Should people who voted for candidates that met with hostile foreign intelligence agencies be tried

Should those who voted for trump be held accountable as accomplices by:

  • Being tried for treason

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Hanged and their dead bodies then deported to Russia

    Votes: 1 25.0%
  • Tried for hate crimes against the poor

    Votes: 3 75.0%

  • Total voters
    4

old buzzard

Well-Known Member
the facts said no collusion after 2 years.who is it that does not accept the facts.Watch what happens over the next 6 months.let all the info come out.the I.G report is still out there,it will be very interesting.everyone jumped the gun on collusion and now cannot let go of it because they invested to much into the narrative.so lets just wait and see what happens after the other report gets out there.maybe both of us will be wrong on somethings.
 

Herb & Suds

Well-Known Member
the facts said no collusion after 2 years.who is it that does not accept the facts.Watch what happens over the next 6 months.let all the info come out.the I.G report is still out there,it will be very interesting.everyone jumped the gun on collusion and now cannot let go of it because they invested to much into the narrative.so lets just wait and see what happens after the other report gets out there.maybe both of us will be wrong on somethings.
Where is the report ? Have you seen it ?
So far all we have is an opinion from Barr but somehow your boy is all good?
You really look foolish claiming you know what is in that report but then again you are a Trump supporter so I guess you are used to it
 

old buzzard

Well-Known Member
Where is the report ? Have you seen it ?
So far all we have is an opinion from Barr but somehow your boy is all good?
You really look foolish claiming you know what is in that report but then again you are a Trump supporter so I guess you are used to it
actually you all look foolish everything you spouted off about collusion was wrong.never said I knew what was in report that's what you all been doing for 2 years..READ what I said.We need to wait 6 months and then we will know more.Actually Muller not Barr said no NO evidence of collusion.and as far as him and obstruction of justice.How can you obstruct when no crime was committed? the Prosecutor (Muller) had to pass that off to Barr.He could not make a recommendation on it that's not Muller's job. like I said stay tuned and let the rest off the story come out.
 

Moses Mobetta

Well-Known Member
Why is it that when confronted with questions about conduct or issues, Republicans attempt to change the subject and blame someone else, usually but not always a Democrat for something that has absolutely nothing to do with the matters at hand. Upon becoming a Republican it seems to me that cognitive thinking somehow becomes disabled
 

ChiefRunningPhist

Well-Known Member
Why is it that when confronted with questions about conduct or issues, Republicans attempt to change the subject and blame someone else, usually but not always a Democrat for something that has absolutely nothing to do with the matters at hand. Upon becoming a Republican it seems to me that cognitive thinking somehow becomes disabled
Agree. The GOP has ZERO accountability.
 

Herb & Suds

Well-Known Member
actually you all look foolish everything you spouted off about collusion was wrong.never said I knew what was in report that's what you all been doing for 2 years..READ what I said.We need to wait 6 months and then we will know more.Actually Muller not Barr said no NO evidence of collusion.and as far as him and obstruction of justice.How can you obstruct when no crime was committed? the Prosecutor (Muller) had to pass that off to Barr.He could not make a recommendation on it that's not Muller's job. like I said stay tuned and let the rest off the story come out.
Simple
Obstruction of justice is a criminal offense of interfering with the (1) administration or process of law, (2) withholding material information or giving false testimony, or (3) harming or intimidating a juror, witness, or officer of law.

The crime of obstruction of justice generally includes crimes committed by judges, prosecutors, attorneys general, and elected officials. It is considered as a misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance in the conduct of the office. However, prosecutors and attorneys commit obstruction of justice when they fail to prosecute judges and other government officials for malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance in office.

Generally, obstruction charges are laid when it is discovered that a non-suspect person has lied to the investigating officers. Obstruction charges can also be laid if a person alters or destroys physical evidence, even if s/he was under no compulsion to produce such evidence, at any time. Obstruction of justice is a broad concept that extends to any effort to prevent the execution of lawful process or the administration of justice in either a criminal or civil matter. Obstructive conduct also includes the intimidation of potential witnesses or retaliation against actual witnesses, the preparation of false testimony or other evidence, or the interference with jurors or other court personnel. The purpose of criminal obstruction statutes is to protect the integrity of legal proceedings and, at the same time, protect those individuals who participate in such proceedings.

The principal statutes in this area contained in chapter 73 of United States Code Title 18 are:

  • section 1501 (misdemeanor to obstruct a federal process or writ server);
  • section 1502 (misdemeanor to obstruct or resist an extradition agent);
  • section 1503 (felony provision that targets efforts to influence or injure a court officer or juror, as well as other obstructionary efforts);
  • section 1504 (misdemeanor to influence a juror by writing);
  • section 1505 (felony to obstruct proceedings before departments, agencies, committees);
  • section 1506 (felony to steal or alter a court record or provide a phony bail surety);
  • section 1507 (misdemeanor to picket or parade with the intent of impeding or obstructing the administration of justice);
  • section 1508 (misdemeanor to record or observe proceedings of grand or petit juries while deliberating or voting);
  • section 1509 (misdemeanor to obstruct court orders); section 1510 (felony to obstruct criminal investigations);
  • section 1511 (felony to obstruct state or local law enforcement with the intent to facilitate an illegal gambling business);
  • section 1512 (felony to tamper with a witness, victim, or informant);
  • section 1513 (felony to retaliate against a witness, victim, or informant);
  • section 1516 (felony to obstruct a federal audit);
  • section 1517 (felony to obstruct the examination of a financial institution); and
  • section 1518 (felony to obstruct a criminal investigation of health care offenses.
Section 1503 offers broad protection to the “due administration of justice” by stating that a person who “corruptly or by threats of force, or by threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice” is guilty of the crime of obstruction of justice.
The government must prove that there was a pending federal judicial proceeding, the defendant knew of the proceeding, and the defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding, in order to obtain a conviction under section 1503. Under the statute, actual obstruction is not necessary as an element of proof to sustain a conviction. The defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice is sufficient. The courts define “endeavor” as an effort to accomplish the purpose the statute was enacted to prevent.


And finally a little lighter read https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/03/26/barr-is-wrong-obstruction-justice-doesnt-require-another-underlying-crime/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.980f26b511d4
 
Top