Log in

View Full Version : Pre-obstruction


tomder55
Sep 12, 2020, 05:42 AM
Looks like the Mueller team took a page out of the Evita playbook . Several dozen phones belonging to members of Inspector Javert 's Russia collusion hoax investigation team were wiped out before the Justice Department’s IG was able to review the phones. Congressional Repubs are looking to find out if there was a widespread intentional effort to conceal information from the IG and suggested that the coordinated effort could amount to “anticipatory obstruction of justice.” Sen. Grassley wrote to Barr and and FBI Director Christopher Wray “It appears that Special Counsel Mueller’s team may have deleted federal records that could be key to better understanding their decision-making process as they pursued their investigation and wrote their report . Indeed, many officials apparently deleted the records after the DOJ Inspector General began his inquiry into how the Department mishandled Crossfire Hurricane.”“Based on this new information, the number of times and the stated reasons for the deletions calls into question whether or not it was a widespread intentional effort,”

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/11/johnson-ig-wiped-mueller-team-phones-412757

jlisenbe
Sep 12, 2020, 06:21 AM
I guess they watched as HC got away with it, so it seemed reasonable for them to give it a go. And it will likely turn out that way. I doubt that anything will ever come of it.

talaniman
Sep 13, 2020, 04:27 AM
Defense against a corrupted DOJ is the likely answer.

jlisenbe
Sep 13, 2020, 05:06 AM
So they wiped their cell phones clean as a defense against the DOJ? What??!!

talaniman
Sep 13, 2020, 05:19 AM
Against a CORRUPTED DOJ.

jlisenbe
Sep 13, 2020, 07:12 AM
Yeah. Right. Mueller's ultra holy band of crusaders had to wipe their cell phones clean to get rid of evidence of their right-doing? Well, if that's your theory, then go for it.

talaniman
Sep 13, 2020, 07:37 AM
I did, as a corrupted DOJ is hardly a compliment. nor is my opinion they are intentionally incompetent at this point in time.

jlisenbe
Sep 13, 2020, 07:47 AM
You have no evidence that Trump's DOJ is corrupt. Your hatred of Trump colors all of your opinions of him.

talaniman
Sep 13, 2020, 07:59 AM
No hatred involved just a deep distrust of the dufus and his ilk, because he lies, cheats and steals and surrounds himself with unsavory sycophants and criminals. Maybe you see it different, but that's okay.

tomder55
Sep 13, 2020, 08:25 AM
the DOJ was corrupted under the auspice of Mueller and then Comey. Mueller's team is just doing more damage control. The truth is that they knew early in their investigation that there was nothing there . No collusion etc. They kept the investigation going for the sole purpose of trying to entrap Trump into an obstruction of justice case . They failed at that too .

jlisenbe
Sep 13, 2020, 11:20 AM
Pretty much how it goes. Many accusations, but little evidence.

talaniman
Sep 13, 2020, 03:30 PM
the DOJ was corrupted under the auspice of Mueller and then Comey. Mueller's team is just doing more damage control. The truth is that they knew early in their investigation that there was nothing there . No collusion etc. They kept the investigation going for the sole purpose of trying to entrap Trump into an obstruction of justice case . They failed at that too .

You are the best spinner I've ever seen Tom, BARR none! Pun intended.


Pretty much how it goes. Many accusations, but little evidence.

You mean allegations. Plenty from both sides there.

jlisenbe
Sep 13, 2020, 03:32 PM
And again. Many accusations with no supporting evidence at all.

Wondergirl
Sep 13, 2020, 04:08 PM
And again. Many accusations with no supporting evidence at all.
How much has Trump (Trump properties, etc.) profited during his presidency?

jlisenbe
Sep 13, 2020, 04:10 PM
I don't know. How much? And if they have profited, like most other businesses have, then what is wrong with that?

Wondergirl
Sep 13, 2020, 04:21 PM
I don't know. How much? And if they have profited, like most other businesses have, then what is wrong with that?
It's illegal for a president of the U.S. to profit while in office. He hasn't separated himself from his companies and has "encouraged" foreign leaders etc. to stay at his resorts. (Pssst, it's an ethics issue.)

I won't mention how Ivanka, the president's advisor, has been raking in profits.

jlisenbe
Sep 13, 2020, 04:25 PM
Pretty sure it’s not. It is illegal for any elected official to profit from his or her position, but to profit otherwise is fine. Correct?? If ivanka is making money legally, then why do you seem resentful of that? Are you also resentful of the Obama’s financial success?

Wondergirl
Sep 13, 2020, 04:40 PM
Pretty sure it’s not. It is illegal for any elected official to profit from his or her position, but to profit otherwise is fine. Correct?? If ivanka is making money legally, then why do you seem resentful of that? Are you also resentful of the Obama’s financial success?
The Trump family is making money illegally and unethically while occupying the WH.

"Donald Trump never really got out of business. Sure, he handed day-to-day management of his companies to his children, like a lot of tycoons who get preoccupied with other interests late in life. But the president held onto ownership of his assets after taking office, ensuring that he would continue to generate money while serving in the White House. From 2017 to 2019, the president’s businesses raked in an estimated $1.9 billion of revenue."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2020/09/11/trumps-businesses-raked-in-19-billion-of-revenue-during-his-first-three-years-in-office/#6d08e9be1e13

Umm, "the Obama's success" is incorrect punctuation. You, Mr. Retired School Principal and Teacher, get an F.

jlisenbe
Sep 13, 2020, 04:44 PM
How are they making money illegally and unethically?

Wondergirl
Sep 13, 2020, 04:49 PM
How are they making money illegally and unethically?
Read the Forbes article I linked.

Any correction to your apostrophe error so you can improve your grade?

jlisenbe
Sep 13, 2020, 04:59 PM
I read the passage you copied. Nothing illegal. Your hatred of Trump is coloring your thinking.

Wondergirl
Sep 13, 2020, 05:05 PM
I read the passage you copied. Nothing illegal. Your hatred of Trump is coloring your thinking.
I don't hate him. I feel sorry for him, wish he'd get some serious help from a good psychiatrist or two, maybe spend 6-8 weeks in a mental ward being tested with the MMPI et al, and learning how to make an egg salad sandwich or French toast.

jlisenbe
Sep 13, 2020, 05:08 PM
I’ve seen pity and I’ve seen hate. I think yours is a level of hate. Hope I’m wrong for your sake.

Wondergirl
Sep 13, 2020, 05:14 PM
I’ve seen pity and I’ve seen hate. I think yours is a level of hate.
I am a Christian. I don't hate. I'd love to go out for lunch with Trump, even if we went to McDonald's. (I'd have a Filet-O-Fish, a small fries, and a small Dr Pepper.)

jlisenbe
Sep 13, 2020, 05:18 PM
Then perhaps you should stop making scandalous accusations for which you have no evidence.

Wondergirl
Sep 13, 2020, 05:20 PM
Then perhaps you should stop making scandalous accusations for which you have no evidence.
I'M scandalous??? Forbes isn't good enough? Okay, I'll google for more.

How about this?

The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives.

And this:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/22/20925403/emoluments-clause-trump-g7-resort-impeachment-businesses

jlisenbe
Sep 13, 2020, 05:32 PM
So has Trump done that?

Wondergirl
Sep 13, 2020, 05:41 PM
So has Trump done that?
He's "invited" foreign leaders to stay at his hotels and resorts (and they have) -- and not for free. Please google that yourself since you don't like my links..

jlisenbe
Sep 13, 2020, 06:44 PM
In what way is that a violation of the law you posted?

I don't like your links because you seem to use them to be deceptive. Your angry accusations must, at some point, be backed with evidence. So far all you have is that he is successful in business and that he has supposedly invited foreign leaders to stay at his hotels, but you put "invited" in quotes and thus continue to appear to be deceptive. Did he invite them or not? If you say he did, then do you have any real evidence of that? If you don't, then why do you suggest it is true?

If you want him to be honest, then maybe you should try it yourself. If you have anything, then state it plainly. I read the Forbes article. There is not a single allegation of illegal behavior in the text.

jlisenbe
Sep 13, 2020, 06:50 PM
Here is my favorite part of your supposedly damning Forbes passage. "But the president held onto ownership of his assets after taking office..." What do those morons think he's supposed to do with his assets? Is he supposed to just give them away so as not to hold "onto ownership"? That's got to be the dumbest thing I've heard. Some presidents put them into a blind trust, thus maintaining ownership but not control. Forbes said he turned over management to his children. I really don't care. If he can be pres and make money legally, then more power to him.

talaniman
Sep 14, 2020, 04:59 AM
Maybe you don't care about his financial dealings while he is in the WH, but many have a problem with the leader of government hocking his wares, and promoting his financial interests while in office. It wasn't the kids pushing his ambassador to get a British golf tournament on his property, nor holding a global government meeting at his resort, or pressuring foreign leaders to dig up dirt on his political foes, or smoozing world leaders to stay at his hotels. His kids running his business is as believable as downplaying the virus to avoid a panic.

