Random Politics & Religion #37: W/ Bubba The Love Sponge

This whole obstruction of justice thing with Trump is the same as Hillary's emails but with both parties flipped around.

The Hypocrisy on both sides is quite appalling and I'm sure we will hear about both of them for years to come.

Regardless neither were found guilty and we sort of just have to live with our personal opinions at this point.

I'm sorry what? This statement is pretty whack and a clear head rewrite of history. Comey got blasted by Dems multiples times during the investigation, don't make up some story about how he was on her side. That is some next level info-wars-alex-jones thing.

What is also incorrect is your statement on Mueller.


Straight from the Wiki.

I'm all for coming to a common ground, but don't change the past to make the present argument better. Comey and Mueller did their job as they were supposed to, stop knocking good men.

It not the same, though. Hillary carried through her obstruction, and Trump's obstruction only occurred if you think it's illegal for him to exercise his Presidential powers, which he never did anyway. Beyond that, the charges against Trump are essentially based on hearsay testimony. Nobody can dispute that Clinton destroyed evidence.

As for your last two paragraphs, I'll concede on those points.

My opinions of Comey and Mueller are not InfoWars level nonsense. Just look at the things that Comey had said after the fact. He even wrote a book that backs up my statements about his partisanship. Mueller's team was chock full of Democrats and he is now self-leaking things to liberal news outlets at politically opportune times. These men aren't non-partisan saints, they're fallible humans with perceivable flaws.

Hillary's actions is prosecutable. Bleach-bitting your hard drives is absolutely obstructing justice.

Claiming you didn’t do what someone accused you off is not obstruction.

See my last post. They are not the same at all.

I conceded the first point a bit. The case against Hillary was more material while the case against Trump is more mental. That being said, Obstruction of justice doesn't have to be material. It can include forms of intimidation. The President of the united states seeking to fire someone who is doing the investigation, while it may be within his rights, can still be seen as intimidating and a potential impediment to an investigation.

Its a lot easier to rationalize or prove that material evidence being destroyed hurts an investigation as opposed to an act being intimidating or an act's intent was to obstruct an investigation (Whether it worked or not)

Other things like offering Manafort a pardon, urging Comey to stop the investigation, trying to end the investigation through sessions and telling McGahn to deny his attempt at firing Comey certainly don't look well in that department though.

Given that they couldn't pin obstruction of Justice on Hillary, I can understand why it would be harder to pin that on Trump though.

This is kind of twisting the accusation to suit your view. No one is claiming that Trump simply saying "I didn't do this" is obstruction of justice. People are citing many other things (Like listed above).

Nope, that's part of the "we can't tell if this is obstruction" BS that's in Mueller's report. One example is the countless times Trump claimed it to be a witch hunt (it is). Mueller claims that proclaiming your innocence in such a manner could possibly be interpreted as witness intimidation.

This is where the left is now, proclaiming one's innocence in a crime there is no evidence of, is now being twisted to become obstruction of justice. If that gets knocked down, they will run to whatever other corner they have to where "i feel like trump is illegitimate" can still exist. They don't have any serious agenda items, this socialist paradise is going to be rejected in a landslide in 2020

It is beyond pathetic, it's downright dangerous for everyone, even lefties to permit such justification to be vindicated.

Furthermore, all this is happening when Barr is about to expose the biggest political scandal in our lifetimes. 10x the scandal of Watergate, and all 100% the fault of democrats and the legacy media.

You'd have to prove intent and not assume you. You are assuming intent and retroactively applying it, that's not possible in an actual court.

Comey was definitely on Hillary's side as he believed her to be the next President and didn't want her to retaliate against him. That being said, there wasn't sufficient evidence that she had the intent to destroy evidence and prevent witness's from testifying.

Earlier I said obstruction of justice was ridiculously hard to prove, and this is why. It's not enough that a person does an action that damages an investigation, hell that happens every day. No they need to do that action with the explicit intent of harming that investigation. Nuking drives is a standard IT practice for decommissioning equipment, same with wiping cellphones. Now we can argue the optics of this action, it's very coincidental and all, but you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hillary Clinton ~ordered~ the evidence destroyed with the ~intent~ of preventing her prosecution. If any of her underlings decided to "do it on their own", they she is innocent of obstruction charges.

Disagreeing with the anointed high priests of the one true faith is grounds for execution. So says Das Capital.

And it's not they "couldn't" pin it on Hillary, they just didn't. She had to be let off the hook. Remember, everyone thought she was going to be president, and you can't have a president come in under a legal scandal right? I mean look at how people have reacted to Trump. You had a fake scandal right away and it has been a drag on his presidency.

Spygate/Russiagate is how Hillary and the rest of the team tried to cover up their coup. By projecting their crimes onto Trump. "Nonono I didn't collude with a foreign entity, Trump did, go investigate him."

That's ridiculous, and everyone knows it. There is no other intent behind actively destroying data under subpoena.

The only way that skirts by is if you actively have an investigator look the other way and act stupid.

Hey remember when everyone said shutting down the government would tank the economy? Except it didn't and the economy BOOMED at 3.2% for the quarter we had the shutdown in.

Legitmate Lie. He re-opened the investigation after getting new information in a crucial point in the election. What on earth do you have to take to convince yourself this is true.



Yea sound like a driveling Hillary supporter when faced with her accusations. You don't even argue the points against you and just keep arguing off the same defaced point.

Again, since it is hard to understand, there is more substantial standing in the case against Trump than just him saying "I didn't do it". There are testimonials from real people who claimed that he attempted to intervene and stop the investigation, that is an action. Though we can't prove his intent, there is more substance to that than drool you are spitting out right now.


Also given the current legal standards and how court operates, it looks like its damn hard to get hit with obstruction of justice. Like anything outside of a full blown confession could be seen as a non-imposing intent.

Firing Mueller would not have ended the investigation. Those two things are not mutually exclusive actions.

They only are in delusional lefty heads who still cant get over loosing 2016.

or mutually inclusive (whichever one I mean)

The Trump shutdown caused a .3% loss, lol. So when that number gets revised down, the shutdown will have stopped it from being over 3%, but hey, its nausi, he thinks records are being set.

And everyone knows Trump was obstructing justice and colluding with the Russians.

That is how silly you sound when you make those statements, kinda like this guy.


Emails, memos and text messages say otherwise. Comey did what was required of his job as the director of the FBI. The director has a certain amount of discretion on how hard to push investigations, he choose not to go too deep into Hillary because she was the next President. He rightly surmised that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove intent and that no one in the Justice Department would actually prosecute anything.

We'll just add math to the list of ***you don't know.

Facebook bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and others from its platforms as 'dangerous'
CNN

I will bet you 0.2 interwebs that the entire Republican party will be up in arms about this. (Well, to be far, not the infowars part I hope.)

Yeah, Trump obstructed justice against and investigation into a crime that there's no evidence ever occurred.

Meanwhile Hillary literally trafficked in classified information and destroyed data under subpoena because she was "extremely careless".

And then there were 21 ...


No. 21: Another Democrat Joins the Race
Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet is in

lol, trying to steal my insults makes me laugh every time, especially since its always wrong.

Hillary Clinton did not destroy the data, she wasn't in the room with a hammer or typing in the commands to initiate a wipe. She probably things a terminal is a type of cancer.

What you want to say is that Hillary Clinton was responsible for those actions, and you'd have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. You would need a communication from Hillary Clinton directing someone on her staff to do these actions with the explicit intent of impeding the investigation.

That is the standard that obstruction is held to. 9/10th's of the time intent is proven through self incrimination via interviews when the police ask probing questions and get the person to say something along the lines of "I tried/intended/did destroy item X" and "they believed at that time destroying item X would impede the investigation". That obviously didn't happen for Hillary and thus there was insufficient evidence to prosecute.

Nyt confirms obama admin used multiple spies against the trump campaign.

If there was no collusion (there wasn’t) why were they there?

MORE IMPORTANTLY! The New York Times, the Liberal bastion of freedom and hope and everything holy and sacred to them, full of so much righteous unbiased journalism, is confirming that their Messiah used spies against Trump Campaign????????????????????????????

Shurely you jest! They would never throw their messiah to the wolves. NEVAR!

Someone, go check on Vic. His heart may have stopped.

Im good skull, thanks for asking!