• 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!

Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge[W:68]

Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

I am guessing because of the familiarity with laws supposedly gives them a better feel for how legislation should be worded and drafted, but I think that ship has sailed.
I was being sarcastically ironic

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

We know hilliary deystroyed emails and she was wrong for doing it. Its not a question of if, its fact. The defense revolved entirely around intent. Explain to me this big difference again?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Fact check: Trump’s claim Clinton destroyed emails after getting a subpoena from Congress

When arguing, you should use facts instead of trusting in saint trump's word.

So, if she had been busted for criminal behavior, I'd be all to happy to see her taken down. She was investigated and I've yet to see those charges beyond accusations from the right-wing conspriacy echo-chamber.
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

Fact check: Trump’s claim Clinton destroyed emails after getting a subpoena from Congress

When arguing, you should use facts instead of trusting in saint trump's word.

So, if she had been busted for criminal behavior, I'd be all to happy to see her taken down. She was investigated and I've yet to see those charges beyond accusations from the right-wing conspriacy echo-chamber.
I wasnt taking trumps word for it. Im going off of the fbi investigation. They concluded she wrongly deleted emails but that it was not enough evidence to conclude intent.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

I feel if they investigate... and they did, and they find prosecutable criminal behavior, then they should prosecute. Apparently that hackery you smell is coming from within the bubble you live in.

You lecture from the top of a mountain of hypocrisy. Don't talk to me about hackery, yours is glaringly obvious.
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

You lecture from the top of a mountain of hypocrisy. Don't talk to me about hackery, yours is glaringly obvious.

Which is why I'm saying I'd be fine with Clinton or any dem going to jail if they are criminals.... because I'm a partisan hack you say? :lol:

Chin up young person. There's plenty daylight left for you to get served even more.
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

The first two Articles of Nixon's impeachment:

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]ARTICLE I, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE


ARTICLE II, ABUSE OF POWER.

[/FONT]
Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

I'm not saying Trump will be impeached for this, but it would behoove you to acquaint yourself with the facts and read the text of the Articles.

An impeachment is not a act of law. It is an act of politics. It is a political charge that must be "adjudicated" in the senate. It didn't get that far with Nixon because he resigned. It didn't get that far with Clinton either because the "adjudication" would have gone in his favor. The major difference between the current situation and Watergate is that Watergate involved a crime. The current situation is just politics. It won't go anywhere.
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

Which is why I'm saying I'd be fine with Clinton or any dem going to jail if they are criminals.... because I'm a partisan hack you say? :lol:

Chin up young person. There's plenty daylight left for you to get served even more.

Which is why you have already lied. Enough hackery from your keyboard.
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

Which is why you have already lied. Enough hackery from your keyboard.

Stop crying already. Every time you spout off at me you get pwned. One would think you'd have learned by now. :lol:
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

Stop crying already. Every time you spout off at me you get pwned. One would think you'd have learned by now. :lol:

More arrogance, Comey himself knew there wasn't basis for obstruction, so did Dem leadership. Only partisan hacks think its obstruction.
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

An impeachment is not a act of law. It is an act of politics. It is a political charge that must be "adjudicated" in the senate. It didn't get that far with Nixon because he resigned. It didn't get that far with Clinton either because the "adjudication" would have gone in his favor. The major difference between the current situation and Watergate is that Watergate involved a crime. The current situation is just politics. It won't go anywhere.

I didn't know you were privy to the details of the FBI investigation. Maybe you can share what no one else publicly knows.

That would be awesome. Please, Mr. Insider, do tell. We're on tenterhooks!
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

An impeachment is not a act of law. It is an act of politics. It is a political charge that must be "adjudicated" in the senate. It didn't get that far with Nixon because he resigned. It didn't get that far with Clinton either because the "adjudication" would have gone in his favor. The major difference between the current situation and Watergate is that Watergate involved a crime. The current situation is just politics. It won't go anywhere.

The trial in the United States Senate began right after the seating of the 106th Congress, in which the Republican Party began with 55 senators. A two-thirds vote (67 senators) was required to remove Clinton from office. Fifty senators voted to remove Clinton on the obstruction of justice charge and 45 voted to remove him on the perjury charge; no member of his own Democratic Party voted guilty on either charge. Clinton, like Johnson a century earlier, was acquitted on all charges.

If that is what you mean by "adjudicated in the Senate" it most certainly was.
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

The trial in the United States Senate began right after the seating of the 106th Congress, in which the Republican Party began with 55 senators. A two-thirds vote (67 senators) was required to remove Clinton from office. Fifty senators voted to remove Clinton on the obstruction of justice charge and 45 voted to remove him on the perjury charge; no member of his own Democratic Party voted guilty on either charge. Clinton, like Johnson a century earlier, was acquitted on all charges.

If that is what you mean by "adjudicated in the Senate" it most certainly was.

That is what I meant and thanks.
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

I didn't know you were privy to the details of the FBI investigation. Maybe you can share what no one else publicly knows.

That would be awesome. Please, Mr. Insider, do tell. We're on tenterhooks!

I wrote based on the fact that there is no evidence of crime aside from Flynn's illegal lying. If there were it would have been headlines in the liberal press. Perhaps, Mr. Insider, you can show us some evidence. We're on tenderhooks.
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

I wrote based on the fact that there is no evidence of crime aside from Flynn's illegal lying. If there were it would have been headlines in the liberal press. Perhaps, Mr. Insider, you can show us some evidence. We're on tenderhooks.

