I drove up to Fremont from LA early this morning, and listened to Fox News in the car, and heard Barr’s press conference, then commentary on the released document.
The notion that Trump obstructed justice is now clearly absurd, but we’re going to continue to be dragged through this mud right up until the election. I hope that the Democrats badly regret it on November 11, 2020 (which coincidentally, will be Armistice Day).
[Update early evening]
The Barr has been raised:
…here is the existential issue that the report confronts us with. William Barr observed at one point that ‘all Americans can and should be grateful to have [the president’s innocence] confirmed.’ And yet many people, far from being grateful, will be enraged. And that is a huge problem for the Republic.
What has happened over the past two-plus years is a fundamental attack on the legitimacy of our democratic republic. Tactical partisan maneuvering has overwhelmed the institution of presidential elections. Note that this is a one-party party. It probably started in earnest with the election of George W. Bush in 2000. Al Gore withdrew his concession and put the country through months of legal wrangling. Republicans were unhappy when Barack Obama was elected in 2008 and again in 2012. But there was no question of his legitimacy. But when Donald Trump won in 2016, the sort of antidemocratic forces that beset George Bush had mutated from an angry squad of activists into an army of deniers.
Should that substitution of weaponized tactical maneuvering continue to intrude upon the legitimacy of our elections, those elections will be decided less and less at the ballot box and more and more by interest-group jockeying, bribery, and intimidation.
It’s going to get uglier before it gets prettier.
[Update a few minutes later]
The Democrats continue to destroy themselves over the Mueller report.
I don’t mind that much, but my fear is that they’ll take the rest of us down with them.
[Friday-morning update]
“Mueller completely dropped the ball with his obstruction punt.”
Unlike some, I don’t think that Trump owes Mueller an apology. It seems clear to me that he dragged this out, even though he knew many months ago that there was no collusion, for no purpose other than to provide the Democrats with ammunition to continue to if not impeach, to cripple the administration. People keep telling me that he’s a Republican, but if so, he would appear to be a Never Trumper. Frustrated himself that, despite loading his team with Clinton supporters and donors, he couldn’t get anything solid against Trump, he instead decided to smear him.
[Update a while later]
Mueller, Trump, and ‘two years of bullshit.’
[Noon update]
Volume II of the Mueller report is a two-hundred page op-ed that should never have been written.
[Late-afternoon updates]
Mark Penn (former Bill Clinton pollster): Mueller is over. Democrats should move on. Trump is no Nixon.
So let get it straight you listened to a man that wrote a memo saying no case for obstruction months before who was not privy to all the facts. Then was appointed to position to find no obstruction while awaiting approval to his new position had his son in-law hired by the very same president, then you listened to opinions from “State controlled” media and then come to this conclusion.
“The notion that Trump obstructed justice is now clearly absurd”
Thought you were a engineer who would not use other people calculations and opinions with out verification.
IF someone said oh “I listened to CNN commentary and Janet Reno. The notion that Bill Clinton obstructed justice is now clearly absurd”
you would clearly have some choice words for them.
My opinion is based on excerpts I heard from the report. It’s quite clear that a) there was no underlying crime about which to obstruct justice and b) that there was clearly no intent to obstruct justice. If there had been, he would have fired Mueller, he would not have provided millions of pages of documents, would not have told others to cooperate, and he would not have wanted to ignore his lawyers’ good advice and do an interview with Mueller. If that was obstructing justice, he’s just as bad at obstructing justice as he is at being Putin’s stooge.
I look forward to the self-proclaimed Engineer conducting his own research and not relying on Mueller’s calculations and opinions, until then, I expect he will dutiful respect his proclaimed ethical code like the professional he claims to be.
I think you’re conflating the Obama DOJ’s preordained exoneration of Hillary and the Hillary/Obama Russia collusion concoction.
Are you an HO scale engineer?
Choo! Choo!