No dufus defenders that's really pee on your head, not rain, and he isn't selling you an umbrella, that's a non disclosure agreement, with a no responsibility clause at his maskless rallies. Disease spreads, he dithers, but don't panic, he gets tested and you don't. he goes after his foes, and pardons his criminal friends, and ex employees and partners in crime. You jump on Mueller, and Vlad runs buck wild.

Blame Obama, it's all his fault. yeah right.

jlisenbe
Sep 14, 2020, 05:12 AM
pressuring foreign leaders to dig up dirt on his political foesYou do realize that it was actually the Obama admin that did this to Trump?

If you ever come up with some real evidence to support illegal behavior, get back with us.

talaniman
Sep 14, 2020, 05:54 AM
Naw it's just my turn to throw rocks like you righties did to Obama for 8 years, and I don't have to hold my nose or lie about my voting decisions.

jlisenbe
Sep 14, 2020, 07:06 AM
No one here has lied about his voting decisions. As for holding your nose, if you can't smell the stench from the Biden camp, then your nose is basically dead.

talaniman
Sep 14, 2020, 07:42 AM
Is that why you held your nose because of the dufus stench?

jlisenbe
Sep 14, 2020, 07:57 AM
I said I held my nose because there are aspects of the Trump presidency I don't like. I've never hidden that. It's called being honest and it's what you are not willing to do.

Athos
Sep 14, 2020, 11:19 AM
No dufus defenders that's really pee on your head, not rain, and he isn't selling you an umbrella, that's a non disclosure agreement, with a no responsibility clause at his maskless rallies. Disease spreads, he dithers, but don't panic, he gets tested and you don't. he goes after his foes, and pardons his criminal friends, and ex employees and partners in crime. You jump on Mueller, and Vlad runs buck wild.

Blame Obama, it's all his fault. yeah right.

You have a talent for summarizing, tal. Plus a touch of humor (smile).

Wondergirl
Sep 14, 2020, 12:26 PM
I don't like your links because you seem to use them to be deceptive. Your angry accusations must, at some point, be backed with evidence. So far all you have is that he is successful in business and that he has supposedly invited foreign leaders to stay at his hotels, but you put "invited" in quotes and thus continue to appear to be deceptive. Did he invite them or not? If you say he did, then do you have any real evidence of that? If you don't, then why do you suggest it is true?
I'm angry? How do you get that out of what I post? I am probably the least angry person you will ever know. Anger is not in my wheelhouse.

When you invite someone to stay at your house, you don't have your hand out to be paid by your guest. Trump always has his hand out and expects that his foreign guests royally reimburse him. That's illegal and also unethical, against the emoluents clause.


If you want him to be honest, then maybe you should try it yourself. If you have anything, then state it plainly. I read the Forbes article. There is not a single allegation of illegal behavior in the text.
I'll have to call you and read it to you with special emphasis on the parts you apparently glossed over.

jlisenbe
Sep 14, 2020, 12:46 PM
When you invite someone to stay at your house, you don't have your hand out to be paid by your guest. Trump always has his hand out and expects that his foreign guests royally reimburse him. That's illegal and also unethical, against the emoluents clause.Then why did you use the word "invited"? And do you have evidence that they came and stayed at his hotels at his urging?


I'll have to call you and read it to you with special emphasis on the parts you apparently glossed over.You don't have to call. You can just post it right here. You know, the part where they said Trump did something illegal. Go ahead and post it here. I will wait patiently. I certainly wouldn't want to have "glossed over" anything important.

Wondergirl
Sep 14, 2020, 12:54 PM
Then why did you use the word "invited"?N.B. tongue-in-cheek quote marks are around the word INVITED. Bwahahahaha!!!

And do you have evidence that they came and stayed at his hotels at his urging?
Urging??? It was more like ... never mind. You'll say I'm angry.

You don't have to call. You can just post it right here. You know, the part where they said Trump did something illegal. Go ahead and post it here. I will wait patiently.
Nooooo! I wanna call you! And pretend I'm ANGRY!

jlisenbe
Sep 14, 2020, 01:01 PM
And as to the emoluments clause, you missed it again. This is what it actually says.


And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."


Explanation: Congress can't make you a Duke, Earl, or even a Marquis. If you are a civil servant or elected official, you can't accept anything from a foreign government or official, including an honorary title or an office. This clause prevents any government official from receiving foreign gifts without the permission of Congress.

Now the important question would be this. If indeed foreign officials stayed at Trump hotels, did the Congress fund this? If they did, then what is your complaint? If foreign officials purchased copies of Obama's books, then would he have been guilty of violating the emoluments clause? Lastly, how does any of that amount to receiving a gift or title from a foreign government?

jlisenbe
Sep 14, 2020, 01:09 PM
N.B. tongue-in-cheek quote marks are around the word INVITED. Bwahahahaha!!!Evasive. Deceitful.


Urging??? It was more like ... never mind. You'll say I'm angry.
Like I said. Still waiting patiently. It would be much better if you'd just admit that your article made no claims of illegal activity.


Nooooo! I wanna call you! And pretend I'm ANGRY!You would need something to say first. You have nothing. That's my big argument with you and the other two members of the three amigos. You make big claims on small evidence. It lacks honor.

talaniman
Sep 14, 2020, 02:30 PM
Now the important question would be this. If indeed foreign officials stayed at Trump hotels, did the Congress fund this? If they did, then what is your complaint? If foreign officials purchased copies of Obama's books, then would he have been guilty of violating the emoluments clause? Lastly, how does any of that amount to receiving a gift or title from a foreign government?

Nobody invited rich foreign people to stay at the dufus hotels/resorts, nor does congress fund it but hello, get in good with a powerful figure of government then you cater to his business. DUH, that's the way the rich world works, no invite needed (Yes he did raise his rates and fees and that's another DUH!). Profits is a form of emolument and for the record, Obamas book deals and income derived was before and after his time in office. Look it up. Violations of federal law is for a court to decide and there are civil suits on the state level by what amounts to unfair competition.

There is also a raging debate if a president can LEASE government owned buildings since he is a landlord as a public official concerning the DC hotel. Possible conflict of interest? I don't know, but court proceedings can take years before they are prosecuted or settled. There is still a criminal proceeding also as you know he is an unindicted co conspirator in the same case that sent Cohen to jail. I'm sure you overlooked that illegal fact.

jlisenbe
Sep 14, 2020, 06:31 PM
Here's how we know your story is a bunch of rumor mill material. If what you say is true, Pelosi, in between hair salon appointments and lessons on how to wear masks, would have started impeachment proceedings in about three seconds. After all, they tried the "impeachment with no evidence" approach, so to have some evidence would have been glorious for them. So the only real "DUH" in this whole deal has just been explained to everyone.

As to Obama, if you are trying to say that he didn't sell any of his two books (which were published before his election) during his eight years, and you can also be sure that he sold none of those books to foreign government officials while he was in the Senate or White House, then I'd love to see the evidence for that. I can tell you I don't believe a word of it. So if Trump can't make profits off of foreign governments, then neither could Obama.

Athos
Sep 14, 2020, 08:25 PM
There is still a criminal proceeding also as you know he is an unindicted co conspirator in the same case that sent Cohen to jail. I'm sure you overlooked that illegal fact.

Orange-head hasn't overlooked that fact. You can be sure of that. It keeps him up at night - rage tweeting.

paraclete
Sep 14, 2020, 08:58 PM
Orange-head hasn't overlooked that fact. You can be sure of that. It keeps him up at night - rage tweeting.
you can be sure the demonrats will overlook no fact, or any non-fact for that matter

jlisenbe
Sep 15, 2020, 04:23 AM
Orange-head hasn't overlooked that fact. You can be sure of that. It keeps him up at night - rage tweeting.Thank goodness there's no hateful prejudice on this board. Only the objective facts allowed here!!

Meanwhile, in the real world, a man breaks into a house, sexually assaults a woman in a violent manner, steals her car, and violently resists arrest, and then is told by Kamala Harris that she is "proud" of him. Hmm. No politics there for certain. I'm sure she will be criticized by all of the outraged crowd on this site. Kavanaugh was found guilty by several of you for sexual assault even when there was no credible evidence. Let's see how this plays out.

talaniman
Sep 15, 2020, 05:49 AM
Look whose throwing allegations out without evidence or LINKS. Yeah I believe Dr. Ford's testimony. You didn't like Obama, HC, or Joe and we don't like the dufus so why are dufus dislikers the only ones you apply the prejudiced bias label to when you are just as qualified to wear it as anyone on this board?

jlisenbe
Sep 15, 2020, 06:33 AM
Look whose throwing allegations out without evidence or LINKS. You should know better by now, but at any rate, here it is. https://nypost.com/2020/08/28/this-is-why-jacob-blake-had-a-warrant-out-for-his-arrest/


Yeah I believe Dr. Ford's testimony. Most people who believed Ford's testimony did so, not because it was compelling or had ANY supporting evidence, but because they hate Trump. Now it will be interesting to see if you believe this woman's MUCH more detailed complaint against Blake. I'll bet you won't since you seem to be directed more by political ideology than by evidence.

tomder55
Sep 15, 2020, 06:34 AM
This idiot in Atlantic Magazine says Repubs should hope for a Quid victory . Why ???

