Obstruction of Justice

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 16 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Obstruction of Justice

Intentional failure to enforce the law or regulation is obstruction of justice. In recent memory, several cases come to mind. The Obama justice department failed to charge several individuals who were harassing voters in Philadelphia. The Obama justice department failed to indict Hillary Clinton on bribery charges for selling access to government agencies who could accommodate the individual paying the bribe.

These are political offenses but the predominant ones are those every day occasions when the cops let speeders go, simply because there are so many. The other more common ones are plea bargains where a miscreant pleads guilty to a lesser charge for whatever reason, either the case is weak or some money changes hands. During the prohibition era, the police just didn’t enforce the law because politicians who control the police were being bribed.

The biggest mistake in the Clinton issue was not prosecuting her when Trump came to power. It is probably the reason Commey was fired by Trump because he refused to prosecute. Why would he refuse. He was appointed by Obama and the Democrats and Republicans both, do not eat their young. In other words, the selling of access is a means for politicians to make money from their office and one of the perks of getting elected. It is corruption pure and simple and has gone on since the beginning of time. It has become so commonplace that it is no longer considered an offense.

Trump had to be told that is how the system works although he was probably on the other side in many of his own business dealings except he was at the local level. Incorruptible politicians rarely make it to the top at any level.

zmogus
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/20/2004 - 1:01am
When the Special Prosecutor

When the Special Prosecutor and his staff break law, who investigates them?

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 3 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
"Intentional failure to

"Intentional failure to enforce the law or regulation is obstruction of justice."

Excuuuuuuuuse me?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/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.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Thanks Mel.

Thanks Mel.
I thought it was something to do with effects of bad kcals on system !

Also key word is "official proceeding" vs. ones' opinion.

Spider
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/16/2011 - 3:13pm
There is no evidence that

There is no evidence that supports the ‘collusion with the Russians’ affecting the election…. and none to support “obstruction of justice” against President Trump.

We have, in the past, encountered the occasion of presidential ‘obstruction of justice’ from the husband of the defeated Democratic candidate for president….one….Bill Clinton. Remember him?

The Liberal Democrats have a lot of experience dealing with a (their) president, that has a different set of moral ethics and values than I do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

The impeachment process of Bill Clinton was initiated by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, against Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice.

On February 9, after voting against a public deliberation on the verdict, the Senate began closed-door deliberations instead. On February 12, the Senate emerged from its closed deliberations and voted on the articles of impeachment. A two-thirds majority, 67 votes, would have been necessary to convict and remove the President from office.

The perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against.[24] The obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against.[26]
Senate votes[edit]

Maine people were represented during the impeachment voting……..

All 45 Democrats in the Senate voted "not guilty" on both charges. The five Republican senators who voted against conviction on both charges were John Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, Jim Jeffords of Vermont, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Specter, who said he was not prepared to cast a guilty or not guilty vote, voted "not proven", which was counted as a not guilty vote.[27] The additional five Republican senators who voted "not guilty" only on the perjury charge were Slade Gorton of Washington, Richard Shelby of Alabama, Ted Stevens of Alaska, Fred Thompson of Tennessee, and John Warner of Virginia.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 16 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
For the Bobsy Twins: What I

For the Bobsy Twins: What I just said in far more words than necessary. Just ask yourself, is my definition wrong?

The Special Prosecutor can obstruct justice only by reporting an offense has not been committed when it has. What he has been charged to do is prove a negative, which is impossible. If there is no evidence the Russians hacked the system or Trump obstructed justice. He has been charged with an impossible task of finding something that does not exist. In the eyes of the Progressives, if he finds no evidence and reports as such they will call him a liar because the Russians are guilty and so is Trump. Their minds are made up, don't confuse them with the facts or lack thereof.

Hillary lost the election because she did not game the system as well as Trump. That she failed to get even more than the 3 million or so she beat Trump by was due to the fact that someone spilled the beans on how she blatantly sold her influence to enrich herself and her husband. Other politicians do it all the time but not so excessively so they stand out. Have you ever met a poor politician who lasted more than one term?

The founding fathers established a system whereby no one but one of their own could attain the office of President. Read the words and you must come to the same conclusion. The unfortunate problem that didn't surface until the second election was that it was possible a maverick (Thomas Jefferson to be exact) might fill the office Washington won and then died before his term was up. Jefferson was an anti-federalist when he was voted in as Vice President as the second choice on the very first ballot. They had to enact the twelfth amendment to eliminate that possibility.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Yes.