I’ve read a bit of it, and so far, it looks to me as if there was no underlying crime, nor collusion (collusion isn’t actually illegal, so I listed them separately).
It also looks to me like Trump got pissed off and tried to meddle a bit, because he felt he was being railroaded by the same people who’d attempted a literal coup against him (the effort to use the false dossier, plus apparently some harassment, to make Trump’s electors change their votes).
Trump showed a lot more restraint than I could have managed under the circumstances.
CBS news tried to put it in the worst light possible. And then they threw in the Southern District of NY state’s investigations just to pile on the Trump negativity.
But one thing CBS focused on was that Trump ordered’ Mueller to be fired but an underling ignored him.
Mueller did have conflict of interest and apply due process should mean the President have a channel to challenge that. Removing Mueller is not the same as stopping the SC.
What surprised me when I read it is that Mueller didn’t really find anything that would be expected in most campaigns. For example, after 2012, Obama’s campaign was fined $350,000 or so dollars by the FEC for violating campaign finance laws, one of the largest fines they’d ever levied. After the 1996 election, the Senate investigated and found tons of egregious things, some involving the People’s Liberation Army providing bags of cash to the Clintons via Charlie Trie.
The fishing expedition had every expectation of coming back with a stringer of bass, but they got skunked.
Considering how deep Mueller dug, Trump’s team was probably the cleanest since hats went out of fashion, and possible since top hats went out of fashion.
There wasn’t much in the report that wasn’t known when the SC was started. In other words, they knew the entire time that there was no collusion but drug out the investigation to try and trap Trump in a process crime and do as much damage as they could.
Bonus, the investigation shielded the bad actors in the DOJ, CIA, NSA, State Department, Obama admin at large, and the Hillary campaign from being held accountable for the attempted coup.
“For example, after 2012, Obama’s campaign was fined $350,000 or so dollars by the FEC for violating campaign finance laws, one of the largest fines they’d ever levied. ”
Right, but he could pay for that with all the illegal foreign donations enabled by deliberately turning off address verification.
And while anyone around Trump speaking to a Russian was evidence of collusion, Hillary could brag about all the foreigners that she was talking to and what she was going to do for them as President.
This coverage by CNN states the opposite to what you heard:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/obstruction-charge-trump-mueller/index.html
It starts
“Washington (CNN)
If Robert Mueller wanted to charge President Donald Trump with obstruction, he found all he needed to do it. And he found it on multiple fronts.”
and then it lays out the case.
Hey guys, Bob popped in to say he is one of the half million people that still watch CNN. I guess he’s not a Sander’s Democrat.
Rand cited Fox News, so I cited CNN. The viewership of CNN isn’t the issue, but if you really think that’s relevant, then here are equivalent links to the traditional big three networks:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mueller-report-the-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/mueller-didn-t-charge-trump-his-report-brutal-indictment-n996191
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obstruction-justice/story?id=62457177&cid=clicksource_4380645_null_headlines_hed
Bob, you’re citing the same people who just spent two years telling you that Trump won because he colluded with the Russians, whose efforts threw the election.
The idea was completely idiotiic, since the Russians would be the least likely country to understand, much less influence an American election, and Trump’s team couldn’t even manage to collude with the GOP.
They breathlessly talking about Trump’s son suggesting to a Russian that maybe they should establish some channel to communicate, saying it proved collusion, instead of using basic logic to realize that if he’s saying maybe they should have a channel, then they don’t already have a channel.
\The Mueller report drips with their bias, and it was written by people who donated thousands to Hillary’s campaign. They spent two years investigating a fake charge that they fabricated with the Steele dossier, and then they drug it out to do as much damage to Trump as possible. And yet the couldn’t find anything to charge him with. Not anything at all.
They knew the original charges were fake, and knew that going in. What they spent all that time on was trying to find something else, anything else, including process crimes. They tried to create process crimes by repeatedly dragging people in for interviews. They still failed.
So they wrote up things that might, to a really determined prosecutor, be some evidence of obstruction. And that’s what all the media networks are running with, because they just spent two years pedaling a literal conspiracy theory.
I’m very very happy to stop citing tv news, and start citing the Mueller report itself instead.
The 11 possible obstructions of justice by the President listed in the Mueller report do not involve what you call “process crimes” created by the investigators themselves. Do you disagree?
I agree that they are not process crimes, but I also agree with Bob Barr that they are not crimes at all.
Bob, why was there an investigation?
Oh, because corrupt elements within the FBI, DoJ, CIA, and NSA colluded with the Hillary campaign and a foreign intelligence agent to coordinate with Russians and manufacture fake evidence to put before a FISA court judge, in violation of procedures.
They then used the fake charges to leak lies to the press and to Congress to force the appointment of a special council. Since there was never anything to actually investigate, because the original charges were made up by the investigators or their close allies, the investigation itself was merely an attempt to cause process crimes.
Yet they didn’t even manage that. There were eleven instances where they inferred there may be evidence of obstruction, but one of the problems is that to really go after him for obstructing justice, there needs to be an underlying crime that Trump is hiding. There wasn’t.
Trump was reacting to an obvious attempt by partisans, perhaps in collusion with foreign agents, to undermine the government of the United States.
The Russians spent less on the campaign than the Hillary campaign spent on booze and we are supposed to believe that it swung the election?
Also, the media always leaves out that Russia ran adds that favored Hillary and organized protests where thousands of Democrats showed up. Russia played both side in order to inflame sentiments.
Americans don’t need any help, we do just fine on our own lol.
Yes, let’s quote the Mueller report.
So why is the DNC colluding media saying that it does?
I did not “cite” Fox News. I simply took their words for it that the words they read from the report were in fact from the report, and didn’t have as a source some “news analyst”‘s nether orifice. But you did cite CNN.
The viewership of CNN isn’t the issue
I think it is. Most people realize that CNN:
1) Colluded with the Hillary Campaign and DNC to deny Bernie Sanders a fair primary challenge in 2016
2) Lied to the American people about Trump’s involvement in Russian collusion
3) Hired many of the people involved in doing 1 and inventing 2 as if paying them off
Therefore, most Americans realize CNN lacks credibility, except for you, bob… because you are special.
The same CNN that colluded with the Obama administration on the Russian Collusion Illusion? Jake Tapper served as the conduit for Obama’s IC to introduce the dossier into the news coverage in a more formal fashion than the media had been using it prior. CNN also hired Clapper.
I’d take anything the coup co-conspirator CNN says with a healthy bit of skepticism.
So, unfortunately the gym I attend during the week plays CNN non-stop. I watch it from time to time to see their presentation of the news. Unfortunately, since Trump was elected, it’s mostly about trying to tie anything illegal to him, make him look bad, etc.
This week, they tied themselves in knots trying to parse every word in the report to make it look like Trump was guilty. They did a GREAT job of reversing our court systems basic definition of “Innocent until Proven Guilty” by proclaiming that the report “found no direct evidence that Trump (and his campaign) did NOT commit crimes during the election”. That’s right, CNN scrolled the above (or very close to the quotes) for several segments.
So yes, Bob, CNN may have reported many things, but they were as laughable as the quote I posted above.
If there were ANY legitimate hint of a crime, CNN would have done what they’ve done for the last 3 + years, made it the Primary story and led the cheers for impeachment.
I was greatly amused by Brian Williams’ interview of Jay Sekulow, where Brian literally waved a copy of the report and demanded to know where exactly in this document did Jay draw any conclusion that Trump was exonerated, to which Jay replied “if you look at page two of the report…”
Brian Williams couldn’t be bothered even to read to the second page of the report. He was also exceedingly stupid to confront Sekulow in that manner, as if anything he said could fluster a high profile trial attorney
I bothered to read the second page of the report. You can too.
