Jump to content

none of the ten instances listed by mueller rise to the level of obstruction of justice...


Recommended Posts

which is why barr and Rosenstein exonerated trump on obstruction....if you disagree, then name the instance that rises to the level of obstruction...and lets see if Hillary Clinton comey or obamas attorney generals did likewise or worse....

have at it...which of the instances rises to criminal behavior?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 203
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

1 minute ago, bigsky said:

which is why barr and Rosenstein exonerated trump on obstruction....if you disagree, then name the instance that rises to the level of obstruction...and lets see if Hillary Clinton comey or obamas attorney generals did likewise or worse....

have at it...which of the instances rises to criminal behavior?

 

Mueller said they were obstruction of justice and that Trump was not exonerated. He explicitly stated he chose to make no judgement about them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, leftwinger said:

 

Mueller said they were obstruction of justice and that Trump was not exonerated. He explicitly stated he chose to make no judgement about them.

um...no he didn't....

he said they might be...

so take one of the ten and argue its merits....make the argument for it rising to the level of obstruction....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, leftwinger said:

 

um...he did. 

then why didn't mueller indict? why didn't he proclaim trump an obstructor?

you cant make a reasonable argument for obstruction on any of the instances....

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, leftwinger said:

 

Mueller said they were obstruction of justice and that Trump was not exonerated. He explicitly stated he chose to make no judgement about them.

No, he didn't say they were obstruction.   If it were obstruction, he would have said they were. 

It was not Mueller's job to prove a negative,  exonerating Trump of any crime.  Dim prosecutors, some of whom actually worked for Hillary, placed that in conclusion was to give fodder to the Russia hoax. It WAS their job to determine whether there was evidence of collusion. They found none. Trump wins.

 

Trump gave Mueller every scrap of paper they had. 

Trump ordered everyone that worked for him to cooperate with Mueller, and tell the complete truth.

Trump refused his right to redact the Mueller report. 

Does ANY of that sound like obstruction, snowflake?

 

BTW You lose.  Again.   BWAAHAHAHHAHHAHAA

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bigsky said:

 

 

IV. CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. (vol II, page 182"

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, leftwinger said:

 

IV. CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. (vol II, page 182"

Let me repeat:

It was not Mueller's job to prove a negative,  exonerating Trump of any crime.  Dim prosecutors, some of whom actually worked for Hillary, placed that in conclusion was to give fodder to the Russia hoax. It WAS their job to determine whether there was evidence of collusion. They found none. Trump wins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

F. The President’s Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
Overview


Two days after the President directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President made another attempt to affect the course of the Russia investigation. On June 19, 2017, the President met one-on-one with Corey Lewandowski in the Oval Office and dictated a message to be delivered to Attorney General Sessions that would have had the effect of limiting the Russia investigation to future election interference only. One month later, the President met again with Lewandowski and followed up on the request to have Sessions limit the scope of the Russia investigation. Lewandowski told the President the message would be delivered soon. Hours later, the President publicly criticized Sessions in an unplanned press interview, raising questions about Sessions’s job security.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html#g-page-302

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, leftwinger said:

 

IV. CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. (vol II, page 182"

dude...do you have any idea how the country works? it isn't his job to prove innocence......you are too stupid to know what that statement is actually saying

WHY DONT YOU PUT THAT SENTENCE INTO YOUR OWN WORDS....RE-WRITE IT WITHOUT PLAGERIZING IT....

ill give it a whirl...

there was not enough evidence to charge the president so we didn't...

let me educate you as to how this criminal thingy works...

people are either found guilty or not guilty....no one is ever declared innocent...not guilty means there was not enough evidence to convict....and unless you have a confession, there can be no 100% surety of innocence....so our legal system declares guilty or not guilty....mueller is using legal ease and you are dumbfounded by it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Golfboy said:

Let me repeat:

It was not Mueller's job to prove a negative,  exonerating Trump of any crime.  Dim prosecutors, some of whom actually worked for Hillary, placed that in conclusion was to give fodder to the Russia hoax. It WAS their job to determine whether there was evidence of collusion. They found none. Trump wins.

