@Blickers,
I still say Mueller is going after a RICO charge against tRump.
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:Certainly, here is the definition of "obstruction of justice":
Quote:Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or 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 punished as provided in subsection (b).
That refers to people who attempt to impede an investigation that the government is pursuing. It doesn't say anything about the government electing to not pursue a case.
Blickers wrote:Trump has already said he fired Comey because Comey was pursuing the Russian-GOP Mafia connection.
Trump said nothing about the mafia.
Blickers wrote:The president cannot fire someone simply because he wants a case to go away.
The US Constitution says he can. So does the US Supreme Court.
Although if the Supreme Court had ruled to the contrary, the Constitution would take precedence over their ruling.
@BillW,
BillW wrote:I still say Mueller is going after a RICO charge against tRump.
It doesn't matter. Trump will pardon the charges no matter what sort of nonsense Mueller tries.
@BillW,
Good for you. You also can't seem to resist the juvenile sobriquet of "tRump" so are we supposed to take you seriously?
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Good for you. You also can't seem to resist the juvenile sobriquet of "tRump" so are we supposed to take you seriously?
Kinda like dAbuzz huh , but that one is kinda stupid and assholey.....but, appropriate.
@oralloy,
Invincible ignorance . . . smug invincible ignorance.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Ah-hahahahahahahahahaha . . .
He put him in, making outrageous statements about his worth, saying, as quoted an linked on the previous page: "fierce opponent of government waste and devoted to limited government and lower spending;" but you want him to get credit for forcing him out.
You're a trip, Bubba.
Finny has shown his worth, lying, whining, sneering and vilifying other members here. Has he contributed a single worthwhile comment to this thread? Not recently . . . not that I can recall at all.
Nothing new there.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:Invincible ignorance . . . smug invincible ignorance.
Your claim of my ignorance is ludicrous in light of your catastrophic failure to point out any fact that I'm wrong about.
I also note your failure to provide evidence in response to the following questions:
Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to regulate offices of the executive branch?
The court upheld it? Meaning the Supreme Court? Cite?
You're right about me being smug and invincible though.
EDIT: I'm not the person who just voted your posts down at about the same time that I posted. But I'm not sure they are worth voting back up either.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:Finny has shown his worth, lying, whining, sneering and vilifying other members here. Has he contributed a single worthwhile comment to this thread? Not recently . . . not that I can recall at all.
Nothing new there.
I doubt you can demonstrate deliberate lies on his part. In fact, I'd bet most if not all of his statements that you might call a lie are actually 100% truthful.
Vilifying other posters? Nonsense.
As far as worthwhile goes, he often provides long and worthwhile posts on the subjects currently under discussion. I'm amazed at that ability. I couldn't compose a long indepth post if my life depended on it. I always find that I've said everything I have to say after just a handful of sentences.
@BillW,
BillW wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Good for you. You also can't seem to resist the juvenile sobriquet of "tRump" so are we supposed to take you seriously?
Kinda like dAbuzz huh , but that one is kinda stupid and assholey.....but, appropriate.
So I guess I should start using his real surname - dRumpf, yeah, that's the ticket!
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:That refers to people who attempt to impede an investigation that the government is pursuing. It doesn't say anything about the government electing to not pursue a case.
You are mistaken. The obstruction of justice law applies equally to people both inside and outside of the government. It applies equally to people both inside and outside of the investigation. A prosecutor electing not to pursue an investigation because he thinks it is not winnable is not coming to this decision for a corrupt reason. The prosecutor's boss firing the prosecutor because the case might uncover wrongdoing against the boss is firing the prosecutor for a corrupt reason, and is therefore committing obstruction of justice.
Trump has made this quite clear when he publicly admitted on TV that he fired Comey because Comey was pursuing the investigation of Russia's role in the election.
Article Two, Section Two, second paragraph, reads, in it's entirety:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
All cabinet departments have been created by public law as passed by Congress, in pursuance of the powers granted to Congress by Article One, Section eight. The only power the president would have would be to refuse to sign a bill creating a cabinet department, which could be over-ridden by a two thirds vote of both houses.
That there are executive branch officers in implied by the constitution, but is not specifically mentioned, other than in Article II, Section Two, first and second clauses. The First Congress created the initial executive branch departments by public law.
I've already mentioned Andrew Johnson, and Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935)--additionally, the Court denied the president's right to fire executive branch officers below cabinet level in Wiener v. United States (1958), and a district court confirmed Nixon's lack of power to fire the special counsel in Nader v. Bork, 1973. The Court has held that Congress cannot create an executive branch department which is not under the authority of the president, but since the latter half of the 19th century, enabling acts for cabinet level positions have reserved the right of dismissal of inferior officers to Congress, and in some cases, have reserved the right of appointment--the power for which stipulation, Federal courts and the Supreme Court have upheld.
Oralloy is not just a liar, he displays a level of delusion which is just incredible. I have cited case law, sections of the constitution, and historical events, all of which can be easily checked. He mentions the first clause of one section of one article of the constitution, and does not even provide a plausible, logical argument for how that pertains to the appointment and dismissal of executive branch officers. The constitution very clearly states that such officers must have the consent of the Senate.
It's pointless to provide citations to Oralloy, who either can't understand what is provided, or is too delusional to understand. Either way, it's a waste of time.
@Setanta,
He also lacks the understanding that actions not explicitly stated in the Constitution must be decided by the Supreme Court - such as, Criminal Conspiracy RICO actions, especially when they include conspiracy to collude with a hostile foreign power for profit and benefit of an ongoing criminal organization - his crime family (literally)!
@BillW,
(snip)
Quote: especially when they include conspiracy to collude with a hostile foreign power for profit and benefit of an ongoing criminal organization
(snip)
How does that law affect clandestine efforts by agencies of the state, not under the auspice of government, meaning CIA and FBI et al?
You're aware of operation Ajax, as being just one clandestine operation that easily falls under the descriptor you provided above. Start with that operation.
http://forward.com/articles/208173/how-iranian-jews-shaped-modern-los-angeles/
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:Most of the groups that were harmed were conservative.
There was no harm. All the conservative groups got the tax break that they applied for but did not legally deserve.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Quote:We seek him here, we seek him there,
Those Frenchies seek him everywhere.
Is he in heaven? — Is he in hell?
That damned, elusive Pimpernel
The Scarlet Thumbdowner!
The correct quote would start with:
They seek him here, they seek him there.
Those Frenchies seek him everywhere (Otherwise it would say "We Frenchies seek him everywhere." Get it? the freaking pronouns should freaking agree!!!!! If you want to quote ANYTHING for Christ' sake make sure you do it accurately.
Quote:Now will you shut the fuc& up?
Where's the switch on
your battery pack, rabbit?
it's not your attempts at humour that grate, but the attempts at human.