It is here: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/full-mueller-report-pdf/index.html
You can search it here:
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf
Page 2 of the report does not exonerate President Trump.
Using the 2nd link I provided, you can search for the word “exonerate”. You’ll find it three times. Each time, it is used in the phrase “does not exonerate him”.
Bob, prosecutors never exonerate people. It’s not within their power. Only juries do that.
What Mueller found was that he didn’t have sufficient evidence to bring a case. Legally, that’s all that a declination decision is.
A prosecutor might throw in “I know he’s guilty guilty guilty, but I can’t prove it!” Doesn’t matter.
If he’s not going to file charges, go in front of a jury, prove guilt, and get a verdict affirming it, the answer is “innocent”
Ok. It would be great if you completed this subthread by commenting on Jiminator’s analysis of the exchange between Brian Williams and Jay Sekulow.
It was a hilarious exchange. Williams continued lying about Russian collusion and was shot down in epic fashion. Did you watch the clip?
People like Bob-1 and Young Ezra Klein sound like those fundamentalist Christians who intently study the Book of Revelations (in the original English translation, no less) in order to find proof that the rapture is immanent and imminent. At least those sects are mostly harmless in their delusions.
Rand cited Fox News, I cited four other tv new organizations. Neither of us cited the report itself. What did I say that was different in its nature from what Rand said? How is either of us similar to a fundamentalist christian?
I’ve now provided a link to Volume 1 of the Mueller report and cited it. (see my reply to Jiminator above). Who sounds more like a fundamentalist Christian, me, you, or Jiminator?
Bob, you were lied to for two years by people you trusted. That’s painful to accept.
Those of us who never fell for the idiotic scam are wondering if an intervention is called for.
“Mom, the former Nigerian first lady didn’t need your bank routing numbers so she could transfer $10 million to your account.”
“But I have all these e-mails that prove it! See right here where she explains….?”
“Mom, you’ve been scammed.”
In response to the release of the Mueller report, Rand opined “The notion that Trump obstructed justice is now clearly absurd”. I think Rand reached the wrong conclusion – I don’t think it is absurd given what the Mueller report does say. You, on the other hand, question the legitimacy of the report itself. Do you think Rand has been scammed?
Bob, to establish obstruction of justice, the prosecution has to prove corrupt intent. In this case, that would be impossible because Trump had no underlying crime to hide, and he a huge reason to object to the investigation because it was badly damaging to the United States. Trump called it a witch hunt because it was.
Yet he cooperated with it. Indeed, he handed over about a million documents and let Mueller interview absolutely everybody for two years, even though he had the power to just shut the whole thing down.
The question isn’t whether Mueller would have a chance of getting a guilty verdict. The question is whether the not guilty verdict would be unanimous or whether there would be one or two hold outs.
Correction: I provided the link Volume I and Volume II.
Again, I did not “cite” Fox News. I wrote that I listened to Fox News. I heard what were (I assume reliably) purported to be excerpts from the report itself, and formed an opinion based on them. That’s how it’s different.
And the reason that I listen to (though not necessarily “cite”) Fox News, as opposed to the other networks, is that their news anchors (to be distinguished from their opinion shows) aren’t gibbering loons.
Rand, when you have time to look over the report itself, or at least have time to read some of the more complete summaries easily available today, I wonder if you’ll change your opinion about what the report says and what it means, especially regarding ” “The notion that Trump obstructed justice is now clearly absurd”.”
When you’re ready, I hope you’ll post about it on your blog.
If and when I do so, that’s possible, but not likely. While many of his actions were potential obstruction of justice, outside of context, I already described why in this case they were not, at least provable to an unbiased jury beyond a reasonable doubt, which is in fact the legal standard.
Do I wish that Trump wasn’t impulsive, and indifferent to the truth and the law? Sure. I also wish that the Clinton gang wasn’t indifferent to the truth and the law, except their indifference is worse, in that the expression of their indifference is not impulsive, but cold and calculating, secure in the knowledge that they will be corruptly defended by the State and its allies in the media.
I do know that if I were Trump, while I would have acted differently under the circumstances, I would similarly be mad as hell at being framed by abuses of power of the previous administration, and would in fact have been far less cooperative, and far more aggressive in my defense, than he was, in defending myself.
I cite Fox News because Martha MacCallum makes my feet feel all tingly, even knowing that she’s older than I am and has a son who’s a linebacker for Notre Dame. That’s just wrong somehow, but I can’t stop watching because she’s really smart, on point, level-headed, calm, and well versed on the topics.
In contrast, last night I watched a CNN clip of Anderson Cooper interviewing a White House spokesman. Cooper’s behavior could be used as a mental health training video for “deranged lunatic”. Deflecting, ranting, and screaming, along with enough eye rolls, scowls, and smirks to train an AI on facial expressions.
Bob-1, Rand is easy to predict.
He will still not like Trump. He will criticize things Trump did. He will occasionally say Trump did something kind of OK. He will criticize the abuses of power the Democrats and their media operatives used over the last three years. He will occasionally say the Democrats did something kind of OK.
We all know this. You know this. Don’t expect anything different.
I will say that Trump did something “kind of OK” (and often actually quite good) far more often than I will say that of other Democrats.
Bob, they brought charges against a guy (Manafort, IIRC) that the government had already, years prior, decided weren’t bringing to trial. They went after people, Martha Stewart-like, for making false statements about things that weren’t crimes.
If there were any there there, they would’ve charged Trump, and the fact that you can’t or won’t see that tells us all a lot.
This is exactly what Rush Limbaugh said would happen: “well, we can’t prove collusion or any actual crimes, but there’s stuff we can’t tell you about.” It’s just like when Dingy Harry Reid claimed Mitt Romney lied on his taxes: baseless accusations that only the gullible would believe.
Rick C,
You are incorrect. Mueller explicitly says in his report they decided at the outset that they wouldn’t charge Trump with anything, because he is a sitting president. Please scroll down to see the discussion about this point, discussion which includes quotes from the Mueller report. Alternatively, read the introduction and conclusion of the obstruction of justice section of the Mueller report and see for yourself.
Yes, Bob-1 is correct in what the SC report references but he is wrong to think that they wouldn’t have sought a different opinion or challenged it in court if there were any evidence of crimes.
Wodun, why do you say that?
A link or citation supporting your assertion would be very interesting. Thanks!
Actually, Bob-1 sounds exactly like the ‘birthers’ did during Obama’s 8 years in office.
It doesn’t matter what the facts portray, they cling to any sliver of hope that the sitting President can be impeached. They won’t see reason as they are not in a reasonable mind in this area. Reminds me of the constant trolling that went on before IMDB closed all of the comment sections of their site.
Honestly, I think it would have been great if Mueller had exonerated Trump. I certainly don’t hope Trump is impeached. Why don’t we not worry about my hopes or your hopes, and just discuss the Mueller report? It is a strange report, certainly different in its function from what we are used to, and it deserves discussion.
It is a strange report because, being unable to find anything to actually legally pin on Trump, it was written in a sufficiently ambiguous way by a frustrated group of pro-Clinton investigators as to encourage the Trump-deranged Democrats to continue to pursue the white whale. As Mark Levin said, the second part should not have been written at all and absent politics, would not have been.
Democracy can only work with high-time-preference voters who’ll put the future of the country above their own petty concerns. Since America–like most of the West–is now a low-time-preference society, democracy is doomed.
The only way to save it would be to take votes away from the low-time-preference majority, and that’s politically impossible.
It’s not impossible, just difficult. Some progress has been made on clearing the voter roles of dead people, who keep on voting Democrat despite not following the issues in any depth.