Well in this guys warped mind ; if Quid wins the Repubs will accept it . BUT if Trump wins ,it will be similar to 2016 with Trump getting an Electoral College win but not a popular vote win . The Dems would never accept that twice .

Get this


A loss by Joe Biden under these circumstances is the worst case not because Trump will destroy America (he can’t), but because it is the outcome most likely to undermine faith in democracy, resulting in more of the social unrest and street battles that cities including Portland, Oregon, (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/30/us/portland-shooting-explained.html) and Seattle (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/7/2/21310109/chop-chaz-cleared-violence-explained) have seen in recent months. For this reason, strictly law-and-order Republicans who have responded in dismay to scenes of rioting and looting have an interest in Biden winning—even if they could never bring themselves to vote for him.

So the Dems support these rioters ......ooops I mean 'nearly peaceful protesters ' ;and if Trump wins there will be more of them . Therefore law and order Repubs should appease them and vote for Quid so the rioting will end.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/democrats-may-not-be-able-concede/616321/

jlisenbe
Sep 15, 2020, 06:38 AM
Well, it's bound to be true since, after all, it's in the Atlantic.

talaniman
Sep 15, 2020, 06:57 AM
You should know better by now, but at any rate, here it is. https://nypost.com/2020/08/28/this-is-why-jacob-blake-had-a-warrant-out-for-his-arrest/

Well there goes presumed innocent, but does that justify 7 shots in the back? What he is charged with is irrelevant to the treatment he got.


You believe Ford's testimony, not because it was compelling or had ANY supporting evidence, but because you hate Trump. Now it will be interesting to see if you believe this woman's MUCH more detailed complaint against Blake. I'll bet you won't since you seem to be directed more by political ideology than by evidence.

You're not qualified to speak for me. You also are not a credible judge of evidence because either you wear blinders, or have a narrow closed mind. I have ample evidence for both, and Blakes victim filed charges and they should be properly adjudicated in court, not by a cop who lost it on the street. Two separate issues that you seem to roll into one.

jlisenbe
Sep 15, 2020, 07:02 AM
Well there goes presumed innocent, but does that justify 7 shots in the back? What he is charged with is irrelevant to the treatment he got.Strange that you apply the presumed innocent standard to Blake, but not to the police. Hmm. Didn't apply it to Kavanaugh either.

I knew you would dodge the question about believing Blake's victim. I said you would, and it turned out just that way. You are terrified of saying anything that might make it appear, even for a few seconds, that you are on the side of conservatives. Truth has nothing to do with it. It's all about hating Trump. I'm convinced that you've lost the ability to be objective.

But I can ask it again. If you believed Kavanaugh's accuser, then do you believe the much more detailed account of Blake's accuser? And if not, then why not?

tomder55
Sep 15, 2020, 08:03 AM
This would be the Blake that was carrying a Karambit knife ?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgOhBZrWkAAxRBl.png

jlisenbe
Sep 15, 2020, 09:32 AM
No wonder she's so proud of him. In a Harris administration, he can hold some sort of military position.

talaniman
Sep 15, 2020, 09:53 AM
@Tom

No way can you identify what he has from that photo.

@JL

I may be traumatized by the videos this year of cops killing unarmed folks. It's horrific. Maybe for you not so much.

tomder55
Sep 15, 2020, 10:56 AM
must be a spork except Blake admitted to investigators that he had a knife in his possession.

jlisenbe
Sep 15, 2020, 11:29 AM
I may be traumatized by the videos this year of cops killing unarmed folks. It's horrific.If that bothers you, then what must the killing of 900,000 unborn children every year do to you? Certainly none of them are armed. They do not resist arrest. They just die silently while you liberal dems continue to insist that it happen. So no, don't try that "traumatized" garbage with me. Just not playing that game.

talaniman
Sep 15, 2020, 11:53 AM
Abortions bother me too, and always have.

jlisenbe
Sep 15, 2020, 12:29 PM
And yet you support those who advocate for it without question. If at some point I say that the violent deaths of unarmed black men bothers me, but then vote for those who want to make it legal to do so, then in what way can I say it really bothers me?

I don't mean to be ugly to you. I have admired you for being honest in expressing what you believe. I give you great credit for that.

talaniman
Sep 15, 2020, 01:27 PM
I support people for various reasons but what they think about abortions isn't high on my list of priorities nor a reason of total rejection. My views and opinions are my own as well as my feelings about things. I give you and everybody else the same courtesy and respect for their opinions and feelings as I would want for myself.

jlisenbe
Sep 15, 2020, 02:47 PM
Roger that.