Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Changing the argument to me isn't going to change reality. Mueller's report has proven obstruction via written law, and there just isn't anything you can do about it. it's up to Congress and the people to decide if they are okay with thugs running the country.As for the constitutional arguments, we recognized that the Department of Justice and the courts have not definitively resolved these constitutional issues. We therefore analyzed the President's position through the framework of Supreme Court precedent addressing the separation of powers. Under that framework, we concluded, Article IT of the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize the President from potential liability for the conduct that we investigated. Rather, our analysis led us to conclude that the obstruction-of-justice statutes can validly prohibit a President's corrupt efforts to use his official powers to curtail, end, or interfere with an investigation.After the Mueller report proved obstruction, have you seen Trump's dumps in his diapers? We know he has.There are too many Trump apologists on this board who can no longer carry any kind of defense for this criminal. The gig is up. Trump has been had. No more bs.
Your diaper needs changing. Seriously.
"After the Mueller report proved obstruction..."
Can you quote that part?
No?
Why not?
OF course there are many, but the key points and conclusions made were of his conduct.
And by the way, his conduct to obstruct were on display in broad daylight. No one with a functioning brain needed a report to see obstruction. So yes, obstruction was proven as it applied to the statutes given. Trump has been too obvious.
does not categorically ...... potential liability ......can ....
Anything say "is"?????
Y'know.....those same terms apply equally to YOU.
Too bad you have no grasp of the English language......
On the other hand, it is sooooooo amusing that you don't recognize that they're simply getting your hopes up.......to dash 'em later.
Two years of this hoax didn't teach you anything, huh?
You must be a government school grad.
On the bright side, you can still apply to be Goalie for the dart team.
You're right, I don't . But the law does.There is nothing to argue about. You got nothing on Trump.Nice counter argument that says absolutely nothing. Try again. Lol! These losers from the Right wish they had an argument to play with.He certainly can show the evidence, he didn't. Because there was none.Mueller can't prosecute. Didn't you know that?I'm sure Muller saw them, if he broke tax law. I'm sure he would've prosecuted him for it. Trump has to be the most investigated president in history.If he's so transparent and vetted, why won't he release his tax returns? Every other person who has run for the presidency in the modern age has done so.
By the way..................remember how Trump kept screaming for Obama's birth certificate and college transcripts? Why is it that Trump is blocking all of his college transcripts from being seen?
Usually, reading comprehension skills are honed in from middle school on. Where were you in school when all that was going on? There was no proceeding because Mueller never had the authority to convict. His role was to establish facts, which he did. If you aren't able to comprehend that, then no one can help you.If that isn't obstruction, I don't know what is. //www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/melber-report-details-potential-hanging-of-a-thread-of-the-trump-presidency-1498708547541 Everything we knew about Trump has come true. Trump and his team picked oranges over apples, when the report is filled with apples.
It can only be an obstruction, if something was actually obstructed. He we have a claim that Trump asked McGhan to remove Mueller, he refused, thus nothing happened. No obstruction occurred, that is the reality you ignore.
Wrong: "Obstruction of justice is defined by federal statute as any "interference with the orderly administration of law and justice" and governed by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1521
Obstruction of criminal investigations (18 U.S.C. § 1510) Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant (18 U.S.C. § 1512)
Q. Why don't most defenders of Trump ever research the details before posting
A. Usually they are echoing someone else, usually propaganda, and not caring whether it is accurate or a effort to mislead the reader.
Speaking of ....WRONG....that should be your avi....
The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge require prosecutors to prove the following elements:
Mueller could not do so, and therefore, as much as this disreputable servant of the Left wished, could not indict, and had no expectation of a conviction of obstruction of justice.
- There was a pending federal judicial proceeding
- The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
- The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding. Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw
Pay special attention to item 3. The word ‘intent’ is key as there is no such intent by Trump.
Now.....Hillary's crime.....the release of classified data does NOT require intent......doing what she did is enough for guilt.
Trump railed against the proceedings, and did tweet his vehemence…..just as any innocent man would. There is nothing corrupt about complaining.
Trump didn't win. Cheating isn't winning. It's committing an illegal act to become elected, and now it's been proven. Cohen helped us prove that.I'm out of touch?....wasn't it you that said Trump would never win and then he would be found guilty and impeached....ponder that for a while....I've been right and you have been wrong but you claim its me that's out of touch....time to do some gut checking Wry......After 30 million bucks...money that could have gone to other areas...two years...30 lawyers and investigators and they found nothing...but libtards still say they need answers and want to drag Mueller in front of congress....boy they are going to lose so bad in 2020....I can't wait.....
