• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Muller on obstruction of justice

ludin said:
No he doesn't think he committed a crime his report came to NO CONCLUSION.
...
Click to expand...
Trump originally screamed "EXONERATED!" two weeks ago, from his hand-picked AG summary. Now that the real report is out, Trump is tweeting he thinks the report is bull****. That doesn't sound like the guy who claims exoneration.

Mueller's report concluded that Trump was dishonest, immoral, corrupt and unpatriotic. Real Americans should be outraged that he is in office.
 
Slavister said:
Much of the report talks about very questionable behavior of the President, esp. when discussing obstruction of justice. It took me a while to find why no charges were brought but I found a nice 4 point summary on pages 213-214 (in Introduction to Volume II). Here is my summary of that Mueller summary:

1. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." Mueller agreed with that opinion too.

2. Trump can be impeached or criminally prosecuted after his term ends. So, 'we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.'

3. It would be unfair to conclude in this document that Trump committed a crime without formally charging him (since Trump could not defend this before a judge)

4. if we had confidence of no obstruction, we would state so, but we can't and therefore, we do NOT exonerate Trump



In short, we are not allowed to say he committed a crime in this case but here we will document all his "interesting" activity for potential future case, and note that he can be prosecuted later or impeached now for it... and in case we are not clear, if we thought he were innocent we'd tell you but we are not telling you that... wink, wink
Click to expand...

PLEASE impeach!

There has been 2 years of “proof” of corruption and collusion and all kinds of other stuff but Democrats would rather we suffer at the hands of an evil dictator than impeach. What is it Democrats are hiding!?
 
Anthony60 said:
All that just illustrates how ridiculous it is to even go near obstruction. Every damn politician in Washington wanted him gone, left and right. After he was canned, even more information came out with his leaking and manipulation the made the President's decision even more spot on.

So, you still think Comey and his team of losers should still be in those positions?
Click to expand...

You can want him canned for any number of reasons.

“To impede an investigation” is not one of them that can legally be acted upon. Why do you insist on screeching over all this irrelevant nonsense? Hypothetical reasons to dislike Comey by people not involved in this don’t suddenly make obstructing justice legal. Nancy Pelosi could really have hated his choice of shoes but that doesn’t make it legal to fire him with the intent of impeding an ongoing investigation.
 
Athanasius68 said:
So the claim here is that Trump & Co. conspired to fix the 2016 election. But Mueller was unable to show this because...? What exactly did Trump obstruct?
Click to expand...

Who knows?

He definitely didn't want to he investigated.

He's always been shady.
 
ludin said:
Since when is Rosenstein a sycophant?
Click to expand...
Correct Rod (I’ll wear a wire) Rosenstein isn’t a sycophant. And if he wasn’t in agreement with Barr he wouldn’t have stood behind Barr at the news conference. Rosenstein has already resigned so Barr couldn’t fire him if he pissed Barr off. So Rosenstein must be in agreement. These people slandering Barr are just morons. They remind me of toddlers throwing temper tantrums in the floor because they didn’t get their way.
 
Last edited:
sjmay said:
It's not an obstruction of justice issue.....


He can Fire comey because he doesn't like his shoes.....yes or no?
Click to expand...

But that's not why he said he did it...
 
sjmay said:
So the opposite of being accused is.....not being accused, right?

So we can conclude that Mueller DID NOT ACCUSE Trump of obstruction of justice.....

He literally laid out his case, and said, make your own judgement, correct?
Click to expand...

This is how I see it too!

This is why he did not make a recommendation to impeach a president but also explicitly said that he did not exonerate the president. It seems also that Mueller does see as an option a criminal charge for a former president when the latter WOULD have the opportunity if he is charged to defend himself in court.
 
Deuce said:
Mueller explicitly said Congress is the appropriate body to continue the obstruction investigation.
Click to expand...

hard to try and press charges against a person that according to 2 different AG didn't break the law.
but i guess if you are not interested in such things then it is ok.

last time i checked we didn't punish innocent people for crimes they didn't commit.
 
