Here's what will happen when the Mueller report is released.

Things we know:

- Trump's campaign colluded with Russia, even if he, personally, didn't know about it
- The investigation was not a "witch hunt" or "hoax" and has turned up dozens of indicments
- Trump couldn't tell the truth if it was written in bold italics on a giant sign in front of him.
- Trump has definitely committed financial crimes unrelated to Russia
- Trump is being investigated, separately from Mueller's investigation, for numerous other crimes
- Trump's DOJ (whose head was assigned BY TRUMP) is attempting to cast the Mueller report in way that shows Trump is less guilty than we all know he is.

Excon said:

Exactly.
And they will all be going; But, but, but ... that is obstruction, while ignoring that there was no finding of an underlying crime of which to obstruct an investigation.

Click to expand...

There does not have to be an underlying crime for someone to obstruct justice. If you lie to an FBI agent, guess what?

Furthermore I suggest you read the history of Richard M. Nixon. When the president tells someone to tell someone else to back off an investigation, that is the textbook example of obstruction.

Stealers Wheel said:

There does not have to be an underlying crime for someone to obstruct justice. If you lie to an FBI agent, guess what?

Click to expand...

Apparently you confuse lying and obstruction.
And yet still it is a ridiculous thing to assert. In essence it is saying the person was obstructing for the hell of it.

Stealers Wheel said:

Furthermore I suggest you read the history of Richard M. Nixon. When the president tells someone to tell someone else to back off an investigation, that is the textbook example of obstruction.

Click to expand...

:lamo

No.
1. My point was based in criminality, not the political process known as impeachment. He was not charged (by Mueller), and will not be charged with it (The AG).
2. I regards to your point of the possible impeachment of Nixon.
What they wanted to bring against Nixon never came to fruition. So you have no idea if that specific point would have been accepted by the full Congress, let alone if the Senate would have found him guilty of it. So no.

Excon said:

Apparently you confuse lying and obstruction.
And yet still it is a ridiculous thing to assert. In essence it is saying the person was obstructing for the hell of it.



:lamo

No.
1. My point was based in criminality, not the political process known as impeachment. He was not charged (by Mueller), and will not be charged with it (The AG).
2. I regards to your point of the possible impeachment of Nixon.
What they wanted to bring against Nixon never came to fruition. So you have no idea if that specific point would have been accepted by the full Congress, let alone if the Senate would have found him guilty of it. So no.

Click to expand...

The point of an investigation is to determine A) if a crime has been committed and B) who committed a crime, if there is one.

If someone lies to an FBI agent during the performance of his/her investigative duties, that in and of itself, is a crime, whether or any other crime is determined to have occured. That crime can be obstruction. Instructing someone else to lie to the FBI during an investigation can also be obstruction of justice, even if the person so instructed does not lie to the FBI.

Do you have any idea why Nixon resigned? He resigned because leading Republicans in the senate went to the WH and informed him that if he did not resign, he would be impeached and the senate would convict him. Obstruction of justice was just one of the articles of impeachment that had already been drawn up.

On the night of August 7, 1974, Senators Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott and Congressman Rhodes met with Nixon in the Oval Office. Scott and Rhodes were the Republican leaders in the Senate and House, respectively; Goldwater was brought along as an elder statesman. The three lawmakers told Nixon that his support in Congress had all but disappeared. Rhodes told Nixon that he would face certain impeachment when the articles came up for vote in the full House; indeed, by one estimate, no more than 75 representatives were willing to oppose impeachment.[80] Goldwater and Scott told the president that there were enough votes in the Senate to convict him, and that no more than 15 Senators were willing to vote for acquittal.

Click to expand...

The assertion that "you have no idea" is to deny the reality of what actually happened.

Excon said:

Apparently you confuse lying and obstruction.
And yet still it is a ridiculous thing to assert. In essence it is saying the person was obstructing for the hell of it.



:lamo

No.
1. My point was based in criminality, not the political process known as impeachment. He was not charged (by Mueller), and will not be charged with it (The AG).
2. I regards to your point of the possible impeachment of Nixon.
What they wanted to bring against Nixon never came to fruition. So you have no idea if that specific point would have been accepted by the full Congress, let alone if the Senate would have found him guilty of it. So no.

Click to expand...

Wrong... so wrong it hurts.

In the first place, a Prosecutor only judges whether or not he can make a case for a crime. That is it! He is not even trying to ascertain if a crime was committed. That is for a Judge and/or Jury to decide. Just because a Prosecutor does not think he can make a case "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean a crime was not actually committed.

In the second place the person Obstructing does not know how all this is going to pan out. Have his associates committed crimes and left such a trail that a Prosecutor can make a case beyond a reasonable doubt? Has his family committed crimes and left such a trail that a Prosecutor can make a case beyond a reasonable doubt? Has he himself committed crimes and left such a trail that a Prosecutor can make a case beyond a reasonable doubt? He simply does not know and as such he has an incentive to Obstruct if he is of a mind to do so.

Whether or not a Prosecutor can make a case for an underlying crime has NOTHING to do with whether a Prosecutor can make a case for Obstruction nor does a Prosecutor's decision about either have anything to do with how the Congress might handle Collusion which does not even have a spot in the Federal Code or Obstruction which does.

The entire issue is complicated further by the fact that Mueller has decided that he would adhere to Justice Dept policy regarding Indicting a sitting President.

Barr claiming HE is making decisions about Executive Privilege is laughable. The AG as no write to make redaction decisions regarding Executive Privilege. Those are decisions for the President and WH Counsel. That is IT!

Trump and Barr have turned two years of investigation into charade. It is just so much BS.

yankintx said:

Nor could he recommend a case for Obstruction from the President. That is in the hands of the House. Mueller is following the precedent set by the Watergate SC, they left it in the hands of Congress.

Click to expand...

Ken Starr did the same thing.

The report pretty much is in line with Barrs previous conclusions and I have no problem accepting the results.

Let's review ......so far
BREAKING — MUELLER REPORT REVEALS KEY DETAILS LEFT OUT OF BARR SUMMARY
not yet-but it's coming
BREAKING — MUELLER REPORT WILL FEED CALLS FOR IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION
Well-that never changes

BREAKING — MUELLER REPORT HEAVILY REDACTED, RAISING ISSUES OF TRANSPARENCY
yep!

BREAKING — DEMOCRATS CALL FOR RELEASE OF FULL UNREDACTED MUELLER REPORT
\
yep!
.

BREAKING — MUELLER REPORT FAILS TO RESOLVE ISSUE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE


yep
#LOSERS


MUELLER REPORT -> :shoot:rwbdonkey

klattu said:

let's review ......so far
breaking — mueller report reveals key details left out of barr summary
not yet-but it's coming
breaking — mueller report will feed calls for impeachment investigation
well-that never changes

breaking — mueller report heavily redacted, raising issues of transparency
yep!

Breaking — democrats call for release of full unredacted mueller report
\
yep!
.

Breaking — mueller report fails to resolve issue of obstruction of justice
yep!

Click to expand...

check!!!

KLATTU said:

Let's review ......so far
BREAKING — MUELLER REPORT REVEALS KEY DETAILS LEFT OUT OF BARR SUMMARY
not yet-but it's coming
BREAKING — MUELLER REPORT WILL FEED CALLS FOR IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION
Well-that never changes

BREAKING — MUELLER REPORT HEAVILY REDACTED, RAISING ISSUES OF TRANSPARENCY
yep!

BREAKING — DEMOCRATS CALL FOR RELEASE OF FULL UNREDACTED MUELLER REPORT
\
yep!
.

BREAKING — MUELLER REPORT FAILS TO RESOLVE ISSUE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
yep!

Click to expand...

Breaking ....trump and gang lied through their teeth and Barr has added insult to injury.

jnug said:

Barr claiming HE is making decisions about Executive Privilege is laughable. The AG as no write to make redaction decisions regarding Executive Privilege. Those are decisions for the President and WH Counsel. That is IT!

Trump and Barr have turned two years of investigation into charade. It is just so much BS.

Click to expand...

Making up MORE BULL**** we see.

Barr did not say that HE(BARR) "MADE DECISIONS ABOUT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE"...he said that Pres.Trump NEVER INVOKED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE...EVER.

Grokmaster said:

Making up MORE BULL**** we see.

Barr did not say that HE(BARR) "MADE DECISIONS ABOUT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE"...he said that Pres.Trump NEVER INVOKED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE...EVER.

Click to expand...

Which is actually the better political play for Trump.

You don't need the Executive Privilege category of redaction if you are going to allow the President's legal team to be part of the redaction process which clearly is what happened here, now admitted. In fact, that category would be the most suspect category if the EP color code was seen as part of the redactions. Hence, Trumpets would have WANTED to avoid the category like the plague.

Quite possibly if the Trump team and Barr did not change their story about access to the report or redactions we might have had a better shot at knowing what was going on before this morning.

jnug said:

Breaking ....trump and gang lied through their teeth and Barr has added insult to injury.

Click to expand...

" no collusion ....no obstruction."-Mueller
" no collusion ....no obstruction."- Barr

"SCOREBOARD BABY" - TRUMP

" ...BUT there was!" - little Adam schit

'LAFFRIOT" -Trump

jnug said:

Which is actually the better political play for Trump.

You don't need the Executive Privilege category of redaction if you are going to allow the President's legal team to be part of the redaction process which clearly is what happened here, now admitted. In fact, that category would be the most suspect category if the EP color code was seen as part of the redactions. Hence, Trumpets would have WANTED to avoid the category like the plague.

Quite possibly if the Trump team and Barr did not change their story about access to the report or redactions we might have had a better shot at knowing what was going on before this morning.

Click to expand...

We'll all just pretend that your PREVIOUS LIE didn't just blow up in your face.


Trump ALLOWED ALL ACCESS, and NEVER OBSTRUCTED ANYTHINGM because he KNEW IT WAS A WITCH HUNT.


VERIFIED by the Mueller Report....PAGE FOUR of the Executive Summary of Volume I.


READ IT.

Grokmaster said:

We'll all just pretend that your PREVIOUS LIE didn't just blow up in your face.


Trump ALLOWED ALL ACCESS, and NEVER OBSTRUCTED ANYTHINGM because he KNEW IT WAS A WITCH HUNT.


VERIFIED by the Mueller Report....PAGE FOUR of the Executive Summary of Volume I.


READ IT.

Click to expand...

Wasn't a lie. It was based on the information Barr had provided in hearing to Congress. You boys would not know a lie if it hit you over the head with a 2x4.

- First, Barr himself named Executive Privilege as one category of redaction
- Barr claimed that there was no interaction between the Trump team and Justice Dept regarding the Mueller Report(ergo...the only people that can determine Executive Privilege were not going to be involved in a determination of Executive Privilege). Barr went on to say that he, Barr would make preliminary decisions about Executive Privilege redactions which made no sense. However it is what he said
- Now we find that in fact the WH was involved with Barr and Justice, was engaged with the WH. Therefore they knew how to avoid Executive Privilege redactions.

The point is NOT that Trump did not claim Executive Privilege. The point is he didn't have to. He could avoid what would have been the most scrutinized category of redactions. So you can scream about what Trump did or did not do. You either don't understand or don't care. They simply avoided Executive Privilege at least to this point which was the smarter political play.

jnug said:

Wasn't a lie. It was based on the information Barr had provided in hearing to Congress. You boys would not know a lie if it hit you over the head with a 2x4.

- First, Barr himself named Executive Privilege as one category of redaction
- Barr claimed that there was no interaction between the Trump team and Justice Dept regarding the Mueller Report(ergo...the only people that can determine Executive Privilege were not going to be involved in a determination of Executive Privilege). Barr went on to say that he, Barr would make preliminary decisions about Executive Privilege redactions which made no sense. However it is what he said
- Now we find that in fact the WH was involved with Barr and Justice, was engaged with the WH. Therefore they knew how to avoid Executive Privilege redactions.

The point is NOT that Trump did not claim Executive Privilege. The point is he didn't have to. He could avoid what would have been the most scrutinized category of redactions. So you can scream about what Trump did or did not do. You either don't understand or don't care. They simply avoided Executive Privilege at least to this point which was the smarter political play.

Click to expand...

What executive privilege redactions made were to fall into the classified section of redactions. I have to assume that they would not have included the interviews made by WH executives given without Executive Privilege though I don't know who that would be other than Don McGain the WH Counsel himself in his interviews and possibly Hope Hicks. Would not have been Flynn nor Popadoupoulus, nor Gates or Manafort. Trump's team told McGain and Hicks to cooperate fully and of the two McGain would have been the only one that could have claimed Executive Privilege as WH Counsel. Trump's attorneys told McGain not to claim it.

Stealers Wheel said:

The point of an investigation is to determine A) if a crime has been committed and B) who committed a crime, if there is one.

If someone lies to an FBI agent during the performance of his/her investigative duties, that in and of itself, is a crime, whether or any other crime is determined to have occured. That crime can be obstruction. Instructing someone else to lie to the FBI during an investigation can also be obstruction of justice, even if the person so instructed does not lie to the FBI.

Do you have any idea why Nixon resigned? He resigned because leading Republicans in the senate went to the WH and informed him that if he did not resign, he would be impeached and the senate would convict him. Obstruction of justice was just one of the articles of impeachment that had already been drawn up.



The assertion that "you have no idea" is to deny the reality of what actually happened.

Click to expand...

So you still are unable to distinguish between a political action (impeachment) and that of criminal activity which I was speaking to. You had and continue to have no valid point to what I stated.

