The Mueller report for all of us to see

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JBurns

Regardless, the findings were clearly stated: "No evidence of a conspiracy involving Trump working with the Russians" "No evidence to support obstruction of justice"

That's not what the Mueller report says. There are 400 plus pages of evidence, so the claim of "no evidence" is ridiculous. The evidence didn't conclude that an agreement of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia occurred. It didn't exonerate anyone. It certainly didn't clear Trump of obstruction. Mueller kicked that football to Congress.

Mueller said specifically he did not exonerate Trump[ on obstruction.

He did not say that on collusion, which we can take to mean, after reading his report; There was no trump russian illegal collusion

thats exactly what it means.

Trump did not collude.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Last sentence PROVES that the POTUS didn't OBSTRUCT either. Persons who obstructed were prosecuted, the POTUS wasn't one of them. PERIOD end of sentence.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

endeavors

Endeavors = intends

And how do we demonstrate intent? It isn't easy, but the benchmark here is "corrupt intent"

If "Corrupt intent" were established and Trump had taken some overt action to further that intent it would be obstruction.

Tune in to what I am saying here, "Probable cause" is a very, very low bar. An officer thinking they smell alcohol, seeing cigar wrappers laying in plain view or seeing little clear baggies in your vehicle is enough to establish probable cause.

The Probable cause hurdle/bar could not be met. This is evidenced by the fact no charges were in fact filed and no impeachment is recommended.

And Congress would only be involved in the instance impeachment/conviction were required.

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: underwerks
"Oh my god. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm f****d." -Donald J. Trump

Page 290.

Get ready for the crap show about to begin.

Like Knoxie, you guys didn't even read beyond why he said that, lol, already we're seeing the cherry pickers, though we already knew that, hmmm?

Of course I read beyond what he said.

What I didn't do is read INTO what he said. Which is the basis for your delusional beliefs.

Man this is fun.

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: Grambler

this report is damaging as hell.

imo, republicans want him out, but they want the dems to do it, they're pusses.

I read it completely differently.

What damage? There is no collusion.

There was no recomnedation of obstruction charges.

The dems and media lied about collusion, and are now trying to spin something on obstruction, but its pathetic.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Innocent until proven guilty...if they won't even pursue charges, that sounds like exoneration to me.

Fine. But don't tell me there was "no evidence" of collusion. "The evidence did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government" , which is what the Mueller report actually says.

Sure and there is evidence of DNC russia collusion.

And media russia collusion.

and Obama russian collusion.

Etc. The point is trump and his team, nor any american investigated, conspired to do illegal things with russia to affect the election.

Trying to spin it that there was evdidence is desperately grasping at straws

a reply to: underwerks

I am glad those of you that bought into the lie about trump russia collusion are having such a good time with this.

Its important to laugh at yourself when you realize you fell for a lie for so many years

a reply to: Grambler

My take on the obstruction is that any of the incidents would make great supporting evidence but even stitched together, none of them or the sum of them are insufficient to conclusively say it was definitely deliberate obstruction, not in a court of law. They are missing one definitive event or a critical mass, absent either, a lot of the little things come to naught.

a reply to: JBurns

Okay. You can argue that Trump didn't have corrupt intent, but you can't argue that endeavoring but not succeeding makes anyone innocent of obstruction, which is what you were arguing. Attempting to obstruct is as much as a crime as succeeding to obstruct.

originally posted by: panoz77

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Last sentence PROVES that the POTUS didn't OBSTRUCT either. Persons who obstructed were prosecuted, the POTUS wasn't one of them. PERIOD end of sentence.

Spot on

The absence of indictments and/or recommendations for the House to start impeachment proceedings demonstrates this very clearly

Their pearl clutching is getting old. Just another Fitzmas surprise, all in a days work for angry and bitter Dems

They need to own their lies and their irresponsible speculation and/or maliciously peddling unverified rumors for 2 years.

Dems: YOU ALL tore this country apart and divided it in ways we haven't seen in 150 years. And over WHAT? Nothing! A big fat nothing-burger. You did all this for nothing. Careers in ruin, the country divided and the end of civil discourse as we know... FOR NOTHING

Well, they failed. They failed miserably and their petty bitter politicking is now on display for the World to see. Can't wait to see how that discredited hag Maddow tries to spin this one

a reply to: JBurns

An attempt would be sufficient to satisfy the law. If you try to flush or swallow your illegal drugs because the cops show up, and it doesn't work or you get stopped first, you're still going to get an obstruction charge. You attempted to obstruct the investigation, even though you were unsuccessful.


The problem is all the evidence has alternative, innocent explanations. So one could use his firing of Comey as weak evidence of obstruction, but with the body of evidence, it is much stronger evidence that Trump believed it was a politically motivated witch hunt and waste of time.

The legal problem one would face is that whatever you allege is an "attempt to obstruct", you have to show his motive and intent was actually to obstruct. If he tried to fire Comey and Mueller to protect Jr's or his own ass, that'd be a attempt to obstruct, even if someone stopped him. If you can show that his intent was to improperly influence or end the investigation, you would have something. But without an underlying crime, it would be exceptionally difficult. You'd have to prove he knew or thought the investigation was going to catch him or someone close to him, and therefore tried to improperly end it. As opposed to the alternative explanations of him firing Comey in his Constitutional role as Chief Executive because it was the recommendation of the DAG, and thought the investigation was a waste of time and political exercise. How would you even pretend to establish obstruction in that scenario? You cannot. Unless you have a slew of (credible) people saying, "Trump actually told me the investigation was going to find out he colluded with Russians. He told me to lie to investigators/destroy documents/end Mueller's investigation/fire Comey". We haven't seen anything close to that.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Actually, yes I can and do argue this. Corrupt intent is a required element of obstruction of justice.

Attempting to obstruct is as much as a crime as succeeding to obstruct.

But he didn't. His staff shot down ideas that would've constituted obstruction (In Mueller's opinion). No such thing as thought crime.

Corrupt intent is all important because of one simple fact: You can't obstruct an investigation into a non-existent crime. As the facts now demonstrate, Trump was factually correct and knew for absolute certainty the underlying crime being investigated did not involve him. There can't be "corrupt intent" when you didn't do anything wrong to begin with

The only thing he's guilty of his demanding his inferior, Comey, repeat the truth (what he said to Trump) to the press instead of going on there, giggling like a little school girl and making it seem like there was any doubt whatsoever that Trump "colluded" (read: conspired/conspired to defraud the US) with the Russians

This is outright false, a totally invented narrative by corrupt hacks who are going to pay for what they did. Make no mistake, they will pay dearly. The maximum penalty allowed by law.

a reply to: ketsuko

Here is another point on obstruction.

It now seems we will see an investigation into the start of the Russia investigation by Obamas administration

SO lets say that there turns out to be evidence that there was wrong doing and bias involved in the start of the russia investigation, or the handling of it.

Given that we know trump and his team did not conpire illegally with russians as was alleged, wouldnt this further prove trump was not obstructing justice?

In other words, trump was innocent, and the investigation into him was biased an merely designed to take him down, therefore his anger and any attempts to end the investigation were not obstruction.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JBurns

Okay. You can argue that Trump didn't have corrupt intent, but you can't argue that endeavoring but not succeeding makes anyone innocent of obstruction, which is what you were arguing. Attempting to obstruct is as much as a crime as succeeding to obstruct.

But having corrupt intent, which you are conceded can be argued, would be neccessary to prove he attempted to obstruct.

Therefore he did not attempt to obstruct nor actually obstruct

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Innocent until proven guilty...if they won't even pursue charges, that sounds like exoneration to me.

Fine. But don't tell me there was "no evidence" of collusion. "The evidence did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government" , which is what the Mueller report actually says.

There's fewer sheets of toilet paper on the bathroom roll than there was last night- I suppose that's "evidence" that I took a dump this morning. Nothing illegal, just like your "evidence". Sorry to crap on your theory.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Sookie I'm not trying to brow beat you here, but give it up. The jig is up. The game is over. Your side lost.

Focus on productive things like preventing the BS crowd from tearing your party apart before we even make it to the general. Unless you enjoy watching folks like Franken, Biden, etc railroaded by the radical far left zealots who are the exact same ones pushing these bogus, discredited and completely unsupported theories.

The reality here does not support your assertions.

Let me ask you this, do you believe Mueller, Rosenstein, Barr & Mueller's entire team are now "in on" some sort of grand conspiracy? How about Mueller's grand jury? What ever happened to accepting the Mueller report whatever its conclusions? Or was that (like the 2016 election) only when it looked favorable to your side?

And you wonder why we *know* you all are bitter hypocrites

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Innocent until proven guilty...if they won't even pursue charges, that sounds like exoneration to me.

Fine. But don't tell me there was "no evidence" of collusion. "The evidence did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government" , which is what the Mueller report actually says.

And it's well known Russians were trying to mess with our elections so obviously some evidence of an attempt at cooperation but no evidence Trump or his team took the offer otherwise Trump Jr would be in trouble.

Also on obstruction the investigation was able to be completed without any interference from Trump even through he wanted it ended. So I don't see why the drums about obstruction are being hammered so loudly.

Mueller did his job and its time to move on. I do think we need to hear what Mueller has to say so we can finally end this BS

a reply to: Grambler

You're assuming that there's no corrupt intent on Trump's part. That's an opinion.

How exactly does one obstruct justice on an investigation of a crime that never occurred?

An investigation that was predicated on illegal spying based on information that was made up by an opposing political campaign.

Yet this is the basket the leftists have thrown all their eggs in.
It might be funny if it wasn't so tragic.