Slavister said:
Laughable. My OP talks at length about why Mueller did not reach the conclusion and yet that's the part that I "dishonestly didn't hightlight".
Click to expand...

no you didn't.
why is that?
 
SLC said:
Correct Rod (I’ll wear a wire) Rosenstein isn’t a sycophant. And if he wasn’t in agreement with Barr he wouldn’t have stood behind Barr at the news conference. Rosenstein has already resigned so Barr couldn’t fire him if he pissed Barr off. So Rosenstein must be in agreement. These people slandering Barr are just morons. They remind me of toddlers throwing temper tantrums in the floor because they didn’t get their way.
Click to expand...

NA they just don't like facts it gets in the way of their fit throwing and temper tantrums.
 
ludin said:
hard to try and press charges against a person that according to 2 different AG didn't break the law.
but i guess if you are not interested in such things then it is ok.
Click to expand...
If Obama were being investigated for obstruction of justice, and Eric Holder said “nah he’s not guilty of obstruction because a president can’t commit obstruction of justice,” you really mean to tell me you’d just let that be that? No questions asked? “It’s done?”
last time i checked we didn't punish innocent people for crimes they didn't commit.
Click to expand...
Straw man. Why would you lie about what is being proposed? Impeachment is a constitutional process. Is there some reason you think the constitution is wrong?
 
Deuce said:
If Obama were being investigated for obstruction of justice, and Eric Holder said “nah he’s not guilty of obstruction because a president can’t commit obstruction of justice,” you really mean to tell me you’d just let that be that? No questions asked? “It’s done?”
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with what i said but that is ok. Rosenstein agreed that even though the acts were questionable they did not amount to criminal intent to obstruct.
So i don't know what you are talking about.

Straw man. Why would you lie about what is being proposed? Impeachment is a constitutional process. Is there some reason you think the constitution is wrong?
Click to expand...

impeachment is reserved for HIgh crimes of office. so if there is no crime how can you actually impeach someone?
NO i think the constitution is correct.

we do not punish people for crimes they did not committ why do you think it is ok for them to do so.
 
ludin said:
Nothing to do with what i said but that is ok. Rosenstein agreed that even though the acts were questionable they did not amount to criminal intent to obstruct.
So i don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
People working for Trump say he’s not guilty of impeachable offenses, news at 11.


impeachment is reserved for HIgh crimes of office. so if there is no crime how can you actually impeach someone?
Click to expand...
Obstruction of justice is a crime. Quit claiming it’s not.
NO i think the constitution is correct.
Click to expand...
No you don’t, you think it’s wrong for congress to exercise their authority to impeach a criminal president.
we do not punish people for crimes they did not committ why do you think it is ok for them to do so.
Click to expand...
Impeachment is not a punishment, it’s a trial.
 
ludin said:
Nothing to do with what i said but that is ok. Rosenstein agreed that even though the acts were questionable they did not amount to criminal intent to obstruct.
So i don't know what you are talking about.



impeachment is reserved for HIgh crimes of office. so if there is no crime how can you actually impeach someone?
NO i think the constitution is correct.

we do not punish people for crimes they did not committ why do you think it is ok for them to do so.
Click to expand...

Rosenstein was caught in an informal attempt of a coup against a sitting president. The fact that he was retained in his position rings bells of him being compromised and cutting a deal with Trump to help each other from inconvenient consequences.

In any case, the fact that Rosenstein brought an outside like Mueller into the investigation is that even Rosenstein understood that such choice was the most appropriate to make sure that there was public trust in what the DOJ was doing. So, if now we see a diverse of opinions between the AG and AAG on the one side and Mueller on the other, it is natural to question the impartiality of the AG and the AGG.
 
I think some of these people denying the acts and the documented facts that Mueller's has written are part of the Russian Troll Networks.... We know we have ignorant people in America, but It is highly likely some of these people are "Operatives of Russian Grooming". Some of the same types who were led to this level of ignorance in forums, are of the same type, who don't know history and cannot and do not deal with facts... they have long been groomed to be "drama chasers", which makes them readily gullible to Russian Manipulations.

The Report has told people some of the elements of how they operate, and one would be blind in the mind to think they limit their acts to Facebook and Twitter..

They've been setting people up in the rural communities for the past few decades, to do the day to day ground work as "Operative of Russian Design"... and many of these same ones they are set up to manipulate.. will repeat anything anyone with any level of belligerence and willing to support and promote discord, which is within the designe to attack and denigrate American Governance and the American Systems within Governance, they engage in the racial bigotry, and any type of bias that will promote the agenda of discord.

Beware of who you do the "back and forth spin with"... they don't care about facts, the spin is what they want.... The point of sowing discord, is just what it means.

To sow is to plant seeds. Discord is disagreement, argument and violence. To sow discord is to say and do things which cause a group as a whole to distrust one another, and begin to argue and then to fight.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I think it is significant that although Mueller documents at least 10 instances of possible obstruction, he still could not conclude there was enough to merit a conclusion.
 
Slavister said:
Much of the report talks about very questionable behavior of the President, esp. when discussing obstruction of justice. It took me a while to find why no charges were brought but I found a nice 4 point summary on pages 213-214 (in Introduction to Volume II). Here is my summary of that Mueller summary:

1. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." Mueller agreed with that opinion too.
Click to expand...



Did the MR state that Mueller "agreed" with the OLC rule, or that he merely "accepted it"?


If he merely accepted it, noting that he could have accepted it, not because he agrees with it, but because of the gargantuan hot potato explosive political dynamics no sane man would want to bear, well, after all, it's the policy --- he wont get any flack, not even from dems, from following it.
 
Deuce said:
Mueller disagrees. An official document from an investigator saying “he is guilty” is the same thing as a criminal accusation and Trump would be denied the chance to face that accusation in a court.

It says accused. It does not say charged. You are reading what you want to read.
Click to expand...

So then why wasnt Jesse Mollet given a trial?
 
Slavister said:
As he explains it, with regards to the President himself, his job was to collect facts for possible further prosecution after he leaves office or for impeachment now. He went out on a limb to also say, oh btw, if we had confidence that he did not commit the crime we'd tell you, but are we are not going to. Considering that he was not allowed to say the President committed the crime, that's as far as he could go.
Click to expand...

1st bold - That's nonsense.

2nd bold - The notion that someone in a position like Mueller's would feel that a person has to prove their innocence to him is absurd.

3rd bold -Who said he was not allowed to say there was an obstruction crime if he found one?
 
Deuce said:
People working for Trump say he’s not guilty of impeachable offenses, news at 11.
Click to expand...
Since when do Mueller and Rosenstein work for trump?

Obstruction of justice is a crime. Quit claiming it’s not.
Click to expand...

Show me where i said it wasn't?
but then again you don't know how to be honest.
I said show me the crime you haven't shown me a crime he is guilty of.

No you don’t, you think it’s wrong for congress to exercise their authority to impeach a criminal president.
Click to expand...

you don't read very well. no crime was committed so again why do you believe it is ok to punish innocent people?

Impeachment is not a punishment, it’s a trial.
Click to expand...

Last time i checked we didn't put innocent people on trial.
why do you think it is ok to do so?

only if you are a political hack.
 
pamak said:
Rosenstein was caught in an informal attempt of a coup against a sitting president. The fact that he was retained in his position rings bells of him being compromised and cutting a deal with Trump to help each other from inconvenient consequences.

In any case, the fact that Rosenstein brought an outside like Mueller into the investigation is that even Rosenstein understood that such choice was the most appropriate to make sure that there was public trust in what the DOJ was doing. So, if now we see a diverse of opinions between the AG and AAG on the one side and Mueller on the other, it is natural to question the impartiality of the AG and the AGG.
Click to expand...

the conspiracy theory forum is --------------------------------->
 
ludin said:
hard to try and press charges against a person that according to 2 different AG didn't break the law.
but i guess if you are not interested in such things then it is ok.

last time i checked we didn't punish innocent people for crimes they didn't commit.
Click to expand...

Two different attorney generals??? Who is the other attorney general besides Barr?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom