The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Those damn emails keep doing libtards in! Smollett has to be mortified tonight. Both Foxx and Smollett have egg on their face.

Wonder what has to say about this new email.

They should have Ana Foxx play her in a movie?

Foxx is only trying to take the heat off herself...by doing that email...
She thought all the niggers were going to support her....
But when the top cop came out and criticize her she realized it was a total fuck up..!

Wonder what would happen to a straight white guy who tried to cause racial hatred in Chicago if he got caught in a big lie such as Smollett told?

Would Manchelle's chief of staff help him?

“Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I’m fucked.”

....the words from an innocent person.

The words of a person falsely accused by lying Democrats such as Elkin.

Johnnie....why would anybody say "I'm fucked" if they knew they were innocent???

why would anybody say "I'm fucked" if they knew they were innocent???

Elk, try and keep up, Trump was right, they did fuck him. Now those who fucked Trump, are under investigation for setting out to fuck him.

Justme...maybe you should wait until the adderall wears off before you post shit on the internet.

Yet..........I’m old enough to remember when blatant obstruction of justice was a crime.

Without an underlying crime, there could be no obstruction.

Mueller knew 22 months ago there was no collusion, but his staff of 19 Democrat lawyers kept the probe going another 22 months in a vain attempt to obstruct the Trump presidency.

It was a fake dossier which started the probe, and surely all of them (Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Ohr, Strzok, Page, McCabe, Weissmann, et al.) knew it was fake.

Attempted soft coup d'etat.

"Without an underlying crime, there could be no obstruction."

Johnnie...do you enjoy making a fool out of yourself? You know nothing about the law.

Of course you can be charged with obstruction when there is no underlying crime. You may want to ask Martha Stewart who was found guilty of obstruction and the government had no insider trading case against her.

It took some two years for Mueller to determine or not conclude that President Trump may have... but may not have committed obstruction.

Now we are supposed to believe that Barr read some detailed 450 page report over the weekend and determined that Trump should not be charged with obstruction???

How did Barr come up that conclusion in a few days....which Mueller struggled over 2 years????

Oh, come on, Elkin.

You could give me your personal web site this morning, I'll reply with mine, and you could ascertain my credentials before the sun sets on this fine Wednesday.

But you won't. You wouldn't like what you would find.

Of course you can be charged with obstruction when there is no underlying crime. You may want to ask Martha Stewart who was found guilty of obstruction and the government had no insider trading case against her.

Wrong, dude you're watching way to much CNN. You left out she was found "guilty of conspiracy to commit insider trading" and obstruction when she tried to cover up the conspiracy crimes. You can not charge someone for obstruction when there is no underlying crime.

" You can not charge someone for obstruction when there is no underlying crime."-RealTool

Wrong again, dimwit. You must have attended the same match-book-cover law school that johnforbes pretends he attended.

"What is obstruction of justice? It refers to "interference with the orderly administration of law and justice," including "proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees." The relevant type in the Trump example is likely "obstruction of criminal investigations."

Three elements are generally required for a conviction on obstruction of justice: the existence of a pending federal judicial proceeding; the defendant’s knowledge of this proceeding; and the defendant’s corrupt intent to interfere with, or attempt to interfere with, the proceeding."

"You can obstruct justice even if a prosecutor ultimately finds you were not guilty of committing the crime that was the focus of the underlying investigation," said Miriam Baer, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. "Even if a prosecutor ultimately concluded that you weren’t guilty of crime X, that says nothing as to whether you thought that you might be indicted for crime X, or, for that matter, if you thought one of your friends of family members would be indicted for crime X."

"Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, agreed that an obstruction prosecution could have been argued in this case.

"Suppose Trump knew that no crime had been committed but believed that the investigation would uncover politically or personally embarrassing information, or if he believed that the investigation would embarrass or implicate an ally, aide, or family member," Posner said. "Then interfering with the investigation is a crime. The reason is that the purpose of the investigation is to find the truth, and if people obstruct an investigation, then the investigation becomes more difficult, wasting government resources."


These actual lawyers are more believable than either of you clowns, Tool.

Clown, I just demonstrated why Elk was wrong, now you chime in. No one ever has been convicted of obstructing justice when there was no underlying crime. Sure you can find some left wing activist that is willing to bring the charges, but please provide one example of anyone being convicted for it? You can't

Tool, you "demonstrated" nothing beyond your gullibility and dimwittedness.

You provided no evidence or legal opinion other than that of your handlers. They are not your friends. They are not lawyers. They are propagandists.

Clown, I repeat, please provide one example of "anyone" being convicted of what you and Elk claim Trump can be convicted of. There can be no obstructing charges when there was no underlying crime to begin with

Elk gave CNN's Martha Stewart as example of someone being convicted for obstructing justice when there was no underlying crime but the idiots failed to acknowledge the conspiracy crime, which was what led to the obstruction charges. Mueller made it very clear there were no signs of any conspiracy by anyone in the Trump campaign to work with the Russians in the election.

I'm impressed that both johnflubs and RealTool are convinced they know more about the law than Attorney General Barr.

In his testimony before Congress Barr said that Obstruction of Justice charges "usually" have an underlying crime. That's Barr's word, not mine.

I challenge johnforbes and RealTool to present an argument that proves Barr doesn't know what he's talking about.

In his testimony before Congress Barr said that Obstruction of Justice charges "usually" have an underlying crime. That's Barr's word, not mine.

I think Barr, in his statement is telling Congress,
it is safe to say no obstruction of justice charges without an underlying crime...

sillydaddy wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2019 11:21 am

In his testimony before Congress Barr said that Obstruction of Justice charges "usually" have an underlying crime. That's Barr's word, not mine.

I think Barr, in his statement is telling Congress,
it is safe to say no obstruction of justice charges without an underlying crime...

Yeah Dummy....you may want to explain that to Martha Stewart...she was found guilty of obstruction and there was no underlying crime.

Wrong, Elkin.

Insider trading...

Wrong John Forbes...

There were no insider trading charges.

Elkin, you misunderstood because you have never studied law.

That was the opening wedge.

If you are trying to get to the point that that entire case was preposterous and a waste of taxpayer money, then I concur.

Johnnie there is no misunderstanding , the law is crystal clear, and you obviously don't understand law.

18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "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."

So what does that mean...prosecutors prosecute people who interfere with the functioning of government. The law above does not stipulate that there needs to be an "underlying crime" as a prerequisite to charge someone for obstruction. Because obstruction is a crime, in of itself.

Regardless, even if Mueller did recommend charges, Barr would have never charged Trump with obstruction. Because Barr's interpretation of the obstruction law is that obstruction can only occur if you are interfering with a criminal investigation...of yourself. And this is just absurd.

Wrong John Forbes...

There were no insider trading charges.

About Martha Stewart..
She was charged with securities fraud and obstruction of justice....
Securities Fraud is, illegal insider trading, among other things.....

sillydaddy wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 1:28 pm

Wrong John Forbes...

There were no insider trading charges.

About Martha Stewart..
She was charged with securities fraud and obstruction of justice....
Securities Fraud is, illegal insider trading, among other things.....

Well that's not entirely accurate...now is it. The judge dropped the insider trading charges.

Silly is the William Barr of the VW political forum BB....

LMFAO!!!