In regards to Nixon. Again.
"What they wanted to bring against Nixon never came to fruition. So you have no idea if that specific point would have been accepted by the full Congress, let alone if the Apparently you do not know that at the time the charges were only recommendations voted to the floor by the Judiciary Committee. That is where they remained unapproved. So again, you do not know what would have happened. You want to say you believe something would have likely happened, go right on ahead, but you do not know what would have actually occurred, nor was it relevant to what I was speaking to.

---

jnug said:

Wrong... so wrong it hurts.

Click to expand...

Yes you are.

Excon said:

So you still are unable to distinguish between a political action (impeachment) and that of criminal activity which I was speaking to. You had and continue to have no valid point to what I stated.

In regards to Nixon. Again.
"What they wanted to bring against Nixon never came to fruition. So you have no idea if that specific point would have been accepted by the full Congress, let alone if the

Senate would have found him guilty of it."​

Apparently you do not know that at the time the charges were only recommendations voted to the floor by the Judiciary Committee. That is where they remained unapproved. So again, you do not know what would have happened. You want to say you believe something would have likely happened, go right on ahead, but you do not know what would have actually occurred, nor was it relevant to what I was speaking to.

---

Yes you are.

Click to expand...

It was GOP Senators who went up to the WH and told Nixon that it was time to go....that he would in fact be Impeached AND Removed if he did not leave. That group of GOP Senators cared more about the country and even more about their party than this group of self-serving, spineless snakes. This group is the culmination of decades of professional politicians who's only JOB is being reelected and who don't care about anything other than being reelected.

As for "yes you are". Wake me up when you are capable of making an actual response to post #30. So far, you have offered balderdash.

jnug said:

Wasn't a lie. It was based on the information Barr had provided in hearing to Congress. You boys would not know a lie if it hit you over the head with a 2x4.

- First, Barr himself named Executive Privilege as one category of redaction
- Barr claimed that there was no interaction between the Trump team and Justice Dept regarding the Mueller Report(ergo...the only people that can determine Executive Privilege were not going to be involved in a determination of Executive Privilege). Barr went on to say that he, Barr would make preliminary decisions about Executive Privilege redactions which made no sense. However it is what he said
- Now we find that in fact the WH was involved with Barr and Justice, was engaged with the WH. Therefore they knew how to avoid Executive Privilege redactions.

The point is NOT that Trump did not claim Executive Privilege. The point is he didn't have to. He could avoid what would have been the most scrutinized category of redactions. So you can scream about what Trump did or did not do. You either don't understand or don't care. They simply avoided Executive Privilege at least to this point which was the smarter political play.

Click to expand...

BULL****.

He cited 1.Grand jury .

2. Ongoing invrestigations.

3.Classified data (sources and methods)

4. And personal privacy protections.(as outlined by law)


MAKEUP SOME MORE BULL****.


Your intensifying DESPPERATION is a JOY TO BEHOLD....

jnug said:

It was GOP Senators who went up to the WH and told Nixon that it was time to go....that he would in fact be Impeached AND Removed if he did not leave. That group of GOP Senators cared more about the country and even more about their party than this group of self-serving, spineless snakes. This group is the culmination of decades of professional politicians who's only JOB is being reelected and who don't care about anything other than being reelected.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant to what I stated.
Fact: The recommendations voted to the floor by the Judiciary Committee never got a hearing.
So what I told the other person applies to you as well.

jnug said:

As for "yes you are". Wake me up when you are capable of making an actual response to post #30. So far, you have offered balderdash.

Click to expand...

You seem to think I have to address irrelevant balderdash to what I stated.
You are as confused as you are wrong.

Grokmaster said:

BULL****.

He cited 1.Grand jury .

2. Ongoing invrestigations.

3.Classified data (sources and methods)

4. And personal privacy protections.(as outlined by law)


MAKEUP SOME MORE BULL****.


Your intensifying DESPPERATION is a JOY TO BEHOLD....

Click to expand...

Of those that we know were either targets or subjects who would have qualified for Executive Privilege besides McGahn, Sanders, Hicks or Flynn. Nobody else that I can think of would have qualified. Yet Barr himself claimed that HE was making preliminary judgements about potential Executive Privilege issues. I don't know what Barr was talking about.

McGahn was told not to claim Executive Privilege by John Dowd in his Interviews with the Mueller team according to John Dowd and he was the only one of the four I mentioned that could have from his position as WH Counsel. If Trump exerted no Executive Privilege rights over Sanders, Hicks or Flynn, BULLY FOR HIM. Still don't know the context of Barr's comments regarding Executive Privilege and redactions. It does not look like Sanders was asked questions that would have caused an Executive Privilege concern. Don't know about Hicks or Flynn.