They found nothing? I always knew you were out of touch with reality.
No collusion numbnuts....learn it fast....none what so ever...people hated Hillary...she stole the primary from the bern and she lost to Trump and you are such an infant that you can't come to terms with the fact that people rejected the Obama style of America...we said no to socialism and the many hoaxes and dirty schemes he touts...Trump didn't win. Cheating isn't winning. It's committing an illegal act to become elected, and now it's been proven. Cohen helped us prove that.
I sometimes wonder if you are so demented that you don't understand just how obviously you accuse others of doing exactly what you are doing.No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.Barr wrote a very logical legal argument about why a President can't be accused of obstructing justice by closing an investigation if that investigation had no legitimate basis, which is certainly true of Comey's investigation and Mueller's also. If there is no legitimate basis for believing a crime has been committed then that investigation constitutes harassment, not a search for justice. These are not cases where the President believed he was above the law but where the investigators believed they were above the law.Barr wrote a seventeen page report before the Mueller investigation was complete that a sitting president could not obstruct. That is an opinion that the president is above the law. No one under the Constitution is above the law. And anyone with basic knowledge of the law knows this, proving that Bill Barr is not qualified and should have been recused.We know there was no obstruction of justice because Barr and Rosenstein reviewed Mueller's report and both found there were no grounds for obstruction of justice and Mueller has not disagreed with them on this point. You have to try harder to distinguish between wanting to see evidence of a crime and actually seeing evidence of a crime.Obstruction of justice Explain by way of definition, how Trump never did any of the things the definition describes. Because I can.Then clearly you don't know what obstruction of justice is.
And by the way, why did you ignore my question by not answering it? Is it because you can't? By definition of obstruction of justice Trump repeatedly obstructed. You failed to counter my argument.
Oh, and Rosentein! Rosenstein dropped the ball when he wrote the false letter of termination of Comey, when he included the reason for firing, was over the Clinton email false scandal, then Trump admitted that it was over Russia. Rosenstein is a material witness to a crime Trump committed. For Rosenstein to give us an opinion on obstruction is laughable on its face. And for you to give Barr and Rosenstein credibility on these fronts just shows how dishonest and ignorant of the law you are.
I know you don't want to believe Barr or Rosenstein, but apparently you don't trust Mueller either since he has not disagreed with the conclusion Barr and Rosenstein reached that the President did not obstruct justice.
And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?
As always, you demonstrate a high level of ignorance and a complete indifference to the truth in this post. While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about the Barr memo, you clearly have not read it, so here is a link to the memo:No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.Barr wrote a very logical legal argument about why a President can't be accused of obstructing justice by closing an investigation if that investigation had no legitimate basis, which is certainly true of Comey's investigation and Mueller's also. If there is no legitimate basis for believing a crime has been committed then that investigation constitutes harassment, not a search for justice. These are not cases where the President believed he was above the law but where the investigators believed they were above the law.Barr wrote a seventeen page report before the Mueller investigation was complete that a sitting president could not obstruct. That is an opinion that the president is above the law. No one under the Constitution is above the law. And anyone with basic knowledge of the law knows this, proving that Bill Barr is not qualified and should have been recused.We know there was no obstruction of justice because Barr and Rosenstein reviewed Mueller's report and both found there were no grounds for obstruction of justice and Mueller has not disagreed with them on this point. You have to try harder to distinguish between wanting to see evidence of a crime and actually seeing evidence of a crime.Obstruction of justice Explain by way of definition, how Trump never did any of the things the definition describes. Because I can.Then clearly you don't know what obstruction of justice is.
And by the way, why did you ignore my question by not answering it? Is it because you can't? By definition of obstruction of justice Trump repeatedly obstructed. You failed to counter my argument.
Oh, and Rosentein! Rosenstein dropped the ball when he wrote the false letter of termination of Comey, when he included the reason for firing, was over the Clinton email false scandal, then Trump admitted that it was over Russia. Rosenstein is a material witness to a crime Trump committed. For Rosenstein to give us an opinion on obstruction is laughable on its face. And for you to give Barr and Rosenstein credibility on these fronts just shows how dishonest and ignorant of the law you are.
I know you don't want to believe Barr or Rosenstein, but apparently you don't trust Mueller either since he has not disagreed with the conclusion Barr and Rosenstein reached that the President did not obstruct justice.
And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?
