Muller on obstruction of justice

[OpportunityCost]

You have not read the report have you? Your defending Trump yet you have not even read the report. I will not do your homework for you, but Google Mueller report, read it and come back. Its clear as day, Trump asked two individuals to lie under oath and falsify records.


An unsuccessful attempt to obstruct justice is obstruction. Just as Clinton lied under oath, a crime is a crime.

I have read the report and Mueller fundamentally failed at his mandate as Special Counsel---he was to indict or clear the President of wrongdoing. That is his primary goal. Instead he waffled and punted his responsibility. Its reasonably clear why he did not, in order to fully clear the President he would need to look at the underlying evidence and methods used to obtain it, whether that evidence itself was ethical and honest and truthful. Investigating that would principally hurt an organization Mueller dedicated a lot of his life to, the FBI. It would also damage the reputation of the CIA, the Clintons, Loretta Lynch, James Comey, Susan Rice, Samantha Powers, Clapper and numerous others that engaged in bad faith political targeting of a rival party. Government agencies are not political operatives and never should be.

 

[RealityNow]

For these "ignorant types" who claim no Obstruction.... Maybe they should learn a few things.

If someone tried to set up having a "hit" done on someone, and it does not go through, for what ever reason, including the person they hired, decided to go to the authorities and tell of such plan"... that person who arranged it and tried to get it carried out... is "guilty" of a crime.

 

[What if...?]

Sorry, what law deals with unfairness?

Due process.

Accusation without the opportunity to defend oneself.

Like Mueller says "sjmay is a child molester".

And leaves it at that.

That sullies your name. Makes people suspect you are a child molester.

How do you address that?

The normal method is a court of law, whi h you can't do because no charges were filed, just the accusation.

It really isn't that hard to understand.

 

[What if...?]

But it's not, in the absence of CLEAR wrongdoing, (which there is here) one must assume that the President is applying the law in a lawful manner, (in regards to the firing of Comey)

IE, with the absence of anything CLEAR, you can't jump to, he did it for nefarious reasons.....unless you are a complete partisan hack.

He absolutely could have done it for nefarious reasons, absolutely, but....there are OTHER reasons for that not to be the ONLY reason....and when that's the case, you give the benefit of the doubt.

Except for his own words.

All he had to do is say he didn't like comey's after shave, but he didn't say that. Might have been the slip of a mentally decaying person, but his statement LITERALLY reveals his state of kind. That he was thinking about the investigation when he did it. He SAID so. With actual words. On video.

 

[KAG2020]

.......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.......

Clinton stuck cigars up girls ******s in the oval office. Did Trump do something more interesting than that?

 

[Rogue Valley]

Clinton stuck cigars up girls ******s in the oval office. Did Trump do something more interesting than that?

Yes. He allowed Putin to poke something up his fat ass.

 

[RealityNow]

Clinton stuck cigars up girls ******s in the oval office. Did Trump do something more interesting than that?

I don't think anyone complained about anything being stuck anywhere.

 

[party free]

I have read the report and Mueller fundamentally failed at his mandate as Special Counsel---he was to indict or clear the President of wrongdoing. That is his primary goal. Instead he waffled and punted his responsibility. Its reasonably clear why he did not, in order to fully clear the President he would need to look at the underlying evidence and methods used to obtain it, whether that evidence itself was ethical and honest and truthful. Investigating that would principally hurt an organization Mueller dedicated a lot of his life to, the FBI. It would also damage the reputation of the CIA, the Clintons, Loretta Lynch, James Comey, Susan Rice, Samantha Powers, Clapper and numerous others that engaged in bad faith political targeting of a rival party. Government agencies are not political operatives and never should be.

You didn't actually read his mandate, did you? It's actually directly stated in the report, so when you say you read the report, but misstate his directive, it sounds like you haven't read the report.

 

[pinqy]

I have read the report and Mueller fundamentally failed at his mandate as Special Counsel---he was to indict or clear the President of wrongdoing.

