Would this be obstruction of justice?

PeterGriffin · 2018-04-27T19:13:42.216Z

WildRose:

What does that have to do with my statement?

Obama wanted it, Hillary Rubber stamped it.

The rest is currently being investigated and part of that investigation will be coming out in the next IG report.

There’s not even any evidence Clinton was aware of the Uranium One deal; something like that typically wouldn’t rise to her level, much less “rubber stamped” it.

Were the 8 other Federal agencies that would have to approve the Uranium One sale also bought off as well?

This whole Uranium One conspiracy theory is beyond stupid, one of the dumbest cases of Republican Scandal Mongering ever, which is really saying something.

Yakshi · 2018-04-27T19:45:50.106Z

I vote no. That alone doesn’t qualify, imo.

SaysWho · 2018-04-27T20:46:30.302Z

PeterGriffin:

WildRose:

What does that have to do with my statement?

Obama wanted it, Hillary Rubber stamped it.

The rest is currently being investigated and part of that investigation will be coming out in the next IG report.

There’s not even any evidence Clinton was aware of the Uranium One deal; something like that typically wouldn’t rise to her level, much less “rubber stamped” it.

Were the 8 other Federal agencies that would have to approve the Uranium One sale also bought off as well?

This whole Uranium One conspiracy theory is beyond stupid, one of the dumbest cases of Republican Scandal Mongering ever, which is really saying something.

His love of Trump has blinded him. I’ve shown him the evidence twice and he is actually just refusing to comment on it.

I wonder if Trump supporters will pretend they didn’t deny the obstruction and collusion crimes once Trump is convicted. There is already enough to impeach but the Republicans are scared because of complicity or because they don’t want to lose their dark money donors.

WildRose · 2018-04-28T00:50:56.964Z

Oh bull ■■■■■ she had to approve it as head of the DOS.

WildRose · 2018-04-28T00:51:33.171Z

You haven’t shown anything that supports your claims and I have most certainly not avoided responding.

PeterGriffin · 2018-04-28T02:06:06.589Z

WildRose:

Oh bull ■■■■, she had to approve it as head of the DOS.

You can keep using terms like “rubber stamped” and “signed off” but there is zero evidence of that. It is not even known that Clinton would be aware of it.

We don’t even know if Clinton was involved in the committee’s review and approval of the uranium deal. Jose Fernandez, a former assistant secretary of state, told the New York Times that he represented the department on the committee. “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter,” he told the Times, referring to the committee by its acronym.

FactCheck.org – 26 Oct 17

The Facts on Uranium One - FactCheck.org

Two House committees have said that they will investigate the Obama administration’s approval of a deal that gave Russia a financial interest in U.S. uranium production. We covered the issue during the 2016 presidential campaign. We'll recap here...

Est. reading time: 10 minutes

The Uranium One sale was unanimously approved by [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS], which is made up of representatives from nine separate federal agencies and chaired by the Treasury Department. The State Department was just one of the member agencies. By all accounts, Clinton’s role was nominal. In practice, Jose Fernandez, then the assistant secretary of state for economic, energy and business affairs, represented the State Department on CFIUS. He told the Times that Clinton “never intervened with me” on any matter the panel considered. It’s not even clear if Fernandez briefed Clinton about the uranium deal.

nytimes.com – 23 Apr 15

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal (Published 2015)

As the Russian atomic energy agency gradually took charge of a company that controls one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States, a stream of cash made its way to the former president’s charitable organization.

Where’s the “rubber stamp” or the signature from “signing off”, Clinton’s approval? There isn’t one and you won’t be able to produce one. No Republican can either, because it doesn’t work like that.

How did Clinton convince the other 8 Federal agencies?

It’s just so stupid I can’t believe I’m arguing about this, AGAIN. Retarded Republican Zombie News That Can’t Die.

Snow96 · 2018-04-28T04:29:33.484Z

This is another one where everyone is looking at the wizzard – pointing and shouting. I’ve said all along Clinton wasn’t the only one that signed off.

