Fact Checked

[Penelope]

Mueller based his report on the OLC decision in 2000.

What?

Look, you're just an ignorant Hamas terrorist - you're as dumb as the camels Arab men lust after.

But IF you dumb piles of shit want to accuse the AG of lying, you need to post EXACTLY what the AG said, and how it was an intent to deceive and is false.

Seriously, you may be dumber than Wry Catcher

Look it up, you have google.

Mueller MENTIONED a 1997 guideline by the OAC - you ignorant terrorist.

NOW. IF you dumb piles of shit want to accuse the AG of lying, you need to post EXACTLY what the AG said, and how it was an intent to deceive and is false.

Ignorance is not a virtue.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

Wow, you sure are dumb..

{In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.1 We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.}

Next time, READ what your masters have you post.

A Sitting Presidents Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions
October 16, 2000

Like I said being ignorant is not a virture.

 

[Penelope]

Yeah, that. But, your interlocutor likes to assert that Mueller's not detailing with what he'd charge Trump proves Mueller to be a political hack engaged in a witch hunt. Think about that for a while. For in a witch hunt the target is being charged with whatever can be found and then some, every behavior given the most incriminating interpretation, and the crimes detailed to the most minuscule aspect along with high crimes and misdemeanors described in graphic detail so as to provide a road map for impeachment. Also, to inflict as much damage as possible, every associate would, in a witch hunt, be charged as a co-conspirator, and the target would have been forced to sit down for days of interrogation. That's what a witch hunt would have looked like.

And the moron makes a case that, because none of that happened, it was a witch hunt. Again, think about the decaying brain that would resort to such gobbledygook. Not playing with a full deck, that one.

Regardless if the crime happened or not there still exists the possibility of obstruction of justice. That’s just straight law.

I personally wouldn’t push the obstruction of Justice case because of the fact that Mueller cleared Trump of conspiracy. But mueller obviously thinks a case can be made for obstruction. Now the ball is in congresses hands about how they want to try use that info. I think impeachment is a big mistake but we shall see.

You've completely missed my argument. At least, you're talking past it. Was that deliberate? If so, care to explain why?

Mueller obviously thinks a case can be made for collusion, and details a lot of it, even while no agreement was found so as to prove conspiracy. That may be relevant in the realm of criminal law, but an impeachment proceeding is another animal entirely.

That's one of the reasons why I disagree on letting obstruction slide. Of course, impeachment is politically risky. Signalling to future presidents that corruption on the level of Trump's will go unpunished is immeasurably more risky.

You can obstruct without a crime being committed, and why did he want to end the special council.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

If Comey fucked up so bad then why didn’t Sessions indict hillary when he took over? why doesn’t Barr go after her? Why doesn’t Wray or the IG do something? Easy answer. There is no there there! Wake up!

That's for them to answer. I suspect it has to do with political will and a certain former president that would necessarily be involved. If the name was not Clinton but some lower level functionary you can bet things would be massively different.
Of course a lower level person could never have pulled off the crimes of Hillary.

There is no doubt however that she has committed many, many crimes and cover ups and James Comey mentioned just some of them.

 

[Slade3200]

Yeah, that. But, your interlocutor likes to assert that Mueller's not detailing with what he'd charge Trump proves Mueller to be a political hack engaged in a witch hunt. Think about that for a while. For in a witch hunt the target is being charged with whatever can be found and then some, every behavior given the most incriminating interpretation, and the crimes detailed to the most minuscule aspect along with high crimes and misdemeanors described in graphic detail so as to provide a road map for impeachment. Also, to inflict as much damage as possible, every associate would, in a witch hunt, be charged as a co-conspirator, and the target would have been forced to sit down for days of interrogation. That's what a witch hunt would have looked like.

And the moron makes a case that, because none of that happened, it was a witch hunt. Again, think about the decaying brain that would resort to such gobbledygook. Not playing with a full deck, that one.

Regardless if the crime happened or not there still exists the possibility of obstruction of justice. That’s just straight law.