You dumbass Obama said these days were gone. THANK God Trump proved him wrong.Job growth has nothing to do with obstruction and illegal elections paying off porn stars where my vote never counted. Try again. That lame shit is for cheaters like you and Trump.Lol! When the cultists continue their barrage of cartoon cut outs, without any intelligent debate, you know your on the right track. Thanks cultists. The job always gets easier after the cartoons.Nice counter argument that says absolutely nothing. Try again. Lol! These losers from the Right wish they had an argument to play with.
View attachment 259518
By 'cultists,' are you referring to the American who made this possible?
“Job growth surges by 312,000 in December” Job growth surges by 312,000 in December
"Unemployment hits 49-year low as US employers step up hiring"
Unemployment hits 49-year low as US employers step up hiring
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. "
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports®
"Hispanic Unemployment Rate Sets New Record Low in April"
Hispanic Unemployment Rate Sets New Record Low in April
"Unemployment Rate for Women Falls to Lowest Since 1953"
Unemployment Rate for Women Falls to Lowest Since 1953 | Breitbart
"Lowest unemployment in 19 years for workers without bachelor's degrees in April"
Lowest unemployment in 19 years for workers without bachelor's degrees in April
In your face, booooyyyyyyeeeeeeeeee!!!!!
Oh, and thank you Obama for setting up the new economy with the stimulus that Trump had nothing to do with. Literally! Trump was smart enough not to touch that baby and take credit for it.
No collusion numbnuts....learn it fast....none what so ever...people hated Hillary...she stole the primary from the bern and she lost to Trump and you are such an infant that you can't come to terms with the fact that people rejected the Obama style of America...we said no to socialism and the many hoaxes and dirty schemes he touts...Trump didn't win. Cheating isn't winning. It's committing an illegal act to become elected, and now it's been proven. Cohen helped us prove that.
And now you have lost it for good because....Trump happens to be damn good at being president....so you better get used to him....
Changing the argument to me isn't going to change reality. Mueller's report has proven obstruction via written law, and there just isn't anything you can do about it. it's up to Congress and the people to decide if they are okay with thugs running the country.As for the constitutional arguments, we recognized that the Department of Justice and the courts have not definitively resolved these constitutional issues. We therefore analyzed the President's position through the framework of Supreme Court precedent addressing the separation of powers. Under that framework, we concluded, Article IT of the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize the President from potential liability for the conduct that we investigated. Rather, our analysis led us to conclude that the obstruction-of-justice statutes can validly prohibit a President's corrupt efforts to use his official powers to curtail, end, or interfere with an investigation.After the Mueller report proved obstruction, have you seen Trump's dumps in his diapers? We know he has.Your diaper needs changing. Seriously.
"After the Mueller report proved obstruction..."
Can you quote that part?
No?
Why not?
OF course there are many, but the key points and conclusions made were of his conduct.
And by the way, his conduct to obstruct were on display in broad daylight. No one with a functioning brain needed a report to see obstruction. So yes, obstruction was proven as it applied to the statutes given. Trump has been too obvious.
does not categorically ...... potential liability ......can ....
Anything say "is"?????
Y'know.....those same terms apply equally to YOU.
Too bad you have no grasp of the English language......
On the other hand, it is sooooooo amusing that you don't recognize that they're simply getting your hopes up.......to dash 'em later.
Two years of this hoax didn't teach you anything, huh?
You must be a government school grad.
On the bright side, you can still apply to be Goalie for the dart team.
Usually, reading comprehension skills are honed in from middle school on. Where were you in school when all that was going on? There was no proceeding because Mueller never had the authority to convict. His role was to establish facts, which he did. If you aren't able to comprehend that, then no one can help you.If that isn't obstruction, I don't know what is. //www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/melber-report-details-potential-hanging-of-a-thread-of-the-trump-presidency-1498708547541 Everything we knew about Trump has come true. Trump and his team picked oranges over apples, when the report is filled with apples.
It can only be an obstruction, if something was actually obstructed. He we have a claim that Trump asked McGhan to remove Mueller, he refused, thus nothing happened. No obstruction occurred, that is the reality you ignore.
Wrong: "Obstruction of justice is defined by federal statute as any "interference with the orderly administration of law and justice" and governed by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1521
Obstruction of criminal investigations (18 U.S.C. § 1510) Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant (18 U.S.C. § 1512)
Q. Why don't most defenders of Trump ever research the details before posting
A. Usually they are echoing someone else, usually propaganda, and not caring whether it is accurate or a effort to mislead the reader.
Speaking of ....WRONG....that should be your avi....
The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge require prosecutors to prove the following elements:
Mueller could not do so, and therefore, as much as this disreputable servant of the Left wished, could not indict, and had no expectation of a conviction of obstruction of justice.
