# Fox news on Trump's obstruction of Justice [emoji122]



## SadSavage1 (Apr 25, 2019)

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...-napolitano-trump-obstruction-of-justice.html

Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk


----------



## Arnold (Apr 25, 2019)

SadSavage1 said:


> https://slate.com/news-and-politics...-napolitano-trump-obstruction-of-justice.html
> 
> Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk



who cares?


----------



## SadSavage1 (Apr 25, 2019)

Arnold said:


> who cares?


Do you remember when I asked for your opinion?Me neither 

Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 26, 2019)

SadSavage1 said:


> Do you remember when I asked for your opinion?Me neither
> 
> Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk



You're stupid enough to put it out there so you're stupid enough to get the opinions in return.


----------



## SadSavage1 (Apr 26, 2019)

Zaphod said:


> You're stupid enough to put it out there so you're stupid enough to get the opinions in return.


Sappy damn dude you just won't let it go,huh? I know you look up to me, but you're becoming stalkish now get a life hillbilly 

Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 27, 2019)

SadSavage1 said:


> Sappy damn dude you just won't let it go,huh? I know you look up to me, but you're becoming stalkish now get a life hillbilly
> 
> Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk



Nobody looks up to you.  Not even midgets.


----------



## SadSavage1 (Apr 27, 2019)

Zaphod said:


> Nobody looks up to you.  Not even midgets.


Hmmm funny, Not!

Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk


----------



## Swiper (Apr 28, 2019)

I like the judge but it seems he?s bitter  since he got rejected for the supreme court nomination


----------



## 1911_fiend (Apr 30, 2019)

Napolitano is a old, Eddie munster looking dude, who belongs on CNN. 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## T Woods (May 1, 2019)

Lock him up.


----------



## charley (May 1, 2019)

T Woods said:


> Lock him up.





Agreed 1000 %  ?


----------



## Zaphod (May 2, 2019)

For what, exactly?


----------



## BadGas (May 2, 2019)

SadSavage1 said:


> Do you remember when I asked for your opinion?Me neither
> 
> Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk



Then why did you start a thread ??? 
Looking for like minded company only.. ??


----------



## BadGas (May 2, 2019)

charley said:


> Agreed 1000 %  ?



Damn bro.. haven't seen you in a minute.. Everything good ??


----------



## SadSavage1 (May 2, 2019)

BadGas said:


> Then why did you start a thread ???
> Looking for like minded company only.. ??


Cause I wanted to start a thread! Didn't Know I needed to ask you for permission?

Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk


----------



## hoyle21 (May 2, 2019)

Zaphod said:


> For what, exactly?




For obstructing justice and continuing to do so.   Some day the Dems are going to have that office, and he?s seeing some very dangerous precedents.

This is going to bite the right in the ass eventually.   I guarantee it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## solidassears (May 3, 2019)

hoyle21 said:


> For obstructing justice and continuing to do so.   Some day the Dems are going to have that office, and he?s seeing some very dangerous precedents.
> 
> This is going to bite the right in the ass eventually.   I guarantee it.
> 
> ...



In order to obstruct justice there has to be a crime to obstruct the investigation of that crime. What is the crime he obstructed? There is no crime, which makes the Muller investigation illegal from the start. The so called investigation was not a real investigation of a crime it was a witch hunt in search of a crime, any crime. The only crimes were those caused by the illegal investigation. To go even further, the whole mess is the result of a pack of lies and deceptions used to illegally spy on American citizens the intent of all this mess was to frame an innocent man and remove a dully elected president; the roots of which are treason by a host of people in the Obama administration. 

You want to know why the Dems are losing their minds now? It's because we have a for real Attorney General who will enforce the law and will prosecute those traitors who perpetrated this attempted coup-d'etat. The Dems know it and they are all scared shitless, as they should be! Justice is coming, slowly, but it is coming for those treasonous dirt bags.


----------



## hoyle21 (May 3, 2019)

My lord are you a fucking moron.

No wonder Trump loves the uneducated.



solidassears said:


> In order to obstruct justice there has to be a crime to obstruct the investigation of that crime. What is the crime he obstructed? There is no crime, which makes the Muller investigation illegal from the start. The so called investigation was not a real investigation of a crime it was a witch hunt in search of a crime, any crime. The only crimes were those caused by the illegal investigation. To go even further, the whole mess is the result of a pack of lies and deceptions used to illegally spy on American citizens the intent of all this mess was to frame an innocent man and remove a dully elected president; the roots of which are treason by a host of people in the Obama administration.
> 
> You want to know why the Dems are losing their minds now? It's because we have a for real Attorney General who will enforce the law and will prosecute those traitors who perpetrated this attempted coup-d'etat. The Dems know it and they are all scared shitless, as they should be! Justice is coming, slowly, but it is coming for those treasonous dirt bags.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## T Woods (May 3, 2019)

He knows it and projects his hate for himself on others. Sad but unfortunately common (current state of the GOP). It used to be 'love trumps hate', now for the ignorant it's 'love Trump's hate'.


----------



## Swiper (May 3, 2019)

solidassears said:


> In order to obstruct justice there has to be a crime to obstruct the investigation of that crime. What is the crime he obstructed? There is no crime, which makes the Muller investigation illegal from the start. The so called investigation was not a real investigation of a crime it was a witch hunt in search of a crime, any crime. The only crimes were those caused by the illegal investigation. To go even further, the whole mess is the result of a pack of lies and deceptions used to illegally spy on American citizens the intent of all this mess was to frame an innocent man and remove a dully elected president; the roots of which are treason by a host of people in the Obama administration.
> 
> You want to know why the Dems are losing their minds now? It's because we have a for real Attorney General who will enforce the law and will prosecute those traitors who perpetrated this attempted coup-d'etat. The Dems know it and they are all scared shitless, as they should be! Justice is coming, slowly, but it is coming for those treasonous dirt bags.



no need to waste your time responding to people who are completely clueless.  let them continue to live their lives stuck on stupid.


----------



## T Woods (May 3, 2019)

Swiper said:


> no need to waste your time responding to people who are completely clueless.  let them continue to live their lives stuck on stupid.


lol.... oh wait.... you're serious. Words best saved for the mirror.


----------



## BadGas (May 3, 2019)

SadSavage1 said:


> Cause I wanted to start a thread! Didn't Know I needed to ask you for permission?
> 
> Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk



Who said anything about needing permission ??? 

Are those black man diapers you're wearing bro.. hold on.. lemme ask your mom.


----------



## SadSavage1 (May 3, 2019)

BadGas said:


> Who said anything about needing permission ???
> 
> Are those black man diapers you're wearing bro.. hold on.. lemme ask your mom.


My mom would slap the taste out your mouth including myself 

Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk


----------



## Zaphod (May 3, 2019)

hoyle21 said:


> For obstructing justice and continuing to do so.   Some day the Dems are going to have that office, and he?s seeing some very dangerous precedents.
> 
> This is going to bite the right in the ass eventually.   I guarantee it.
> 
> ...



For which crime was he obstructing justice?  Who was charged with a crime?


----------



## solidassears (May 3, 2019)

hoyle21 said:


> My lord are you a fucking moron.
> 
> No wonder Trump loves the uneducated.
> 
> ...



Typical libtard response, can't debate or argue the substance or points you believe. All you can do is call names. Libs are mental midgets, keep on believing what your being fed cause you have no ability to think, reason or even argue what ever point you believe in..


----------



## solidassears (May 3, 2019)

Swiper said:


> no need to waste your time responding to people who are completely clueless.  let them continue to live their lives stuck on stupid.



you're right, but I love to see how impotent they are when they post their ignorance, inability to put together any kind of rational argument for what they believe. Oh and to show their blind obedience to their fearless leaders who are the god they worship you know, like Hildabeast or Scambomba. It's hilarious how they just ignore all the points of substance and all they can do is name call...Hahahaha real brilliant dudes these libs..


----------



## hoyle21 (May 6, 2019)

Zaphod said:


> For which crime was he obstructing justice?  Who was charged with a crime?




This is the DOJ, today, charging someone with Obstruction of Justice with no underlying crime.    

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/former-fbi-linguist-arrested-and-indicted-obstruction-charges




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hoyle21 (May 6, 2019)

solidassears said:


> you're right, but I love to see how impotent they are when they post their ignorance, inability to put together any kind of rational argument for what they believe. Oh and to show their blind obedience to their fearless leaders who are the god they worship you know, like Hildabeast or Scambomba. It's hilarious how they just ignore all the points of substance and all they can do is name call...Hahahaha real brilliant dudes these libs..



Says the fox news talking point quotation parrot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Swiper (May 6, 2019)

hoyle21 said:


> This is the DOJ, today, charging someone with Obstruction of Justice with no underlying crime.
> 
> https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/former-fbi-linguist-arrested-and-indicted-obstruction-charges
> 
> ...



muller decided there?s not evidence for him to prove obstruction.   so he let the attorney general decide.  what more do you want?


----------



## Swiper (May 6, 2019)

hoyle21 said:


> This is the DOJ, today, charging someone with Obstruction of Justice with no underlying crime.
> 
> https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/former-fbi-linguist-arrested-and-indicted-obstruction-charges
> 
> ...



just curious what was your position on Hillary having classified materials unsecured?  thats is clearly a crime right?


----------



## hoyle21 (May 6, 2019)

Swiper said:


> muller decided there?s not evidence for him to prove obstruction.   so he let the attorney general decide.  what more do you want?





Again not true.   Mueller wrote that according to DOJ guidelines (a sitting president cannot be indicted) he couldn?t indict.

Honestly I happen to agree with that statement, by what that means is it?s up to congress not the DOJ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hoyle21 (May 6, 2019)

Swiper said:


> just curious what was your position on Hillary having classified materials unsecured?  thats is clearly a crime right?




I?m no Hillary supporter, let?s stick to the topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Swiper (May 6, 2019)

hoyle21 said:


> Again not true.   Mueller wrote that according to DOJ guidelines (a sitting president cannot be indicted) he couldn?t indict.
> 
> Honestly I happen to agree with that statement, by what that means is it?s up to congress not the DOJ.
> 
> ...



wrong he could recommend deferred sealed indictment after Trump leaves office.


----------



## Swiper (May 6, 2019)

hoyle21 said:


> I?m no Hillary supporter, let?s stick to the topic.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



i?m trying to see how bias you are. and by not answering is saying a lot about your bias


----------



## hoyle21 (May 6, 2019)

Swiper said:


> wrong he could recommend deferred sealed indictment after Trump leaves office.



  And there are 10 sealed indictments redacted in the report.    I supposed I could argue we don?t know he hasn?t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hoyle21 (May 6, 2019)

Swiper said:


> i?m trying to see how bias you are. and by not answering is saying a lot about your bias




I?m biased towards Hilary Clinton because I?m not trying to defend Hillary Clinton?

That?s logical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Swiper (May 6, 2019)

hoyle21 said:


> And there are 10 sealed indictments redacted in the report.    I supposed I could argue we don?t know he hasn?t.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



he also could?ve said that there is evidence that Trump obstructed justice but without indicting him.  he never put that in the report.  he said there wasn?t enough evidence to prove obstruction


----------



## hoyle21 (May 6, 2019)

Swiper said:


> he also could?ve said that there is evidence that Trump obstructed justice but without indicting him.  he never put that in the report.  he said there wasn?t enough evidence to prove obstruction



He does say there is evidence that Trump Obstructed Justice and lays out his case.   Have you even read the report or just listening to pundits?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Swiper (May 6, 2019)

hoyle21 said:


> I?m biased towards Hilary Clinton because I?m not trying to defend Hillary Clinton?
> 
> That?s logical.
> 
> ...



you refuse to answer a question yes or no.  it?s not that difficult.


----------



## Swiper (May 6, 2019)

hoyle21 said:


> He does say there is evidence that Trump Obstructed Justice and lays out his case.   Have you even read the report or just listening to pundits?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



he said he couldn?t prove that Trump obstructed justice.


----------



## hoyle21 (May 6, 2019)

Swiper said:


> he said he couldn?t prove that Trump obstructed justice.




No he said according to JOD guidelines he couldn?t indict Trump.   Huge difference


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Swiper (May 6, 2019)

hoyle21 said:


> He does say there is evidence that Trump Obstructed Justice and lays out his case.   Have you even read the report or just listening to pundits?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



so then lay out your case. what did trump say or do to obstructing justice?


----------



## hoyle21 (May 6, 2019)

Swiper said:


> so then lay out your case. what did trump say or do to obstructing justice?



You could just read the actual report.   lol.  I?m not going to cut and paste it here.   Quit being so lazy.

Are you conceding the point that obstruction of justice needs an underlying crime?   That?s really all I care about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Swiper (May 6, 2019)

hoyle21 said:


> No he said according to JOD guidelines he couldn?t indict Trump.   Huge difference
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



no he didn?t.  he left it up to the attorney general to decide if Trump obstructed justice or not


----------



## hoyle21 (May 6, 2019)

Swiper said:


> no he didn?t.  he left it up to the attorney general to decide if Trump obstructed justice or not



lol.  That?s not what the report says.    You can read it yourself.   I?m not copy and pasting it, but I?ll provide a link if you?d like to read it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Swiper (May 6, 2019)

hoyle21 said:


> You could just read the actual report.   lol.  I?m not going to cut and paste it here.   Quit being so lazy.
> 
> Are you conceding the point that obstruction of justice needs an underlying crime?   That?s really all I care about.
> 
> ...



i?m not saying that. you?re the only one that saying he obstructed justice, I?m asking you to lay out your case and you refuse to.  if you?re gonna make a statement back it up


----------



## hoyle21 (May 6, 2019)

Heres the report

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Swiper (May 6, 2019)

hoyle21 said:


> Heres the report
> 
> https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
> 
> ...



Great. 
give me one example where Trump obstructed and justice


----------



## hoyle21 (May 6, 2019)

?With respect to Manafort, there is evidence that the President?s actions had the potential to influence Manafort?s decision whether to cooperate with the government.?

?Evidence indicates that by the time of the Oval Office meeting the President was aware that McGahn did not think the story was false and did not want to issue a statement or create a written record denying facts that McGahn believed to be true. The President nevertheless persisted and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate.?

?Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn?s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President?s conduct towards the investigation.?

 ?Taken together, the President?s directives indicate that [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign with the Special Counsel being permitted to ?move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections.??

?This evidence shows that the President was not just seeking an examination of whether conflicts existed but instead was looking to use asserted conflicts as a way to terminate the Special Counsel.?

?The evidence concerning this sequence of events could support an inference that the President used inducements in the form of positive messages in an effort to get Cohen not to cooperate, and then turned to attacks and intimidation to deter the provision of information or undermine Cohen?s credibility once Cohen began cooperating.?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hoyle21 (May 6, 2019)

Another interesting story 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/po...t-president/2z96jvcVS46hv067EBg9RN/story.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Swiper (May 6, 2019)

The president is the executive of the executive branch. ifif he wanted to fire Mueller he could?ve done it. it?s not illegal.   The Constitution gives him those powers.  talking about firing mueller is not obstructing justice. 

try again.


----------



## SadSavage1 (Jun 1, 2019)

Swiper said:


> The president is the executive of the executive branch. ifif he wanted to fire Mueller he could?ve done it. it?s not illegal.   The Constitution gives him those powers.  talking about firing mueller is not obstructing justice.
> 
> try again.


Fuck Trump!

Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk


----------



## SadSavage1 (Jun 1, 2019)

Or should've I said your daddy? Swiper?

Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 2, 2019)

SadSavage1 said:


> Fuck Trump!
> 
> Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk



You haven't been on in a while.  You been in jail again sucking dicks?


----------



## solidassears (Jun 2, 2019)

Zaphod said:


> You haven't been on in a while.  You been in jail again sucking dicks?



I think more likely, he ran out of mommys minutes on her phone. It is the first of the month ya know.


----------



## Swiper (Jun 2, 2019)

SadSavage1 said:


> Or should've I said your daddy? Swiper?
> 
> Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk



my dad is dead so no you should not have said my daddy


----------



## SadSavage1 (Jul 4, 2019)

Zaphod said:


> You haven't been on in a while.  You been in jail again sucking dicks?


Since I've been locked up, the only ones here in California, that I be seen sucking dick are the Woods

Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk


----------



## SadSavage1 (Jul 5, 2019)

Swiper said:


> my dad is dead so no you should not have said my daddy


My dad is dead too, sorry if I offended you in any way(sincerely)

Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk


----------



## Zaphod (Jul 5, 2019)

SadSavage1 said:


> Since I've been locked up, the only ones here in California, that I be seen sucking dick are the Woods
> 
> Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk



You seem quite proud of being a felon.  Says a lot about your fucked up culture.  Idiots like you wear it as a badge of honor.  All it does is hurt you but you're too stupid to see it.


----------



## Anabolik2k (Jul 6, 2019)

Libturds just keep losing and embarrassing themselves, hysterical. That debate was truly embarrassing last week.
Political clown car of retards...


----------



## SadSavage1 (Jul 6, 2019)

Zaphod said:


> You seem quite proud of being a felon.  Says a lot about your fucked up culture.  Idiots like you wear it as a badge of honor.  All it does is hurt you but you're too stupid to see it.


Do you know what a wood is?

Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk


----------



## Zaphod (Jul 7, 2019)

SadSavage1 said:


> Do you know what a wood is?
> 
> Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk



I'm not familiar with prison terminology.  That's your area of expertise, convict.


----------

