He doesn't even have to know if there are any ongoing investigations into Congressional Republicans (or Democrats- his use of political affiliation is illegal on both sides), as he meets the "reasonably should have known" standard.

And 1512 is specifically geared towards both current and future proceedings.

Contrary to Tgo's attempts at analysis- you don't actually need to explicitly give instructions on what to do as long as a reasonable person would have interpreted their words as instructions. In this instance, he was expressing a clear preference for the proceedings NOT to happen. That's enough to satisfy the statute for both the two cases explicitly mentioned as well as all of the actual or potential cases that meet the same criteria.

I’d hate to see how you analyze your boyfriends texts to you, especially when you’re off your meds.

Go to bed, it’s all going to be ok.

[Tgo01]

Contrary to Tgo's attempts at analysis- you don't actually need to explicitly give instructions on what to do as long as a reasonable person would have interpreted their words as instructions. In this instance, he was expressing a clear preference for the proceedings NOT to happen. That's enough to satisfy the statute for both the two cases explicitly mentioned as well as all of the actual or potential cases that meet the same criteria.

That's all well and fine, time4fun. Now give us some examples of of people being tried and convicted for obstruction of justice for merely saying words that didn't include some sort of threat or intimidation. After all you have decades of case law to draw from.

[time4fun]

PS- and those statutes are only part of the picture. There are still the outstanding issues of Constitutionally prohibited preference for particular political speech over others, the Due Process clause, and DoJ statutes around the improper use of political influence in the administration of Justice.

Trump's tweet potentially runs afoul of A LOT of laws.

[Tgo01]

I’d hate to see how you analyze your boyfriends texts to you, especially when you’re off your meds.

No kidding. Going by this logic I guess we can say she threatens the president's life on a near daily basis with her constant whining. After all clear instructions don't have to be made, she just needs to say what a threat he is to our country and a reasonable person will interpret those words to mean an assassination is in order.

[Tgo01]

There are still the outstanding issues of Constitutionally prohibited preference for particular political speech over others

What the ever living hell are you talking about now?

[Fortybox]

No kidding. Going by this logic I guess we can say she threatens the president's life on a near daily basis with her constant whining. After all clear instructions don't have to be made, she just needs to say what a threat he is to our country and a reasonable person will interpret those words to mean an assassination is in order.

OMG quick! Someone call the authorities!! We need to Jason Bourne this thing NOW.

Operation “Oh Honey...” Activated!!!

[Astray]

Trump's tweet potentially runs afoul of A LOT of laws.

Of course it does. It's not just opinion and lashing out at someone hurting a party. It has to be a conspiracy and collusion and veiled threats made through sub-text. I'd say make a podcast but I can see some InfoWars level shenanigans from you.

[Roiken]

Just stopping in to say Hello.

[RichardCranium]

Just stopping in to say Hello.

Confirmed Roiken is McGuyver.

[Wrathbringer]

This one is just...horrible. Even by this wacko's standards:

Trump criticized Sessions today (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-escalates-attacks-attorney-general-57578467) because the DoJ indicted two sitting Congressional Republicans a few months before the election:

via Twitter:


This is in apparent reference to Duncan Hunter and Chris Collins-
two of his earliest backers in Congress (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/03/politics/donald-trump-jeff-sessions-justice-department/index.html). Collins was charged with 13 counts of securities fraud, wire fraud and making false statements related to an alleged insider trading scheme.
Hunter was indicted for using campaign funds for personal use and were charged with counts of wire fraud, falsifying records, campaign finance violations and conspiracy.

He's already pressured the DoJ to go after his political enemies and former opponents. This is also the same guy who has repeatedly argued that the Mueller investigation is plagued by political bias. Let that one sink in for a moment.

This isn't what draining the swamp looks like. This is what corruption looks like.


Hopefully we are nearing the beginning of the end. This dude's off his rocker. Blue Lives Matter unless they prosecute trumps buddies. His sycophants won't mind though. They are morally flexible.

9141

[Wrathbringer]

So Mr Google- you couldn't bring yourself to look up any of the obstruction statutes or case law? What exactly were you Googling? Apparently I need to do your homework for you.

There are a few relevant statutes when it comes to obstruction (there isn't just one).

The most obvious statutes to this situation are 18 U.S. Code § 1512(b), 1512(c), and 1512(d):



There are a few decades of case law going back and forth on what constitutes an "official proceeding", but in this instance we're talking about two people who have already been indicted. So that's a moot point. And since he was targeting Jeff Sessions specifically- it also circumvents some of the genuinely confusing case law and statutory law regarding obstruction and FBI Investigations as Sessions and the DoJ lawyers have subpoena power and are directly responsible for communicating to the Judiciary about crimes potentially committed.

In this case, proving the corrupt intent is insanely easy (which is rarely the case when it comes to obstruction- great job Trump). The fact that Trump blatantly factored in the political affiliation of the people being indicted and gave a clear preference for how these cases (and similar ones) should be handled (which, again, is a violation of the 1st Amendment), he has met the bar here. And since he did it loudly, to billions of people, there's no questioning that he said what he said.

Now do I need to do your dishes for you too, or are you ready to start doing your own homework?

TR;DR

[Neveragain]

Now do I need to do your dishes for you too,

This is real progress, you have finally found your role.

http://2.media.dorkly.cvcdn.com/74/23/04f85f0ef4d2ce4e232820ded0ca9e41.gif

[Parkbandit]

This one is just...horrible.

This is why we constantly laugh at your lack of any emotional control.



That tweet- alone- should warrant impeachment.

This is why we constantly remind you that you know absolutely nothing about what you pretend you do.

[Parkbandit]

That's a great point. I've never thought he'd bring an indictment against trump but the idea that he may exonerate trump is an uncomfortable thought. It could happen though and people are going to freak out if it does.


https://media.giphy.com/media/4OIYjQm2pI3za/giphy.gif

Can you imagine the fucking meltdown?

God.. that is going to be amazing to watch.

[Astray]

Can you imagine the fucking meltdown?

Holy shit.

[time4fun]

Of course it does. It's not just opinion and lashing out at someone hurting a party. It has to be a conspiracy and collusion and veiled threats made through sub-text. I'd say make a podcast but I can see some InfoWars level shenanigans from you.

Sorry, but SCOTUS says you're wrong. Also LOL at this being "subtext".

And after whining that I didn't produce relevant statutes for you, it's telling that you are pointedly ignoring them now.

Finally, though I know the angre conservative possee loves to pull the "Oh I wasn't being serious so I wasn't really wrong" line, it's a cheap ploy that doesn't work in online forums and certainly doesn't work for POTUS

[Parkbandit]

I don't think anyone is expecting an indictment.


Mueller indictments inc


Trump will be person 1 in the indictments.

https://media.giphy.com/media/l1J3xPxP80PSFvXeo/giphy.gif

[Parkbandit]

PS- and those statutes are only part of the picture. There are still the outstanding issues of Constitutionally prohibited preference for particular political speech over others, the Due Process clause, and DoJ statutes around the improper use of political influence in the administration of Justice.

Trump's tweet potentially runs afoul of A LOT of laws.

https://media.giphy.com/media/2Tn10AXN6B98k/giphy.gif

[Astray]

Sorry, but SCOTUS says you're wrong.

A majority say you're wrong about much of what you typically say. I still attempt to reach out and have discussions with you.


And after whining that I didn't produce relevant statutes for you, it's telling that you are pointedly ignoring them now.

I don't recall whining but sure, why not. My request for you to back up your emotional ranting with factual laws or information is totally me whining. I apologize if it appears I'm ignoring your information but again, your constant attempts to appeal to emotions to hide your bullshit definitely makes you very hard to respond to. In a serious manner, at least.


angre conservative possee

Uh huh. Keep telling yourself that an angry conservative posse exists to attack you personally. I'm sure that's not a response based out of anger because people are disagreeing with you. It really makes discussions appealing.

[Methais]

Yeah. At this point in time he's so drunk on his own sense of importance that he actually thought that tweet would be a good idea. I can't believe I now live in a country where the President feels comfortable directing the Justice Department not to indict anyone of the majority party before an election.

I can't believe I live in a country where about 1/3 of the voters are likely okay with that fact.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/103/802/918.png


I still believe

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oEhmKIPQeB2YUH9C0/200.gif

[Methais]

9140

time4fun is the troll

Try to keep up.

