Deleted member 2897
Guest
So stopping illegal immigration is okay with drones, patrols, etc. But a wall in advantageous areas is racist. LOLOLOLOLOL.
Obstruction of Justice
- Thread starter Whiskey_Clear
- Start date
So stopping illegal immigration is okay with drones, patrols, etc. But a wall in advantageous areas is racist. LOLOLOLOLOL.
Whiskey_Clear
Banned
- Messages
- 10,486
How is a wall or any inanimate object racist?
Deleted member 2897
Guest
For 200 years, race has been a hammer the Democrats beat people over the head with. Thankfully it’s at least gone from a literal to a figurative one.
GT_05
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,370
The U.S. currently pays Mexico $320 million dollars per year in aid. Diverting that aid to pay for the wall would be, in effect, Mexico paying for the wall. You didn’t expect President Nieto to write a check, did you?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Whiskey_Clear
Banned
- Messages
- 10,486
ilovetheoption
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,816
Legit lol
Deleted member 2897
Guest
ICE is reporting that 800 arrests of illegal immigrants were foiled by the Oakland Mayor.
That is some big-time super garbage right there that should land her in prison. What are the odds just by the random law of numbers that any 1 of those 800 ends up committing a violent crime in the next few months. In the article I read, all 800 of these people had committed some other crime besides being an illegal immigrant. So I would think the odds would be quite high.
Sad.
That is some big-time super garbage right there that should land her in prison. What are the odds just by the random law of numbers that any 1 of those 800 ends up committing a violent crime in the next few months. In the article I read, all 800 of these people had committed some other crime besides being an illegal immigrant. So I would think the odds would be quite high.
Sad.
UgaBlows
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 7,013
I think Trump actually did ask him to pay for it in that leaked phone call with Nieto
collegeballfan
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,694
Per the Fox report the acting director of ICE said the DOJ were "reviewing" whether the mayor broke any laws. The mayor, of course, said she broke no laws.
The Trump administration runs both ICE and the DOJ. So we shall see.
This for whatever it is worth: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice
"Obstruction of justice
Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "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 administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.
A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.
§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency. "
The Trump administration runs both ICE and the DOJ. So we shall see.
This for whatever it is worth: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice
"Obstruction of justice
Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "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 administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.
A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.
§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency. "
grandpa jacket
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 640
The Oakland mayor is not President of our country, small potatoes.
Deleted member 2897
Guest
Helping 800 criminals escape law enforcement is small potatoes? Remember these were all people who had committed additional crimes beyond just being here. Your comment is a sad state of affairs for our country. If law enforcement released 800 known criminals in your neighborhood, I'm not sure you would be so happy about that.
Meanwhile, we are still waiting for you to tell us just how Trump obstructed justice. I'm not saying its impossible - if they do indeed find that he has committed actual crimes and impeded their investigation of it, then that's legit obstruction of justice. But just being a jerk making fun of the FBI on twitter pursuing a wild goose chase is nothing more than trolling.
GT_05
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,370
This reply is exactly what is wrong with “progressive” ideas and liberalism, in my opinion. Oh, it’s just one mayor. Oh, it’s just one senator. Oh, it’s just one governor. Oh, it’s just for medical purposes. Oh, it’s okay if it’s under 1/4 ounce. Oh, it’s just a little more money to fund the government for another month. Etc, etc, etc.
Ignoring the slippery slope turns into “big potatoes”.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Whiskey_Clear
Banned
- Messages
- 10,486
What he really meant was “oh it’s a Democrat so it’s ok.”
smathis30
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 732
Issue is ICE coming somewhere to try to find illegals isn't obstructing a crime. Had ICE given the mayor had been given names and addresses and then gave the warning it would, but in the section before the quoted section, it talks about the necessity of warrants in OOJ. Think of it this way. There's been a robbery in Oakland. And the FBI is investigating. They tell them they are investigating and will stop by past robbers houses. If the mayor tells robbers to leave the city because the FBI is coming, there is no OOJ. However, had the FBI gave a suspect, like Bob Smith, and then said the same exact thing, that would be OOJ because a specific proceeding has been obstructed. Obviously it's hard to tell what exactly the mayor was told, but unless there was a known warrant, it's just a blanket statement IMO.
GT_05
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,370
Just so I understand your point, if the FBI leaked it out that they were going to round up all of the bank robbers in Atlanta tomorrow and the mayor of Atlanta made that info known publicly then the mayor wouldn’t be guilty of OOJ? Just because she didn’t have any details? If that’s correct, that is absolutely nutty. In my opinion, what that mayor did is no different than someone serving as a lookout during a bank heist. In this situation, I’d bet the robber and the lookout would get the same sentence.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
smathis30
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 732
No, it would be if the FBI said they were going to be looking for people who they think are bank robbers. They wouldn't neccearily know who they were or told the governor which ones were bank robbers. Essentially you can't obstruct justice when there isn't a defined crime you're obstructing. Is it a morally wrong thing to do? Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal
As seen with Michelle DuBois last year, there is precedent in how this is handled
Deleted member 2897
Guest
See that’s where your analogy is ridiculous. They weren’t going after random people to check their papers. They were going after specific people who were known criminals to deport them. The crime wasn’t being illegal - it was murderers, bank robbers, check forgers, etc. that they could deport because they shouldn’t be here and due to being multi-criminal there is no value to their being here. The hypothetical example you gave is different.
Deleted member 2897
Guest
As a followup just to further illustrate what ICE was doing, they were going after illegal immigrants who also had some other criminal offenses. Of those, over 100 (that were picked up) had what I would personally characterize as extremely egregious criminal backgrounds - violent and sex crimes, like sex crimes against children, weapons violations and assault (per ICE). If people want to quibble about what the others were (speeding tickets maybe, shoplifting, who knows), I think that's a fair debate. But imagine finding out that over several hundred other violent criminals and sexual predators in your area were just tipped off by your Mayor and so now roam the streets with an extra sense of awareness, instead of being picked up by ICE and removed from the country. I guess that's why Oakland is Oakland.