^ Lazy and lame assumption.

Tsk.
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

There is what Trump did and there what can legally be proven he did.

I think it is fair to say it would be difficult to legally prove obstruction of justice.

But to the Trump supporters who say they don't believe Trump was trying to pressure Comey into dropping the case, I do not believe you. You know good and well what Trump was trying to do. Just as we KNOW Hillary kept that private server to get around FOIA requirements. You have to be the most partisan of partisans to not admit you believe that.

It isn't good enough for a court of law but it is good enough to base a personal opinion on.

I don't agree. I think Trump was tired of the witch hunt and knows he did nothing wrong as far as collusion with the Russians. I think he said what he believed and that is there is no case just a witch hunt that is obstructing his getting anything done he promised. I believe this because of the way he was wanting Comey to tell the news exactly what he told Trump that Trump was not under investigation. Instead Comey refused to tell the truth and by doing so perpetuated the lie. I think Comey has been intentionally perpetuating lies, grandstanding, and creating nothing but chaos for both parties trying to be another Hoover whose shoes he could never fill. I think Trump had the courage to get rid of this bad apple in my opinion.
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

^ Lazy and lame assumption.

Tsk.

So you have no evidence. Don't feel bad. Nobody else does either.
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

So you have no evidence. Don't feel bad. Nobody else does either.


Frustrating as hell for you the FBI investigators aren't tipping you off, eh?

Of this I am sure: your posts will not age well.
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

Moderator's Warning:
Please stop the personal commentary and stick to the topic of the thread. Which does not include you two.

Which is why you have already lied. Enough hackery from your keyboard.

Stop crying already. Every time you spout off at me you get pwned. One would think you'd have learned by now. :lol:
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

Frustrating as hell for you the FBI investigators aren't tipping you off, eh?

Of this I am sure: your posts will not age well.

I guess your crystal ball is clearer than mine.
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

I don't agree. I think Trump was tired of the witch hunt and knows he did nothing wrong as far as collusion with the Russians.

The issue with this is that I think most credible people could not imagine a WORSE way to behave if that were true.
Trump basically did like 50 things in response, and 50 of them were entirely wrong, improper made him look like he's covering up, or made him look entirely incompetent (hiring Flynn for example).

So you have either a guilty Trump (likely money ties to Russia, not collusion directly), or you have a guy that is so stupid it's absolutely staggering.

It's a lose/lose.
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

No, Trumps alleged words are not obstruction. However, Clinton literally destroyed evidence and Comey let her go. There is our precedent.
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

The issue with this is that I think most credible people could not imagine a WORSE way to behave if that were true.
Trump basically did like 50 things in response, and 50 of them were entirely wrong, improper made him look like he's covering up, or made him look entirely incompetent (hiring Flynn for example).

So you have either a guilty Trump (likely money ties to Russia, not collusion directly), or you have a guy that is so stupid it's absolutely staggering.

It's a lose/lose.
Are money ties with russia illegal? Is this true for all oberseas buisiness holdings and does it apply to everyone in congress or just the potus?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

The issue with this is that I think most credible people could not imagine a WORSE way to behave if that were true.
Trump basically did like 50 things in response, and 50 of them were entirely wrong, improper made him look like he's covering up, or made him look entirely incompetent (hiring Flynn for example).

So you have either a guilty Trump (likely money ties to Russia, not collusion directly), or you have a guy that is so stupid it's absolutely staggering.

It's a lose/lose.

Trump clearly had business dealings with people in Russia. Again how is that sign of guilt. So no one can be elected to office who has had business dealings with other countries.

What about Flynn? Seems he was a great guy until he switched parties. I am still waiting for proof he colluded with the Russians. He lied abut his dealings with Russia but there is still no evidence he discussed anything illegal with the Russians. If so why has he not been indicted and prosecuted. It seems like there is a lot of speculation but where are the criminal charges and prosecutions. I see lots of witch hunts but no witch yet.
 
Re: Yes, President Trump, ‘I Hope’ Can Be Basis for Obstruction of Justice Charge

Trump clearly had business dealings with people in Russia. Again how is that sign of guilt. So no one can be elected to office who has had business dealings with other countries. What about Flynn? Seems he was a great guy until he switched parties. I am still waiting for proof he colluded with the Russians. He lied abut his dealings with Russia but there is still no evidence he discussed anything illegal with the Russians. If so why has he not been indicted and prosecuted. It seems like there is a lot of speculation but where are the criminal charges and prosecutions. I see lots of witch hunts but no witch yet.

What are you talking about? Mueller is investigating the Russian meddling in the U.S. election that factually occurred. It's Russia, they can't be charged with "crimes", it's run as a counter intelligence investigation. It's an act of aggression from a hostile world power, it's worse than a ****ing obstruction of justice charge, good gods man.

The question is, why are you wanting Mueller to stop investigating Russia?
Why would Trump consistently attempt to interfere with this investigation? Why hasn't he once asked about how bad the Russian meddling was of the FBI? He's either entirely unwilling or incapable of being concerned about it, or he's trying to make it go away for other reasons....

None of these options are good, why are you defending him on this?! If he has nothing to hide, why didn't he come clean months ago, release his tax records, and cooperate? It would all be over by now where Trump is concerned.
 
Back
Top Bottom