• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Priebus notes confirming Comey another tool for Robert Mueller - MSNBC (1 Viewer)

ludin said:
Or lynch for that matter.
By heir standard both should be arrested and brought up on charges.
Click to expand...

Yep, they often do things like this where they point at something being wrong, and they are guilty of worse. How about the stories from the NY Times and WaPo pushing the Russia story, at the same time revealing that Trump's team was being spied on by the Obama administration and illegally leaking information to those newspapers.

The ends justifies the means, do as I say, not as I due. Rock solid truths about the Democrat party.
 
ludin said:
You are making the conspiracy. I simply point out why you were wrong.
Backup by news sources and lawyers.

Yes you have the drank the TDS koolaid.

It wasn't old and had to do with your topic.
You chose not to read it because it pretty much detroys what you presented.
Click to expand...

Trump obstructed justice not once but twice: first, when he asked Comey to let his investigation of Flynn 'go', and second, when he fired Comey after he refused to do so. What part of this law don't you grasp? You people seem to have a mental block on such simple issues. It must come from drinkng that Kool-Aid: the phrase suggests that one has mindlessly adopted the dogma of a group or leader without fully understanding the ramifications or implications.

Obstruction of justice
Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . 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, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.
 
Last edited:
JacksinPA said:
Trump obstructed justice not once but twice: first, when he asked Comey to let his investigation of Flynn 'go', and second, when he fired Comey after he refused to do so. What part of this law don't you grasp? You people seem to have a mental block on such simple issues. It must come from drinkng that Kool-Aid: the phrase suggests that one has mindlessly adopted the dogma of a group or leader without fully understanding the ramifications or implications.

Obstruction of justice
Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . 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, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.
Click to expand...

So did obama and lynch I didn't hear you complaining about that.

Lynch asked comey to not call clintons emails an investigation.
Obama publicly stated that she shouldn't be charged.

So if those are not obstruction gen what trump did was not obstruction either.
He can fire comey for whatever reason he wants. Also that did not impede the investigation.

Yes TDS does exactly what you describe.

If you would have read he links I posted instead of ignoring them then you would have been informed as to why it isn't obstruction.
Instead you continue to double down.

Not only that but comey admitted in court under testimony that he was not impeded in his investigation.

Even so he could have ordered comey to stop he investigation and it still wouldn't have been obstruction as that is he power of the presidency.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...50d0b15f83b_story.html?utm_term=.02689caffa2a

Here is another link that shows why it isn't obstruction.
Not that you will pay attention to it either.
 
JacksinPA said:
Priebus notes confirming Comey another tool for Robert Mueller | MSNBC

Priebus took detailed notes of everything said or done in the WH. Mueller now his these notes which corroborate Comey's testimony that Trump asked him to drop his investigation of Flynn, which is obstruction of justice.

Obstruction of justice

Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . 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, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.

A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.

§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.
Click to expand...



What's missing is the exact wording of the Priebus notes put side-by-side with a written recollection by Comey. That could make a big difference in analyzing this matter.

Criminal intent means the intent to knowingly do something wrong or forbidden, by law and refers to the state of mind that leads to an act, especially a forbidden act, and know that act is wrong or illegal. Because intent is a state of mind, it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstance.

I’m thinking there are a lot of posters that would be open to the possibility that Trump really believes he did, allegedly did, nothing wrong.
 
JacksinPA said:
Trump obstructed justice not once but twice: first, when he asked Comey to let his investigation of Flynn 'go', and second, when he fired Comey after he refused to do so. What part of this law don't you grasp? You people seem to have a mental block on such simple issues. It must come from drinkng that Kool-Aid: the phrase suggests that one has mindlessly adopted the dogma of a group or leader without fully understanding the ramifications or implications.

Obstruction of justice
Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . 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, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.
Click to expand...

Trump asking Comey to go easy on Flynn does not fit your own definition of obstruction. Nor does firing Comey, which the president can do for any reason. Remember, Comey told Trump he was not under investigation.
 
bluesmoke said:
What's missing is the exact wording of the Priebus notes put side-by-side with a written recollection by Comey. That could make a big difference in analyzing this matter.
Click to expand...
Priebus wasn't in the room, so how would he know what was said?
 
Fletch said:
Priebus wasn't in the room, so how would he know what was said?
Click to expand...



Tell that to the poster of the OP, who said "these notes (of Priebus) which corroborate Comey's testimony that Trump asked him to drop his investigation of Flynn", not me. To be clear, I was not in the room either.
 
Last edited:
bluesmoke said:
Tell that to the poster of the OP, who said "these notes (of Priebus) which corroborate Comey's testimony that Trump asked him to drop his investigation of Flynn", not me.
Click to expand...

Ok. I just took the opportunity to point out the obvious fact that Priebus would not know what was said because only Trump and Comey were in the room. Not sure what value any notes would be from people who weren't there. It seems like just another fake news story.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
How much do you want to bet that Pence keeps great notes too?

These guys have at least that much sense.
Click to expand...

Yes they do, and Mueller has enough sense to get hold of those notes and compare them as part of his criminal investigation.
 
JacksinPA said:
Priebus notes confirming Comey another tool for Robert Mueller | MSNBC

Priebus took detailed notes of everything said or done in the WH. Mueller now his these notes which corroborate Comey's testimony that Trump asked him to drop his investigation of Flynn, which is obstruction of justice.

Obstruction of justice

Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . 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, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.

A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.

§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.
Click to expand...

If there was evidence for obstruction of justice then the investigation would already be over. It keeps going on because there is no provable evidence. The best thing Mueller has is interpretations of what Trump said and that is not enough evidence to find anyone guilty of anything. What Trump said can be interpreted in a few different ways. Only Trump knows inside his head what the true interpretation is.
 
Moderate Right said:
If there was evidence for obstruction of justice then the investigation would already be over. It keeps going on because there is no provable evidence. The best thing Mueller has is interpretations of what Trump said and that is not enough evidence to find anyone guilty of anything. What Trump said can be interpreted in a few different ways. Only Trump knows inside his head what the true interpretation is.
Click to expand...

There is already evidence of 3 instances of Trump obstructing justice: one, when he asked Comey to let his investigation of Flynn 'go', two, when he fired Comey for refusing to do so, and three, when he fabricated lies about the nature of the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians being about orphans, which was a lie. See the highlighted portions of the law:

Obstruction of justice

Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . 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, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to interfere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or interfering with the duties of jurors or court officers.

Definition of corruption (legal):

CORRUPTION. An act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. It includes bribery, but is more comprehensive; because an act may be corruptly done, though the advantage to be derived from it be not offered by another.
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
If there was evidence for obstruction of justice then the investigation would already be over. It keeps going on because there is no provable evidence. The best thing Mueller has is interpretations of what Trump said and that is not enough evidence to find anyone guilty of anything. What Trump said can be interpreted in a few different ways. Only Trump knows inside his head what the true interpretation is.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have insider information on what the Mueller team knows. Do share it with us. Did you hear it from Mueller himself?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
If Mueller has to go with Obstruction of justice then the investigation found nothing that he could use.

Will the Congress Critters be guilt tripped into support of the charge?

I think yes, and then the nation will really crack into two.
Click to expand...

What do you think he was obstructing? Flynn has been indicted for criminal offenses already.
 
JacksinPA said:
There is already evidence of 3 instances of Trump obstructing justice: one, when he asked Comey to let his investigation of Flynn 'go', two, when he fired Comey for refusing to do so, and three, when he fabricated lies about the nature of the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians being about orphans, which was a lie. See the highlighted portions of the law:

Obstruction of justice

Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . 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, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to interfere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or interfering with the duties of jurors or court officers.

Definition of corruption (legal):

CORRUPTION. An act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. It includes bribery, but is more comprehensive; because an act may be corruptly done, though the advantage to be derived from it be not offered by another.
Click to expand...

Then there was no need for an investigation.
 
tres borrachos said:
Sounds like you have insider information on what the Mueller team knows. Do share it with us. Did you hear it from Mueller himself?
Click to expand...

I'm going off what lefties on here have said. They claim right from the getgo that it was obvious that Trump obstructed justice and still tout it even if this thread. If the evidence was so obvious right from the very beginning then there was no need for an investigation.
 
Moderate Right said:
I'm going off what lefties on here have said. They claim right from the getgo that it was obvious that Trump obstructed justice and still tout it even if this thread. If the evidence was so obvious right from the very beginning then there was no need for an investigation.
Click to expand...

So in other words, no, you have no information. You just decided it because "lefties". Got it.
 
iguanaman said:
What do you think he was obstructing? Flynn has been indicted for criminal offenses already.
Click to expand...

Mueller will claim that talking to and firing the FBI Director is a criminal offense, and recommend impeachment, if he cant find any illegal contact between the campaign and the Russians. I hope that this gets taken as proof of Trumps innocence in the matter, and that Mueller gets ignored.
 
Fletch said:
Ok. I just took the opportunity to point out the obvious fact that Priebus would not know what was said because only Trump and Comey were in the room. Not sure what value any notes would be from people who weren't there. It seems like just another fake news story.
Click to expand...



Yeah. Once you mentioned it, I remember the news story that Comey said only he and Trump were in the room at the time. I forgot that part when I made my "comparison" remark.
 
JacksinPA said:
Priebus notes confirming Comey another tool for Robert Mueller | MSNBC

Priebus took detailed notes of everything said or done in the WH. Mueller now his these notes which corroborate Comey's testimony that Trump asked him to drop his investigation of Flynn, which is obstruction of justice.

Obstruction of justice

Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . 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, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.

A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.

§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.
Click to expand...

I don't think this will amount to very much unless a Grand Jury can get Reince Priebus on the witness stand. It's exactly as what Mr. Rosenberg said: The notes by themselves mean nothing. The notes w/Priebus' testimony may make a difference. It all depends on what's in his notes and whether or not Priebus is willing to confirm his notes (assuming there is something damaging to the POTUS in them) or perjure himself and go all out to protect Pres. Trump.

If Priebus takes the stand but pleads the 5th during that line of questioning where he has to confirm his notes, you may end up at the same dead-end as you would as if his notes never existed. So, much of this really depends on Priebus' willingness to fully cooperate and that's assuming he's ever called to be a witness at some future trial.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom