Scaramucci goes berserk on Steve Bannon: ‘I’m not trying to suck my own c*ck’

[madinsomniac]

I doubt Trump is impeached... though maybe if these sitcom ratings go down in a bit... the Trump show is way too entertaining right now lol....

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Ahhhh....you do realize Comey testified a little over a month ago that Chump was lying when it came to the FACT that he tried obstructing the investigation of Flynn?

That's small potatos, Mueller is about to put a spread out.

 

[Steeltime]

Ahhhh....you do realize Comey testified a little over a month ago that Chump was lying when it came to the FACT that he tried obstructing the investigation of Flynn?

That's small potatos, Mueller is about to put a spread out.

Okay, first you Dan Quayle wanna-be ************, "potatoes" is spelled "potatoes." Dumb *****.

Second, you stupid asslicking cockholster, I went through the Federal law on obstruction of justice, compared it to what Comey claims occurred, cited a controlling case, responded to Tibs' "well what about this one" effort, and completely destroyed the claim that Trump supposedly "obstructed" justice. I know how difficult it is to find, since it is contained within this ******* thread, you brain-dead lazy **** (pages 9 and 10):

Uhhh, okay.

Of that, what has a whit of relevance to an investigation for alleged "collusion" or obstruction of Justice?

Remember these reports about Obama before the election in 2012?? That he was supposedly despondent, isolated, uninterested in the campaign, watched ESPN all day?

Yeah, those reports are exactly the same as the drivel this article offers. "Trump ready to go to war, seething."

Over what? Comey's statement from two weeks ago that Trump told Comey, "I hope you can let this go. He's a nice guy"?

Wait, what? That is not remotely close - not in the same ******* ballpark - as obstruction of justice:

Here are the well-defined actions that constitute obstruction of justice, under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 73:

§ 1502 - Resistance to extradition agent
§ 1503 - Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally
§ 1504 - Influencing juror by writing
§ 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
§ 1506 - Theft or alteration of record or process; false bail
§ 1507 - Picketing or parading
§ 1508 - Recording, listening to, or observing proceedings of grand or petit juries while deliberating or voting
§ 1509 - Obstruction of court orders
§ 1510 - Obstruction of criminal investigations
§ 1511 - Obstruction of State or local law enforcement
§ 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
§ 1513 - Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant
§ 1514 - Civil action to restrain harassment of a victim or witness
§ 1514A - Civil action to protect against retaliation in fraud cases
§ 1515 - Definitions for certain provisions; general provision
§ 1516 - Obstruction of Federal audit
§ 1517 - Obstructing examination of financial institution
§ 1518 - Obstruction of criminal investigations of health care offenses
§ 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
§ 1520 - Destruction of corporate audit records
§ 1521 - Retaliating against a Federal judge or Federal law enforcement officer by false claim or slander of title

Oh, what about § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees, you ask? That statute provides:

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

Nope. Does not apply.

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—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Nope. The quoted statement, "I hope you can let this go. He really is a nice guy," is vastly, woefully short of the conduct deemed to "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."

In United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593, 600, 115 S.Ct. 2357, 132 L.Ed.2d 520 (1995), the defendant was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 for obstructing a judicial proceeding. The indictment alleged that Aguilar had intentionally given false information to federal investigators who were potentially going to be called to testify before a grand jury. The Supreme Court held that lying to an investigating agent who “might or might not testify before a grand jury” did not constitute obstruction of a judicial proceeding. Aguilar, 515 U.S. at 600. The Court held that in order to be indictable for obstruction of a judicial proceeding, the defendant's actions must have a “natural and probable effect of interfering with the due administration of justice.” Id. at 601 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Ryan, 455 F.2d 728, 734 (9th Cir.1972) (“The acts complained of must bear a reasonable relationship to the subject of the grand jury inquiry.”); United States v. Kassouf, 144 F.3d 952, 956-57 (6th Cir.1998) (holding that the act must have a relationship in time, causation or logic with the judicial proceedings)."

U.S. v. Hopper (9th Cir. 1999) 177 F.3d 824, 830

The significant, patent, undeniable problem with charging that Trump's statement, "Can you see your way to letting it go, he's a nice guy" clearly did not have the effect of interfering with the investigation in any respect and nobody claims otherwise.

In short, no possible obstruction. Zero.

See, this is why we attend these classes in big buildings where they teach us something called "law," and why we take this very difficult test called a "bar exam" before we can practice law.

