Author Topic: How is obstruction of justice legally defined again??  (Read 655 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27058
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
How is obstruction of justice legally defined again??
« on: September 06, 2016, 06:29:42 PM »
Let's look at the e-mail timeline.  It's fascinating to see such high level corruption, that isn't on TV

Clinton sets up a provate server, completely contrary to the rules and laws public officials are to adhere to, and NOT with the permission of any agency.  She simply decreed she'd do it (and we pretty much all know why at this point)

She had not 1, not 2, not 3, but EIGHTEEN devices she ued in some form to access and manage her private server (vs her claim on the record of only setting up the server to have the convenience of ONE device)

She continued to use this unathorized, unsecure, and usafe server, at the cost of compromising our national security, until a Washington Times report uncovered the existance of this server.  And at this time, not only are all her e-mailings legally under subpoena to turn over to Congress, she went on record as claiming her complete cooperation in turning over every one of her "work related" e-mailings
----------------
But what did she do instead of abiding by the law?......her and her team immediately went into full deletion mode, using advanced programing to not just delete, but make it appear that there hadn't been such a scrubbing.  THOUSANDS of WORK RELATED e-mailings she claimed had been turned over, discovered as having been deleted, right after the report of the server broke

and

ALL those devices being physically destroyed, including with the use of hammers.  You just can't make this stuff up.



...and how many minutes of tape was Nixon impeached for again??

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How is obstruction of justice legally defined again??
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2016, 11:46:23 PM »
Nixon was not impeached. He quit before the trial. He was told he would be impeached and found guilty and would lose his pension unless he resigned, so he resigned. He was accused of paying the Watergate burglars for their refusal to testify.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27058
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How is obstruction of justice legally defined again??
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2016, 02:14:58 AM »
alrighty.....for the literally obsessed.......so how many minutes of tape was Nixon forced to resign for, before being impeached again??

I do appreciate though, how nothing in the timeline I presented has been refuted. 
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27058
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How is obstruction of justice legally defined again??
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2016, 02:18:14 PM »
I think the answer here is 18minutes......18 MINUTES that was actively deleted before being turned over to authorities.

How many e-mailings are we up to, with Clinton, that she deleted prior after they were subpoened to be turned over??

Which one resigned from public office again?
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How is obstruction of justice legally defined again??
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2016, 08:05:49 PM »
  Richard Nixon got away with a few dirt tricks before he got caught.

    Hillary Clinton seems to get caught and caught and caught.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27058
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How is obstruction of justice legally defined again??
« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2016, 08:22:14 PM »
And while the GOP universally condemned Nixon's actions, on a mere 18minutes of deletion, the Democrats are near universally supporting Clinton's actions, despite tens of thousands of deletions.  My, how times have changed
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27058
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How is obstruction of justice legally defined again??
« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2016, 05:01:42 PM »
My oh my, how the lies just keep digging a bigger and bigger political grave.  Latest bit is the fella that actually performed the bleachbit wiping of the server & deletion of all the e-mails is being accused by the Clintons as "going rogue"....that he did it, on his own initiative, and without any permission or authorization from anyone

Yet, the record demonstrates, and with the timetable updated, that once the Report broke that the unauthorized super secret private Clinton server was no longer super secret, and ALL e-mails were under congressional subpoena to turn over, there was a conference call between Clinton and her top dogs, including Cheryl Mill, and following that call, Platte River Networks employee, Paul Combetta, was ordered to bleach the sucker, by Mills

Combetta has since been granted immunity for any testimony given and to be given
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How is obstruction of justice legally defined again??
« Reply #7 on: September 10, 2016, 06:47:37 AM »
.......................

Combetta has since been granted immunity for any testimony given and to be given


Has he been given a steel shirt?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27058
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How is obstruction of justice legally defined again??
« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2016, 02:13:45 PM »
Probably not a shirt, but perhaps just as good.....if his immunity was given by the Justice Dept.....this would be the same Justice Dept who made a big public display that they'd adhere to whatever the FBI would recommend regarding Clinton, when they already knew full well that the FBI was going to say no indictment.  Yet, this is also the same Justice Dept that when the FBI DID recommend an investigation into the Clinton Foundation, they responded, with naaaaaaa.

So, its entirely plausible that this fella has been provided protection from any prosecution, and as such can claim he was a rogue all along....then wait for his pockets to be stuffed with $$$$$ (from "concerned Clinton supporters, I mean citizens), and maybe a nice beach front Carribean condo
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle