I thought Obstruction of Justice was bad

Obstruction

Okay, now I’m confused.

With the Russia narrative falling apart like a cheap sweater in the spin cycle, Democrats have shifted gears in their attempt to destroy President Trump.

Now, they’re furiously beating the Obstruction of Justice drum like maniacal Hare Krishnas in an airport yellow zone.

”Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice because a memo nobody saw says he hoped Comey would go easy on Mike Flynn!!!”

”That Trump deserves to be impeached! Why? Because the Washington Post said an anonymous source heard from an unnamed former White House staffer that President Trump wanted Comey to say he wasn’t under investigation!!!”

Because, you know, obstruction of justice is illegal.

Which, by the way, was what Bill Clinton did when he tried to get folks to lie under oath in the Paula Jones depositions.

So, obstruction of justice is bad everyone.

You got that?

It’s baddy-bad-bad-bad.

Enter Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

Debbie hired a Pakistani Muslim as her IT guy in 2010. And this guy managed to finagle no-show jobs for practically every member of his family (to the tune of four million dollars in billings).

The Capital Police barred this scam-artist and his family from access to the House network. And they confiscated devices as part of the investigation.

And yesterday, Debbie grilled Capital Police Chief Matthew Verderosa during a House Committee on Appropriations hearing – demanding he return her laptop.

You understand? She wants him to return a laptop that is evidence in an ongoing investigation.

And if he won’t, well, “there will be consequences.”

Is that a threat?

Did Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz just threaten the Capital Police Chief with “consequences” if he did not give her back evidence in an ongoing investigation?

Call me crazy, but that sounds like Obstruction of Justice.

And, unlike Trump’s alleged obstruction of justice, Debbie’s was not revealed by an anonymous source with links to former White House staffers who then read portions of a memo over the phone.

It was done in full view of cameras [clip from the Washington Free Beacon].

 
It’s worth watching the entire clip. Because Debbie keeps hitting the same point.

Her laptop can’t be kept in evidence unless she personally is under investigation.

Now, I’m no lawyer. But that doesn’t make any sense.

For those who don’t have time to watch the three-minute clip, here’s the last portion:

DWS: I don’t understand how that is possible. Members’ equipment is members’ equipment. It is not … it is not …. Under my understanding the Capitol Police is not able to confiscate members’ equipment when the member is not under investigation. It is their equipment and it is supposed to be returned.
 
Chief: Well, I think there are extenuating circumstances in this case, and I think … I think that .. you know … working through my counsel and the necessary personnel, if that in fact is the case, and with the permission of … through the investigation, then we’ll return the equipment. But until that happens we can’t return the equipment.
 
DWS: I think you’re violating the rules when you … when you … conduct your business that way and you should expect that there will be consequences.

Debbie may not under investigation.

But her laptop is evidence in the investigation.

Her IT guy – who had an all-access pass to her computers and devices – is under investigation for burrowing into information he had no legal right to see.

If you let someone borrow your car and that person does a drive-by shooting, your car becomes evidence in the crime.

You can’t go to the police and say, “Hey, I’m not under investigation and that’s my car! And you can’t keep my car unless I’m personally under investigation!”

That’s troll logic.

And threatening that “there will be consequences” if the police don’t return evidence to you is…

…wait for it…

Obstruction of Justice.

But this isn’t the first time Debbie Wasserman-Schultz refused to let law enforcement have a peek at network or computer equipment. Is it?

The DNC also refused to give the FBI a look at their computers after the WikiLeaks release of their emails.

If you’re refusing to cooperate in an investigation, isn’t that Obstruction of Justice?

Something tells me Debbie is supremely nervous about investigators getting a little lookie-loo at her computers.

And that makes me wonder.

Is there something on Debbie’s laptop that might open her up to becoming the target of a criminal investigation?

Something smells in the Democrat Party.

And I think it’s a lot more than Maxine Waters’ Depends.

Help keep PatriotRetort.com an ad-free site!

Please consider making a contribution to PatriotRetort.com. Hit DONATE button or the SUBSCRIBE button in the side bar. Even a few bucks can make a world of difference!

   

4 thoughts on “I thought Obstruction of Justice was bad

  • May 25, 2017 at 10:05 am
    Permalink

    it doesn’t matter , she is a democrat so, nothing will happen to her. And if they find anything, the russians did it. Move along, nothing to see here

  • May 25, 2017 at 3:13 pm
    Permalink

    I know that not everybody is blessed with good looks. But, great shades of Elvis, is there ANY woman on the planet uglier than DWS???

    • May 25, 2017 at 3:46 pm
      Permalink

      Yes, there is. Rosa DeLaura.

  • May 26, 2017 at 1:20 pm
    Permalink

    I think she should be disparaged and hounded for months to prove her innocence.
    It’s what we expect now from public service people.

Comments are closed.

Simple Share Buttons
Simple Share Buttons