Because amateur lawyers are wrong, wrong, more wrong, suck ***, misquote the law, don't understand the law, and don't know a single ******* thing about the actual law.

Tibs replied:

Alex, I'll take 1510 for $800, thanks.

§ 1510 - Obstruction of criminal investigations

I replied:

(a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Nope.

(b)(1) Whoever, being an officer of a financial institution, with the intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding, directly or indirectly notifies any other person about the existence or contents of a subpoena for records of that financial institution, or information that has been furnished in response to that subpoena, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Nope.

(2) Whoever, being an officer of a financial institution, directly or indirectly notifies--
(A) a customer of that financial institution whose records are sought by a subpoena for records; or
(B) any other person named in that subpoena;

about the existence or contents of that subpoena or information that has been furnished in response to that subpoena, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(3) As used in this subsection--
(A) the term “an officer of a financial institution” means an officer, director, partner, employee, agent, or attorney of or for a financial institution; and
(B) the term “subpoena for records” means a Federal grand jury subpoena or a Department of Justice subpoena (issued under section 3486 of title 18), for customer records that has been served relating to a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate--
(i) section 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1344, 1956, 1957, or chapter 53 of title 31; or
(ii) section 1341 or 1343 affecting a financial institution.
(c) As used in this section, the term “criminal investigator” means any individual duly authorized by a department, agency, or armed force of the United States to conduct or engage in investigations of or prosecutions for violations of the criminal laws of the United States.

Nope.

(d)(1) Whoever--
(A) acting as, or being, an officer, director, agent or employee of a person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce, or
(B) is engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce or is involved (other than as an insured or beneficiary under a policy of insurance) in a transaction relating to the conduct of affairs of such a business,

with intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding, directly or indirectly notifies any other person about the existence or contents of a subpoena for records of that person engaged in such business or information that has been furnished to a Federal grand jury in response to that subpoena, shall be fined as provided by this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(2) As used in paragraph (1), the term “subpoena for records” means a Federal grand jury subpoena for records that has been served relating to a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate, section 1033 of this title.
(e) Whoever, having been notified of the applicable disclosure prohibitions or confidentiality requirements of section 2709(c)(1) of this title, section 626(d)(1) or 627(c)(1) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681u(d)(1) or 1681v(c)(1)), section 1114(a)(3)(A) or 1114(a)(5)(D)(i) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act1 (12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(3)(A) or 3414(a)(5)(D)(i)), or section 802(b)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 436(b)(1)), knowingly and with the intent to obstruct an investigation or judicial proceeding violates such prohibitions or requirements applicable by law to such person shall be imprisoned for not more than five years, fined under this title, or both.

Nope.

You see why actually knowing the law, researching the law, examining the particulars of the governing statute are what it means to be a lawyer. So ...

Amateur lawyers. God loves them.

Nobody else does.

So elfie, amatuer-lawyer-wanna-be, you have been exposed and intellectually raped on this forum.

Go away and hide, as is your custom, but this time do the world a favor and never return.

 

[Tibs]

You see why actually knowing the law, researching the law, examining the particulars of the governing statute are what it means to be a lawyer. So ...

With all due respect Steeltime - and no doubt you put a lot of work into these threads - it is Special Prosecutor Mueller, not Special Prosecutor Steeltime that's leading this investigation.

It's safe to presume at this stage there are still many facts and bits of information that we have ZERO idea about. Your 'over and done with,' 'take it to the bank' legal analysis is nothing but a room full of soap bubbles.

Your posts certainly make for good reading and interesting analysis. My reaction is not to what you've written, or to your level of legal knowledge, but to your judgement of what your posts conclude, ie 'completely destroyed the claim that Trump supposedly "obstructed" justice.'

I can tell you love doing the mental gymnastics of why you think Trump is innocent. I suggest we wait and see what the investigation actually uncovers and what Mueller and his legal team think about it.

And again no offense, but I always get a little queasy when lawyers claim what superior knowledge they have or what law school they went to, etc.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Did you know former White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci went to a little law school known as Harvard? <a href="https://t.co/c9QxmBLDF2">pic.twitter.com/c9QxmBLDF2</a></p>— VICE News (@vicenews) <a href="https://twitter.com/vicenews/status/892122120339193857">July 31, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[IndySteel]

With all due respect Steeltime - and no doubt you put a lot of work into these threads - it is Special Prosecutor Mueller, not Special Prosecutor Steeltime that's leading this politically biased witch hunt farce.

Fixed.

 

[deljzc]

I didn't like Scaramucci from the start (didn't even know who he was before last week). Glad he's gone.

 

[Elfiero]

Okay, first you Dan Quayle wanna-be ************, "potatoes" is spelled "potatoes." Dumb *****.

Second, you stupid asslicking cockholster, I went through the Federal law on obstruction of justice, compared it to what Comey claims occurred, cited a controlling case, responded to Tibs' "well what about this one" effort, and completely destroyed the claim that Trump supposedly "obstructed" justice. I know how difficult it is to find, since it is contained within this ******* thread, you brain-dead lazy **** (pages 9 and 10):



Tibs replied:



I replied:



So elfie, amatuer-lawyer-wanna-be, you have been exposed and intellectually raped on this forum.

Go away and hide, as is your custom, but this time do the world a favor and never return.

Damn you must have a lot of time on your hands. What happened?

Did Trump already cut legal aid funding and the ghetto office had to let the toilet scrubber/ coffee fetcher go? Brighten up champ I hear McDonalds is hiring.

Anyway I don't care what you "went through". You have two people: one testifying under oath, and the other a known pathological liar.

You have one person who asks everyone to leave the room then asks the other that he "hopes" the investigation will go away........then fires that person when the investigation doesn't go away.....

That person then goes on national t.v. and. ADMITS TO FIRING COMEY TO END THE INVESTIGATION.

And yet again you accuse me of wanting to be a lawyer. I believe the last time you made that accusation I said something like ' I would rather be a **** covered herpes sore on Satan's d*** as he f***'s every recently deceased lawyer in the ***.'

In other words, you scumbag.

 

[Elfiero]

Is this the part where the guy who runs this board comes on and tells us to "tone it down"?

Oh silly me! It's a CONservative attacking elfie. It's all good......

Only when I sling it back is there a problem.....I should have known this and considered the snowflake's emotions....awwwwwww.

 

[Tibs]

<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FJimmyKimmelLive%2Fvideos%2F10155537225623374%2F&show_text=0&width=560" width="560" height="315" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>

 

[IndySteel]

And yet again you accuse me of wanting to be a lawyer. I believe the last time you made that accusation I said something like ' I would rather be a **** covered herpes sore on Satan's d*** as he f***'s every recently deceased lawyer in the ***.'

.

The Elftwatpigtard wants to **** dead lawyers in the ***. Glad that's cleared up.

 

[Elfiero]

The Elftwatpigtard wants to **** dead lawyers in the ***. Glad that's cleared up.

If forced between those two choices.....Jesus CONservatives, always living the CON part.

 

[Tibs]

This is great, lol.

 

[Tibs]

 

[Spike]

I think we have to be at war with another country for him to win a second election. I think it would be tough for him to get reelected during peacetime. It's tough to unseat a sitting president during a time of war. It's been looking like North Korea might be the next target for the military industrial complex.

That could happen, or maybe just a minor skirmish with Mexico when the wall starts going up, that would do it too



DHS waives environmental laws to begin building Trump border wall

Homeland Security triggered a waiver Tuesday allowing the department to bypass environmental and other land protection laws in order to begin building and testing President Trump’s new border wall.

The waivers apply to San Diego, where officials already plan to upgrade miles of existing fence, but where they’ll also stage a competition this summer to build and test prototypes for Mr. Trump’s wall.

It’s the first in what’s likely to be a series of waivers that will be needed as wall construction ramps up.

Officials insisted they will still try to be mindful of local impacts as they work on the wall.

“While the waiver eliminates DHS’s obligation to comply with various laws with respect to covered projects, the department remains committed to environmental stewardship with respect to these projects,” the department said in a statement.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ding-trump/?utm_source=RSS_Feedutm_medium=RSS

 

[Tibs]

The contrast could not be starker. What a damn mess we've gotten ourselves into - just as I predicted - if Trump got elected. This man is a disgrace to the country and anyone that still supports him must hate America and everything we've stood for as a nation over two centuries. There's no other explanation.

 

[IndySteel]

The contrast could not be starker. What a damn mess we've gotten ourselves into - just as I predicted - if Trump got elected. This man is a disgrace to the country and anyone that still supports him must hate America and everything we've stood for as a nation over two centuries. There's no other explanation.

It's all relative. The White House is a downgrade from Trump Tower and a huge upgrade from the Chicago ghetto.


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[Ron Burgundy]

The contrast could not be starker. What a damn mess we've gotten ourselves into - just as I predicted - if Trump got elected. This man is a disgrace to the country and anyone that still supports him must hate America and everything we've stood for as a nation over two centuries. There's no other explanation.

As usual, Liberals fail to recognize sarcasm.

 

[Tibs]

As usual, Liberals fail to recognize sarcasm.

As usual the alt right has its head deep in the sand and fails to see Trump for who he is.

 

[Elfiero]

The contrast could not be starker. What a damn mess we've gotten ourselves into - just as I predicted - if Trump got elected. This man is a disgrace to the country and anyone that still supports him must hate America and everything we've stood for as a nation over two centuries. There's no other explanation.

The irony of being a CONservative is they believe they are the torch bearers of liberty and gatekeepers to the moral promised land.....when they are EXACTLY the opposite: fascists at heart and action, and it goes without saying some of the most hateful ,uncompassionate, immoral people on the planet.

 

[Tibs]

Weep for our nation.

A Small Yet Soul-Crushing Illustration of Donald Trump’s Utter Economic Illiteracy
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/08/01/a_small_but_soul_crushing_illustration_of_donald_trump_s_utter_economic.html

The full transcript of Donald Trump's Wall Street Journal interview, which leaked to Politico, is enough to make anyone spiral into despair—like most performances from our president, it's full of moments that illustrate his tenuous grasp of reality. As Slate's official economics correspondent, though, there was one section that left me especially crestfallen—in just one short paragraph of word salad, he delivers a subtle but telling demonstration of his total ignorance on how economies work.

Here's the passage. Trump is trying to explain that he thinks the United States is growing too slowly compared with the rest of the world, and therefore we need to cut our corporate tax rate to 15 percent. I've bolded the key part.

So I’ll call, like, major—major countries, and I’ll be dealing with the prime minister or the president. And I’ll say, how are you doing? Oh, don’t know, don’t know, not well, Mr. President, not well. I said, well, what’s the problem? Oh, GDP 9 percent, not well. And I’m saying to myself, here we are at like 1 percent, dying, and they’re at 9 percent and they’re unhappy. So, you know, and these are like countries, you know, fairly large, like 300 million people. You know, a lot of people say—they say, well, but the United States is large. And then you call places like Malaysia, Indonesia, and you say, you know, how many people do you have? And it’s pretty amazing how many people they have. So China’s going to be at 7 or 8 percent, and they have a billion-five, right? So we should do really well.

But in order to do that – you know, it’s tax reform, but it’s a big tax cut. But it’s simplification, it’s reform, and it’s a big tax cut, 15 –...

At some point, it appears Donald Trump heard somebody say that the United States cannot grow as fast as China or Malaysia because we have a “large” economy. No doubt, what they meant is that the U.S. is a highly developed, rich nation and therefore can't expand as quickly as developing countries that can still reap large gains from taking basic steps to improve their living standards. But Trump did not understand it that way. He apparently thought that when whoever he was listening to said “large,” they were talking about population. Therefore, in his mind, if China grows at nearly 7 percent per year with its 1.4 billion people, the U.S. should be able to do it too.

This is the man who millions of voters are relying on to bring back jobs. Bottoms up.

 

[Superman]

As usual the alt right has its head deep in the sand and fails to see Trump for who he is.

though the same could be said regarding the Dems unable to see through Bomma's glossy and shiny exterior as the "first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy"

 

[Elfiero]

As usual, Liberals fail to recognize sarcasm.

“They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Is that just sarcasm?

We're dealing with a well documented sack of **** in the current POTUS. The lengths and contortions you Trumptards go through to defend said sack of **** is...well.....sad......really sad.....

 

[Superman]

“They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Is that just sarcasm?

We're dealing with a well documented sack of **** in the current POTUS. The lengths and contortions you Trumptards go through to defend said sack of **** is...well.....sad......really sad.....

Kathryn Steinle agrees with you.
oh, wait.

no, she doesn't.

she was shot in the head by an illegal mexican contributing towards the $8 mil you whined about despite his peaceful soul being deported previously.

 

[IndySteel]

The simple mind of the libtard: Tax cuts bad, overspending good. .

 

[IndySteel]

“They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Is that just sarcasm?

We're dealing with a well documented sack of **** in the current POTUS. The lengths and contortions you Trumptards go through to defend said sack of **** is...well.....sad......really sad.....

Not sarcasm, it's a fact. Unless you choose to ignore the murders and rapes that continue to be committed by illegal aliens.