Yes.
That is the answer I got after. asking myself.
Which I didn't need to do , because I alresady knew you were wrong.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 3 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
How careless of me to forget

How careless of me to forget that "your definition" takes precedence over THE definition.

I suppose I could be cited for obstruction of semantic justice.

Spider
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/16/2011 - 3:13pm
Actually…….the application of

Actually…….the application of the term ‘obstruction of justice’ to the current, duly elected and sworn in President of the United States of America is….moot. There is no evidence, none. You got some....share with us.

The liberal media needs to switch tactics; and try to sell the concept of impeachment to we the people. Impeachment requires the convincing of our elected representatives that the current president is guilty of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’.

Then the liberal Trump haters can have their hate get some traction. So…..methinks Mueller is the change agent that will fly the ….high crimes and misdemeanors….flag. Maybe.

Spoken from the gut. I say the House Judiciary Committee will get stuck at….”prepares articles of impeachment” but linger as long as possible to feed the media with negative rhetoric….a distraction?

So that Hillary goes free, Huma goes unexamined and Angus King can squint into the camera doing the peoples work….sort of. Would that he be as aggressive in questioning Lorretta Lynch. Even the last name makes one retch.

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

High Crimes and Misdemeanors, a reading on the meaning of this strange phrase that is the grounds for most impeachments and an activity in which students determine the outcome of hypothetical impeachment proceedings.
The U.S. Constitution provides impeachment as the method for removing the president, vice president, federal judges, and other federal officials from office. The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives and follows these steps:

1. The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings and, if necessary, prepares articles of impeachment. These are the charges against the official.
2. If a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles, the whole House debates and votes on them.
3. If a majority of the House votes to impeach the official on any article, then the official must then stand trial in the Senate.
4. For the official to be removed from office, two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict the official. Upon conviction, the official is automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be forbidden from holding governmental office again.

The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes.

The Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment. They are “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” To be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must find that the official committed one of these acts.

What say you?

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
At least you are not anti

At least you are not anti semantic.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 16 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
No. You could be cited for

No. You could be cited for stupidity, but that is not against the law and it is everyone's right to be stupid. Ignorance is another matter, its presence just shows a lack of effort.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
pmconusa

pmconusa
It would be nicer if you coud direct your insults to the specific individual intended.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
I think that the general

I think that the general consensus (even among liberals) is that the bar for obstruction of justice is pretty high - I think they have to prove intent, which would require a recording or a tweet that acknowledges his intent.

Which, to be fair, given Trump's inability to shut up, is entirely possible.

I would certainly like to see him flame out but I'm not holding my breath here. The whole thing is extremely entertaining, though.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 3 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
From one of pmcon's earlier

From one of pmcon's earlier condescensions on AMG:

http://www.asmainegoes.com/content/trump-try-reinvent-american-economy-through-trade

I posted the words below, first quoting his words:

" In short, it is the equal distribution of nature's wealth, up front, to every living citizen. An agency responsible to the people would verify the country is producing enough fuel (food) to feed all of its citizens. Currency would then be distributed to everyone, parents for their dependent children, denominated in the fuel value of that food."

No problems here, other than deciding what the words 'equal', 'verify,' and 'enough' mean, and who would have the authority to make such determination. And how they would come into that authority. And how they would be constrained in that authority. And prevented from accumulating power and using it to favor those who back them holding that office. And their friends and family.

Not to mention the design of that 'agency' and what 'responsible to the people' would entail.

No problems there; it completely eliminates human nature from the equation, and resolves all the shortcomings of our current government.

If you don't believe him, show him where he's wrong.

===================================================
And later added this in the same thread:

One can't help but wonder if pmcon doesn't see himself as the czar of 'the agency'..... perfect, certain, and incorruptible. And wanting only the same sized share as everyone else is assigned.

And as Howie always says, "you can trust him on that, because he's not like all the others."
==============================================================
It is clear that he to whom all has been revealed sees himself as a King among the unenlightened, and hence he is far more equal than the rest of us equals.

Even to the point of creating his own legal system and related language.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
On the entertainment level it

On the entertainment level it really doesn't come close to the often compared to (gee we hope ) Watergate event.
Which one had to live thru vs. hear about it etc ..

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
On the entertainment level it

deleted

Spider
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/16/2011 - 3:13pm
Obstruction of Justice?

Obstruction of Justice?
Change the title of the inquiry from ‘investigation’ to ‘matter’ and you cannot deliver subpoenas to force testimony; that action is intended to obstruct justice.

Our question is why is Senator King silent on all this?

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/06/08/comey-made-fool-himself-a...

In an interview on the FOX Business’ “After the Bell,” Kallstrom said Comey chose to “dance with the devil” and was not up to the task to handle the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

At one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a ‘matter,’ which confused me and concerned me,” Comey told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, referring to his statements about the investigation during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Kallstrom said Lynch’s instructions to call the investigation of Clinton’s emails a “matter” is obstruction of justice.

“It was obstruction when President Obama said publically on numerous occasions there is no evidence to investigate Hillary Clinton. They have nothing. He said that numerous times,” Kallstrom stated.

“The problem with Bob Mueller being involved here is he’s got a 25-year close friendship with Comey. I mean what’s that about? That’s a clear conflict of interest if he goes there and looks at Comey’s activities while he was director,” Kallstrom said.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/06/08/comey-dropped-clinton-lyn...

“When she [Lynch] told him [Comey] not to call this an investigation, but to call it a matter, this was a nefarious way of her making sure that the bureau and Jim Comey’s investigators had no way of obtaining subpoenas to subpoena people before a grand jury, because you are not going to subpoena them off the kind of moniker that she put on this investigation,” Gavin told FOX Business, adding that Russia’s involvement in the U.S. election was another crucial detail coming out of the hearing.

Watcher
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 58 min ago
Joined: 03/23/2008 - 12:32pm
Ah...the dreaded FBM arises

Ah...the dreaded FBM arises from the ashes of the FBI...the Federal Bureau of Matters.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 16 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Mel: I don't know why you

Mel: I don't know why you changed the subject other than another attempt to discredit my analysis or opinion but since you have, I will try and satisfy your misgivings about a system that shares nature's assets equally with all citizens. It has been determined that the human body needs fuel to survive. That fuel comes in the form of food, the fuel value of which is constant for each item. Wheat for example has 327 kilocalories per 100 grams and if you could survive on wheat alone is has also been determined you need about 2500 kilocalories per day. It is about the only thing on which all humans are equal. Less if you are sedentary and more if you are active. It has also been determined that the human body can exert about 1/2 a horsepower on a continuous basis for about 10 hours followed by rest. If a country produces foods which contain about 1 million kilocalories for each individual and sufficient excess to accommodate waste and to insure reproduction the following year every citizen will survive if they can obtain those kilocalories.

In a socialist system these would be shared by everyone equally and those who made possible the planting, harvesting and processing of the kilocalories would get no more than those who do not or cannot. It enables able bodied individuals to opt out of work because everyone is not needed to participate in the planting, harvesting and processing. In the system I propose, everyone gets the equivalent exchange to pay for the effort of others in producing not only the fuel, but the other necessities of life, like clothing and shelter. If your family produces much of this yourself, as they did before their was anything such as money, you can use your surplus to buy the time of others who produce things you need or want. The basic rules of the system are that nothing appreciates in value from its first cost and monopoly profits are taxed away. More details are available in my book "The Real Economy" which we will never employ so long as we maintain the current political system wherein the government decides who gets what and how much through the tax code.

This system insures there are no so called "poor" and there can never be any billionaires. We have already become bankrupt in what I call the style economy because we do not produce anything of consequence that cannot be bought from countries that can produce it cheaper. We are also bankrupt in the food for fuel market, having to import enough kilocalories to sustain nearly 50 million. We are arbitraging our wheat and corn crops that are only being produced because they are being subsidized by the government and have been since the 1930s.

You can now calculate the time when with continued growth in our population will result in rationing and a total change in our political system. If it adopts the same economic system as the previous government nothing will change except those not getting enough will steal, migrate or rebel in mass, which is what is already happening in much of Africa and now the Middle East. Until then America will continue to be the home of the richest poor, thanks to a government that distributes charity in the form of printed money.

Log in to post comments