Can You Obstruct a Fraud?

[rangerrebew]

Can You Obstruct a Fraud?   

by Andrew C. McCarthy June 15, 2017 1:30 PM   

Maybe Trump objected to the fraudulent notion, which Comey led the world to believe, that Trump was under investigation for collusion. On March 30, 2017, by his own account, then-FBI director James Comey told President Donald Trump that Trump himself was not under investigation — the third time he had given him that assurance. In fact, Comey told Trump that he had just assured members of Congress that Trump was not a suspect under investigation.

Think about that.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448674/trump-wanted-comey-refute-false-notion-he-was-suspect

[Bigun]

Can You Obstruct a Fraud?   

by Andrew C. McCarthy June 15, 2017 1:30 PM   

Maybe Trump objected to the fraudulent notion, which Comey led the world to believe, that Trump was under investigation for collusion. On March 30, 2017, by his own account, then-FBI director James Comey told President Donald Trump that Trump himself was not under investigation — the third time he had given him that assurance. In fact, Comey told Trump that he had just assured members of Congress that Trump was not a suspect under investigation.

Think about that.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448674/trump-wanted-comey-refute-false-notion-he-was-suspect

Obstructing fraud would be a very good thing would it not?

[bigheadfred]

a narrative that the intelligence agencies knew was false yet refused to correct

Control the narrative. No matter what.

[unite for individuality]

Can You Obstruct a Fraud?   

by Andrew C. McCarthy June 15, 2017 1:30 PM   

If an officer arrests you for a fraudulent charge, and you resist arrest,
you can be prosecuted and convicted for resisting arrest,
even though it was an invalid arrest.

But if an officer invades your home without a warrant or probable cause,
and finds contraband,
you cannot be prosecuted for possession of the contraband
because the search was illegal.
The Supreme Court holds that the outcome should be
the same as if the officer had obeyed the law.

The law is inconsistent.  The principle that applies in the second case
should be applied to the first case.
Someone should argue this in court.

[ABX]

Obstructing an investigation is still obstruction. The person being investigated does not get to just say 'this is a fraud' and obstruct it. Can you imagine the state of the justice system if that were the case.

Plus, on the specific investigation being discussed, we don't know where the tentacles will lead. Trump claims it is a 'fraud' regarding his involvement, but by obstructing it, he may hurt findings into other's involvement like, for example, Clinton's camp.

[bigheadfred]

If an officer arrests you for a fraudulent charge, and you resist arrest,
you can be prosecuted and convicted for resisting arrest,
even though it was an invalid arrest.

But if an officer invades your home without a warrant or probable cause,
and finds contraband,
you cannot be prosecuted for possession of the contraband
because the search was illegal.
The Supreme Court holds that the outcome should be
the same as if the officer had obeyed the law.

The law is inconsistent.  The principle that applies in the second case
should be applied to the first case.
Someone should argue this in court.

I would like to think it has been argued in court.

[unite for individuality]

Obstructing an investigation is still obstruction. The person being investigated does not get to just say 'this is a fraud' and obstruct it. Can you imagine the state of the justice system if that were the case.

Plus, on the specific investigation being discussed, we don't know where the tentacles will lead. Trump claims it is a 'fraud' regarding his involvement, but by obstructing it, he may hurt findings into other's involvement like, for example, Clinton's camp.

Obstruction of justice consists of
lying to investigators,
pressuring others to lie to investigators,
tampering with evidence, or
concealing evidence.

In the case at hand, the only people I see doing those things are the Democrats.

Plus, suggesting that a prosecutor should show some discretion is not on the list.

[Bigun]

Obstruction of justice consists of
lying to investigators,
pressuring others to lie to investigators,
tampering with evidence, or
concealing evidence.

In the case at hand, the only people I see doing those things are the Democrats.

Plus, suggesting that a prosecutor should show some discretion is not on the list.

Thank you!  Welcome to TBR!

[truth_seeker]

Obstructing an investigation is still obstruction. The person being investigated does not get to just say 'this is a fraud' and obstruct it. Can you imagine the state of the justice system if that were the case.

Plus, on the specific investigation being discussed, we don't know where the tentacles will lead. Trump claims it is a 'fraud' regarding his involvement, but by obstructing it, he may hurt findings into other's involvement like, for example, Clinton's camp.

We do know it is intended to be a perpetual, permanent fishing expedition, for the purpose of impeding the republican agenda.

Anybody calling themselves a conservative, and cheerleading the exercise is the real fraud.

"What crime am I supposed to have committed?"

"We are not sure, yet. That is what we are investigating."