I personally wouldn’t push the obstruction of Justice case because of the fact that Mueller cleared Trump of conspiracy. But mueller obviously thinks a case can be made for obstruction. Now the ball is in congresses hands about how they want to try use that info. I think impeachment is a big mistake but we shall see.

You've completely missed my argument. At least, you're talking past it. Was that deliberate? If so, care to explain why?

Mueller obviously thinks a case can be made for collusion, and details a lot of it, even while no agreement was found so as to prove conspiracy. That may be relevant in the realm of criminal law, but an impeachment proceeding is another animal entirely.

That's one of the reasons why I disagree on letting obstruction slide. Of course, impeachment is politically risky. Signalling to future presidents that corruption on the level of Trump's will go unpunished is immeasurably more risky.

My bad, I didn’t mean to speak past your point. You were saying that the way Muller handled the report, not making a charge, shows he is a political hack, is that correct?

I have a different view on that... look at the stakes behind charging the president of the United States with a crime, and a relatively weak crime at that. One single accusation or comment could influence the removal of a sitting president. That’s a big deal.

Now where would an accusation go? The DOJ wouldn’t indict and there wouldn’t be a trail and trump wouldn’t be able to defend himself. Think that through for a minute. What would happen had Mueller said he concluded that Trump obstructed Justice. What would the DOJ then do?

Now mueller obviously thought there was enough there to display some level of criminality. Instead of acting on it he laid out the facts and left it to congress to decide how to act. ultimately it would be up to congress to impeach so mueller took his foot off the scale and is letting them decide what to do. That’s my take on it anyways

I do think he should absolutely testify if this thing goes any further.

 

[Slade3200]

If Comey fucked up so bad then why didn’t Sessions indict hillary when he took over? why doesn’t Barr go after her? Why doesn’t Wray or the IG do something? Easy answer. There is no there there! Wake up!

That's for them to answer. I suspect it has to do with political will and a certain former president that would necessarily be involved. If the name was not Clinton but some lower level functionary you can bet things would be massively different.
Of course a lower level person could never have pulled off the crimes of Hillary.

There is no doubt however that she has committed many, many crimes and cover ups and James Comey mentioned just some of them.

You can’t just breeze past my question. “That’s for them to answer?” Well why aren’t you demanding an answer then? This is Trump and all his people. If the crimes are so obvious why aren’t they holding her accountable. There were chants and promises during his campaign. The mandate is there. I’m not seeing anything. Face it. There is nothing there as shown by her political enemies inaction after seeing all the evidence.

 

[Olde Europe]

Yeah, that. But, your interlocutor likes to assert that Mueller's not detailing with what he'd charge Trump proves Mueller to be a political hack engaged in a witch hunt. Think about that for a while. For in a witch hunt the target is being charged with whatever can be found and then some, every behavior given the most incriminating interpretation, and the crimes detailed to the most minuscule aspect along with high crimes and misdemeanors described in graphic detail so as to provide a road map for impeachment. Also, to inflict as much damage as possible, every associate would, in a witch hunt, be charged as a co-conspirator, and the target would have been forced to sit down for days of interrogation. That's what a witch hunt would have looked like.

And the moron makes a case that, because none of that happened, it was a witch hunt. Again, think about the decaying brain that would resort to such gobbledygook. Not playing with a full deck, that one.

Regardless if the crime happened or not there still exists the possibility of obstruction of justice. That’s just straight law.

I personally wouldn’t push the obstruction of Justice case because of the fact that Mueller cleared Trump of conspiracy. But mueller obviously thinks a case can be made for obstruction. Now the ball is in congresses hands about how they want to try use that info. I think impeachment is a big mistake but we shall see.

You've completely missed my argument. At least, you're talking past it. Was that deliberate? If so, care to explain why?

Mueller obviously thinks a case can be made for collusion, and details a lot of it, even while no agreement was found so as to prove conspiracy. That may be relevant in the realm of criminal law, but an impeachment proceeding is another animal entirely.

That's one of the reasons why I disagree on letting obstruction slide. Of course, impeachment is politically risky. Signalling to future presidents that corruption on the level of Trump's will go unpunished is immeasurably more risky.

My bad, I didn’t mean to speak past your point. You were saying that the way Muller handled the report, not making a charge, shows he is a political hack, is that correct?

I have a different view on that... look at the stakes behind charging the president of the United States with a crime, and a relatively weak crime at that. One single accusation or comment could influence the removal of a sitting president. That’s a big deal.

Now where would an accusation go? The DOJ wouldn’t indict and there wouldn’t be a trail and trump wouldn’t be able to defend himself. Think that through for a minute. What would happen had Mueller said he concluded that Trump obstructed Justice. What would the DOJ then do?

Now mueller obviously thought there was enough there to display some level of criminality. Instead of acting on it he laid out the facts and left it to congress to decide how to act. ultimately it would be up to congress to impeach so mueller took his foot off the scale and is letting them decide what to do. That’s my take on it anyways

I do think he should absolutely testify if this thing goes any further.

No, I laid out how a political hack would have acted, none of which actually happened, and demonstrated that your interlocutor (EAB) concluded that Mueller, doing nothing a political hack would have done, must therefore be a political hack. It would appear, you should read that thing one more time.

As to alleging a sitting president committed a crime while he couldn't be charged in court, and the egregious unfairness of it all... that really makes me laugh. Of course, a sitting president has the power to order that lawsuit against himself to go forward, so that he can have his day in court and defend himself. Mueller knows that, of course, and still he resorted to torturing facts and logic to avoid telling the nation that, yes, the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, and, yes, Trump obstructed justice on multiple occasions. That again is what a political hack would do, no?

Quite naturally, Mueller now faces a vicious smear campaign for his service to the nation, and our Trumpletons couldn't be more subservient chiming in on behalf of their Dear Leader.

 

[Slade3200]

Yeah, that. But, your interlocutor likes to assert that Mueller's not detailing with what he'd charge Trump proves Mueller to be a political hack engaged in a witch hunt. Think about that for a while. For in a witch hunt the target is being charged with whatever can be found and then some, every behavior given the most incriminating interpretation, and the crimes detailed to the most minuscule aspect along with high crimes and misdemeanors described in graphic detail so as to provide a road map for impeachment. Also, to inflict as much damage as possible, every associate would, in a witch hunt, be charged as a co-conspirator, and the target would have been forced to sit down for days of interrogation. That's what a witch hunt would have looked like.

And the moron makes a case that, because none of that happened, it was a witch hunt. Again, think about the decaying brain that would resort to such gobbledygook. Not playing with a full deck, that one.

Regardless if the crime happened or not there still exists the possibility of obstruction of justice. That’s just straight law.

I personally wouldn’t push the obstruction of Justice case because of the fact that Mueller cleared Trump of conspiracy. But mueller obviously thinks a case can be made for obstruction. Now the ball is in congresses hands about how they want to try use that info. I think impeachment is a big mistake but we shall see.

You've completely missed my argument. At least, you're talking past it. Was that deliberate? If so, care to explain why?

Mueller obviously thinks a case can be made for collusion, and details a lot of it, even while no agreement was found so as to prove conspiracy. That may be relevant in the realm of criminal law, but an impeachment proceeding is another animal entirely.

That's one of the reasons why I disagree on letting obstruction slide. Of course, impeachment is politically risky. Signalling to future presidents that corruption on the level of Trump's will go unpunished is immeasurably more risky.

My bad, I didn’t mean to speak past your point. You were saying that the way Muller handled the report, not making a charge, shows he is a political hack, is that correct?

I have a different view on that... look at the stakes behind charging the president of the United States with a crime, and a relatively weak crime at that. One single accusation or comment could influence the removal of a sitting president. That’s a big deal.

Now where would an accusation go? The DOJ wouldn’t indict and there wouldn’t be a trail and trump wouldn’t be able to defend himself. Think that through for a minute. What would happen had Mueller said he concluded that Trump obstructed Justice. What would the DOJ then do?

