The Mueller report for all of us to see

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Sookiechacha

When one strongly hold an opinion without strong evidence ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary, it really only says something about the person holding the opinion.

trump asks russia for....Hillary e-mails
days later....Hillary's e-mails published
benefit for trump....elected
payback to Russia...lifting of sanctions

this isn't an OPINION, this is what happened publicly in real time......

oh...and Helsinki for treason...publically admitting to the televised world with putin standing next to him, that he believes and trusts the former KGB officer rather than the entire American intel community and the thousands of patriots who work to serve our country.

a reply to: jimmyx

Yeah, no, not really.
We've had the investigation and the conclusion. You got played.
Enjoy. Don't say you were not warned how silly you'd look when the truth came out.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RadioRobert

How do you establish his intent was improper if that occurred?

It's already been established that an underlying crime doesn't have to be proven to determine obstruction of justice occurred.

No, I've been saying that for months.

But good luck demonstrating his improper intent when evidence suggests there is no underlying crime. Awfully hard to prove improper motive without an underlying crime. And THAT is necessary...

So again, how do you demonstrate "improper intent" to end the investigation(s), as opposed to "did something I disagree with"?


If Trump was actively working with the Russians (or knew someone connected to him was), and he came out and said, "Why hasn't Mueller been fired? This is a complete waste of time! Witch hunt! Where's Sessions?!" , then you'd have a pretty good case he was improperly influencing the investigation to protect himself (or someone connected to him) when he made those statements or fired Comey, etc

If there is nothing to suggest collusion, then those same statements are actually pretty strong evidence he was acting "in good faith belief" the investigation was a waste of resources and political witch hunt. It has actually become exculpatory instead of incriminating. It showx no improper intent. That's a pretty #ing big problem if your only hope is an obstruction charge...

originally posted by: jimmyx


trump asks russia for....Hillary e-mails
days later....Hillary's e-mails published
benefit for trump....elected
payback to Russia...lifting of sanctions

this isn't an OPINION, this is what happened publicly in real time......

Hillary's emails were never published. Your wrong, and whether
this is intentional or not hmmm.

Again, Hillary's emails were never published by leaks.

What are you talking about???

a reply to: jimmyx

this isn't an OPINION

Lol. I will generously say that your OPINION is that it's established illegal collusion of some sort occurred.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Sookiechacha

When one strongly hold an opinion without strong evidence ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary, it really only says something about the person holding the opinion.

trump asks russia for....Hillary e-mails
days later....Hillary's e-mails published
benefit for trump....elected
payback to Russia...lifting of sanctions

this isn't an OPINION, this is what happened publicly in real time......

oh...and Helsinki for treason...publically admitting to the televised world with putin standing next to him, that he believes and trusts the former KGB officer rather than the entire American intel community and the thousands of patriots who work to serve our country.

Man why didn't Mueller interview you. Why didn't you find a way to provide all of this public, real time, information to his investigation? Now all the rest of us have to live with Manchurian President... thanks a lot.

I'm really enjoying all the armchair lawyers and dishonest liberal dbags(but I repeat myself) trying to cling on to anything at all that might make their bull# true.

These people are pathetic, whiny, losers.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Sookiechacha

When one strongly hold an opinion without strong evidence ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary, it really only says something about the person holding the opinion.

trump asks russia for....Hillary e-mails
days later....Hillary's e-mails published
benefit for trump....elected
payback to Russia...lifting of sanctions

Anti-Trump logic:

Rooster crows in the morning.
Hours later Sun rises.
Rooster causes sun to rise.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Mueller kicked that football to Congress.

Mueller isn't in a position to "kick that ball to congress."

Mueller works for -- and was hired by -- the Office of the Attorney General. That means Mueller was (and still is) an executive branch employee, first working for Sessions (and Rothstein), now working for Barr. The law says that Mueller was to report his findings to the Attorney General, which he did.

He has no authority to refer anything to congress.

...And before you accuse me of being a Trumpette, I am not. I didn't vote for him, nor am I a fan of his. However, I am a fan of the rule of law, and your statements about the report are counter to the rule of law, and are just plain incorrect.

Granted, Congress can do stuff themselves, but not under the request of Mr. Mueller.

a reply to: jimmyx

Latch onto anything you can. You people were warned this would come back to bite you in the ass. You didn't listen. Now all of you look stupid as hell and you keep doubling down on it.

Keep it up. 2020 is in the bag.

a reply to: Grambler

Mueller could not prove corrupt intent

It wasn't his purview, according to Mueller, to determine corrupt intent. He did offer a theory though. Mueller ultimately passed that on to Congress. Personally, I feel that it'd be wrong for Mueller to make that determination since he was the target of Trump's ire.

a reply to: Grambler

At this point all they can do is stall until the elections. They need multiple investigations going on against Trump so the media can focus on it, and not on the incoming criminal indictments of Democrats.

11 instances of potential obstruction

...among the episodes of the president’s conduct that Mueller investigated as potential obstructions of justice were:

Trump’s efforts to fire Mueller.
Trump’s firing of former FBI director James Comey.
Trump’s efforts to hijack oversight of the Mueller investigation.
Trump’s order to the White House counsel, Donald McGahn, to deny that Trump had tried to fire Mueller.
Trump’s conduct with regard to associates who have pleaded guilty to crimes including Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen.

Trump’s “repeated efforts to get McGahn to create a record denying that the President had directed him to remove the special counsel” are held up for special scrutiny. Trump told McGahn twice to order the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, to fire Mueller, McGahn told Mueller.

“McGahn recalled the president telling him ‘Mueller has to go” and ‘Call me back when you do it’,” the report says.

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” the report continues. “However, we are unable to reach that judgment.

“The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests,” the report says.

That would be the "Adults in the room" Open Ed from last year...

While the Mueller report declines to recommend a prosecution by the justice department, Mueller noted that Congress might do so.

“The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law,” the report reads.

^ In black and white ^

Congress should be petitioned to act in the nation's interest
Hold Trump to the same standard as Clinton

a reply to: Box of Rain

Mueller isn't in a position to "kick that ball to congress."

And yet he did, and Barr passed the report to Congress too.

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.

Why?

Tell me that is not how any president would react when a special council has been appointed. You can't - every one would react that way whether they are guilty or not.

a reply to: Cassi3l

You can't obstruct justice on an investigation based on ridiculous bull#.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Box of Rain

Mueller isn't in a position to "kick that ball to congress."

And yet he did, and Barr passed the report to Congress too.

Fine. That's not Mueller making legal referrals to Congress for potential prosecutorial reasons, if that's what you meant. (EDIT: Sorry about spellcheck, but that should be "prosecutorial". Fixed it.)

Barr was under no obligation to give the report to congress. When the AG's office hires a special prosecutor, the purpose is for make referrals back to the AG -- not to congress.

Special Prosecutors' findings, such as the Mueller Report, only required to be internal documents (internal to the DOJ and the AG's office) in order to make recommendations to the AG and the DOJ (Not congress) to press charges and/or indict.

However, Barr saw fit to send the report to congress and publicly release it, which is fine, but not a requirement.

a reply to: Cassi3l

Conveniently overlooking that two years and $350,000.000
were spent looking into it and guess what?

Already investigated!

IT"S OVER

NO Collusion NO Obstruction!

a reply to: burntheships

How can it be over when there are still so many ongoing investigations?

there's NO DOUBT he was desperate to stop the investigation.

why?

he was asking his aides to do things they were unwilling to do - that's insane. lol