Retard Trump just killed himself with his rampant twittering. What a moron. That's all Mueller need for indicting him

Retard Trump just killed himself with his rampant twittering. What a moron. That's all Mueller need for indicting him.

Other urls found in this thread:

market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232636
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-73
theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/11/donald-trump-james-comey-firing-russia-investigation
archive.is/ZgByQ
twitter.com/AnonBabble

You can't indict because of a tweet.

You should know that and not do a chimp out on Sup Forums

Nothing serious will happen until that pee tape is released.

Not illegal to hire people to pee on the bed, either.

But it is a crime to fake a dossier taken from Sup Forums fiction and use it to get a FISA warrant by fraud to do opposition research for a political party. False document, perjury and all that.

This will surely be the end of Drumpf

the president has free speech you pathetic obvious shill

I'm pretty sure you can use that in court, dude.

...

...

Holy shit, Drumpf lawyer is going to court.

Basic gestalt?

...

>implying
You cling to that story which is neither consistent in timeline nor exposing any specific details making this plausible.
I'm sure even agents know how to surf the internet for specifics before releasing a vague dossier, no?
It won't be a pee tape, maybe something else degenerate.
This guy talks about being careful with being filmed but can't even keep his dotard mouth shut in front o a tv show.

>1 post by this ID

Please share your insights with us OP. You say the president‘s tweets is all Mueller will need to in date. What specific portions of trumps tweets are you referring to, and what united states code section would Mueller use those tweets to in date under? Don’t worry I’ll wait.

nice try achmed, your english is getting better though. Have a bagel on the house.

Indicte*

You really are retarded arent you

*yawn* oh no I guess Trump is done for

That's not even coherent, user.

It did stink of troll shit... a slider thread. Troll confirmed.

It may be admissible, but relevant for what, user? If it's not relevant, it won't be seen in court.

Ay lmao Trump is a retard.

>Two dumb things here. First, Trump is stupid enough to own and use an iPhone.

>But second, and not-at-all tongue-in-cheek, is the content of this tweet.

>If Trump fired Flynn knowing Flynn had lied to the FBI and then attempted to get Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn's conduct (which he has also admitted to doing, which there is documentary evidence of, and which occurred after he fired Flynn) then Trump knew at the time he asked Comey to "let it go" that Flynn had committed a felony offense.

>Does that meet the formal definition of Obstruction of Justice?

>Sure looks like it to me, and Trump just appears to have admitted it in public.

>Mueller no longer needs to prove why Trump fired Comey as the President just admitted to having actual knowledge of a felony crime and it is known that after he fired Flynn he attempted to get the investigation into said crime killed as the Comey memo on same is both contemporaneous and a legally-admissible official record.

>Oops.

It was fun while it lasted.

market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232636

What’s the matter shill?
Surely you have the tweet portions and the United States code sections handy don’t you?

Don’t you have any answer to ?

Nothing to say? All talk no action?
.

>What specific portions of trumps tweets are you referring to, and what united states code section would Mueller use those tweets to in date under? Don’t worry I’ll wait.

Not op, but his tweets are no different than him being recorded saying he intentionally obstructed justice. Add to that he said he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation, and theere you go.

Trump knows these tweets will be used in his trial for treason?

...

>Trump knows these tweets will be used in his trial for treason?

Clearly he admitted to obstruction of justice, but would it be possible to charge him with reason?

>reason?
treason*

Firstly, new learners investigation is not and has never been in regard to obstruction of justice as it relates to Michael Flynn.

Secondly, it is well documented that call me, as FBI director, independently chose not to bring charges against Flynn because they did not rise to the process crime of Lying to the FBI.

Thirdly, if it “seems like” obstruction of justice to you then why don’t you cite the United States code section you believe Trump can be charged under.

Don’t worry I’ll wait.

>still thinks mueller is working against trump
>calls someone else a moron

>market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232636
>when he likely has a number of things he can get him on

Why the fuck do liberals keep saying shit like this? What other things could Mueller have 'gotten' Flynn on? Why just keep assuming 'oh he had him on a bunch of shit' when there's literally zero evidence of any of that.

Also the liberal interpretation of that tweet is fucking retarded.

No, not possible. Treason is only in the context of war in the US. It will be a flimsy obstruction charge by itself if they choose to go with this.

From law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-73

18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

Take your pick.

Yes, but he also knows that it's too late for him now. The best he can do is cause controversy and confusion until the feds get tired and he gets the chair for justice of betraying the American people.