Now mueller obviously thought there was enough there to display some level of criminality. Instead of acting on it he laid out the facts and left it to congress to decide how to act. ultimately it would be up to congress to impeach so mueller took his foot off the scale and is letting them decide what to do. That’s my take on it anyways

I do think he should absolutely testify if this thing goes any further.

No, I laid out how a political hack would have acted, none of which actually happened, and demonstrated that your interlocutor (EAB) concluded that Mueller, doing nothing a political hack would have done, must therefore be a political hack. It would appear, you should read that thing one more time.

As to alleging a sitting president committed a crime while he couldn't be charged in court, and the egregious unfairness of it all... that really makes me laugh. Of course, a sitting president has the power to order that lawsuit against himself to go forward, so that he can have his day in court and defend himself. Mueller knows that, of course, and still he resorted to torturing facts and logic to avoid telling the nation that, yes, the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, and, yes, Trump obstructed justice on multiple occasions. That again is what a political hack would do, no?

Quite naturally, Mueller now faces a vicious smear campaign for his service to the nation, and our Trumpletons couldn't be more subservient chiming in on behalf of their Dear Leader.

Many apologies. I gave a quick and sloppy read of your post and completely missed the point. I got it now and completely agree. These discussions get so convoluted in misrepresentation of facts, insults, ramblings, personal attacks and spun up narratives it can get dizzying.

I get that there are two sides of the coin here, I just wish that we could discuss it without the extreme hyperbole.

 

[Slade3200]

Yeah, that. But, your interlocutor likes to assert that Mueller's not detailing with what he'd charge Trump proves Mueller to be a political hack engaged in a witch hunt. Think about that for a while. For in a witch hunt the target is being charged with whatever can be found and then some, every behavior given the most incriminating interpretation, and the crimes detailed to the most minuscule aspect along with high crimes and misdemeanors described in graphic detail so as to provide a road map for impeachment. Also, to inflict as much damage as possible, every associate would, in a witch hunt, be charged as a co-conspirator, and the target would have been forced to sit down for days of interrogation. That's what a witch hunt would have looked like.

And the moron makes a case that, because none of that happened, it was a witch hunt. Again, think about the decaying brain that would resort to such gobbledygook. Not playing with a full deck, that one.

Regardless if the crime happened or not there still exists the possibility of obstruction of justice. That’s just straight law.

I personally wouldn’t push the obstruction of Justice case because of the fact that Mueller cleared Trump of conspiracy. But mueller obviously thinks a case can be made for obstruction. Now the ball is in congresses hands about how they want to try use that info. I think impeachment is a big mistake but we shall see.

You've completely missed my argument. At least, you're talking past it. Was that deliberate? If so, care to explain why?

Mueller obviously thinks a case can be made for collusion, and details a lot of it, even while no agreement was found so as to prove conspiracy. That may be relevant in the realm of criminal law, but an impeachment proceeding is another animal entirely.

That's one of the reasons why I disagree on letting obstruction slide. Of course, impeachment is politically risky. Signalling to future presidents that corruption on the level of Trump's will go unpunished is immeasurably more risky.

My bad, I didn’t mean to speak past your point. You were saying that the way Muller handled the report, not making a charge, shows he is a political hack, is that correct?

I have a different view on that... look at the stakes behind charging the president of the United States with a crime, and a relatively weak crime at that. One single accusation or comment could influence the removal of a sitting president. That’s a big deal.

Now where would an accusation go? The DOJ wouldn’t indict and there wouldn’t be a trail and trump wouldn’t be able to defend himself. Think that through for a minute. What would happen had Mueller said he concluded that Trump obstructed Justice. What would the DOJ then do?

Now mueller obviously thought there was enough there to display some level of criminality. Instead of acting on it he laid out the facts and left it to congress to decide how to act. ultimately it would be up to congress to impeach so mueller took his foot off the scale and is letting them decide what to do. That’s my take on it anyways

I do think he should absolutely testify if this thing goes any further.

No, I laid out how a political hack would have acted, none of which actually happened, and demonstrated that your interlocutor (EAB) concluded that Mueller, doing nothing a political hack would have done, must therefore be a political hack. It would appear, you should read that thing one more time.

As to alleging a sitting president committed a crime while he couldn't be charged in court, and the egregious unfairness of it all... that really makes me laugh. Of course, a sitting president has the power to order that lawsuit against himself to go forward, so that he can have his day in court and defend himself. Mueller knows that, of course, and still he resorted to torturing facts and logic to avoid telling the nation that, yes, the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, and, yes, Trump obstructed justice on multiple occasions. That again is what a political hack would do, no?

Quite naturally, Mueller now faces a vicious smear campaign for his service to the nation, and our Trumpletons couldn't be more subservient chiming in on behalf of their Dear Leader.

Do you really think the DOJ would have charged Trump with a crime had Mueller came forward and accused Trump of obstructing an investigation into something that he just clear him of doing? You think Barr would have moved forward with an indictment?

Perhaps if the report would have plainly stated that they found criminal obstruction it would have been harder to avoided but you still have the directive not allowing the DOJ to indict a sitting president. No matter our interpretation of that directive, Mueller made his case for acting passively around that directive and obviously thought it more appropriate to put the ball in the hands of congress. I can’t say that I think it was a dumb move. I understand his logic and motivations and think the other road would have been much messier. Your thoughts?

 

[Olde Europe]

No, I laid out how a political hack would have acted, none of which actually happened, and demonstrated that your interlocutor (EAB) concluded that Mueller, doing nothing a political hack would have done, must therefore be a political hack. It would appear, you should read that thing one more time.

As to alleging a sitting president committed a crime while he couldn't be charged in court, and the egregious unfairness of it all... that really makes me laugh. Of course, a sitting president has the power to order that lawsuit against himself to go forward, so that he can have his day in court and defend himself. Mueller knows that, of course, and still he resorted to torturing facts and logic to avoid telling the nation that, yes, the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, and, yes, Trump obstructed justice on multiple occasions. That again is what a political hack would do, no?

Quite naturally, Mueller now faces a vicious smear campaign for his service to the nation, and our Trumpletons couldn't be more subservient chiming in on behalf of their Dear Leader.

Do you really think the DOJ would have charged Trump with a crime had Mueller came forward and accused Trump of obstructing an investigation into something that he just clear him of doing? You think Barr would have moved forward with an indictment?

Perhaps if the report would have plainly stated that they found criminal obstruction it would have been harder to avoided but you still have the directive not allowing the DOJ to indict a sitting president. No matter our interpretation of that directive, Mueller made his case for acting passively around that directive and obviously thought it more appropriate to put the ball in the hands of congress. I can’t say that I think it was a dumb move. I understand his logic and motivations and think the other road would have been much messier. Your thoughts?

<sigh> Please do us a favor, and read my posting again, Slade.

Mueller is an institutionalist and a constitutionalist. His primary motive always was to be expected to be to protect the Constitution and the institutions it creates. The most interesting thing about this whole report isn't really what he'd find out about Trump (that was mostly known before the report was released), but how he would go about his objective, namely, to protect the Republic. Whether he got there, and the Republic is better off with the report written as it is, I cannot say - I find it doubtful.

 

[Slade3200]

No, I laid out how a political hack would have acted, none of which actually happened, and demonstrated that your interlocutor (EAB) concluded that Mueller, doing nothing a political hack would have done, must therefore be a political hack. It would appear, you should read that thing one more time.

As to alleging a sitting president committed a crime while he couldn't be charged in court, and the egregious unfairness of it all... that really makes me laugh. Of course, a sitting president has the power to order that lawsuit against himself to go forward, so that he can have his day in court and defend himself. Mueller knows that, of course, and still he resorted to torturing facts and logic to avoid telling the nation that, yes, the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, and, yes, Trump obstructed justice on multiple occasions. That again is what a political hack would do, no?

Quite naturally, Mueller now faces a vicious smear campaign for his service to the nation, and our Trumpletons couldn't be more subservient chiming in on behalf of their Dear Leader.

