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

a reply to: Grambler

So when trump told Corey Lowandowski to go to Jeff sessions and tell him to un recuse himself, then tell the special counsel to stop the investigation into his campaign and to only focus on "future election crimes"(???) he wasn't obstructing and that was not his intent?

How about when he called Lowandowski back into his office two weeks later and made the request a second time? This time adding that if Lowandowski couldn't convince Sessions then he (Lowandowski) should fire him ultimately making an end run around Don McGhan who had already refused to fire Mueller and had attempted to convince the president against his own Saturday night massacre? Was there intent in that?

Trumps biggest breaks came from the people who refused to do the crazy schitte he was asking them to do.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rickymouse

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

Think about this, how would it look to other nations if our Ex-president or his wife were to be charged with a crime like Hillary did? Not many countries want other countries to think their ex-ruler is corrupt. Unless of course there was a coup or change of regime or something. Of course this applies to the actions of free world countries like us, Canada, and all of Europe. The Russians would love to see Hillary charged with a crime.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
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.

So the confusion seems to be what is technically obstruction vs the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is that nobody should spend jail time for something that ultimately was not part of a criminal action precursor.

In essence, it is similar to perjury. It happens all the time in trials and is technically 100% illegal and chargeable, but is only prosecuted typically when there is guilt found on the underlying crime.

Say your wife lies about your whereabouts while one the stand defending you in a murder case. Maybe she is just trying to create an alibi because you just happened to be unaccountable at the time of the murder-- who knows. If they found you guilty, and your wife's testimony was very key in costing the investigation a bunch of time, they might prosecute her.

However, if they find some other guy and he confesses, prosecutors realize that it is in bad form to prosecute the perjury crime even thought it was technically committed

In Trumps case there are two issues that complicate obstruction. He has absolute right to pardon anyone he chooses, so it is difficult to demonstrate a motive for obstructing other peoples charges. Additionally, Comey told him 3 times that he was not himself under investigation, so it becomes extremely difficult to show obstruction for his own case.

I don't think we want to have a legal system that regularly charges obstruction on cases where the original crime was unrealized. Jails would be full of friends and spouses who just thought they were covering something even though it was unnecessary as the person was innocent.

Thus the spirit of the law has been 99.9% of the time to not charge in these cases where no underlying crime is found even if the activity could be construed legally as obstruction.

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?

Remember I was innocent of the crime. So you want me to be charged with making angry rants because I was being falsely accused? How long should an innocent man spend in jail for getting angry about being dragged through an illegally started investegation?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

So when trump told Corey Lowandowski to go to Jeff sessions and tell him to un recuse himself, then tell the special counsel to stop the investigation into his campaign and to only focus on "future election crimes"(???) he wasn't obstructing and that was not his intent?

No that's not proof of obstruction. He would have to have proven to have "corrupt intent" to obstruct in order to prevent investigators from lookin into a crime trump may have committed.

Trump very reasonably and most likely could have been upset that this investigation into a crime he was innocent of was leaking to the press and being used to stymie his agenda. That is not corrupt intent to want that to end.

How about when he called Lowandowski back into his office two weeks later and made the request a second time? This time adding that if Lowandowski couldn't convince Sessions then he (Lowandowski) should fire him ultimately making an end run around Don McGhan who had already refused to fire Mueller and had attempted to convince the president against his own Saturday night massacre? Was there intent in that?

Trumps biggest breaks came from the people who refused to do the crazy schitte he was asking them to do.

Well yes, almost anything anyone does has "intent". That's not the question, the question is was it "corrupt intent"

As I showed, the more likey scenario is trump knew he was innocent and was tired of the media , dems and intel community acting in concert to stop his adminstartion.


I notice you still have made no comment about believing lies about collusion and dossiers for two years.

The irony is laughable.

Dems, the intel community and media falsely accuse trump of crimes for two years, and instead of apologizing they immediately ignore they lied and say trump being angry about the witch hunt is itself a crime.

What a joke

a reply to: Halfswede

Thank you for your input. That's what I was getting at, but your example was spot on and should be easy for others to understand.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

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?

Remember I was innocent of the crime. So you want me to be charged with making angry rants because I was being falsely accused? How long should an innocent man spend in jail for getting angry about being dragged through an illegally started investegation?

She thinks mocking an investigators accent is obstruction of justice.

That is how insane this has become.

The same people that lied to us and promised us the dossier was real and trump and his team conspired illegaly with Russians are now ignoring that and saying making fun of an accent is a crime.

This is surreal

a reply to: Grambler

The dossier is real. That was not the reason they opened the investigation as outlined on page nine of volume I.
They are two different issues. And I have not been proven wrong as the dossier is not debunked. But I digress...

Mueller did what he needed to do. He left the prosecutorial action in the hands of congress with his statement about whether prosecution would serve a substantial federal interest that could not be adequately served by prosecution elsewhere or through non criminal alternatives.
Prosecution elsewhere means outside the feds and after he is out of office.
through non criminal alternatives... well you know what that means.

I cannot copy paste the report from a PDF so I have to write out every quote I want to make. I dont mind... I type pretty fast if not accurately. LOL. But I have to hand write what I want to quote here. So I will tell you what page or what section my information is coming from so I do not have to write out large swaths of the report.
then you can look them up yourself. I am sure you have downloaded the report as well haven't you?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

The dossier is real. That was not the reason they opened the investigation as outlined on page nine of volume I.
They are two different issues. And I have not been proven wrong as the dossier is not debunked. But I digress...

Hahahahahahahaha! So explain to me how Mueller wasn't able to find any evidence at all in two years of the claims of illegality in the dossier, such as cohen in prague, or Page being a Russian agent?

You keep holding on to that dream!

Mueller did what he needed to do. He left the prosecutorial action in the hands of congress with his statement about whether prosecution would serve a substantial federal interest that could not be adequately served by prosecution elsewhere or through non criminal alternatives.
Prosecution elsewhere means outside the feds and after he is out of office.
through non criminal alternatives... well you know what that means.

Keep holding the dream. You and the rest are so concerned about obstruction, yet had no problem with Hillary deleted subpoenaed evidence.

I cannot copy paste the report from a PDF so I have to write out every quote I want to make. I dont mind... I type pretty fast if not accurately. LOL. But I have to hand write what I want to quote here. So I will tell you what page or what section my information is coming from so I do not have to write out large swaths of the report.
then you can look them up yourself. I am sure you have downloaded the report as well haven't you?

I have read the report.

Mueller never says trump is guilty. He lays out that he could be, or could be innocent ON OBSTRUCTION" As far as the claims you have been making about trump and his team conspiring illegally with Russians, trump and his team are innocent. That's done,. You were wrong, you spread lies.

Now you same people, who had no problem with Hillary deleting evidence, who lied about trump and Russia for two years, want to believe he will be charged and convicted of obstruction in the future.

If HIllary was Nixon, this whole thing would have been finished and done by now.

Is this even normal to have a 2.5 year ongoing fake investigation against a sitting President?

AOC wants to Investigate Trump now that he's been found innocent. What gives? Doesn't she know they just did that and wasted a # load of tax payer $? Do Americans whose money funding this operation, get a refund?

If HIllary was Nixon, this whole thing would have been finished and done by now.

Is this even normal to have a 2.5 year ongoing fake investigation against a sitting President?

AOC wants to Investigate Trump now that he's been found innocent. What gives? Doesn't she know they just did that and wasted a # load of tax payer $? Do Americans whose money funding this operation, get a refund?

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

18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

The Mueller investigation was the 'due administration of justice' in that it was an authorized investigation carried out by authorized Department of Justice officials. The purpose of an investigation is to determine whether a crime was committed. Any effort to 'influence, obstruct, or impede' an investigation is an obstruction of justice.

Trump firing Comey because of 'the Russia thing' was obstruction of justice.
Trump telling his legal counsel to discredit Mueller was obstruction of Justice.
Trump telling Sessions to un-recuse himself to control the Mueller investigation and fire Rosenstein was obstruction of justice.

There a multitude of examples laid out in the Mueller report of Trump obstructing justice by trying to prematurely end or hinder the investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 election.

originally posted by: Grambler
Trump was still wrong to tell people to lie...

If he weren't President it would be criminal. But he is, so it isn't.

a reply to: links234
So this is basically the claim being made by many dems and media people.

"we lied about Russian collusion. We had no problem with Hillary destroying subpoenaed evidence. But trump wanting the mueller investigation to end, even though it ended up finsihe=ing and not being obstruction, is a huge deal we need to charge him with"

Sorry, anyone who pushed the Russia conspiracy and was ok with Hillary destroying subpoenaed evidence has no credibility.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Grambler
Trump was still wrong to tell people to lie...

If he weren't President it would be criminal. But he is, so it isn't.

No it wouldn't.

Had trump told people to lie to investigators, that would be a huge deal.

But that's not what happened. He told the to lie to the media.

If I am under investigation, I can lie to the media, and tell other people to lie to the media, and that is not obstruction,. Now if I lie to investigators or tell others to that is obstruction.

originally posted by: links234

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

...

Trump firing Comey because of 'the Russia thing' was obstruction of justice.
Trump telling his legal counsel to discredit Mueller was obstruction of Justice.
Trump telling Sessions to un-recuse himself to control the Mueller investigation and fire Rosenstein was obstruction of justice.

...

Just to be clear, Comey was fired for recklessly disseminating (leaking) classified information and even Rosenstein recommended his firing. It would have been negligent to not fire him. Neither of the other things are obstruction either. Sessions could legally un-recuse himself whether of his own accord, or at Trumps suggestion -- he had no legal reason to recuse himself in the first place, just didn't want to get involved. Discrediting someone is not a crime in any first-world country.

Wishing something as illegal doesn't make it so. Saying you want to do something that you don't end up doing isn't obstruction or illegal either, so don't go on about "wanting to fire Mueller" etc.
Had he actually fired Mueller and the investigation collapsed, or had he destroyed documents or evidence requested by the SC or prevented them from accessing information are about the only scenarios where true obstruction would have taken place. None of those things took place.

In the spirit of this thread, Hillary broke specific laws (nobody is disputing the fact that there are/were Top secret emails on the server) pertaining to the handling of classified information and willfully destroyed evidence and wasn't prosecuted. It really is apples to oranges.

Nobody is claiming Trump is some nice guy or was happy with the investigation.

a reply to: Grambler

You Sir, have the patience of a saint.

I don't know how you do it.

originally posted by: chr0naut

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

Clinton's crimes actually happened.

Not according to the investigations.

That is what insufficient evidence to prosecute means.

The presumption is innocent until PROVEN guilty, and that hasn't been proven.

The difference is Mueller's report says he is unable to establish with all the evidence he collected a corrupt intent which is required by the statute to become a crime. If you break your neighbor's car window out of annoyance or even boredom, you committed a crime. You'll be charged. If you break your neighbor's car window because a dog is locked in the backseat, it is not a crime (but you may still face civil liability in certain places). You under took the same action, but without criminal intent. Obstruction requires corrupt intent. Mueller could not show it even after millions of dollars and hours spent in investigation, covering thousands of subpoenas, warrants, and interrogations.


The laws governing the handling of classified material do not require intent. It covers deliberate intent and careless action without intent. That's what negligence means. It is criminalized even without intent and in the case of negligence. Comey declared while there were countless examples of violations, he didn't think there was intent, so he didn't recommend charges. A) he usurped the role of the Attorney General whose office makes decisions to prosecute, not investigators B) the statute covers negligence so not being convinced of her intent is meaningless

Mueller in contrast says, these actions might be considered obstruction if you can demonstrate corrupt intent. The statute requires intent. He also says there are too many difficulties to resolve to establish intent. He cannot show corrupt attempt and there exist alternate explanations which may make those actions innocent. So after all the hoopla, he cannot demonstrate corrupt intent, but he also cannot rule it out.


There is a difference because intent is key in one statute and not the other. There is a large practical difference between A) "She clearly broke the law, but it wasn't necessarily on purpose, she's a Presidential candidate, and I hate being on the spot. We're going to let it slide." And B) "He might have broken the law. I cannot rule it out, but I cannot say he committed a crime."

a reply to: Halfswede

Literally nothing you posted is true.

Maybe it is in Pretend Land where Trump is an upstanding citizen worthy of praise but, in America, none of that is true.

a reply to: links234

He mentioned Hillary’s team destroyed subpoenaed evidence

That is true (maybe Hillary didn’t do it but her team did)

Why do you ignore this?