[hacker]

(1) The job of the president is to enforce the laws of the land.
(2) He swore an oath to do that.
(3) He refuses to do that and orders those like Border control to NOT enforce the law.

This is obstruction of justice at the highest level, and obstruction
of justice is a crime, and Obama is guilty.
The best explanation of this I have seen is this video.

...

 

[Francis Marion]

I would say there has been some treason mixed in there also. That could get you hung. Ask Julius and Ethel.

 

[hacker]

Midialake,

How does it strike you that Obama is guilty of Obstruction of Justice?
Do democrats even care about the constitution and law?

 

[dgh]

DGH

 

[Hakuna Matata]

(1) The job of the president is to enforce the laws of the land.
(2) He swore an oath to do that.
(3) He refuses to do that and orders those like Border control to NOT enforce the law.

This is obstruction of justice at the highest level, and obstruction
of justice is a crime, and Obama is guilty.
The best explanation of this I have seen is this video.

...

Complete nonsense....every law enforcement official from beat cops to US Attorney's practice selective law enforcement day in and day out. There's not a sheriff or police chief in the land that won't tell you that their officers/deputies are allowed discretion in how or when they enforce the law. So in short, law is almost never enforced to the letter and people manipulate the law as they see fit. Don't quit your day job.

 

[1100 REMINGTON MAN]

He should be impeached plain and simple. For High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

[shotgunjerry]

And yet the liberals and the news media continue to kiss his ass. I said it before and will say it to the day I die, "Obama should have never been elected the first time and never ever, ever the second time except for the stupidity of the American voter. I,m ashamed and disgusted. My sediments are the same about Hillary.

 

[hacker]

Complete nonsense....every law enforcement official from beat cops to US Attorney's practice selective law enforcement day in and day out.

Yes, and the dept of justice, has used non enforcement of the law.
The Trump justice deptartment has an air tight case on the charge
obstruction of justice, they only have to press the charges and show
in court that Obama actively chose to refuse to enforce the law,
and they even have Obama himself saying he does not have the
authority to disregard immigration laws and give amnesty, and that he
can't ignore the law, and the border control agents actually
sued him to force him to enforce the law, and so the prosecution
has their testimony that Obama is guilty of obstruction.

I know of a cop that gave a ticket to the Mayor's son and the
charge never came up in court. When it did not, come up,
the officer inquired why, and was told they decided not
go forward with the charge, because the guy was the mayor's
son. The cop threatened to press charges for obstruction of
justice if they did not prosecute the charge, so they did prosecute,
and eventually the guy did time in jail.

So the only reason Obama is not charged is that his corrupt
dept of justice has not made the charge, but if someone presses
the charges and the department of justice does not take it
serious they could also be charged with obstruction of justice.

I would love to see a Trump administration press this issue,
and Trump has already said he intends to press charges against
Hillary on the email thing. Does he have it in mind to also
go after Obama, I hope so, and if he does all he is doing
is exercising good discretion on enforcing our laws, just
like when he says the illegals have to go back, exercise
discretion.

I don't have a day job, I am retired, and got lots of time to
bring this sort of thing to the attention of the ignorant.

 

[hacker]

Midilake,

Still waiting to hear how it strikes you about Obama being guilty of
obstruction of justice. Does it bother you?

 

[Francis Marion]

Complete nonsense....every law enforcement official from beat cops to US Attorney's practice selective law enforcement day in and day out. There's not a sheriff or police chief in the land that won't tell you that their officers/deputies are allowed discretion in how or when they enforce the law. So in short, law is almost never enforced to the letter and people manipulate the law as they see fit. Don't quit your day job.

Boy, liberals sure do know how to rationalize when it comes to their African prince, and or the fat ass in the purple pants suit.

Face it, crooked African( or Hillary) does what ever they want. Media ignores it, ignorant unpatriotic liberals defend it, on to the Kardashians.

Win another election, feed the subjects from the working man's trough, subjects keep voting you in.

But................... as the Iron Lady stated, you eventually run out of other peoples money.

When you do, chickens come home to roost. Or swing from ropes tied to trees, whatever it takes.

 

[hacker]

Going even further with this idea that Obama administration has
broken lots of laws, fast and furious, IRS, amnesty, immigration,
why is it that NO DEMOCRAT CARES?

Going even further, why do ALL democrats never speak out against
any other democrat? Why has NO democrat spoke out against
the Hillary email scandal? No matter what any democrat does they
all circle the wagons and defend the biggest crooks around, good
case in point Bill Clinton lying about the Lewinski scandal and
no democrat votes to impeach, no they always circle the wagons and
protect any crook with D after his name. The only thing I have heard
the democrat media say anything bad about a democrat, was one
thing. That thing was, Anthony Wiener. A talk show host on MSNBC
looked at him disgustedly and said, "what is wrong with you". I almost
fell out of my chair a democrat actually criticized another democrat.

Now on the other side the republicans are arguing with each other
tooth and nail. The conservatives going after the moderates, the
moderates giving the libertarians hell, and you see this going on
at a stronger rate than usual during this campaign.

Do you know why democrats never criticize each other, and always
support even the lowest low life in their midst? At the same time
the republicans are always arguing about who is right on this issue
or that one?

Here is the answer, Republicans really care about the issues , principles,
and the ideology and what is the best thing to do. Democrats only care about
getting elected, never give a damn about principles. They gather around and
support each other mutually to ensure getting re-elected and they offer any
give-away to the electorate, never caring about deficits or any other principle.

They only care about getting elected.

 

[Hakuna Matata]

Yes, and the dept of justice, has used non enforcement of the law.
The Trump justice deptartment has an air tight case on the charge
obstruction of justice, they only have to press the charges and show
in court that Obama actively chose to refuse to enforce the law,
and they even have Obama himself saying he does not have the
authority to disregard immigration laws and give amnesty, and that he
can't ignore the law, and the border control agents actually
sued him to force him to enforce the law, and so the prosecution
has their testimony that Obama is guilty of obstruction.

I know of a cop that gave a ticket to the Mayor's son and the
charge never came up in court. When it did not, come up,
the officer inquired why, and was told they decided not
go forward with the charge, because the guy was the mayor's
son. The cop threatened to press charges for obstruction of
justice if they did not prosecute the charge, so they did prosecute,
and eventually the guy did time in jail.

So the only reason Obama is not charged is that his corrupt
dept of justice has not made the charge, but if someone presses
the charges and the department of justice does not take it
serious they could also be charged with obstruction of justice.

I would love to see a Trump administration press this issue,
and Trump has already said he intends to press charges against
Hillary on the email thing. Does he have it in mind to also
go after Obama, I hope so, and if he does all he is doing
is exercising good discretion on enforcing our laws, just
like when he says the illegals have to go back, exercise
discretion.

I don't have a day job, I am retired, and got lots of time to
bring this sort of thing to the attention of the ignorant.

Well this is your day job and you're not good at it lol bc everything you posted only exists in your head. Why? Bc there is no Trump Justice Dept, it's a figment of your imagination. Trump is not POTUS and most likely never will be.

Oh, and how do you define "Obstruction of Justice"? I'll define it for you since you're not very good at your job

Obstruction of Justice
A criminal offense that involves interference, through words or actions, with the proper operations of a court or officers of the court.

How is the POTUS guilty of interfering with the operations of a court?

 

[hacker]

..delete duplicate...

 

[hacker]

There are other crimes concerning enforcing the law, so
what would they be? There are so many thousand laws,
experts have told me, that almost anyone breaks a law
most every day. I am sure with the level of doing exactly
opposite of the law this administration has done, and
in things like the justice department refusing to enforce
or even investigate any allegation that criminal action
has been taken, If they are honest, I think most people
could come up with something.

The blatant act of telling all the border control officers
not to enforce the law, is a good example. When the
officers, in mass, take legal action and sue the president
for refusing to enforce the law, there is a good case in
point. Border control officers arrest hundreds of
illegals, no charges are ever pursued in COURT, now
the court is involved, no COURT action is taken, because
the mayor or president, has obstructed the offenses to
go forward in any court or legal procedure, there you
have definite action in violation of the law and its enforcement.
Convicted felons have been let go, instead of pursuing action in
the courts, as directed by the law.

When Arizona is sued for enforcing the law, and stopped from
enforcing it, what law does that violate? Is it obstruction of
justice to not let Arizona proceed with the charges in court,
or is there some other law being broke here when enforcement
of law is not allowed? Something is going on here to get around
proper enforcement of law, that cannot be denied by anyone
with a brain.