Do you really think the DOJ would have charged Trump with a crime had Mueller came forward and accused Trump of obstructing an investigation into something that he just clear him of doing? You think Barr would have moved forward with an indictment?

Perhaps if the report would have plainly stated that they found criminal obstruction it would have been harder to avoided but you still have the directive not allowing the DOJ to indict a sitting president. No matter our interpretation of that directive, Mueller made his case for acting passively around that directive and obviously thought it more appropriate to put the ball in the hands of congress. I can’t say that I think it was a dumb move. I understand his logic and motivations and think the other road would have been much messier. Your thoughts?

<sigh> Please do us a favor, and read my posting again, Slade.

Mueller is an institutionalist and a constitutionalist. His primary motive always was to be expected to be to protect the Constitution and the institutions it creates. The most interesting thing about this whole report isn't really what he'd find out about Trump (that was mostly known before the report was released), but how he would go about his objective, namely, to protect the Republic. Whether he got there, and the Republic is better off with the report written as it is, I cannot say - I find it doubtful.

I saw your statement that a president can have his day in court, but for him to do that there would need to be charges filed against him. I was making the case that Mueller felt hampered by the directive and There is no way Barr would indict the president. Especially when the charges are for attempted obstruction of an investigation that yielded no crimes in regards to conspiracy with Russians.

Had Muller found criminal conspiracy I imagine he would have reacted differently

 

[Olde Europe]

I saw your statement that a president can have his day in court, but for him to do that there would need to be charges filed against him. I was making the case that Mueller felt hampered by the directive and There is no way Barr would indict the president. Especially when the charges are for attempted obstruction of an investigation that yielded no crimes in regards to conspiracy with Russians.

Had Muller found criminal conspiracy I imagine he would have reacted differently

You are still not there, Slade. Imagine Mueller had alleged Trump committed crimes. Trump would be outraged, and instructed Barr to file charges according to Mueller's allegations, so that he (Trump) can have his day in court and defend himself. You think Barr would have defied the president's order?

Mueller, had he found conspiracy, would have done the exact same as he had done finding obstruction: Detail the findings, and let the charging decision open. You seem to think that obstruction is some minor violation. It carries a maximum sentence of 20 years - that's how serious obstruction is.

 

[Slade3200]

I saw your statement that a president can have his day in court, but for him to do that there would need to be charges filed against him. I was making the case that Mueller felt hampered by the directive and There is no way Barr would indict the president. Especially when the charges are for attempted obstruction of an investigation that yielded no crimes in regards to conspiracy with Russians.

Had Muller found criminal conspiracy I imagine he would have reacted differently

You are still not there, Slade. Imagine Mueller had alleged Trump committed crimes. Trump would be outraged, and instructed Barr to file charges according to Mueller's allegations, so that he (Trump) can have his day in court and defend himself. You think Barr would have defied the president's order?

Mueller, had he found conspiracy, would have done the exact same as he had done finding obstruction: Detail the findings, and let the charging decision open. You seem to think that obstruction is some minor violation. It carries a maximum sentence of 20 years - that's how serious obstruction is.

I don’t think Trump would demand to go to court, I think he would go on full attack mode against Mueller and keep pushing the witch hunt narrative. Look how he is stonewalling congress right now. A trial would bring all the witnesses and evidence he is currently keeping from congress to the surface. No way he wants that.

I understand the Obstruction law... remember how many accusations of obstruction Clinton was accused of? Yes, it is a serious thing. But the degree of the accusations is also important. Trump would spin it as an innocent guy being wrongfully investigated for a crime he was found innocent of... and the obstruction will play as him venting his frustrations for the wrongful investigation... none of which were actually followed through with. It is an extremely weak case and a loser for the Dems if they pursue it IMO and I’m not a trump supporter. He needs to be beaten at the ballot box

 

[Olde Europe]

I don’t think Trump would demand to go to court, I think he would go on full attack mode against Mueller and keep pushing the witch hunt narrative. Look how he is stonewalling congress right now. A trial would bring all the witnesses and evidence he is currently keeping from congress to the surface. No way he wants that.

I understand the Obstruction law... remember how many accusations of obstruction Clinton was accused of? Yes, it is a serious thing. But the degree of the accusations is also important. Trump would spin it as an innocent guy being wrongfully investigated for a crime he was found innocent of... and the obstruction will play as him venting his frustrations for the wrongful investigation... none of which were actually followed through with. It is an extremely weak case and a loser for the Dems if they pursue it IMO and I’m not a trump supporter. He needs to be beaten at the ballot box

I, too, think that Trump would carefully avoid any time in court. The entirety of that point was to demonstrate how preposterous Mueller's argument is, namely, he couldn't recommend charges because the president couldn't defend himself. He can, if he so wished.

Giving Trump a pass on his criminality would be catastrophic for the Republic. And yes, he also needs to be crushed at the ballot box.

 

[Tehon]

I don’t think Trump would demand to go to court, I think he would go on full attack mode against Mueller and keep pushing the witch hunt narrative. Look how he is stonewalling congress right now. A trial would bring all the witnesses and evidence he is currently keeping from congress to the surface. No way he wants that.

I understand the Obstruction law... remember how many accusations of obstruction Clinton was accused of? Yes, it is a serious thing. But the degree of the accusations is also important. Trump would spin it as an innocent guy being wrongfully investigated for a crime he was found innocent of... and the obstruction will play as him venting his frustrations for the wrongful investigation... none of which were actually followed through with. It is an extremely weak case and a loser for the Dems if they pursue it IMO and I’m not a trump supporter. He needs to be beaten at the ballot box

I, too, think that Trump would carefully avoid any time in court. The entirety of that point was to demonstrate how preposterous Mueller's argument is, namely, he couldn't recommend charges because the president couldn't defend himself. He can, if he so wished.

Giving Trump a pass on his criminality would be catastrophic for the Republic. And yes, he also needs to be crushed at the ballot box.

We've already lost the Republic. It's kind of silly, at this point, to blame it on Trump. Especially over this fake Russian scandal.

If you are not going to hold your own accountable, you've lost all credibility.

 

[Olde Europe]

We've already lost the Republic. It's kind of silly, at this point, to blame it on Trump. Especially over this fake Russian scandal.

If you are not going to hold your own accountable, you've lost all credibility.

When was the Republic lost?

And, is "Giving Trump a pass on his criminality" the same as "Trump's criminality"..., and does the blame for both go to the same address?

I have no idea what you guess would be my "own," and what holding them accountable could mean, or what my credibility has to do with any of that.

 

[Tehon]

We've already lost the Republic. It's kind of silly, at this point, to blame it on Trump. Especially over this fake Russian scandal.

If you are not going to hold your own accountable, you've lost all credibility.

When was the Republic lost?

And, is "Giving Trump a pass on his criminality" the same as "Trump's criminality"..., and does the blame for both go to the same address?

I have no idea what you guess would be my "own," and what holding them accountable could mean, or what my credibility has to do with any of that.

I don't think I can point to a defining moment in time that signifies our loss. But I'm not going to pretend that special interests have not circumvented our democratic processes. It has been pretty well documented by more than a few left leaning intellectuals including Dr. Sheldon Wolin and Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig.



Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It


You don't know what it means to hold your own to account? Are you telling me that you're not a partisan fellow? You strike me as one.

If you defend erasing 30,000 plus emails from a private server used to conduct government business, or remain silent over the extrajudicial killings of American citizens by a Democrat administration, it's kind of difficult to take you seriously when you say that Trump represents a threat to the Republic. That's all I'm saying.

 

[talksalot]

Yes, the AG seems to be acting not as the lawyer for the nation, but as Trump's personal defender. It is clear that Barr's opinion on the matter was formed months before he was nominated, in the "resume" for AG he sent to the White House, telling the President he would be his wing man.

You"re confused. Holder said publicly that he was Obama's wing man. Do you have a copy of Barr's "resume?" LOL

Yep, and so will you if you use google. I don't give a shit about what Holder said or did, grow up and do what I raised my kids on:

Learn from the Past
Live in the President
Plan for the Future

I plan to vote for whoever can defeat Trump, since his administration will be recorded the most chaotic in our nation's history.