Collusion is not even a term with any legal meaning in this situation.  The investigation was not necessarily to find wrongdoing on the part of the clown, but to ascertain the involvement of Russia with our election... and Mueller found plenty of evidence of that.  He also found plenty of evidence where the clown obstructed the investigation.... he just chose to follow OLC guidelines and not indict him.... but he left plenty of breadcrumbs for house democrats to follow if they chose to politically "indict" him with articles of impeachment, which they very well may do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, leftwinger said:

 

...and we're done. back to ignore.

cant strum up obstruction.....you cant think for your self.you are a lacky of the corrupt global corporate media.....you chicken sh it coward.....you are going to put forth this line of sh it KNOWING that there was no obstruction.....you are the worse kind of person

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, maineman said:

Collusion is not even a term with any legal meaning in this situation.  The investigation was not necessarily to find wrongdoing on the part of the clown, but to ascertain the involvement of Russia with our election... and Mueller found plenty of evidence of that.  He also found plenty of evidence where the clown obstructed the investigation.... he just chose to follow OLC guidelines and not indict him.... but he left plenty of breadcrumbs for house democrats to follow if they chose to politically "indict" him with articles of impeachment, which they very well may do.

id appreciate it if you and golfboy dont bring yer horse sh it in here....I would like to keep this one constructive.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, maineman said:

Collusion is not even a term with any legal meaning in this situation.  The investigation was not necessarily to find wrongdoing on the part of the clown, but to ascertain the involvement of Russia with our election... and Mueller found plenty of evidence of that.  He also found plenty of evidence where the clown obstructed the investigation.... he just chose to follow OLC guidelines and not indict him.... but he left plenty of breadcrumbs for house democrats to follow if they chose to politically "indict" him with articles of impeachment, which they very well may do.

what was the evidence of obstruction?

none of the instances he listed rises to obstruction...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, leftwinger said:

F. The President’s Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
Overview


Two days after the President directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President made another attempt to affect the course of the Russia investigation. On June 19, 2017, the President met one-on-one with Corey Lewandowski in the Oval Office and dictated a message to be delivered to Attorney General Sessions that would have had the effect of limiting the Russia investigation to future election interference only. One month later, the President met again with Lewandowski and followed up on the request to have Sessions limit the scope of the Russia investigation. Lewandowski told the President the message would be delivered soon. Hours later, the President publicly criticized Sessions in an unplanned press interview, raising questions about Sessions’s job security.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html#g-page-302

Sorry, Session was recused from the investigation, and couldn't change the course of the investigation.

Not obstruction.   Sorry, sucks.  You lose again. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, maineman said:

Collusion is not even a term with any legal meaning in this situation.  The investigation was not necessarily to find wrongdoing on the part of the clown, but to ascertain the involvement of Russia with our election... and Mueller found plenty of evidence of that.  He also found plenty of evidence where the clown obstructed the investigation.... he just chose to follow OLC guidelines and not indict him.... but he left plenty of breadcrumbs for house democrats to follow if they chose to politically "indict" him with articles of impeachment, which they very well may do.

lol.   2 years of spying, investigation and attacking the president for collusion.  Now this bitch wants to say it's not even a thing. 

The witch hunt had nothing to do with Russia. 

Trump had nothing to do with Russia.  Bobby 3 sticks broke it off in your ass. 

 

Go ahead and  impeach him bitch.  What are you waiting for?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Golfboy said:

lol.   2 years of spying, investigation and attacking the president for collusion.  Now this bitch wants to say it's not even a thing. 

The witch hunt had nothing to do with Russia. 

Trump had nothing to do with Russia.  Bobby 3 sticks broke it off in your ass. 

 

Go ahead and  impeach him bitch.  What are you waiting for?

 

What am I waiting for????

 

Do you think that I get to call those shots?

 

what a fucking idiot!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, maineman said:

At the request of the author of the OP, I will not comment on the above slander.

^^ pussy. 

 

Hey bitch, why is Nadler refusing reading the unredacted report?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bigsky said:

what was the evidence of obstruction?

none of the instances he listed rises to obstruction...

felonious criminal obstruction?  perhaps not... but the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is much less strict.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...