Burping out words like obstruction and “he admitted to obstructing justice on tape “mean nothing and speaks to your lack of knowledge of the laws relating to this issue and the indicia of violation there of.

You are conflating two things in order to attempt to repair your argument. You are conflating and deliberately confusing the firing of Michael Flynn and the firing of James Comey. They are not the same person. And the tweet that you cited has nothing to do with Comey.

I can expect you to have something coherent in reply otherwise you should lurk more for education sake.

No shill you take your pick. You are the one who is sure that the law has been violated. Pick a statute section out of that chapter. And then explain how a specific portion of a specific tweet by the president proves violation there of. I will wait.

Look, I get it. You like Trump. But at some point you have to open your eyes, instead of repeating the word, "conflating".

If there's an investigation into possible collusion with Russia, and Trump admits that he fired Comey because he didn't want him investigating these possible ties, then it's obstruction of justice. If you can't figure that out, then I honestly don't know what to tell you other than, "you should lurk more for education sake".

Well, if you can't use emails you can't use tweets.

>Pick a statute section out of that chapter. And then explain how a specific portion of a specific tweet by the president proves violation there of.

Well, here you go.

§ 1510 - Obstruction of criminal investigations
Trump said that he fired Comey due to Russia, as shown here.

theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/11/donald-trump-james-comey-firing-russia-investigation

They can charge him with obstructing criminal investigation under the code of Obstruction of Justice because he admitted that he obstructed justice. Calling me a shill doesn't change that.

Archived it archive.is/ZgByQ

>market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232636

Quite a stretch. The tweet says nothing of the sort.

Actually you are the one who has to figure that out, as you are the one making the assertion. The way the world works in this country is you have to prove a violation of the specific criminal statute.

I have asked you to lay out your argument. I have giving you an opportunity to lay out a rational reasonable point a to point B legal argument, as that is the only kind of argument that is relevant on this topic.

Instead you have elected to post your opinion, and a link to a chapter of the United States code that has no text, but rather an index of statute. This shows me that you actually do not understand statutes, let alone their substance on this issue in particular.

Prove me wrong. I’ll wait.

>1 post by this ID
S a g e

Israel is so fucked. I can't wait to watch them not exist anymore. Isn't this exciting!

The tweet says he fired him BECAUSE he lied to the FBI, i.e. the cause of my firing him was the lie. That implies he knew, unless one will argue that you can fire someone over something you don't know about.

>"You're fired."
>"Why?"
>"I don't know. Some reason I'm not aware of. It's because of that reason."

I think the Trump presidency is funny as hell. I like that he wants to BTFO Islam and doesn't give a shit about immigration, but it looks like he just fucked himself. I still think the Trump presidency is funny.

>Actually you are the one who has to figure that out, as you are the one making the assertion. The way the world works in this country is you have to prove a violation of the specific criminal statute.
>I have asked you to lay out your argument. I have giving you an opportunity to lay out a rational reasonable point a to point B legal argument, as that is the only kind of argument that is relevant on this topic.
>Instead you have elected to post your opinion, and a link to a chapter of the United States code that has no text, but rather an index of statute. This shows me that you actually do not understand statutes, let alone their substance on this issue in particular.
>Prove me wrong. I’ll wait.

You have to be trolling at this point. You just can't be this blind/stupid, although Sup Forums never seems to surprise me anymore.

And yes, you're innocent until proven guilty. Of course I have to prove that Trump violated the law. It's just so easy to do it because he admitted it on camera.

You can whine about it, you can scream, but those are his words, not mine. If you're under investigation, and you admit to the world that you fired someone responsible for handling said investigation because you didn't want him investigating you, it's obstruction of justice. You can either deny reality, or you can accept it and move on.

I take it that you did not even bother to read the text of that statute section. If you had you would know that it has nothing to do with the firing of Comey.

It also has nothing to do with trumps clearly generic statement that he fired Comey over Russia. The term is open ended and is not proof of anything, and you know that.

Let’s try this again, copy and paste which portion of title 18 USC section 1510 that applies to Comey’s firing. This is actually a separate question from my prior one as I am trying to help you because you are spinning in an erratic circle on this very simple line of legal questioning.

You're either a troll, or deluded. There's no point in arguing with you any further. I wish you luck in life, although its' pretty sad this is how far you've sunk.

You are making a very large logical inference with out supporting Analysis. You have given us an argument that is essentially as follows:

Trump admitted to obstruction of justice on tape and because he admitted it he is guilty.

The most analysis you have offered in support of the foregoing is that Trump said he fired Comey over Russia.

Let me show you a problem with your statement Pay attention because this is an important fact that you are clearly not educated about. You stated that if you are under a criminal investigation and you interfere that is obstructing. Donald Trump was not under a criminal investigation by anyone at anytime including James Comey.

So I ask again how even assuming your premise is true that equates to obstruction of justice wherea no criminal investigation existed in the first place to obstruct?

I said wait for it

Hate to burst your bubble but Mueller can't investigate Trump's firing of Comey because Comey and Mueller are friends. Why do you think Trump hired him in the first place? Because Mueller can't prosecute a case involving a friend, hence Trump is totally immune from obstruction charges via this SP. It would be thrown out almost instantly.

The analysis is that Trump knew Flynn lied to the FBI and then fired Comey over it. That would be trying to fuck with an investigation.

Honestly, if you are so sure of yourself and it is so simple, you should take this opportunity to make a fool of me by citing the specific section of 18 USC section 1510.

Make a fool of me. I’ll wait.

>>Does that meet the formal definition of Obstruction of Justice?
No, it doesn’t.

t. Lawyer

He didn't fire him until after it publically came put that he lied.
No proof Trump knew beforehand, and it's not illegal to fire someone if they broke a law.

You're an idiot.

Trump violated no law. He had an absolute right to fire Comey. The real issue is that Comey was a plant by the prior administration, trying to undermine his boss, the president. This is at least sedition, and is actually punishable by death for either espionage or treason, take your pick.

yawn and sage

The president has an absolute right to tell the head of the FBI what to do, and what not to do. If the head of the FBI does not do what his boss says, he is fired. Period.

You have no evidence of that. You take a flimsy statement in a tweet and run with it.
Go ahead and reread that tweet and look for the word "If". It's important in context

You made the logical inference without supporting analysis. You stated in a conclusory statements that Trump fired Comey because he knew that Flynn lied to the FBI. Why would he do that if Comey himself refused to charge Flynn? And here’s another tip: by refusing to charge Flynn there was no criminal investigation for Trump to obstruct but your line of reasoning. Also, where is the proof that the reason you provided is even close to the reason Comey was fired?

Assumptions and cloud punching is so far what has been offered. Do better.

even Lindsey Graham told him to stfu with tweeting regarding this you morons.

All he has to do is shut up and nothing will happen to him but he keeps tweeting like the retard he is

>rampant twittering
yeh he's been doing that since 2015

I meant to say that he fired Flynn over it. Trump knew Flynn lied to the FBI and fired him over it, which is what he admits in the tweet. He then fires Comey, knowing that Flynn is being investigated over is lying. That's the case, basically.

It seems that you have more emotional reaction to this issue than you do a legally analytic one.

Pro tip: the legal analytic opinion is the only relevant opinion on this issue.

T. Attorney

He's not indicting because of the tweet, you mong. But the Tweet does serve as a tacit admission of what Mueller would actually indict for, and would almost certainly be used.

Except, Flynn was not being investigated. Comey refused to charge him. James Comey was fired after that decision.

Your argument is predicated on incorrect facts.

FBI investigations don't for title 18 section 1510.

Nothing Trump does to the FBI can ever be considered obstruction, save for bribery.

By Blackstone’s beard I do believe we have somebody who bothered to read the cited statute!

You can use emails in court though, even as evidence. Without supplementary evidence, the reliability is questioned. However, the emails and tweets would be used to supplement the core case, and would probably be used to grill him in cross ex.

SUNPOF

Spotted the mudslime, dont you have a clock to build?

Ladies and gentlemen lurkers all. Take note of this thread. Not with all the shills, bots and Share blue agents could anyone lay out a solid legal argument against Trump On these news stories. If it could be done anywhere, the trolls here would have done it. They could not.

Take note. It’s all smoke and mirrors. It is a game, a giant Bluff in the hopes that this will all affect the next election cycle. That is the goal, and perhaps they hope and pray they can convince enough politicians to impeach. The ends here are political not legal.

You beaners make good tacos, lawyers tho... Not so much

>Except, Flynn was not being investigated. Comey refused to charge him.

That Comey didn't charge him imply an investigative process. You don't charge in order to investigate.

...

The keywords in your post are “in support of a core case.”

Still looking for that core case.

Why is this a big deal? There's nothing wrong with Trump asking the FBI to let Flynn go for diplomatic and security reasons. If they pressed forward anyway, Trump can just pardon Flynn.

If this had anything to do with Trump saving his own skin, then this would be a different story. But that's not what's happening, and Trump is fully within his rights as president, so fuck off you retarded shill.

Let me be more clear with you. Flynn was cleared by James Comey of criminal wrong doing. That is point number one in the timeline.

Point number two in the timeline is that James Comey was fired.

Point number three in the timeline is that Mueller was appointed and began his own criminal investigation of Flynn.

>charge him with reason
The absolute state of leftists, charging presidents for using reason.

Can you even indict a President?

>Firstly, new learners investigation is not and has never been in regard to obstruction of justice as it relates to Michael Flynn.
First of all, that is not really true. It was a minor concern for the investigation, but a concern nonetheless. But also, hat's not really relevant because regardless of whether or not that is true, obstruction is now a concern of the investigation. Furthermore, there is strong precedent for pursuing obstruction of justice because both Nixon and Clinton were ultimately impeached for it.

>Secondly, it is well documented that Comey, as FBI director, independently chose not to bring charges against Flynn because they did not rise to the process crime of Lying to the FBI.
This is also no longer relevant because Mueller has since brought those charges, and furthermore, Flynn himself has plead guilty to them. That is just the way that the investigation has developed.

>Thirdly, if it “seems like” obstruction of justice to you then why don’t you cite the United States code section you believe Trump can be charged under.
Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal criminal laws that prohibit obstructions of justice. The six most general outlaw obstruction of judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation (18 U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505), conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature of statute, rule and common law). (From the Congressional research service.)

He could probably be held accountable for witness tampering in the very least, possibly witness retaliation, and impeding judicial proceedings, maybe even congressional ones if he fucks up in the future.

Not much for reading and comprehension are we?

No, impeachment is required before indictment

Michael Zeldin, Fmr. Assistant to then-Asst. Attorney General Robert Mueller just debunked the tweet thing on CNN.

He says it's impossible for anyone to have known. Only the 2 interviewers, Comey and Yates would've known at that point.

>there was nothing to hide
i really doubt that.

He never knows when to shut up. He'd be doing a lot better if he just shut his mouth and didn't "tell it like it is" quite so often. The only way he knows of solving a problem is yelling at people about it.

>still believing the Sup Forums dossier meme

>t is a game, a giant Bluff in the hopes that this will all affect the next election cycle.

This is exactly right.

The Dems have nothing, but they're going to keep throwing shit against the wall in the hopes that some of it sticks and redounds in their favor during the 2018 election cycle.

Never forget the HUGE hand up that Rosenstein gave the Dems in this process by naming a special prosecutor for the Russia nothingburger -- based on zero, nebulous, or fake evidence, as explained here: I wonder whether Trump's recent tweets about Hillary vs. Flynn were a shot not only across Mueller's bow, but also Rosenstein's.

Drumplf lost Iowa, he won't even get all the necessary delegates to win the Republican nomination. It's over for Drumpflets, his chances of winning are as big as large as your brain, hehe. Should've been reading Harry Potter instead of The Art of the Deal, you would've seen this one coming Drumpflet fascists.

>James Brien Comey Jr. (born December 14, 1960) is an American lawyer who served as the seventh Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from September 4, 2013 until May 9, 2017.
>every action taken by the previous administration is subversive and seditious
the absolute state of Sup Forums's reality distortion field

And Flynn. He would have known too. He could have admitted it to Trump, saying "shit I think I fucked up the interview, just careless." Trump then goes goes to Comey, hey he was just careles he fucked up the interview. Not even close to being obstruction. And if it was Mueller can't bring the charge because he's Comey's friend.

>an user on Sup Forums says they made the dossier
>Sup Forums believes them
it's not even a believable larp m80.

Witness tampering only is possible when there is a witness connected with an active court case. No active court case no witness tampering. Also No witness retaliation.

No court case, no interference with judicial proceedings..

There has also been no suggestion that tromp interfered with congressional investigations in anyway.

Firing James Comey when he was not himself investigating Flynn, who is the person in question, means no interference with administrative process as to him.

You are doing better than the others, but try again.

>And Flynn.

Do you think they just announced "you lied" right after the interview??

lol

...

Could have is not indictable. Try again.

No I said Flynn told Trump he lied.

Spill the beans. Tell us why and how Muller is going to use Flynn.

I'm arguing that there is no case for obstruction. What do you want me to try again at?

Information on all of the administration's contacts with Russia, all of its contacts with Wikileaks, all of its motivations for those contacts, and any quid pro quo that may have taken place. Anything Flynn might have done that incriminated Trump in any way, giving motivation for obstruction of justice.