Where on earth did you get that idea?
Here is the authorization...could you point out where it says anything about even investigating Trump directly, let alone having the main purpose of indicting or clearing? I didn’t think so.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian govemmenfs efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:
(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed t() serve as Specia] Counsel for the United States
Department of Justice.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters. (d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
applicable to the Special Counsel.

 

[ludin]

For these "ignorant types" who claim no Obstruction.... Maybe they should learn a few things.

If someone tried to set up having a "hit" done on someone, and it does not go through, for what ever reason, including the person they hired, decided to go to the authorities and tell of such plan"... that person who arranged it and tried to get it carried out... is "guilty" of a crime.

are you saying that Barr and Rosestein don't know what would constitute a obsruction charge?
please provide your evidence that shows that these two men both do not have the knowledge or
need to learn a few things.

 

[RealityNow]

are you saying that Barr and Rosestein don't know what would constitute a obsruction charge?
please provide your evidence that shows that these two men both do not have the knowledge or
need to learn a few things.

Its not up to Barr or Rosenstein to tell us anything about Mueller's Report. The House Can handle their own interpertations and investigation of the Reports Information.

I probably won't trust Barr to tell me where the bathroom was in a 2 room house with a single bathroom or to explain where the back door is located in a shotgun house.

 

[sjmay]

Except for his own words.

All he had to do is say he didn't like comey's after shave, but he didn't say that. Might have been the slip of a mentally decaying person, but his statement LITERALLY reveals his state of kind. That he was thinking about the investigation when he did it. He SAID so. With actual words. On video.

Yep, now tell me WHAT HE WAS THINKING ABOUT THE INVESTIGSTION... you cant....all you know is that he was thinking about it

 

[ludin]

Its not up to Barr or Rosenstein to tell us anything about Mueller's Report. The House Can handle their own interpertations and investigation of the Reports Information.
I probably won't trust Barr to tell me where the bathroom was in a 2 room house with a single bathroom or to explain where the back door is located in a shotgun house.

Mueller and rosenstein are in charge of the report.

No collusion and mueller referred the obstruction to the DOJ.

The DOJ has said that there is not enough evidence that would raise the matter to criminal intent.
but now you are deflecting.

People are saying no collusion because the report said there was no collusion.
mueller punted on the obstruction charge and sent it to the DOJ.

both AG's Rosenstein and Barr said not enough evidence for an obstruction charge.

sorry you don't like facts but those are facts.

 

[Plus Ultra]

please cite were the testimony is tainted

I didn't say testimony was tainted, I said evidence was.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I didn't say testimony was tainted, I said evidence was.

Well, put it out here.

We're not gonna just believe you.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Where on earth did you get that idea?
Here is the authorization...could you point out where it says anything about even investigating Trump directly, let alone having the main purpose of indicting or clearing? I didn’t think so.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian govemmenfs efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:
(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed t() serve as Specia] Counsel for the United States
Department of Justice.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters. (d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
applicable to the Special Counsel.

Attorney General’s Special Counsel Regulations

At the end of a special counsel’s investigation, section 600.8(c) of the regulation provides that a special counsel “shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.” The special counsel’s obligation to file “a summary final report” is “limited.” The counsel’s report is to be “handled as a confidential document as are internal documents relating to any federal criminal investigation.” 64 Fed. Reg. 37041.

Mueller didn't do that. He instead decided to shade the decisions with future implications rather than stating outright that the entire basis for his investigation was not ethical or legal. It was predicated upon unethical steps taken throughout the Obama administration.

 

[OpportunityCost]

You didn't actually read his mandate, did you? It's actually directly stated in the report, so when you say you read the report, but misstate his directive, it sounds like you haven't read the report.

No, I am referring to the actual law under which a special counsel is appointed, the mandate relates to the specifics but the law makes clear his final report should contain conclusions and explanations and Mueller made every effort to leave things open rather than closed, that's political maneuvering, not legal maneuvering.

 

[pinqy]

Attorney General’s Special Counsel Regulations


Mueller didn't do that.

Then you didn’t read the report. He most certainly did. There is nothing in the regulations that the conclusions have to be absolute and definitive. If it seemed possible a law was broken, but there wasn’t enough evidence to prove it (and not enough evidence to prove there was no crime) what should Mueller have said? That no crime was committed, or that a crime was committed?

It was hi duty to give the truth, not some arbitrary black and white answer.

He instead decided to shade the decisions with future implications rather than stating outright that the entire basis for his investigation was not ethical or legal. It was predicated upon unethical steps taken throughout the Obama administration.

Ah, so after careful investigation, lots of interviews and evidence and based on his professional opinion, he didn’t agree with your amateur and less informed opinion. Huh.


But you still haven’t defended your claim: “Mueller fundamentally failed at his mandate as Special Counsel---he was to indict or clear the President of wrongdoing.[/quote]
First, his mandate was not to investigate the President (although that necessarily had to be a part of it) and neither the mandate nor refs say the special prosecutor must either indict or completely clear anyone.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Then you didn’t read the report. He most certainly did. There is nothing in the regulations that the conclusions have to be absolute and definitive. If it seemed possible a law was broken, but there wasn’t enough evidence to prove it (and not enough evidence to prove there was no crime) what should Mueller have said? That no crime was committed, or that a crime was committed?

It was hi duty to give the truth, not some arbitrary black and white answer.



Ah, so after careful investigation, lots of interviews and evidence and based on his professional opinion, he didn’t agree with your amateur and less informed opinion. Huh.


But you still haven’t defended your claim: “Mueller fundamentally failed at his mandate as Special Counsel---he was to indict or clear the President of wrongdoing.

First, his mandate was not to investigate the President (although that necessarily had to be a part of it) and neither the mandate nor refs say the special prosecutor must either indict or completely clear anyone.[/QUOTE]

You are confused. Mueller's job is to recommend prosecution or not recommend prosecution. You are stating things as he did, might have been committed; that is contrary to our system of justice. Innocent until proven guilty is still the burden of proof--not "might".

Secondly the special counsel is given nearly unlimited resources to make conclusions under the law. That's his job, to prosecute or not to prosecute. His conclusions and decisions should back each other not offer contradictions that leave the matter unsettled.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

 

[Atomic Kid]

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.

Well this particular 'prosecutor' clearly made it a point to let the people know via his report that he didn't exonerate Mr Trump.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Mueller and rosenstein are in charge of the report.

No collusion and mueller referred the obstruction to the DOJ.

The DOJ has said that there is not enough evidence that would raise the matter to criminal intent.
but now you are deflecting.

People are saying no collusion because the report said there was no collusion.
mueller punted on the obstruction charge and sent it to the DOJ.

both AG's Rosenstein and Barr said not enough evidence for an obstruction charge.

sorry you don't like facts but those are facts.

That's an outright lie. Mueller made no such specific referral. He pointed out in his report that Congress has the power and the right to adjudicate the President on the question of obstruction. He also pointed out that the President could be possibly liable to being criminally charged once he is no longer the President.

 

[Slavister]

That would be a wonderful proposition in the effort to turn America into a Banana Republic....Yes, the precedent of locking up opposition politicians that we ideologically disagree with would be hailed as 'enlightened' by the rest of the despots, and miscreants in the world....:roll:

That's the premise that current President ran on, in case you forgot. Except he actually deserves it...

 

[Slavister]

So how do you impeach a Private Citizen? ... Impeach on what basis, personality? Perceived violations of law that have never been proven? Simple hatred of the results Trump is generating?

Private Citizen? Huh?

If your goal is total and complete chaos you are going to see it when you bring impeachment charges against a President based upon nothing more than your opinions and no violations of any law!

... based on facts in Mueller report

 

[Gina]

Moderator's Warning:

Thread closed for review.

 

[Gina]

Moderator's Warning:

Reopened.