• 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

Impeachment isn't the job of a prosecutor - that's a decision for Congress. All he can do is lay out the evidence.

Exactly, which is what he did....

The real question, is that evidence enough....people on the left, 100% it's enough, people on the right, 100% it's not, nothing there...... truth is always somewhere in the middle....

The issue is, can any of that evidence be explained with ANYTHING OTHER than obstruction, ie, I think the Comey firing can.....I think the dictation to McGann can not etc.
 
The issue is, can any of that evidence be explained with ANYTHING OTHER than obstruction, ie, I think the Comey firing can.....I think the dictation to McGann can not etc.

Comey firing can? Did not he admit on national TV that he fired Comey due to his Russian investigation?
 
Comey firing can? Did not he admit on national TV that he fired Comey due to his Russian investigation?

Absolutely it can,

FIRST, it's within his right to fire the FBI Director, for ANY REASON.

Second, what he said on national TV, wasn't that he fired Comey BECAUSE OF THE RUSSIAN THING, he said....the russian thing was on his mind.... HUGE distinction. It very well could be, I fired him because the Russian thing was on my mind and I wanted to stop it.....absolutely plausible.....but the problem is....so is this..... I fired him because I didn't like him, in spite of the Russian thing being on my mind....
 
What a sleazy pile of crap.

It's great to see a hard core Trump supporter finally start to think for themselves Joko. Was it this report, which surely not even the hardest of Trump supporters can deny paints Trump as completely unfit for office?

And you're right, that report makes it ever so clear that Trump is indeed "a sleazy pile of crap." :respekt:
 
Absolutely it can,

FIRST, it's within his right to fire the FBI Director, for ANY REASON.

Nope. If the reason is to obstruct justice, then he would be above the law.

Second, what he said on national TV, wasn't that he fired Comey BECAUSE OF THE RUSSIAN THING, he said....the russian thing was on his mind.... HUGE distinction. It very well could be, I fired him because the Russian thing was on my mind and I wanted to stop it.....absolutely plausible.....but the problem is....so is this..... I fired him because I didn't like him, in spite of the Russian thing being on my mind....

He did not say despite or in spite of the Russian thing. What he said was

'And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said 'you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won'.'
 
I don't think so. If the reason is to obstruct justice, then he would be above the law.



He did not say despite or in spite of the Russian thing. What he said was

'And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said 'you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won'.'

And? So where does what he say, indicate he did it BECAUSE of the Russian thing? (hint, it doesn't)

And yes, you might wanna read up on the law, if you are going to try and ARGUE the law.....the President has the ABSOLUTE right, to fire the FBI director, at any time, for any reason.
 
Trump support of Russian espionage during the 2016 election absolutely was the purpose of the Mueller investigation.
So what evidence was destroyed?

Is there a reason you are completely ignoring obstruction of justice?
 
Absolutely it can,

FIRST, it's within his right to fire the FBI Director, for ANY REASON.

Second, what he said on national TV, wasn't that he fired Comey BECAUSE OF THE RUSSIAN THING, he said....the russian thing was on his mind.... HUGE distinction. It very well could be, I fired him because the Russian thing was on my mind and I wanted to stop it.....absolutely plausible.....but the problem is....so is this..... I fired him because I didn't like him, in spite of the Russian thing being on my mind....
Again with this lie.

No, obstruction of justice is still a crime. ‘ANY REASON” is an outright false claim. Why do you repeat it?
 
Again with this lie.

No, obstruction of justice is still a crime. ‘ANY REASON” is an outright false claim. Why do you repeat it?

It's not an obstruction of justice issue.....


He can Fire comey because he doesn't like his shoes.....yes or no?
 
It's not an obstruction of justice issue.....


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

Trump CLEARLY intended to obstruct justice.

Only a partisan hack would see it otherwise.
 
Trump CLEARLY intended to obstruct justice.

Only a partisan hack would see it otherwise.

I see, HE CLEARLY intended to obstruct justice, by firing an employee that he has EVERY RIGHT to fire.....for any reason....

And you're not partisan at all are ya there sport....
 
Is there a reason you are completely ignoring obstruction of justice?

There was no obstruction of justice.

What evidence was destroyed?
 
...



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

In shorter, they couldn't prove it.
 
Again with this lie.

No, obstruction of justice is still a crime. ‘ANY REASON” is an outright false claim. Why do you repeat it?

Mueller has determined no crime-- there was no Trump/Putin conspiracy.
Which is what Trump has said.
Nothing to obstruct.
 
And? So where does what he say, indicate he did it BECAUSE of the Russian thing? (hint, it doesn't)

That's the only conclusion that can be reached by English speaking people when listening to someone who clearly does not have a strong command of the language.

The day after firing Corney, the President told Russian officials that he had "faced great pressure because of Russia," which had been "taken off' by Corney's firing. The next day, the President acknowledged in a television interview that he was going to fire Corney regardless of the Department of Justice's recommendation and that when he "decided to just do it," he was thinking that "this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story."



And yes, you might wanna read up on the law, if you are going to try and ARGUE the law.....the President has the ABSOLUTE right, to fire the FBI director, at any time, for any reason.

Comey firing was clearly relevant to Mueller as part of obstruction investigation. If you are implying that President can fire FBI director without committing obstruction, then there would be no reason for Mueller to investigate that episode. So, I will go ahead and trust Mueller on this over you.
 
That's the only conclusion that can be reached by English speaking people when listening to someone who clearly does not have a strong command of the language.







Comey firing was clearly relevant to Mueller as part of obstruction investigation. If you are implying that President can fire FBI director without committing obstruction, then there would be no reason for Mueller to investigate that episode. So, I will go ahead and trust Mueller on this over you.

LOL so you are basing your conclusion on uncorroborated hearsay, and state of mind? Oh god....good luck with that.

As far as the bolded, what? He can fire the FBI Director for ANY reason......just as Mueller can look at that and go....MAYBE it was.....

By itself, it's not even CLOSE to the proof you would need to present to say it was obstruction....
 
That's the only conclusion that can be reached by English speaking people when listening to someone who clearly does not have a strong command of the language.







Comey firing was clearly relevant to Mueller as part of obstruction investigation. If you are implying that President can fire FBI director without committing obstruction, then there would be no reason for Mueller to investigate that episode. So, I will go ahead and trust Mueller on this over you.

Well, the 'Trump conspired with Russia' was a made up story...
From that end, why have a FBI director who would fall to such nonsense?
 
It's not an obstruction of justice issue.....


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

Irrelevant. He absolutely cannot fire Comey to impede an ongoing criminal investigation.
 
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
No they wouldn't. Prosecutors don't exonerate anyone. They charge or they don't. The left is making up this "exoneration" crap out of thin air, to try and mislead people, as usual.
 
Irrelevant. He absolutely cannot fire Comey to impede an ongoing criminal investigation.

And he didn't, and IT didn't.....so tell me again how firing Comey was obstruction.....did it impede an ongoing criminal investigation?
 
Well, the 'Trump conspired with Russia' was a made up story...
From that end, why have a FBI director who would fall to such nonsense?

The investigation into conspiring with Russia was obstructed. You cannot draw this conclusion.
 
No they wouldn't. Prosecutors don't exonerate anyone. They charge or they don't. The left is making up this "exoneration" crap out of thin air, to try and mislead people, as usual.

To be fair, Trump I believe started with the exoneration nonsense....the left just took it and ran with it......kinda like Wrongway Fred....
 
Back
Top Bottom