Yes, the AG seems to be acting not as the lawyer for the nation, but as Trump's personal defender. It is clear that Barr's opinion on the matter was formed months before he was nominated, in the "resume" for AG he sent to the White House, telling the President he would be his wing man.

You"re confused. Holder said publicly that he was Obama's wing man. Do you have a copy of Barr's "resume?" LOL

Yep, and so will you if you use google. I don't give a shit about what Holder said or did, grow up and do what I raised my kids on:

Learn from the Past
Live in the President
Plan for the Future

I plan to vote for whoever can defeat Trump, since his administration will be recorded the most chaotic in our nation's history.

You have a little typo....Present, not President.
I would google his resume if I thought there was the slightest possibility Barr said, "my opinion was formed months ago and I want to be your wing man, President Trump," as you claim.
Your kids probably call you asshat behind your back.

 

[Olde Europe]

I don't think I can point to a defining moment in time that signifies our loss. But I'm not going to pretend that special interests have not circumvented our democratic processes. It has been pretty well documented by more than a few left leaning intellectuals including Dr. Sheldon Wolin and Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig.



Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It


You don't know what it means to hold your own to account? Are you telling me that you're not a partisan fellow? You strike me as one.

If you defend erasing 30,000 plus emails from a private server used to conduct government business, or remain silent over the extrajudicial killings of American citizens by a Democrat administration, it's kind of difficult to take you seriously when you say that Trump represents a threat to the Republic. That's all I'm saying.

I don't agree the Republic is lost. Damaged, yes, but mostly by voter apathy.

You don't know what my own would be, nor what holding them accountable would mean.

That whole "email" business was a Goober distraction to keep rightarded mouth-breathers agitated. It's kind of distressing to see you bought that crap. If you think extrajudicial killings outside war zones are an atrocity only in case American citizens are the targets, you shouldn't question any other person's credibility.

Finally, try to figure out the difference between "giving Trump's criminality a pass" and "Trump's criminality", and what I - as carefully as I can - expressed as to what the real problem would be. For, up to now, you are disrespectfully putting words in my mouth I didn't say, and repeatedly so.

 

[theHawk]

Convincing or not?

What Mueller, Barr Say About Obstruction of Justice - FactCheck.org

Explain and justify your response.

Hey retard, Mueller would had put any evidence of wrongdoing by the President in his report. He didn’t. Saying that he wouldn’t press charges is totally irrelevant, everyone knows he cannot charge the President with anything, only Congress can. Mueller led the investigation, he is the only one that can say if his investigation was hindered or obstructed in any way. Even if he were to claim it was, he would still need to prove it. As it turns out, he didn’t even make that claim in his report.

What he infers or suggests to the media after the fact is irrelevant. He’s just playing politics and catering to the left wing wackos.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Convincing or not?

What Mueller, Barr Say About Obstruction of Justice - FactCheck.org

Explain and justify your response.

Hey retard, Mueller would had put any evidence of wrongdoing by the President in his report. He didn’t. Saying that he wouldn’t press charges is totally irrelevant, everyone knows he cannot charge the President with anything, only Congress can. Mueller led the investigation, he is the only one that can say if his investigation was hindered or obstructed in any way. Even if he were to claim it was, he would still need to prove it. As it turns out, he didn’t even make that claim in his report.

What he infers or suggests to the media after the fact is irrelevant. He’s just playing politics and catering to the left wing wackos.

It did not conclude that Trump&Co. conspired with Russia to impact our election. It stated it could not, in the opinion of the Special Counsel, meet the legal standard necessary and sufficient proving such a conspiracy existed Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

That does not mean Trump, his family and his inner circle are innocent!!

Keep in mind that neither an investigator nor a prosecutor is the truer of fact able to exonerate Trump&Co.of wrong doing.

As to obstruction of justice, there is in the public domain necessary and sufficient evidence to support beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump's behaviors met that standard, with countless numbers of his Trump's tweets, words and behaviors, IMO, and that of millions of others.