Hillary and Trump Deemed Guilty - But Not Guilty Enough To Warrant Prosecution.

originally posted by: watchitburn
There's lots of evidence of Clinton's crimes.

There is no evidence of the crimes Trump was accused of.

The issue of whether there are crimes are not isn't relevant when it comes to obstructing an investigation which is why several people were charged for lying to the investigators. And frankly, it there wasn't any crime, why tell people to lie for you?

a reply to: carewemust

Wrong.... trump is guilty and the evidence to convict him is being preserved by the feds for when he is out of office.
There is a big difference between what they said about Clinton and what they are saying about trumps behavior.
Big BIG BIG DIFFERENCE !!!!

a reply to: carewemust

You think that is what they found? Oh no...
The report clearly says the only reason they are not prosecuting him is because of that DOJ policy.
And that is the ONLY reason they are not prosecuting him NOW...

originally posted by: watchitburn
No,
You can't obstruct justice on a crime that didn't exist.

Clinton's crimes actually happened.

go tell that to a judge or a lawyer.

if that was a good enough defense, you don't think Trump would have stooped to that level of defense?

you should say instead if Trump committed n9 crimes he should not have obstructed.

if im being investigated for murder, but im innocent, I can't fire the police Chief and investigators because I think im in the clear and im the mayor....

s&f nonsense, when the reality is looking at you, but with 2 fingers in your ears you're screaming lalala

If we even attempted to do that kind of stuff, we would be fired from our jobs and or charged and jailed with committing a crime. But Hillary is a ex-first lady and Trump is a sitting president.

The thing is in the corporate world or in High society, Trump would not be penalized. Many corporations stretch the laws, and agencies governing them allow the big companies to do that because they supply jobs to the citizens which keeps the tax money rolling in from the middle class.

The laws we believe are there actually are not really there, often the judge allows plea bargaining yet actually the law that they charged you with is not always pertinent. Someone with a good lawyer would get you off utilizing loopholes the lawyers of this country created. The congressmen and other high ranking officials have different rules to follow than the regular people, so do big corporations.

The way it almost was

oh boy..

a reply to: carewemust

I was investigated for robbing a bank. However I did not rob a bank and there is no evidence that I robbed a bank.

Durring the investigation

1. I told the investigator I saw no reason to answer his questions.

2. I told several friends of mine to tell the investigator to F-Off because their was no crime.

3. I tried several times to get the investigator fired for harrasing a US citizen over a crime I didn't commit when I knew the investigator had no evidence.

4. Durring the investigation I was a able to get one of the members on the team fired for gross negligence in handling the case.

5. No one actually listened to my angry rants and everyone including myself fully cooperated.

When did I obstruct justice?

You are saying Trump is a criminal because he was angry that a baseless and illegal investigation was going on and made some comments to people that were never acted upon.

I guess all we need to do to make you a criminal is to charge you with a crime you didn't commit and wait for you to make any angry statement that we can use against you as obstruction. What a f@#$ed up world that would be.

Hillary Clinton destroyed subpoenaed evidence.

These 2 cases have absolutely nothing in common and you making the accusation that somehow they are the same is actually quite disturbing and either disingenuous or slightly ignorant.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Hillary, is that YOU?

hehe...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

Wrong.... trump is guilty and the evidence to convict him is being preserved by the feds for when he is out of office.
There is a big difference between what they said about Clinton and what they are saying about trumps behavior.
Big BIG BIG DIFFERENCE !!!!

I wonder if Nixon's supporters were as completely lost as you and made the type of ignorant statements you make? I can't deny ignorance when I have to read it on this site everyday. I really wish their was an ignore option like they have on twitter.

a reply to: carewemust

I disagree with this.

First, we can look at it legally. In this sense, neither prosecutor deemed that Hillary or Trump were to be charged with breaking a law.

However, there is going to be an investigation, and there is credible evidence that Comey and the fbi, and lynch's doj acted inappropriately when they left Hillary and her team off the hok. We know for a fact that Hillarys team destroyed subpoenaed evidence, we know they lied to investigators and weren't charged, etc. We know that some in the FBI wanted to charge Hillary, but were told by lynch's doj that they wouldn't go thru with the charges anyway.

There is no credible accusation that I am aware of that the Mueller team had any incentive to let trump off the hook.


In addition, Hillary's team certainly broke the law by deleting evidence, its just they were granted immunity for it. No such immunity was given to anyone on Trump team.

So we know Hillarys team engaged in obstruction of justice, and there is a question of whether or not Trump engaged in it.

Now as to the underlying crimes each were accused of, as I mentioned above, there are serious questions as to whether the investigators determination of needing intent was necessary for that crime, and so Hillary may be guilty of it.

However, muellers report seems pretty definitive that trump or his team didn't conspire with Russians to affect the election.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: watchitburn
There's lots of evidence of Clinton's crimes.

There is no evidence of the crimes Trump was accused of.

The issue of whether there are crimes are not isn't relevant when it comes to obstructing an investigation which is why several people were charged for lying to the investigators. And frankly, it there wasn't any crime, why tell people to lie for you?

You are right that a crime didn't need to exist in to obstruct.

However, "corrupt intent" is necessary for their to be obstruction. The fact that trump was innocent of the underlying crime makes proving corrupt inetent very difficult to prove.

Now why would trum[p fire comey, tell people to lie, etc., if he was innocent?

because the media and dems and investigators (thru leaks) were smearing anything trump did as him being a Russian agent, and it was harming his agenda and may have in fact cost his part the 2018 election.

Trump was still wrong to tell people to lie, but it most liely wasn't to obstruct or cover up crimes, adnd was more likely to stop negative press corveage.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

Wrong.... trump is guilty and the evidence to convict him is being preserved by the feds for when he is out of office.
There is a big difference between what they said about Clinton and what they are saying about trumps behavior.
Big BIG BIG DIFFERENCE !!!!

Please have some self reflection.

You've spent two years telling us the dossier was real, trump illegally conspired with Russians, and mueller would prove that.

You were wrong.

Now instead of reflecting on that, you ignore it and proceed to make more bold claims that he is guilty of other things

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: watchitburn
No,
You can't obstruct justice on a crime that didn't exist.

Clinton's crimes actually happened.

go tell that to a judge or a lawyer.

if that was a good enough defense, you don't think Trump would have stooped to that level of defense?

you should say instead if Trump committed n9 crimes he should not have obstructed.

if im being investigated for murder, but im innocent, I can't fire the police Chief and investigators because I think im in the clear and im the mayor....

s&f nonsense, when the reality is looking at you, but with 2 fingers in your ears you're screaming lalala

Yes you cant fire the chief, but your not president

L:egally, trump could fire comey. And it must be proven he had corrupt intent to gain an advantage in the investigation in fdoing so.

Seeing as how he was innocent, the investigation never skipped a beat with the firing of comey; that seems very difficult for a prosecutor to prove.

Meanwhile, if you were charged with a crime, and tweeted the people who turned you in were lairs, would that be obstruction?

Of course not. But that is the sort of thing they are saying is obstruction by trump

a reply to: rickymouse

As far as we ALL know, the DOJ has no policy of not prosecuting an ex first lady.

a reply to: toolgal462

You can't indict a sitting president and Mueller felt that it would be a tad bit unfair to say yes he committed crimes when the justice department provides no avenue for trump to be cleared of such charges. So he just didn't go there. He just documented all the facts he found and outlined the two possible ways trump could be held accountable if others felt that his behavior raised to the level of criminality. The obvious being impeachment in which the standard really doesn't require beyond a shadow of doubt evidence that a crime was committed. To me it seems that some of the behavior laid out in the first section of the report would be reason to consider impeachment. But that is not likely to happen at least not successfully.
So there is the second option. Charges can be filed after he leaves office. Maybe. If the statute of limitations hasn't expired and he hasn't been given a pardon like so many presidents before him have.
I think that a sealed indictment might stop the clock when it comes to the statute of limitations.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Did you tell the chief of police to go on TV and lie to the american people? Did you yell at the chief about him not doing what you asked? Did you go on TV yourself and make fun of the chief? Mock his southern accent?
Did you tell a common citizen to go to that chief and try and convince that chief to support your cause... Or that nobody common citizen should fire him?

a reply to: Isurrender73

Exactly right.

If Obstruction is going to be interpreted so broadly that making statements such as declarations of innocence or anger at the investigation is obstruction, then the following things would be.

1. Obama declaring Hillary innocent before an investigation. This could have signaled to witnesses that the president wanted her to be found innocent and affected their testimony.

2. Hillary and others saying Benghazi investigation was garbage and politically motivated. This could have affected testimony.

3. Obama declaring executive privilege to keep eric holders emails from investigators.

4. Hillary praising Mills abedin or anyone else when they testified favorably for her.




Its ridiculous. And the only reason we have such a detailed look at exactly what trump was saying was becaiuse he did much of it in public, and because he used no executive priledge and let investigators see everything, which further speaks against him obstructing.

Imagine if instead of granting everyone immunity in the Hillary investigation, we had a two year special counselor looking in to it. We know for example mills and abedin lied to the fbi; did Hillary have any discussions with them before their testimony? Who on hillarys team talked with paul combetta and told him to alter emails subpoenaed by congress?

Yet the same people who see no problem with the Hillary investigation are trying to tell us trumps tweets are obstruction

a reply to: dawnstar

Everything you say here shows the OP claim to be wrong.

Mueller doesn't definitively say Trump committed obstruction.

Whereas we know for a fact that hillarys team did by deleting subpoenaed evidence, they were just granted immunity for it.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Isurrender73

Did you tell the chief of police to go on TV and lie to the american people? Did you yell at the chief about him not doing what you asked? Did you go on TV yourself and make fun of the chief? Mock his southern accent?
Did you tell a common citizen to go to that chief and try and convince that chief to support your cause... Or that nobody common citizen should fire him?

What?

So to start with, if trump mocked an accent that's obstruction? hahahahaha!!!!

Yeah, if all of what you list here would have been done by that poster, it still would not be obstruction.