- There was a pending federal judicial proceeding
- The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
- The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding. Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw
Pay special attention to item 3. The word ‘intent’ is key as there is no such intent by Trump.
Now.....Hillary's crime.....the release of classified data does NOT require intent......doing what she did is enough for guilt.
Trump railed against the proceedings, and did tweet his vehemence…..just as any innocent man would. There is nothing corrupt about complaining.
Trump didn't win. Cheating isn't winning. It's committing an illegal act to become elected, and now it's been proven. Cohen helped us prove that.I'm out of touch?....wasn't it you that said Trump would never win and then he would be found guilty and impeached....ponder that for a while....I've been right and you have been wrong but you claim its me that's out of touch....time to do some gut checking Wry......After 30 million bucks...money that could have gone to other areas...two years...30 lawyers and investigators and they found nothing...but libtards still say they need answers and want to drag Mueller in front of congress....boy they are going to lose so bad in 2020....I can't wait.....
They found nothing? I always knew you were out of touch with reality.
You trump cultists are in for a rude awakening when all this is over. You all live in an alternate reality;I sometimes wonder if you are so demented that you don't understand just how obviously you accuse others of doing exactly what you are doing.No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.Barr wrote a very logical legal argument about why a President can't be accused of obstructing justice by closing an investigation if that investigation had no legitimate basis, which is certainly true of Comey's investigation and Mueller's also. If there is no legitimate basis for believing a crime has been committed then that investigation constitutes harassment, not a search for justice. These are not cases where the President believed he was above the law but where the investigators believed they were above the law.Barr wrote a seventeen page report before the Mueller investigation was complete that a sitting president could not obstruct. That is an opinion that the president is above the law. No one under the Constitution is above the law. And anyone with basic knowledge of the law knows this, proving that Bill Barr is not qualified and should have been recused.We know there was no obstruction of justice because Barr and Rosenstein reviewed Mueller's report and both found there were no grounds for obstruction of justice and Mueller has not disagreed with them on this point. You have to try harder to distinguish between wanting to see evidence of a crime and actually seeing evidence of a crime.Obstruction of justice Explain by way of definition, how Trump never did any of the things the definition describes. Because I can.
And by the way, why did you ignore my question by not answering it? Is it because you can't? By definition of obstruction of justice Trump repeatedly obstructed. You failed to counter my argument.
Oh, and Rosentein! Rosenstein dropped the ball when he wrote the false letter of termination of Comey, when he included the reason for firing, was over the Clinton email false scandal, then Trump admitted that it was over Russia. Rosenstein is a material witness to a crime Trump committed. For Rosenstein to give us an opinion on obstruction is laughable on its face. And for you to give Barr and Rosenstein credibility on these fronts just shows how dishonest and ignorant of the law you are.
I know you don't want to believe Barr or Rosenstein, but apparently you don't trust Mueller either since he has not disagreed with the conclusion Barr and Rosenstein reached that the President did not obstruct justice.
And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?
While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about Barr's memo, you are obviously unfamiliar with it, so here is a link to the memo.
https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/BarrMueller.pdf
Contrary to your claims that Barr said a sitting president can't be guilty of obstruction, Barr states clearly that he can be, and points out how both Nixon and Clinton clearly were guilty of obstruction of justice.
As always, you demonstrate a high level of ignorance and a complete indifference to the truth in this post. While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about the Barr memo, you clearly have not read it, so here is a link to the memo:No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.Barr wrote a very logical legal argument about why a President can't be accused of obstructing justice by closing an investigation if that investigation had no legitimate basis, which is certainly true of Comey's investigation and Mueller's also. If there is no legitimate basis for believing a crime has been committed then that investigation constitutes harassment, not a search for justice. These are not cases where the President believed he was above the law but where the investigators believed they were above the law.Barr wrote a seventeen page report before the Mueller investigation was complete that a sitting president could not obstruct. That is an opinion that the president is above the law. No one under the Constitution is above the law. And anyone with basic knowledge of the law knows this, proving that Bill Barr is not qualified and should have been recused.We know there was no obstruction of justice because Barr and Rosenstein reviewed Mueller's report and both found there were no grounds for obstruction of justice and Mueller has not disagreed with them on this point. You have to try harder to distinguish between wanting to see evidence of a crime and actually seeing evidence of a crime.Obstruction of justice Explain by way of definition, how Trump never did any of the things the definition describes. Because I can.
And by the way, why did you ignore my question by not answering it? Is it because you can't? By definition of obstruction of justice Trump repeatedly obstructed. You failed to counter my argument.
