The Liars' Club

Post 53

YOU CAN'T OBSTRUCT JUSTICE WHEN THERE IS NO JUSTICE TO OBSTRUCT

Just when you think you've seen it all when it come to hatred for Donald Trump, you get this statement supposedly signed by several hundred former federal prosecutors stating that they believe the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice. These former prosecutors, if in fact they are former prosecutors, are all big liars. This ridiculous statement has zero credibility from the word go. I know a solid one half of the country, maybe more, will buy into this false narrative being pushed by these presumed to be former prosecutors. At least one Republican Congressman has joined the Democrats in support of this lie. But I am going to completely destroy their claim with facts that are hard to dispute.

I'm no big fan of the President. But I don't hate him. I was no big fan of Hillary Clinton. But I don't hate her. I'm no fan of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. But I don't hate them. I'm no fan of Lindsey Graham and the Republicans. But I don't hate them. Here is the point I'm painstakingly trying to make. I don't take sides when it comes to politicians and government officials. I am a tribe of one. I only take the side of what I believe is right. My response to this statement purportedly made by these persons claiming to be former federal prosecutors is not about defending or showing support for Trump. It is about exposing the lack of integrity and honesty of these so called former prosecutors.

As I promised, I'm going to destroy the ridiculous claim by these so called former prosecutors that any other person that's not President Trump would be indicted on multiple charges for obstruction of justice. The basis of their claim is that the Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming.

Here's where the false narrative falls apart. First and foremost, it is not possible from a legal standpoint to obstruct justice during an investigation that's illegitimate, and is based on fraud and justice was never the intent. It is similar from a legal standpoint that you can't be guilty of resisting an arrest that is unlawful. I could rest my case now, but the best is yet to come. Doesn't these so called former prosecutors remember the Hillary Clinton email investigation? After she was issued a subpoena to preserve evidence, she deleted over thirty thousand emails, destroyed computer hard drives and other communications devices with the clear intent to obstruct the truth-finding process. I think the chances are one hundred percent that there was classified information in those deleted emails and communication devices that were destroyed. The evidence of her corrupt intent and the connection to a pending proceeding was overwhelming and indisputable. Since Hillary Clinton was a person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, why wasn't she indicted? The fact that Clinton wasn't indicted discredits the claim that any other person would have been charged under similar circumstances described in Mueller's report. The case for obstruction against Clinton was a lot stronger than the case for obstruction against Trump. Yet, over half of the voters and all of the Democratic elected officials in Congress were willing to elect her President. Now you have a significant number of Democratic Members of Congress wanting to impeach Trump for conduct far less reprehensible than Clinton's. I could rest my case here, but I'm not; because the evidence that proves that these so called former prosecutors are liars gets even gets better.

Beginning in 2014, long before there was a Trump Presidency, I filed a complaint with the Department of Justice and the F.B.I. against San Jose city officials and officials with the U.S. District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals based on their conduct during the litigation of a lawsuit I filed against the City that obstructed justice. The evidence that these officials obstructed justice is extensive and demonstrates a total disregard for the judicial process and the rule of law. Now keep in mind the elements of an obstruction charge according to the so called former prosecutors: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process. During litigation of my lawsuit, the City of San Jose ("City") and the U.S. District Court in San Jose conspired to obstruct the truth-finding process. Two City officials were told to lie under oath during their depositions. They, in fact, told several lies on material issues during their depositions. The District Court essentially ordered the City to file a motion for summary judgment that was a total fabrication. The City was allowed to enter into a fraudulent agreement with my attorney, who received a quid pro quo, to dismiss a defendant that clearly violated my rights. The purpose of this dismissal was to prevent the court from ruling on the discriminatory acts of the defendant and his superior. The facts alleged in the City's motion for summary judgment were not only false, they contradicted the true facts the City had already admitted to in it's answer to my complaint/lawsuit. To put it plain and simple, the District Court told the City to lie in it's motion for summary judgment, and to enter the fraudulent stipulation of dismissal with my attorney. Of course, the City's motion was granted by the District Court. Now how's that for obstructing the truth-finding process? But there's a lot more. After I filed my own motion under FRCP Rule 60 seeking relief from the judgment of the District Court based on the fraud that was perpetrated, the District Court and the City further obstructed justice by falsifying several docket entries by falsely stating that my motion was contesting the court costs awarded to the City, instead of fraud. I was told by a court official on two different occasions that there would be no hearing on my motion; and that my motion would be decided on the papers filed by me and the City. In clear contradiction of what I was told, a hearing was held on my motion without my knowledge. During the hearing, the City was granted a motion to dismiss because I failed to appear for the hearing, even though, I was told specifically that I did not have to appear for the hearing. The word for word account of the City's motion to dismiss was left out of the transcript of the hearing. The City's motion to dismiss supposedly made during the hearing is a complete mystery. The civil minutes reflects that something totally different happened during the hearing on my motion when compared to the transcript. The civil minutes reflects that the court ruled during the hearing that it would deny my motion and submit a written order at a later date. It is indisputable that the conduct of San Jose city officials and officials with the U.S. District Court as described above meets and exceeds the elements for an obstruction charge outlined in the statement of these so called former prosecutors.Yet, my complaints to the Department of Justice , the F.B.I, and the U.S. Attorney's Offices in San Francisco and San Jose have not been investigated, have not resulted in any indictments, nor have I received a response stating why there hasn't been any action taken on my complaints.

What has been presented here are the incontrovertible facts that discredit the claim by these so called former prosecutors that the conduct of President Trump as described by Mueller would have resulted in an indictment for any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President.These alleged former prosecutors are Trump haters and members of the Liars' Club with an ax to grind. For me, it's not about Trump, Clinton, the Democrats or Republicans. The reason I'm responding to this lie by these claiming to be former prosecutors is that I expected that, as a black person that grew up in the South during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights era, the federal courts would protect my constitutional rights. This has been the farthest thing from the truth. What happened to me when I sued the City of San Jose for violating my rights based on my race and disability is a disgrace. As I described above, City officials and officials in the U.S. District Court went out of their way to obstruct the truth-finding process with the corrupt intent to obstruct justice by covering up the racism and bigotry of the City. Not only am I angered by the false statement by these so called former prosecutors, I'm deeply offended as well. I now rest my case. For more information, refer to my prior posts and my facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624131267713226/