However each and every person who signed off it needs to be dragged in and under oath ask if they were aware of the money launding investigation going on at the time, and other allegations of the companies and their affilates involved.

If they all say no. Then whoever made the briefs for these people need to be dragged in and put under oath and ask why they didn’t feel the need to share the information with those making the decision and if anyone told them not to.

THAT is the true scandal of uranium one.

dantes · 2018-04-28T16:30:25.648Z

Snow96:

Well here’s the article I got it from. Seem’s this obstruction of justice is burried in the inspector general’s report on Mcabe.

The call was on the investigation of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation during the Election. Justice official ADMITS the call took place.

Tucked inside the inspector general’s report on former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was the story of an August 2016 phone call from a high-ranking Justice Department official who Mr. McCabe thought was trying to shut down the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was running for president.

Then the quote that I’ve learned about the call McCabe got

The official was “very pissed off” at the FBI, the report says, and demanded to know why the FBI was still pursuing the Clinton Foundation when the Justice Department considered the case dormant.

Normally I would say alleged call but then you have this:

In a footnote to the report, the inspector general says the Justice official agreed with the description of the call but objected to seeing that “the Bureau was trying to spin this conversation as some evidence of political interference, which was totally unfair.”

Had that been someone from The Trump Administration who made the call, AND admitted making the call, this story would be all over the leftwing media. BUT because it was the Obama Administration and Hillary not a peep about this part of the Inspector General’s report from them.

To me, the DOJ official (now retired) should be hauled in and asked who he was getting pressure on the Hillary investigation from.

Justice Department's attempts to influence investigations exposed in McCabe probe - Washington Times

Can you point to evidence where there was corrupt intent on the part of the DOJ official?

Snow96 · 2018-04-28T18:07:50.307Z

Does “corrupt intent” need to be present for obstruction of justice?

Of just pissed off and trying to get an investigation discontinued?

dantes · 2018-04-28T23:57:30.522Z

Yes, corrupt intent is required. It’s in the statute. It also requires some form of threat. I haven’t seen any evidence of any threat being levied either.

PeterGriffin · 2018-04-29T02:09:00.011Z

Snow96:

This is another one where everyone is looking at the wizzard – pointing and shouting. I’ve said all along Clinton wasn’t the only one that signed off.

However each and every person who signed off it needs to be dragged in and under oath ask if they were aware of the money launding investigation going on at the time, and other allegations of the companies and their affilates involved.

If they all say no. Then whoever made the briefs for these people need to be dragged in and put under oath and ask why they didn’t feel the need to share the information with those making the decision and if anyone told them not to.

THAT is the true scandal of uranium one.

After typing that out, do you understand how fantastically ridiculous this conspiracy…it’s not even a theory. It’s just wild eyed gibberish.

JayJay · 2018-04-29T02:15:49.330Z

Snow96:

This is another one where everyone is looking at the wizzard – pointing and shouting. I’ve said all along Clinton wasn’t the only one that signed off.

However each and every person who signed off it needs to be dragged in and under oath ask if they were aware of the money launding investigation going on at the time, and other allegations of the companies and their affilates involved.

If they all say no. Then whoever made the briefs for these people need to be dragged in and put under oath and ask why they didn’t feel the need to share the information with those making the decision and if anyone told them not to.

THAT is the true scandal of uranium one.

And then what?

Go down one more level?

How many levels down do we have to go?

WildRose · 2018-04-29T05:54:01.994Z

“Push this through, the President want’s it done” does not require a paper trail or signatures.

The details of the deal stank from day one and we all know it. Pushing it through was part of Obama/Hillary’s “reset” in spite of the fact that before the deal was approved they already knew about the kickbacks and bribes of the transportation unit Tenex.

Holder who was also part of the approval process never informed any of the other agency or department heads of the results of the criminal probe that had already shown the unlawful activity before the deal was approved.

National Review – 21 Oct 17

The Obama Administration’s Uranium One Scandal | National Review

Obama’s Department of Justice cut a quiet and too-lenient plea deal with a Russian racketeer in a case that would’ve proved embarrassing to Obama and Hillary Clinton.

You people keep trying to make up some imaginary “Trump Russian Collusion” scandal and pretend the Obama/Clinton Russian Collusion never took place.

One of Obama’s first acts as POTUS was to kill the expansion of NATO in the old Soviet Bloc countries and to delay, then finally an kill the Missile Shield along with the realignment repositioning of our combat forces in Europe to discourage Putin’s expansionist handing over Crimea and as much of the Ukraine as Putin wanted to gobble up.

They spent 8 years appeasing and ignoring Putin alternately all the while doing nothing about the interference of Russia in our election process as early as 2014.

Lest we not forget.

An American president did sell out the US to Russia and his planned successor was complicit throughout then unlike Her opponent actually used Russian intelligence sources in an attempt to change the outcome of the 2016 election and her minions continued then using the same Russian provided garbage in an attempt to unseat the duly elected president and at a minimum bury the administration in the shame of their fabricated scandal and strangle it with the fabricated investigation “justified” by the same Russian garbage bought and paid for by the Clinton Campaign and DNC which as it proved out were one and the same starting in January of 16 when hillary took control of the organization and it’s finances using both to funnel campaign cash directly, and unlawfully through it in a money laundering scheme to bail out her bankrupt campaign.

On the extremely short list of good things one can say about Trump is that every day he hangs onto the office he’s sticking a fork in the eyes of Obama, Clinton, the DNC and all their little minions.

WildRose · 2018-04-29T05:55:42.597Z

You dig until the answers are provided.

There is no way this deal was ever in the interests of the United States nor is there any possible way to justify it as such by any means or stretch of the imagination.

Snow96 · 2018-04-29T05:57:17.329Z

So your saying it wasn’t important to let the people voting on the sale know that the company and/or affiliates were under criminal investigation? Really?

Snow96 · 2018-04-29T06:00:55.618Z

If the people who voted to approve the sale were told, they should be asked why they approved the sale to a company/affiliates under criminal investigation. If they were NOT told this information, then it needs to be determined who didn’t want them to know this information.

DougBH · 2018-04-30T07:01:58.712Z

Snow96Leader
1d
Does “corrupt intent” need to be present for obstruction of justice?
Of just pissed off and trying to get an investigation discontinued?

dantes:

Yes, corrupt intent is required. It’s in the statute. It also requires some form of threat. I haven’t seen any evidence of any threat being levied either.

Yep. If the person is in the chain of command, and believes the investigation is ill founded, unfair, and should be discontinued, then that should be sufficient justification for his using his influence. Now, can you think of another case where that principle might be applied? I can.

WildRose · 2018-04-30T07:25:37.429Z

No it doesn’t.

dantes:

Yes, corrupt intent is required. It’s in the statute. It also requires some form of threat. I haven’t seen any evidence of any threat being levied either.

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 73 › § 1505
18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
US Code
Notes
prev | next
Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever 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 and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

dantes · 2018-04-30T14:20:49.445Z

WildRose:

No it doesn’t.

dantes:

Yes, corrupt intent is required. It’s in the statute. It also requires some form of threat. I haven’t seen any evidence of any threat being levied either.

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 73 › § 1505
18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
US Code
Notes
prev | next
Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever 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 and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

What do you mean? Corrupt is the second word in the second paragraph, which in this hypothetical situation is the relevant one.

dantes · 2018-04-30T14:22:33.703Z

DougBH:

Snow96Leader
1d
Does “corrupt intent” need to be present for obstruction of justice?
Of just pissed off and trying to get an investigation discontinued?

dantes:

Yes, corrupt intent is required. It’s in the statute. It also requires some form of threat. I haven’t seen any evidence of any threat being levied either.

Yep. If the person is in the chain of command, and believes the investigation is ill founded, unfair, and should be discontinued, then that should be sufficient justification for his using his influence. Now, can you think of another case where that principle might be applied? I can.

In this situatation corrupt intent is require. I think there is evidence to suggest Trump’s intention to shut down the Flynn investigation was corrupt. I don’t see any evidence that he wanted to let Flynn off the hook because the investigation was ill founded or unfair.