It's Mueller Time!

[Bush92]

"Where is the obstruction? Mueller said that in no case was he prevented or hindered in obtaining any information."

Damn, you righties must all get your talking points from the same source. Y'all keep repeating that same debunked point...

CICILLINE: an unsuccessful attempt to obstruct justice is still a crime, is that correct?

MUELLER: That is correct.​

That exchange reaffirms obstruction is a crime, which it is. It does not say obstruction occurred however, which is what you implied incorrectly.

Someone pointed out Mueller's investigation was not hindered, as though that meant trump couldn't be guilty of obstruction.

I proved he could still be guilty of obstruction even if his attempts failed him.

Hey? Did you read the report?

 

[Faun]

About time to start another thread on the same topic since the liberal/progressives lost so poorly here.

There's no victory like one that's self-professed.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

So to you, Mueller saying he would have so stated trump had not committed obstruction had that been where the evidence led him -- is the same as saying -- there was no evidence trump was involved with Russian election interference??

Yep. If he, or probably Weissmann who I believe wrote at least Part 2 of the report, had ANY evidence the President had obstructed in any way, they absolutely would have said so and would have led that portion of the report with it. And Mueller wouldn't have joined Barr in a joint statement verifying that there was no such evidence. And he wouldn't have corrected his misspeak in his testimony on Wednesday.

"had ANY evidence the President had obstructed in any way, they absolutely would have said so"

LOL

That's actually the opposite of what 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."​

Righties can't git anything right.

Regardless, trump was cleared of collusion and Mueller said so. There was obstruction which is why Mueller wouldn't clear him of it.

Wrong, Mueller didn't say either way. He didn't clear him and he didn't accuse him. He made no determination whatsoever. You may have an opinion on the matter, but your opinion is irrelevant as is mine.

Mueller did clear trump of collusion. So why do you think he didn't clear him of obstruction?

Because whomever wrote it was unable to come to a conclusion. That's a far cry from an accusation that he broke the law. There was no accusation. There was no clearing.

That's not what the report says. It says they didn't reach a conclusion because the OLC opined a sitting president can't be indicted.

And note, they did reach a conclusion on conspiracy since a conclusion of innocence cannot possibly lead to indictment.

 

[Bush92]

Yep. If he, or probably Weissmann who I believe wrote at least Part 2 of the report, had ANY evidence the President had obstructed in any way, they absolutely would have said so and would have led that portion of the report with it. And Mueller wouldn't have joined Barr in a joint statement verifying that there was no such evidence. And he wouldn't have corrected his misspeak in his testimony on Wednesday.

"had ANY evidence the President had obstructed in any way, they absolutely would have said so"

LOL

That's actually the opposite of what 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."​

Righties can't git anything right.

Regardless, trump was cleared of collusion and Mueller said so. There was obstruction which is why Mueller wouldn't clear him of it.

Wrong, Mueller didn't say either way. He didn't clear him and he didn't accuse him. He made no determination whatsoever. You may have an opinion on the matter, but your opinion is irrelevant as is mine.

Mueller did clear trump of collusion. So why do you think he didn't clear him of obstruction?

Because whomever wrote it was unable to come to a conclusion. That's a far cry from an accusation that he broke the law. There was no accusation. There was no clearing.

That's not what the report says. It says they didn't reach a conclusion because the OLC opined a sitting president can't be indicted.

And note, they did reach a conclusion on conspiracy since a conclusion of innocence cannot possibly lead to indictment.

Are you on crack or something? Donald J. Trump won fair and square in 2016. The average voters don’t give two shits about “The Report.”

 

[Faun]

"had ANY evidence the President had obstructed in any way, they absolutely would have said so"

LOL

That's actually the opposite of what 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."​

Righties can't git anything right.

Regardless, trump was cleared of collusion and Mueller said so. There was obstruction which is why Mueller wouldn't clear him of it.

Wrong, Mueller didn't say either way. He didn't clear him and he didn't accuse him. He made no determination whatsoever. You may have an opinion on the matter, but your opinion is irrelevant as is mine.

Mueller did clear trump of collusion. So why do you think he didn't clear him of obstruction?

Because whomever wrote it was unable to come to a conclusion. That's a far cry from an accusation that he broke the law. There was no accusation. There was no clearing.

That's not what the report says. It says they didn't reach a conclusion because the OLC opined a sitting president can't be indicted.

And note, they did reach a conclusion on conspiracy since a conclusion of innocence cannot possibly lead to indictment.

Are you on crack or something? Donald J. Trump won fair and square in 2016. The average voters don’t give two shits about “The Report.”

As always, your empty diversions are noted.

 

[saveliberty]

As always, your empty diversions are noted.

Pray we don't stop reading yours.

 

[WEATHER53]

Denial of factual reality and outcome is called insanity
Libbies, how exhausting is it to live in this perpetual state of false emotionalism?

 

[FA_Q2]

Nah, not really,
.

Play that video to a jury,,,no obstruction. Mueller admitted as much.

Thanks for your fact filled post,

Where did I deny Mueller said that? What I'm saying is it doesn't matter if trump was successful or not at obstructing the investigation ... just trying to obstruct it is still a crime.

If I tell my pal I want to rob a bank and he tells me I should not rob a bank, and I do not rob a bank, there is no fucking crime.

Do you even law?

Then you didn't even attempt to rob the bank.

Jeez, you cultists are fucking brain-dead.

Walk into a bank, point a gun at a teller and demand money .... then run out of the bank ......

Guess where you end up if the police catch you even though your attempt to rob the bank failed you.

Trump tells McGhan to fire Muller. McGhan refuses to. Trump had the full authority to fire Muller (and this is not in dispute). Trump does not fire Muller or McGhan.

So why is this scenario equal to the running into the bank and pointing a gun at the teller rather than telling your friend that you want to rob a bank, him refusing and then not robbing the bank?

No, trump did not have ANY authority to fire Mueller. The only ones who don't dispute that are brain-dead cons. Your first clue should have been -- trump would have fired Mueller of he could have when McGhan refused to do so.

Your second clue is the law ...

28 CFR § 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.​

I stand corrected on firing Muller himself. You avoided the question though. My question still stands.

 

[lantern2814]

Too bad your senile boy Mueller crashed your obstruction lie by saying he wasn't obstructed. Perhaps you should stop smoking and actually learn something. Nothing to disprove MUELLER'S words. Typical leftist denier.

I would recommend better hearing aid (and glasses maybe?). Mueller followed the office of legal counsel rule and did not/could not prosecute. However, once out of office Trump is immediately exposed to prosecution using the detailed findings of the report itself.

As Spicer would say: 'This was the most damning obstruction report ever, period.'

Put your glasses on and you might find out that there's no 'candle' in your Lantern.

I would recommend you get your GED and stop bleating CNN talking points. Legal experts have already crushed Mule-er's excuse and pointed out that NOTHING prevented him from coming to a conclusion about whether a crime was committed. Too bad Mueller said he WAS NEVER OBSTRUCTED. Meaning the judge then says Case Dismissed. Another fail.

 

[Faun]

Where did I deny Mueller said that? What I'm saying is it doesn't matter if trump was successful or not at obstructing the investigation ... just trying to obstruct it is still a crime.

If I tell my pal I want to rob a bank and he tells me I should not rob a bank, and I do not rob a bank, there is no fucking crime.

Do you even law?

Then you didn't even attempt to rob the bank.

Jeez, you cultists are fucking brain-dead.

Walk into a bank, point a gun at a teller and demand money .... then run out of the bank ......

Guess where you end up if the police catch you even though your attempt to rob the bank failed you.

Trump tells McGhan to fire Muller. McGhan refuses to. Trump had the full authority to fire Muller (and this is not in dispute). Trump does not fire Muller or McGhan.

So why is this scenario equal to the running into the bank and pointing a gun at the teller rather than telling your friend that you want to rob a bank, him refusing and then not robbing the bank?

No, trump did not have ANY authority to fire Mueller. The only ones who don't dispute that are brain-dead cons. Your first clue should have been -- trump would have fired Mueller of he could have when McGhan refused to do so.

Your second clue is the law ...

28 CFR § 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.​

I stand corrected on firing Muller himself. You avoided the question though. My question still stands.

I don't know if the question is valid since we're talking about two different crimes, each with different components, but yes, even your bank robbery scenario could amount to criminal solicitation, even if no bank robbery takes place...

Criminal Solicitation | Justia

But there is no question that trump tried to have Mueller fired and there is no question he asked his White House Counsel to lie and deny they ever had that conversation after it became public knowledge. The fact that trump failed to achieve his goal to have Mueller fired does not mean he is not guilty of obstruction of justice.

 

[lantern2814]

The two volumes reached different conclusions.
The first volume cleared trump of collusion/conspiracy, and Mueller did so state.
The second volume did not clear trump of obstruction, and as Mueller said, they would have cleared him if they felt confident he had not obstructed justice.... and they didn't "exonerate him."

That's right.
Keeping it simple: cleared of conspiracy in the first volume, but guilty of extensive obstruction in second volume that could not lead to indictment because of the office of legal counsel rule/opinion (sitting presidents can not be indicted).

Mueller's hands were tied.

I think MAGA hats prevent logic from reaching parts of the brain (likely the neocortex).

I think TDS must prevent the brain from reading that there was no evidence of conspiracy/collusion AND no evidence of obstruction in Mueller's report, in Mueller's joint statement with AG Barr, confirmed once again in Mueller's testimony last Wednesday.

LOL

To the brain-dead, if there was no evidence of obstruction, Mueller would have said so and he didn't say so, means there's no evidence.

If there's no evidence obstruction, why didn't Mueller say so in his report like he did about collusion?

If there was evidence of obstruction it would have been stated. Too bad Mule-er himself said he was NEVER obstructed. That kills your case . Dismissed.

 

[Faun]

The two volumes reached different conclusions.
The first volume cleared trump of collusion/conspiracy, and Mueller did so state.
The second volume did not clear trump of obstruction, and as Mueller said, they would have cleared him if they felt confident he had not obstructed justice.... and they didn't "exonerate him."

That's right.
Keeping it simple: cleared of conspiracy in the first volume, but guilty of extensive obstruction in second volume that could not lead to indictment because of the office of legal counsel rule/opinion (sitting presidents can not be indicted).

Mueller's hands were tied.

I think MAGA hats prevent logic from reaching parts of the brain (likely the neocortex).

I think TDS must prevent the brain from reading that there was no evidence of conspiracy/collusion AND no evidence of obstruction in Mueller's report, in Mueller's joint statement with AG Barr, confirmed once again in Mueller's testimony last Wednesday.

LOL

To the brain-dead, if there was no evidence of obstruction, Mueller would have said so and he didn't say so, means there's no evidence.

If there's no evidence obstruction, why didn't Mueller say so in his report like he did about collusion?

If there was evidence of obstruction it would have been stated. Too bad Mule-er himself said he was NEVER obstructed. That kills your case . Dismissed.

Evidence of obstruction is rife in volume two.

 

[WEATHER53]

The two volumes reached different conclusions.
The first volume cleared trump of collusion/conspiracy, and Mueller did so state.
The second volume did not clear trump of obstruction, and as Mueller said, they would have cleared him if they felt confident he had not obstructed justice.... and they didn't "exonerate him."

That's right.
Keeping it simple: cleared of conspiracy in the first volume, but guilty of extensive obstruction in second volume that could not lead to indictment because of the office of legal counsel rule/opinion (sitting presidents can not be indicted).

Mueller's hands were tied.

I think MAGA hats prevent logic from reaching parts of the brain (likely the neocortex).

I think TDS must prevent the brain from reading that there was no evidence of conspiracy/collusion AND no evidence of obstruction in Mueller's report, in Mueller's joint statement with AG Barr, confirmed once again in Mueller's testimony last Wednesday.

LOL

To the brain-dead, if there was no evidence of obstruction, Mueller would have said so and he didn't say so, means there's no evidence.

If there's no evidence obstruction, why didn't Mueller say so in his report like he did about collusion?

If there was evidence of obstruction it would have been stated. Too bad Mule-er himself said he was NEVER obstructed. That kills your case . Dismissed.

Evidence of obstruction is rife in volume two.

You can’t obstruct something that never occurred and Muellers fact based logical decision does not match with you emotional suppositions

 

[Faun]

That's right.
Keeping it simple: cleared of conspiracy in the first volume, but guilty of extensive obstruction in second volume that could not lead to indictment because of the office of legal counsel rule/opinion (sitting presidents can not be indicted).

Mueller's hands were tied.

I think MAGA hats prevent logic from reaching parts of the brain (likely the neocortex).

I think TDS must prevent the brain from reading that there was no evidence of conspiracy/collusion AND no evidence of obstruction in Mueller's report, in Mueller's joint statement with AG Barr, confirmed once again in Mueller's testimony last Wednesday.

LOL

To the brain-dead, if there was no evidence of obstruction, Mueller would have said so and he didn't say so, means there's no evidence.

If there's no evidence obstruction, why didn't Mueller say so in his report like he did about collusion?

If there was evidence of obstruction it would have been stated. Too bad Mule-er himself said he was NEVER obstructed. That kills your case . Dismissed.

Evidence of obstruction is rife in volume two.

You can’t obstruct something that never occurred and Muellers fact based logical decision does not match with you emotional suppositions

Of course you can. Obstruction of justice is a separate charge from the underlying charge.

According to your nonsense, I could commit a crime but get away with it if I can successfully obstruct the investigation into my crime to the point it can't be proven I committed a crime. That makes sense to you, does it?

 

[leftwinger]

If I tell my pal I want to rob a bank and he tells me I should not rob a bank, and I do not rob a bank, there is no fucking crime.

Do you even law?

Then you didn't even attempt to rob the bank.

Jeez, you cultists are fucking brain-dead.

Walk into a bank, point a gun at a teller and demand money .... then run out of the bank ......

Guess where you end up if the police catch you even though your attempt to rob the bank failed you.

Trump tells McGhan to fire Muller. McGhan refuses to. Trump had the full authority to fire Muller (and this is not in dispute). Trump does not fire Muller or McGhan.

So why is this scenario equal to the running into the bank and pointing a gun at the teller rather than telling your friend that you want to rob a bank, him refusing and then not robbing the bank?

No, trump did not have ANY authority to fire Mueller. The only ones who don't dispute that are brain-dead cons. Your first clue should have been -- trump would have fired Mueller of he could have when McGhan refused to do so.

Your second clue is the law ...

28 CFR § 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.​

I stand corrected on firing Muller himself. You avoided the question though. My question still stands.

I don't know if the question is valid since we're talking about two different crimes, each with different components, but yes, even your bank robbery scenario could amount to criminal solicitation, even if no bank robbery takes place...

Criminal Solicitation | Justia

But there is no question that trump tried to have Mueller fired and there is no question he asked his White House Counsel to lie and deny they ever had that conversation after it became public knowledge. The fact that trump failed to achieve his goal to have Mueller fired does not mean he is not guilty of obstruction of justice.

But there is no question that trump tried to have Mueller fired

Uh yes there is. "Wishing, screaming, wanting" is much different than pulling levers and making it happen. Wrongly accused have rights in Real America. Go sell your baloney at the 101 club. Normal Americans take you out back and put you in the dumpster.


Battery going.......

 

[WEATHER53]

I think TDS must prevent the brain from reading that there was no evidence of conspiracy/collusion AND no evidence of obstruction in Mueller's report, in Mueller's joint statement with AG Barr, confirmed once again in Mueller's testimony last Wednesday.

LOL

To the brain-dead, if there was no evidence of obstruction, Mueller would have said so and he didn't say so, means there's no evidence.

If there's no evidence obstruction, why didn't Mueller say so in his report like he did about collusion?

If there was evidence of obstruction it would have been stated. Too bad Mule-er himself said he was NEVER obstructed. That kills your case . Dismissed.

Evidence of obstruction is rife in volume two.

You can’t obstruct something that never occurred and Muellers fact based logical decision does not match with you emotional suppositions

Of course you can. Obstruction of justice is a separate charge from the underlying charge.

According to your nonsense, I could commit a crime but get away with it if I can successfully obstruct the investigation into my crime to the point it can't be proven I committed a crime. That makes sense to you, does it?

Eventually your false emotions will cause you to burst and you will never mature into a doe.
One cannot obstruct something that never occurred no matter how much emotional “it is so” you try to put on it.

 

[lantern2814]

The two volumes reached different conclusions.
The first volume cleared trump of collusion/conspiracy, and Mueller did so state.
The second volume did not clear trump of obstruction, and as Mueller said, they would have cleared him if they felt confident he had not obstructed justice.... and they didn't "exonerate him."

That's right.
Keeping it simple: cleared of conspiracy in the first volume, but guilty of extensive obstruction in second volume that could not lead to indictment because of the office of legal counsel rule/opinion (sitting presidents can not be indicted).

Mueller's hands were tied.

I think MAGA hats prevent logic from reaching parts of the brain (likely the neocortex).

I think TDS must prevent the brain from reading that there was no evidence of conspiracy/collusion AND no evidence of obstruction in Mueller's report, in Mueller's joint statement with AG Barr, confirmed once again in Mueller's testimony last Wednesday.

LOL

To the brain-dead, if there was no evidence of obstruction, Mueller would have said so and he didn't say so, means there's no evidence.

If there's no evidence obstruction, why didn't Mueller say so in his report like he did about collusion?

If there was evidence of obstruction it would have been stated. Too bad Mule-er himself said he was NEVER obstructed. That kills your case . Dismissed.

Evidence of obstruction is rife in volume two.

That volume two where it's already been shown that Mueller and Weissman doctored transcripts? Where he has nothing but "we think" "may have" and whining that Trump said mean things about him (that all turned out to be true). Go ahead and take that to court and see how loud the laughter gets.

 

[Faun]

Then you didn't even attempt to rob the bank.

Jeez, you cultists are fucking brain-dead.

Walk into a bank, point a gun at a teller and demand money .... then run out of the bank ......

Guess where you end up if the police catch you even though your attempt to rob the bank failed you.

Trump tells McGhan to fire Muller. McGhan refuses to. Trump had the full authority to fire Muller (and this is not in dispute). Trump does not fire Muller or McGhan.

So why is this scenario equal to the running into the bank and pointing a gun at the teller rather than telling your friend that you want to rob a bank, him refusing and then not robbing the bank?

No, trump did not have ANY authority to fire Mueller. The only ones who don't dispute that are brain-dead cons. Your first clue should have been -- trump would have fired Mueller of he could have when McGhan refused to do so.

Your second clue is the law ...

28 CFR § 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.​

I stand corrected on firing Muller himself. You avoided the question though. My question still stands.

I don't know if the question is valid since we're talking about two different crimes, each with different components, but yes, even your bank robbery scenario could amount to criminal solicitation, even if no bank robbery takes place...

Criminal Solicitation | Justia

But there is no question that trump tried to have Mueller fired and there is no question he asked his White House Counsel to lie and deny they ever had that conversation after it became public knowledge. The fact that trump failed to achieve his goal to have Mueller fired does not mean he is not guilty of obstruction of justice.

But there is no question that trump tried to have Mueller fired

Uh yes there is. "Wishing, screaming, wanting" is much different than pulling levers and making it happen. Wrongly accused have rights in Real America. Go sell your baloney at the 101 club. Normal Americans take you out back and put you in the dumpster.


Battery going.......

He took an active step to make it happen. That's all it takes.

 

[jc456]

Mucarsel-Powell: "Simply attempting to obstruct justice can be a crime, correct?" Mueller: "Yes."

So why didn’t you say that in your report! Sorry not for connection

 

[Faun]

LOL

To the brain-dead, if there was no evidence of obstruction, Mueller would have said so and he didn't say so, means there's no evidence.

If there's no evidence obstruction, why didn't Mueller say so in his report like he did about collusion?

If there was evidence of obstruction it would have been stated. Too bad Mule-er himself said he was NEVER obstructed. That kills your case . Dismissed.

Evidence of obstruction is rife in volume two.

You can’t obstruct something that never occurred and Muellers fact based logical decision does not match with you emotional suppositions

Of course you can. Obstruction of justice is a separate charge from the underlying charge.

According to your nonsense, I could commit a crime but get away with it if I can successfully obstruct the investigation into my crime to the point it can't be proven I committed a crime. That makes sense to you, does it?

Eventually your false emotions will cause you to burst and you will never mature into a doe.
One cannot obstruct something that never occurred no matter how much emotional “it is so” you try to put on it.

I see, so again, according to you, it's not obstruction of justice if, let's say, I commit a crime and then bribe the lead investigator to find no evidence of a crime to where the underlying charge is dropped .