Obstruction and election tampering

Here are 3 cases in which someone used the phrase "I hope" and were convicted of obstruction.

U.S. v. McDonald, 521 F.3d 975 https://casetext.com/case/us-v-mcdonald-29 screen shot of text

US v johnson https://casetext.com/case/us-v-johnson-1289

US v Chujoy http://www.leagle.com/decision/In FDCO 20160915I98/U.S. v. CHUJOY
None of those are applicable to Trump.

I would be more than willing to listen if you can post a link that gives an example with the following:
  1. the person that stated hope was not being investigated
  2. the person that stated hope was the boss of the person they were speaking with and had the authority to stop an investigation
 
Here are 3 cases in which someone used the phrase "I hope" and were convicted of obstruction.

U.S. v. McDonald, 521 F.3d 975 https://casetext.com/case/us-v-mcdonald-29 screen shot of text

Trump wasn't asking anyone to hide evidence.


Trump wasn't intimidating a witness.

Did search. Couldn't find "hope" or "hoping" in this one.
 
None of those are applicable to Trump.

I would be more than willing to listen if you can post a link that gives an example with the following:
  1. the person that stated hope was not being investigated
  2. the person that stated hope was the boss of the person they were speaking with and had the authority to stop an investigation

1. Neither is Trump or at least wasn't till recently
2. It doesn't matter if you have the authority - President/Judge/Janitor - the law is the same for everyone.
 
Trump wasn't asking anyone to hide evidence.



Trump wasn't intimidating a witness.


Did search. Couldn't find "hope" or "hoping" in this one.

The question was about Trump's language, that's what these examples proved that 'hoping' doesn't give you a free pass.
 
1. Neither is Trump or at least wasn't till recently
2. It doesn't matter if you have the authority - President/Judge/Janitor - the law is the same for everyone.
Oh. But, it is not applicable to Hillary because she had the authority? Trump has the authority.
 
Oh. But, it is not applicable to Hillary because she had the authority? Trump has the authority.

Hillary didn't try to stop an investigation - Trump did. He had the authority to fire Comey - not to stop a criminal investigation.
 
All liberals falsely believe that Hillary simply received emails that were unclassified at the time and later were up-classified.
"7. Do not overstate.
When you overstate, the reader will be instantly on guard, and everything that has preceded your overstatement, as well as everything that follows it, will be suspect in his mind because he has lost confidence in your judgement or your poise. ... A single overstatement, wherever or however it occurs, diminishes the whole, and a single carefree superlative has the power to destroy, for the reader, the object of the writer's enthusiasm." -- from pg. 59, "The Elements of Style", Strunk and White, 1962 paperback edition.​
 
I warned the lefties. Told you that we might find the truth, yes I did. You just couldn't let it go and now you have a big bag of crap to deal with. We now know that there was an attempt to obstruct justice. It was Lynch for sure, probably Bill Clinton, Comey by extension, and who knows how many other. This same act of obstruction was also an attempt to sway votes in favor of one candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton. That is election tampering. So in the end we find no need for any high tech hacking, no mystery foreign operatives, just good old fashioned back room deals. Yep, we found the criminals alright. Happy now? Not to worry, isn't anyone going to jail over this. It's just business as usual in government, the most criminally corrupt organization in the country.


haha, oh lordy!
 
Back
Top