Saba Hamedy / CNN:
Democratic Rep.: ‘Very strong case’ for obstruction of justice against Trump
Editor: You can't have obstruction of justice if there has been no crime committed. Rep Nadler is as much a media sycophant as draws breath. In all his days in the House, he has done absolutely nothing to merit his salary but, who cares about effective job performance if you are a committed Leftie, right?
And don't let this get past you: Virtually all of the latest round(s) of mind-numbing fake news pieces have been generated by CNN. True.
Dear Genius,
ReplyDeleteMust a court case be pending for obstruction to occur? No. An official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense. This was illustrated in the Martha Stewart case; her alleged obstruction occurred very early in the investigation. Furthermore, she ended up NOT being charged with the underlying crime that was being investigated.
Also, did it ever occur to you that law enforcement already has evidence of crimes committed by Trump? Don't you think they know a bit more than you do?
There is no "obstruction of justice" when the ONLY FOLKS MAKING THE CLAIM ARE UNINFORMED PARTISANS OUTSIDE THE LEGAL SYSTEM. No one, absolutely no one within the various federal agencies is charging "obstruction of justice" other than pinheads such as Pelosi and Maxine Waters, women the Left admires.
DeleteI think you need to watch the documentary detailing Trump's connections. You can be damn sure the FBI has watched it,
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/kKLWloj2ohM
The above cited video is nothing but a hit piece versus Trump, based on guilt by association and the claims of several Trump haters.
ReplyDeleteAt one point in the video, for example, the author cites a quote from Putin about Trump. says "Its almost an endorsement," and then immediately asks, "Why is Putin endorsing Donald Trump." In the same breath, the author moves from "almost and endorsement" to a statement of fact. Sorry, "almost" is a statement of denial, not affirmation. "I almost ran that red light" means, "I came close but DID NOT run the light."
The video asserts that 16 federal agencies agree that the "[Russian] hacking was done to make him president," a statement that has been proven to be an outrageous lie If it were true, Trump would already be under indictment. It is a crime to receive and use foreign money to win an election. The authors of this video never prove their point outside of make false claims. Take "16 federal agencies" is a statement that is never given any supporting evidence. In fact, statements by the directors of the NSA, CIA and the NIA all agree, "There is no evidence of collusion between the trump campaign and the Russians. And these denials have been made in public committee meetings. A simple "google" search will confirm.
Anonymous knows this, but persists in pushing the lie. Not on this blog.
If there were no evidence, you wouldn't have over 100 FBI in at least 3 field offices investigating, and 3 grand juries issuing warrants and subpoenas. You are in denial. There are likely sealed indictments already issued.
ReplyDeleteTrump fired Comey for the only reason that was illegal, and admitted it on TV and and through his press secretary. Then he went further and threatened him.
The video shows how Trump, when after a string of bankruptcies, no US bank would loan him money, he got his money from Russia, through known crime figures. Both his sons boasted he was funded by Russia. Sorry bud, you can't take money from known criminals, that's a violation of the RICO act.
Your bias has shut down your brain, totally. The sense of the noose tightening, as you write ad nausea, ius simply not being report in the Marxist media. I just listened to an hour of CNN. Not a word of the crap you address to this blog. Not a word. Why? Because your reporting are the fantasies of the insane Left
DeleteIn the above, you write "Trump fired Comey for the only reason that was illegal . . and admitted it on TV . . ." What a moron you are. In fact, Comey was fired for several reasons including the stunt he pulled with Hillary.
You write," The video shows how Trump, when after a string of bankruptcies, no US bank would loan him money, he got his money from Russia, through known crime figures. Both his sons boasted he was funded by Russia. Sorry bud, you can't take money from known criminals, that's a violation of the RICO act." Virtually every word of your quote is outrageous and that is why you can find similar statments in the national media. He got his money from the Russians???!!! How stupid are you. Maybe you should address your quote to the Hillary charity and her countless money laundering deals. What a joke you have become.
His sons boasted of the Russian funding. Where in the hell do you find this.