Oh, and Rosentein! Rosenstein dropped the ball when he wrote the false letter of termination of Comey, when he included the reason for firing, was over the Clinton email false scandal, then Trump admitted that it was over Russia. Rosenstein is a material witness to a crime Trump committed. For Rosenstein to give us an opinion on obstruction is laughable on its face. And for you to give Barr and Rosenstein credibility on these fronts just shows how dishonest and ignorant of the law you are.
I know you don't want to believe Barr or Rosenstein, but apparently you don't trust Mueller either since he has not disagreed with the conclusion Barr and Rosenstein reached that the President did not obstruct justice.
And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf
"Thus, obstruction laws prohibit a range of “bad acts” — such as tampering with a witness or juror; or destroying,altering, or falsifying evidence — all of which are inherently wrongful because, by their very nature, they are directed at depriving the proceeding of honest decision-makers or access to full and accurate evidence. In general, then, the actus reus of an obstruction offense is the inherently subversive “bad act” of impairing the integrity of a decision-maker or evidence. The requisite mens rea is simply intending the wrongful impairment that inexorably flows from the act.
Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example,if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury,or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he,like any one else, commits the crime of obstruction. Indeed,the acts of obstruction alleged against Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective impeachments were all such “bad acts” involving the impairment of evidence. Enforcing these laws against the President in no way infringes on the President’s plenary power over law enforcement because exercising this discretion — such as his complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding -- does not involve commission of any of these inherently wrongful, subversive acts."
So contrary to your false claim that Barr said a sitting president cannot be guilty of obstruction, Barr begins his argument by explaining how a sitting president can be guilty of obstruction just like any other citizen.
The rest of the report, contrary to your assertions is a detailed analysis of the relevant laws, federal court decisions and Justice Department policies that support a president exercising his powers of prosecutorial supervision even in cases in which he might have a conflict of interests. Barr then argues that the only time we can infer a president obstructed justice while exercising his legitimate powers is if he is accused of a crime and tries to suppress the evidence.
So Barr's point is that since there was no underlying crime with respect to the claim of collusion - and in his report Mueller agrees there was none - the President couldn't have been guilty of obstruction of justice.
It is worth noting that none of the articles that attack Barr's memo deals with his detailed arguments, so it is fair to assume the "experts" who attacked the memo could find no flaw in Barr's analysis.
As for your second lie, I said Mueller never disagreed with Barr's conclusion on obstruction, not that Mueller agreed with it. Having expressed no opinion on obstruction in his report, Mueller would look like a fool now if he did claim there was obstruction.
You Trump cultists live in an alternate reality. There was an opinion on obstruction that was blocked out by Barr;I sometimes wonder if you are so demented that you don't understand just how obviously you accuse others of doing exactly what you are doing.No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.Barr wrote a very logical legal argument about why a President can't be accused of obstructing justice by closing an investigation if that investigation had no legitimate basis, which is certainly true of Comey's investigation and Mueller's also. If there is no legitimate basis for believing a crime has been committed then that investigation constitutes harassment, not a search for justice. These are not cases where the President believed he was above the law but where the investigators believed they were above the law.Barr wrote a seventeen page report before the Mueller investigation was complete that a sitting president could not obstruct. That is an opinion that the president is above the law. No one under the Constitution is above the law. And anyone with basic knowledge of the law knows this, proving that Bill Barr is not qualified and should have been recused.We know there was no obstruction of justice because Barr and Rosenstein reviewed Mueller's report and both found there were no grounds for obstruction of justice and Mueller has not disagreed with them on this point. You have to try harder to distinguish between wanting to see evidence of a crime and actually seeing evidence of a crime.Obstruction of justice Explain by way of definition, how Trump never did any of the things the definition describes. Because I can.
And by the way, why did you ignore my question by not answering it? Is it because you can't? By definition of obstruction of justice Trump repeatedly obstructed. You failed to counter my argument.
Oh, and Rosentein! Rosenstein dropped the ball when he wrote the false letter of termination of Comey, when he included the reason for firing, was over the Clinton email false scandal, then Trump admitted that it was over Russia. Rosenstein is a material witness to a crime Trump committed. For Rosenstein to give us an opinion on obstruction is laughable on its face. And for you to give Barr and Rosenstein credibility on these fronts just shows how dishonest and ignorant of the law you are.
I know you don't want to believe Barr or Rosenstein, but apparently you don't trust Mueller either since he has not disagreed with the conclusion Barr and Rosenstein reached that the President did not obstruct justice.
And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?
While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about Barr's memo, you are obviously unfamiliar with it, so here is a link to the memo.
https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/BarrMueller.pdf
Contrary to your claims that Barr said a sitting president can't be guilty of obstruction, Barr states clearly that he can be, and points out how both Nixon and Clinton clearly were guilty of obstruction of justice.
As always, you demonstrate a high level of ignorance and a complete indifference to the truth in this post. While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about the Barr memo, you clearly have not read it, so here is a link to the memo:No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.Barr wrote a very logical legal argument about why a President can't be accused of obstructing justice by closing an investigation if that investigation had no legitimate basis, which is certainly true of Comey's investigation and Mueller's also. If there is no legitimate basis for believing a crime has been committed then that investigation constitutes harassment, not a search for justice. These are not cases where the President believed he was above the law but where the investigators believed they were above the law.Barr wrote a seventeen page report before the Mueller investigation was complete that a sitting president could not obstruct. That is an opinion that the president is above the law. No one under the Constitution is above the law. And anyone with basic knowledge of the law knows this, proving that Bill Barr is not qualified and should have been recused.We know there was no obstruction of justice because Barr and Rosenstein reviewed Mueller's report and both found there were no grounds for obstruction of justice and Mueller has not disagreed with them on this point. You have to try harder to distinguish between wanting to see evidence of a crime and actually seeing evidence of a crime.Obstruction of justice Explain by way of definition, how Trump never did any of the things the definition describes. Because I can.
And by the way, why did you ignore my question by not answering it? Is it because you can't? By definition of obstruction of justice Trump repeatedly obstructed. You failed to counter my argument.
Oh, and Rosentein! Rosenstein dropped the ball when he wrote the false letter of termination of Comey, when he included the reason for firing, was over the Clinton email false scandal, then Trump admitted that it was over Russia. Rosenstein is a material witness to a crime Trump committed. For Rosenstein to give us an opinion on obstruction is laughable on its face. And for you to give Barr and Rosenstein credibility on these fronts just shows how dishonest and ignorant of the law you are.
I know you don't want to believe Barr or Rosenstein, but apparently you don't trust Mueller either since he has not disagreed with the conclusion Barr and Rosenstein reached that the President did not obstruct justice.
And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf
"Thus, obstruction laws prohibit a range of “bad acts” — such as tampering with a witness or juror; or destroying,altering, or falsifying evidence — all of which are inherently wrongful because, by their very nature, they are directed at depriving the proceeding of honest decision-makers or access to full and accurate evidence. In general, then, the actus reus of an obstruction offense is the inherently subversive “bad act” of impairing the integrity of a decision-maker or evidence. The requisite mens rea is simply intending the wrongful impairment that inexorably flows from the act.
Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example,if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury,or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he,like any one else, commits the crime of obstruction. Indeed,the acts of obstruction alleged against Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective impeachments were all such “bad acts” involving the impairment of evidence. Enforcing these laws against the President in no way infringes on the President’s plenary power over law enforcement because exercising this discretion — such as his complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding -- does not involve commission of any of these inherently wrongful, subversive acts."
So contrary to your false claim that Barr said a sitting president cannot be guilty of obstruction, Barr begins his argument by explaining how a sitting president can be guilty of obstruction just like any other citizen.
The rest of the report, contrary to your assertions is a detailed analysis of the relevant laws, federal court decisions and Justice Department policies that support a president exercising his powers of prosecutorial supervision even in cases in which he might have a conflict of interests. Barr then argues that the only time we can infer a president obstructed justice while exercising his legitimate powers is if he is accused of a crime and tries to suppress the evidence.
So Barr's point is that since there was no underlying crime with respect to the claim of collusion - and in his report Mueller agrees there was none - the President couldn't have been guilty of obstruction of justice.
It is worth noting that none of the articles that attack Barr's memo deals with his detailed arguments, so it is fair to assume the "experts" who attacked the memo could find no flaw in Barr's analysis.
As for your second lie, I said Mueller never disagreed with Barr's conclusion on obstruction, not that Mueller agreed with it. Having expressed no opinion on obstruction in his report, Mueller would look like a fool now if he did claim there was obstruction.
Usually, reading comprehension skills are honed in from middle school on. Where were you in school when all that was going on? There was no proceeding because Mueller never had the authority to convict. His role was to establish facts, which he did. If you aren't able to comprehend that, then no one can help you.If that isn't obstruction, I don't know what is. //www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/melber-report-details-potential-hanging-of-a-thread-of-the-trump-presidency-1498708547541 Everything we knew about Trump has come true. Trump and his team picked oranges over apples, when the report is filled with apples.
It can only be an obstruction, if something was actually obstructed. He we have a claim that Trump asked McGhan to remove Mueller, he refused, thus nothing happened. No obstruction occurred, that is the reality you ignore.
Wrong: "Obstruction of justice is defined by federal statute as any "interference with the orderly administration of law and justice" and governed by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1521
Obstruction of criminal investigations (18 U.S.C. § 1510) Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant (18 U.S.C. § 1512)
Q. Why don't most defenders of Trump ever research the details before posting
A. Usually they are echoing someone else, usually propaganda, and not caring whether it is accurate or a effort to mislead the reader.
Speaking of ....WRONG....that should be your avi....
The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge require prosecutors to prove the following elements:
Mueller could not do so, and therefore, as much as this disreputable servant of the Left wished, could not indict, and had no expectation of a conviction of obstruction of justice.
- There was a pending federal judicial proceeding
- The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
- The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding. Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw
Pay special attention to item 3. The word ‘intent’ is key as there is no such intent by Trump.
Now.....Hillary's crime.....the release of classified data does NOT require intent......doing what she did is enough for guilt.
Trump railed against the proceedings, and did tweet his vehemence…..just as any innocent man would. There is nothing corrupt about complaining.
What facts, dunce????
He admitted that Trump was guilty of NOTHING.
"(CNSNews.com) - Attorney General William Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that he learned at a March 5 meeting that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was not going reach a decision on whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice.
"And we were, frankly, surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction. And we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this and the basis for this," Barr said in his opening statement, which continued as follows:
....Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) opinion, he would have found obstruction. [The Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel has generally ruled that a sitting president cannot be indicted.]
He said that in the future, the facts of a case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case."
Barr: 'We Were, Frankly, Surprised' That Mueller Would Not Decide the Obstruction Issue
Nothing stopped Mueller from finding obstruction except THAT THERE WAS NONE!!!!!
This is from Mueller himself; “The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”Usually, reading comprehension skills are honed in from middle school on. Where were you in school when all that was going on? There was no proceeding because Mueller never had the authority to convict. His role was to establish facts, which he did. If you aren't able to comprehend that, then no one can help you.If that isn't obstruction, I don't know what is. //www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/melber-report-details-potential-hanging-of-a-thread-of-the-trump-presidency-1498708547541 Everything we knew about Trump has come true. Trump and his team picked oranges over apples, when the report is filled with apples.
It can only be an obstruction, if something was actually obstructed. He we have a claim that Trump asked McGhan to remove Mueller, he refused, thus nothing happened. No obstruction occurred, that is the reality you ignore.
Wrong: "Obstruction of justice is defined by federal statute as any "interference with the orderly administration of law and justice" and governed by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1521
Obstruction of criminal investigations (18 U.S.C. § 1510) Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant (18 U.S.C. § 1512)
Q. Why don't most defenders of Trump ever research the details before posting
A. Usually they are echoing someone else, usually propaganda, and not caring whether it is accurate or a effort to mislead the reader.
Speaking of ....WRONG....that should be your avi....
The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge require prosecutors to prove the following elements:
Mueller could not do so, and therefore, as much as this disreputable servant of the Left wished, could not indict, and had no expectation of a conviction of obstruction of justice.
- There was a pending federal judicial proceeding
- The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
- The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding. Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw
Pay special attention to item 3. The word ‘intent’ is key as there is no such intent by Trump.
Now.....Hillary's crime.....the release of classified data does NOT require intent......doing what she did is enough for guilt.
Trump railed against the proceedings, and did tweet his vehemence…..just as any innocent man would. There is nothing corrupt about complaining.
What facts, dunce????
He admitted that Trump was guilty of NOTHING.
"(CNSNews.com) - Attorney General William Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that he learned at a March 5 meeting that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was not going reach a decision on whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice.
"And we were, frankly, surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction. And we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this and the basis for this," Barr said in his opening statement, which continued as follows:
....Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) opinion, he would have found obstruction. [The Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel has generally ruled that a sitting president cannot be indicted.]
He said that in the future, the facts of a case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case."
Barr: 'We Were, Frankly, Surprised' That Mueller Would Not Decide the Obstruction Issue
Nothing stopped Mueller from finding obstruction except THAT THERE WAS NONE!!!!!