[Methais]

Trump will be person 1 in the indictments.

Quoted so you'll have a harder time scrubbing this post after nothing happens.

[Tgo01]

Sorry, but SCOTUS says you're wrong. Also LOL at this being "subtext".

Can you please provide a source showing that SCOTUS said a president's tweets are official statements?

[Methais]

So first- he lied. Those "Obama-era investigations" were both started during the Trump administration. I know you all have become extremely comfortable with the daily assault on the truth that his administration has come to embody, but it's actually not okay.

Second, obstruction is the act of interfering with the administration of justice, and it's illegal. So, no, it's not allowed. He just interfered with two ongoing investigations- potentially biasing future jurors and attempting to influence the outcome of any ongoing investigations into any sitting Republican Congresspeople (and, arguably, these two investigations in particular-
putting clear pressure on the DoJ to let the charges go). He also just violated the DoJ's own statutes.

And SCOTUS has already rules that his tweets are official statements- NOT personal statements. And we've already been over this- there are different rules for a sitting US President than for everyone else.

And all of this is on top of his repeated attempts to pressure the DoJ to go after his political rivals.

These are extraordinarily weak arguments you're making. They're neither accurate legally nor ethically.

This isn't a faithful execution of the law. It's deep political corruption right in front of your face. And the same Republicans who have been decrying "political influence" in the DoJ for the last two years are waving their hands dismissively over actual, concrete political influence on the DoJ.

I don't know why you people just gave up on democracy, but it's nauseating.

You are seriously the most chronically triggered person I've ever come across in my entire life.

It's extra funny because you think your retard fueled emotional outbursts and overly dramatic posts matter and that you're important and that people* here, or anywhere at all, take you seriously.

*Not to confuse "people" with walking sacks of skin like soywolff

[Methais]

This is the part of the show where time4fun pretends to not see the posts where people are asking her to prove her batshit insane theories.

She will either continue to ignore said posts, attack people for having the nerve to ask her to prove her claims, or she will wait until some minion of hers defends her statements whereupon she will reenter the fray and compliment said minion on being so smart and well educated.

This is correct.

Also, if they've already been indicted, what supposedly got obstructed by Trump's tweet, and how?

[Methais]

Just stopping in to say Hello.

https://media.giphy.com/media/xT9IgG50Fb7Mi0prBC/giphy.gif


TR;DR

This is correct.


A majority say you're wrong about much of what you typically say. I still attempt to reach out and have discussions with you.



I don't recall whining but sure, why not. My request for you to back up your emotional ranting with factual laws or information is totally me whining. I apologize if it appears I'm ignoring your information but again, your constant attempts to appeal to emotions to hide your bullshit definitely makes you very hard to respond to. In a serious manner, at least.



Uh huh. Keep telling yourself that an angry conservative posse exists to attack you personally. I'm sure that's not a response based out of anger because people are disagreeing with you. It really makes discussions appealing.

https://i.imgur.com/5kC5Yen.gif

[Parkbandit]

Trump will be person 1 in the indictments.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/7bbfe802f8f3fe73769ec1dfebf852dc/tenor.gif?itemid=10972959

[Methais]

Trump will be person 1 in the indictments.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/7bbfe802f8f3fe73769ec1dfebf852dc/tenor.gif?itemid=10972959

https://media1.tenor.com/images/7bbfe802f8f3fe73769ec1dfebf852dc/tenor.gif?itemid=10972959

https://media1.tenor.com/images/7bbfe802f8f3fe73769ec1dfebf852dc/tenor.gif?itemid=10972959


https://media1.tenor.com/images/ff3b4f84200cade0de517f46d91f8bf6/tenor.gif?itemid=9250594

[Parkbandit]

Trump will be person 1 in the indictments.
https://media1.tenor.com/images/7bbfe802f8f3fe73769ec1dfebf852dc/tenor.gif?itemid=10972959
https://media1.tenor.com/images/7bbfe802f8f3fe73769ec1dfebf852dc/tenor.gif?itemid=10972959

https://media1.tenor.com/images/7bbfe802f8f3fe73769ec1dfebf852dc/tenor.gif?itemid=10972959