So what are some other laws that might apply? Are there laws
against aiding criminal activity? Is there such a thing as aiding
or abetting a crime after its commission, by refusing to enforce
a law.

Can a governor or any other official decide, "I think murder is
okay, and I am going to not prosecute murder any longer."
True they have discretion to not proceed in individual cases
because they possibly think that a case cannot be sufficiently
made, but no official has the authority to change the law or
not enforce it on a mass scale unless he does not have the
means to enforce the law. That is the only acceptable reason
an official has to not apply the law in mass. Clearly Obama had
the means to enforce the law, as witnessed by hundreds of border
agents eager and able to enforce, who were wanting to enforce the
law. On top of that over 60% of the voters want the immigration law
enforced. There's is no legal reason for not enforcing it. It is gross
violation of performing the duty of the office.

That video of Trey Gowdy, above, pretty well spells out the entire
situation and anyone defending the actions of Obama is
doing so only because they are an airhead, or far leftist
advocate, and often a communist like Obama, who is
acting in a way to bring on crisis, as a means of changing
the law and directing it in the direction of communist
beliefs. That probably won't work though, because often
when these people bring on the bad situations like communist
Obama has done, they get voted out by the court of the
people. Hillary, another Obama enabler, who aided Obama
in his criminal acts is probably the one who will be voted
out in November. After Trump gets in, maybe you will see
a justice department come up with legal charges on Obama.
I hope so, it is a terrible precedent to let someone get by
with violating the office as grossly as he has done.

 

[Francis Marion]

Going even further with this idea that Obama administration has
broken lots of laws, fast and furious, IRS, amnesty, immigration,
why is it that NO DEMOCRAT CARES?

Good question hacker, simple answer.

Because if it benefits them, it is all good. Ends justify the means kind of stuff.

 

[Rick Barker]

I don't know about obstruction of justice, ' cause he would have to acted in a way to purposely preventing prosecution of a crime. High crimes and misdemeanors are not specific in the Constitution, are considered subjective or political, but dereliction of duty which caused harm to any US citizen(s) or their rights would certainly be in the high crime catagory. The fact he has proven to be an failure of colossal proportion itself is not a crime. LEO's cannot arrest people for impersonation of a human being or being dumb asses, but it is something that should be looked at.

 

[CharlieAMA]

"or being dumbasses, but it is something that should be looked at." LOL, I like that remark.

 

[hacker]

I don't know about obstruction of justice, ' cause he would have to acted in a way to purposely preventing prosecution of a crime.

Ordering the border patrol to not prosecute criminals and to release
those allready arrested, seems to me to be purposely preventing prosecution of a crime.

Next

The fact he has proven to be an failure of colossal proportion itself is not a crime.

In fact I don't believe he FAILED. He was successful in stopping the
enforcement of the law and freeing those arrested. This is actually
success at actively obstructing or failing to perform the sworn duty.
I am sure there is violation of something there. There is a difference
between being too stupid to perform you duty, and knowingly doing
the opposite to perform and coercing underlings to also not do the
prescribed duty.

Whenever, I did not do duties as prescribed, in the Air Force, I always
hid it, because failing to do your specified duty is itself violation of
law under the UCMJ, and I would bet there are provisions like that
covering elected officials. The constitution itself, the basis of all
our laws laid that out, as Trey Gowdy covered in that video.

What do you think about these comments above?

 

[DuckNut]

Where are the Clinton impeachment lawyers now?

 

[hacker]

Where are the Clinton impeachment lawyers now?

Gee, I don't know. Are they dead?

Here is the guy I would like to see prosecuting Obama.
If you can watch this video and believe Obama is not
guilty of some major malfeasance then you must
believe that Obama has the rights of a dictator,

Watch and enjoy:

According to this above video:
The key here is prosecutional discretion is a
case by case thing, and cannot be applied to
the complete law.
If a president can apply prosecutional discretion to
the entire law, he becomes effectively a dictator.
If a president can apply pardon before a criminal
act is committed he can have anyone he wants
killed, by just pardoning the killer before he kills.
This is pure rubbish about Obama having prosecutional
descrestion, He is guilty as hell.

The actual day job of Trey Gowdy was a prosecutor.
He said prsosecutorial discretion means whether
or not a prosecutor thinks he can make the case.

I think that pretty well blows away the argument provided
here by the Obama puppets.