AG says Mueller report shows no crime of colluding with russia or obstruction from trumps team

a reply to: xpert11

The FBI and Mueller deliberately muddled the waters between a criminal, and counter intelligence investigations. This is another reason why Mueller and his cohorts must answer for investigating non existent crimes.

My point is we don't know that.

Do you see the issue with starting an investigation with out hard evidence into another investigation for not having hard evidence when it started?

But if the ag believes that an investigation should be done I wont argue against it.

a reply to: carewemust

and only A.G. Barr can bring charges

Why do you think that?

Barrs summery even says that the sc referred things to other offices. (courts?)

During the course of his investigation, the sc also referred several matters to other offices for further action.

I'd like to know what those were. And I'm sure we will find out.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
There is something we arn't paying attention to here as well.


The russians did in fact interfere with our elections.

And now we know. And now trump knows.

This is going to be really important going forward.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Mother Theresa look like Snidley Whiplash, or he's a genius mastermind at covering his own tracks.

You guys are silly.

The muller report is only about two things, collusion and obstruction.

The report (according to barr) states that there was no collusion but left it up to ag barr to decide if the sc office should charge trump with obstruction. Barrs summery states that the sc report gives both pros and cons to whether or not trump should be charged. Ag barr decided ( with counsel from legal experts) that the evidence given would not be enough and thus trump will not be charged by this office.

But it doesn't say anything about any other crimes being investigated by other offices.
Is there a law that would stop the sdny from pursuing the obstruction charge?

All we know right now is that trump is not a traitor.

Read the fourth paragraph of barrs summery and the 2ed paragraph under the obstruction heading and you will see what I mean.
thehill.com...

a reply to: scraedtosleep

The russians did in fact interfere with our elections.

And now we know. And now trump knows.

Anyone with eyes open knew that well before this. Russia tries to throw our elections. We try to throw Russia's elections. We try to throw China's elections. China tries to throw Russia's elections. Russia tries to throw China's elections. China tries to throw our elections.

And that then continues to quite a few smaller countries as well. It's called "espionage" and it is a time-honored tradition.

Maybe going forward more people will understand this at least. I have known it since I was 13.

TheRedneck

a reply to: scraedtosleep

a reply to: TheRedneck

It's always been online rumor to most though. You knew I knew but did the majority of america know and /or believe it?

We now have mainstream reporting of it by a sc office.

a reply to: xpert11

But what other options are available?

If I was smart enough to know what to do here I'd probably be smart enough to stay out of it.

I'm just glad I'm not the ag right now.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: ausername

Mullers report didn't decide anything about the obstruction of justice case.

Other than they found no evidence 😎

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Forgive me.

I keep hearing all this "demand" for full release, but I have yet to hear anybody say the report won't be released.

Has anybody said the report won't be released?

You know how the government is. Redactions, blacked out pages, hiding important names.

But has anybody in the Administration said the Report won't be released ? 😎

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
There is something we arn't paying attention to here as well.


The russians did in fact interfere with our elections.

And now we know. And now trump knows.

This is going to be really important going forward.

But no facts like how many votes they actually got 😎

a reply to: scraedtosleep

The Barr Letter states no indictments are outstanding 😎

a reply to: scraedtosleep

The muller report is only about two things, collusion and obstruction.

No, you're wrong there. Collusion is not even a crime, and Obstruction of Justice requires an action to be taken with the express intent of hiding a criminal action. This was about unilateral removal of a legally-elected representative of the people of the United States, by the government itself. That much is now crystal clear to anyone who can see... or, as I stated in my post, should be clear within a few days barring TDS.

But it doesn't say anything about any other crimes being investigated by other offices.
Is there a law that would stop the sdny from pursuing the obstruction charge?

There is a legal principle... it's called "jurisdiction." No state court has the right nor ability to try a Federal official for crimes. Only the Federal government has that power. In this case, only the US House of Representatives can bring formal charges, and only the US Senate can remove Trump from office. Even Barr cannot bring formal charges against a sitting US President... but he can (and has) stated that not enough evidence exists to do so even if he could.

That means President Donald J. Trump is not guilty as charged. Period. That's how it works.

The last time I served on a jury, it was my place, along with 11 others, to determine guilt of the defendant. In that case, we all agreed that the defendant was likely not without some fault, but the evidence led us to declare him "not guilty" under the legal definition. That's the end of it. It is done. He is not guilty and is a free man, unencumbered by the accusations against him. Nothing else matters.

You need to understand that. It is over.

All we know right now is that trump is not a traitor.

The evidence of that was right before your eyes the whole time. Many of us already knew that much.

Read the fourth paragraph of barrs summery and the 2ed paragraph under the obstruction heading and you will see what I mean.

You're reading things into this that do not exist.

So far, Mueller has relentlessly pursued every possible angle of attack on anyone surrounding Donald Trump. He has successfully prosecuted quite a few people (Manafort, Cohen, Stone) but all for offenses that are totally unrelated to anything Donald Trump did or may have done in violation of any law. In that 4th paragraph, Barr states that other matters have been turned over to other offices, presumably State offices since Mueller was able to pursue Federal charges himself. As I explained above, no state institution has the jurisdiction to indict a sitting officer of the Federal government. Ergo, none of these would have any bearing on Trump himself; they would concern private citizens who had violated state, not Federal, laws.

The second paragraph specifically states that since Mueller did not take a position of whether charges are appropriate for Obstruction of Justice, that decision lies solely in the hands of the Attorney General. He has stated there is not sufficient evidence to charge, even if he could charge (read note 2 at the bottom of the page). It's done. Finished.

Here's the thing you are missing: not just anyone can bring criminal charges against just anyone for anything. For criminal charges, the specified prosecutor for that jurisdiction (the District Attorney or Attorney General in this case) must be willing to prosecute. If he is not, there is no case and no formal charges. Then the court with jurisdiction must accept the case. It is not uncommon for cases to be so weak that they are thrown out before the accused even goes to trial. Then the prosecutor must actually argue his case successfully and convince the judge (or a jury) of the guilt of the accused to get a conviction.

Each person/office in this has a specific area they operate in. They cannot perform their duties outside their jurisdiction. I can cut doughnuts all day long in front of a Sheriff, and if I am not in his jurisdiction, he can't do a damn thing about it (well, except call his buddies who have jurisdiction). Hell, I have successfully used that to my advantage during my old hot-rodding days.

There's no one to come to the rescue this time. There is no one who can oust Donald Trump from office. We the people voted him into power, and we the people will ask him to continue for a second term in 2020. It's done. Live with it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: xuenchen

Last half of the first paragraph under the heading obstruction of justice says the following.

The special counsel therefore DID NOT draw a conclusion -one way or the other- Whether the examined conduct constitutes obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out EVIDENCE on BOTH sides.

They then left it to the ag to decide if that evidence was enough to indict.

What that evidence was we will all find out once we read the muller report.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

It's always been online rumor to most though. You knew I knew but did the majority of america know and /or believe it?

I think there would have been much more effective ways of educating the public to the reality of espionage than spending $25 million to harass a sitting US President for 2 years.

But that's just my opinion.

TheRedneck

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Do you see the issue with starting an investigation with out hard evidence into another investigation for not having hard evidence when it started?

That's not the case. We know there was no hard evidence to start the first investigation (your statement even makes that premise, fact). So the second investigation into the first would not be one without hard evidence. Furthermore, the mueller report should show what evidence led to that investigation (i.e. what evidence he needed to follow up on).

and only A.G. Barr can bring charges


Why do you think that?

Because it's the truth. At least as it relates to obstruction. The AG is the only one with the jurisdiction to bring an obstruction charge on a case handled by a special counsel he had jurisdiction over.

I'd like to know what those were. And I'm sure we will find out.

We already know. Cohen and Manafort.

Is there a law that would stop the sdny from pursuing the obstruction charge?

Yes, the SDNY works for the AG. If the AG says we're not doing x, you don't go out and do x or you find yourself unemployed really fast.

Read the fourth paragraph of barrs summery and the 2ed paragraph under the obstruction heading and you will see what I mean.

You guys are taking one half of a statement and ignoring the second. Yes, mueller didn't make a recommendation one way or another he simply presented the facts and left it up to the AG (you know, like comey was supposed to do with hillary lol). The AG examined those facts and determined there wasn't a case.

So yes, you're right, mueller didn't exonerate trump on obstruction, only collusion. HOWEVER, the AG and DAG exonerated trump on obstruction.

As trump said: it was a complete and total exoneration.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: xuenchen

Last half of the first paragraph under the heading obstruction of justice says the following.

The special counsel therefore DID NOT draw a conclusion -one way or the other- Whether the examined conduct constitutes obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out EVIDENCE on BOTH sides.

They then left it to the ag to decide if that evidence was enough to indict.

What that evidence was we will all find out once we read the muller report.

Which means no evidence exists, just speculation and tainted testimonies from unreliable "witnesses" 😎

a reply to: xuenchen


In the case of collusion and obstruction your right.

No further indictments will be coming from the sc office on those issues or any others.
But I wonder what " referred maters to other offices for further actions " means?

a reply to: xuenchen

When the muller report comes out we can see for ourselves.

a reply to: xuenchen

This is another non-point by the leftists here. Mueller did not make a determination on obstruction he presented the facts to the AG, but the AG did make a determination on obstruction.

So on russia, mueller exonerated trump. On obstruction, barr and rosenstein exonerated trump. He was exonerated on both parts of the investigation, just by different people.

Their obfuscation and claiming mueller didn't exonerate on obstruction is just mincing words. While technically true, the fact remains trump was exonerated on obstruction.