I don't need to wish or pray when comprehension is not my problem. It's yours.Trump didn't win. Cheating isn't winning. It's committing an illegal act to become elected, and now it's been proven. Cohen helped us prove that.I'm out of touch?....wasn't it you that said Trump would never win and then he would be found guilty and impeached....ponder that for a while....I've been right and you have been wrong but you claim its me that's out of touch....time to do some gut checking Wry......After 30 million bucks...money that could have gone to other areas...two years...30 lawyers and investigators and they found nothing...but libtards still say they need answers and want to drag Mueller in front of congress....boy they are going to lose so bad in 2020....I can't wait.....
They found nothing? I always knew you were out of touch with reality.
Please don't stop wishing and hoping and praying.......'cause then your crushing will be MONUMENTAL.
You presented no legal arguments, and no arguments at all justifying Trump. It was an illegal election, therefore Trump is not legitimate. It's already been proven. The cultists can believe whatever they want, and reality tells us different.No collusion numbnuts....learn it fast....none what so ever...people hated Hillary...she stole the primary from the bern and she lost to Trump and you are such an infant that you can't come to terms with the fact that people rejected the Obama style of America...we said no to socialism and the many hoaxes and dirty schemes he touts...Trump didn't win. Cheating isn't winning. It's committing an illegal act to become elected, and now it's been proven. Cohen helped us prove that.
And now you have lost it for good because....Trump happens to be damn good at being president....so you better get used to him....
Isn't that the job of the never ending relentlessly complaining snowflakes?...You presented no legal arguments
Yes, liberals are like this.You're right, I don't . But the law does.There is nothing to argue about. You got nothing on Trump.Nice counter argument that says absolutely nothing. Try again. Lol! These losers from the Right wish they had an argument to play with.He certainly can show the evidence, he didn't. Because there was none.Mueller can't prosecute. Didn't you know that?I'm sure Muller saw them, if he broke tax law. I'm sure he would've prosecuted him for it. Trump has to be the most investigated president in history.
Obama was relying on the magic wand that would give moochelle a penis reduction.You dumbass Obama said these days were gone. THANK God Trump proved him wrong.Job growth has nothing to do with obstruction and illegal elections paying off porn stars where my vote never counted. Try again. That lame shit is for cheaters like you and Trump.Lol! When the cultists continue their barrage of cartoon cut outs, without any intelligent debate, you know your on the right track. Thanks cultists. The job always gets easier after the cartoons.
By 'cultists,' are you referring to the American who made this possible?
“Job growth surges by 312,000 in December” Job growth surges by 312,000 in December
"Unemployment hits 49-year low as US employers step up hiring"
Unemployment hits 49-year low as US employers step up hiring
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. "
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports®
"Hispanic Unemployment Rate Sets New Record Low in April"
Hispanic Unemployment Rate Sets New Record Low in April
"Unemployment Rate for Women Falls to Lowest Since 1953"
Unemployment Rate for Women Falls to Lowest Since 1953 | Breitbart
"Lowest unemployment in 19 years for workers without bachelor's degrees in April"
Lowest unemployment in 19 years for workers without bachelor's degrees in April
In your face, booooyyyyyyeeeeeeeeee!!!!!
Oh, and thank you Obama for setting up the new economy with the stimulus that Trump had nothing to do with. Literally! Trump was smart enough not to touch that baby and take credit for it.
“Team Obama: Sorry, America, the ‘new normal’ may be here to stay
The good times may be over for good. In a speech to the Economic Club of New York yesterday, US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said the US GDP growth rate, adjusted for inflation, is now projected to run a little above 2% a year.”
Team Obama: Sorry, America, the 'new normal' may be here to stay - AEI
Then, along came Trump….
“U.S. households are back to their free spending ways, with the strength of May’s retail sales figures implying that second-quarter real consumption growth (and GDP growth for that matter) will now be more than 4% annualized.
With the benefit of the tax cuts, strong employment growth and a slow acceleration in hourly wage growth, consumption growth should remain strong going into the second half of this year,” Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics told MarketWatch.” US economy on track for 4% GDP growth?
Sooo....which is Obama more of, a liar or an incompetent....
....or does he lie to hide his incompetence?????
In the mean time, the Democrats fight for the rule of law while Republicans work at disabling it. Lol! We finally find out who the real Americans are in this country. The Republicans secret mission to destroy this country and its founding has been exposed.Yes, liberals are like this.You're right, I don't . But the law does.There is nothing to argue about. You got nothing on Trump.Nice counter argument that says absolutely nothing. Try again. Lol! These losers from the Right wish they had an argument to play with.He certainly can show the evidence, he didn't. Because there was none.Mueller can't prosecute. Didn't you know that?
View attachment 259602
Even though I took eight years of your guy. I didn't like it, but I took it. Get over it, Trump is YOUR PRESIDENT!
