Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't say it stopped the investigation. Obstruction does not have to succeed...it is the ATTEMPT or INTENT to impede an investigation.
So, please tell us how firing comey, was an attempt or intent to impede the investigation, since the investigation never stopped, according to you...the investigation never stopped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dothetwist
Here's definition:
Q: What does it mean to "obstruct justice?"
A: Generally, any act that is intended to interfere with the administration of justice may constitute obstruction of justice. There are many different kinds of obstruction of justice that are covered by different federal and state statutes. For example, separate federal statutes cover obstruction of court orders, obstruction of criminal investigations, obstruction of state and local law enforcement of gambling statutes, and tampering with or retaliating against witnesses, victims and informants.
Why did you not provide a link to your "definition"?
Here is the Merriam Webster definition, not the inflated leftist version:
Quote:
the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process
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.
But regardless of the specific section of federal law (1501 through 1521) cited in a particular case, the prosecution need not prove any actual obstruction -- the defendant's attempt to obstruct is enough. The element of intent, which is central to such cases, is also usually the most difficult to prove; although memos, phone calls, and recorded conversations may be used as evidence to establish this.
Location: Big Island of Hawaii & HOT BuOYS Sailing Vessel
5,277 posts, read 2,798,262 times
Reputation: 1932
From FoxNews Insider legal opinion
If Corallo claims Hope Hicks and POTUS discussed JR's emails,
Then Mueller
"going to paint out a case for a conspiracy to obstruct justice, a conspiracy to hide documents, knowing that the special counsel would be looking for them because they are relevant to the core of what he's looking at: any relationship between the Trump campaign and the Russian government,"
"]I have no love for the inept Debbie Schultz and all the damage she did, but that was to the Democratic party not to the nation"
So you don't think turning the DNC into a campaign for hillary organization to ensure bernie could NOT get the DNC nomination is NOT "to the nation".
What the DNC did for Hilary is no different than what the RNC did for Reagan, Dole, W., McCain and Romney. All these nominees were backed by the RNC at the expense of their opponents. W.'s campaign of 2000 was as bad if not worse than 2016 when the RNC went after McCain with a vengeance.
You must be intellectually honest with yourself. There is a world of difference between what the DNC did with Clinton and what the Trump campaign may have done with the Russians.
Hmm..."the New York Times’ Jo Becker, Mark Mazzetti, Matt Apuzzo, and Maggie Haberman"...isn't this the crack "investigative team" that keeps pumping out nonsense stories for the NYT that have to be retracted a week later.
You folks on the left keep getting all pumped for a couple days and then slink off somewhere when it blows up.
Some care about this Country and its constitution.
And just who would that be? It certainly wasn't Obama and it sure isn't the Clintons or Nasty Pelosi or Chucky Fake Tears or anyone on the left. The only thing they care about is illegal migrants and refugees.
Heck, you can't even trust the FBI or the DOJ anymore. The Supreme Court might be the only place the Constitution matters these days.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[/QUOTE