There’s now a major push on the left to allow prison inmates to vote, which shows they don’t even remotely understand the franchise. A person held in government detention cannot, under any understanding of freedom, cast a vote without inherent coercion, duress, or undue influence. It would be no different from having allowed slaves to vote, knowing their votes would have shown their nearly universal support for slavery. They would not have been free to express their true feelings at the ballot box without risking starvation, beatings, or other retributions.
Almost all prisoners in red states will vote Republican, and almost all prisoners in blue states will all vote Democrat, because that’s the only way wardens and guards will keep their jobs.
The very idea merely creates an incentive for politicians to game the system by throwing people in jail. “Now they’ll have to vote for me, or else!”
It’s not impossible, just difficult. Some progress has been made on clearing the voter roles of dead people, who keep on voting Democrat despite not following the issues in any depth.
I beg to differ. The depth on average is approximately 6 to 8 ft. The actual depth may depend upon state laws and may go as high as 10 to 12 feet. In excess of 40 feet runs a risk of flooding or groundwater contamination. Depending upon where you live. /snarc
Let me sum up:
Trump: This was a coup!
Democrats: Ahhh, but you obstructed our coup, checkmate!
Brilliant summation, stealing this!
Is obstructing a coup an impeachable offence?
Whatever the House of Representatives thinks is an impeachable offense is an impeachable offense. If the Democrats choose not to impeach (Nancy certainly has the power) it is because they think it will go badly for them, just as it did for the Republicans with Bill Clinton.
I hope you at least were mildly chuckling to yourself while you wrote this reply….
Should the Senate vote to convict I can only assume it was because, in the years prior to 2016, Trump was found mostly colluding with Democrats….
My housemate, who is a registered Democrat Trump voter, was a former assistant DA for Louisville who spent much of his career as a public defender. This morning he pointed out that prosecutors never exonerate someone or say the target of investigation is innocent because subsequent evidence might turn up and make them look like idiots. So more typical is something like “At this time, our office doesn’t feel we can prove the case that…”
They either find enough evidence to justify moving forward with prosecution or they don’t. If they don’t,”innocent until proven guilty” says the matter is over.
Mueller didn’t exonerate Trump, but his report also didn’t exonerate Jay Leno, David Letterman, or me. His decision not to recommend prosecution just lumps Trump in with the rest of us innocent people.
Sure. But….
“The Mueller report obstruction of justice section suggests if Trump weren’t president, he would’ve been indicted.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/mueller-report-obstruction-justice-section-suggests-if-trump-weren-t-ncna996176
By Michael Conway, Former counsel, U.S. House Judiciary Committee (Note: Michael, not George)
Excerpt: “Despite Barr’s initial contention that Mueller declined to recommend prosecution of the president for obstruction because of difficult issues regarding his actions and intent, the decision was foreordained by Mueller’s explicit adherence to the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel’s policy statement that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Mueller acknowledged that, as a department employee, he had to accept the legal conclusion of the department. Mueller concluded that, if his report even suggested that President Trump could otherwise face federal charges, that would not be fair because the president could never clear himself (as would happen if a jury found him “not guilty”) since there would never be a trial.”
And, George, regarding your contentions you made earlier today, in the same piece I linked to, Michael Conway makes another point:
“… contrary to William Barr’s legal position, Mueller concluded that a person can criminally interfere with an investigation even if no underlying crime is ever proven. This makes legal sense: A person is guilty of obstruction if he urges a witness to lie to an FBI agent at the outset of an investigation, even if the prosecutor never indicts anyone for the incident under investigation.”
“The Mueller report obstruction of justice section suggests if Trump weren’t president, he would’ve been indicted.”
So where does the report suggest that? And what’s the point of an indictment that’s not going to end in a conviction?
Here are Volumes 1 and 2 of the Mueller report:
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf
Page 182: “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.”
To understand the context and meaning of the above, do two things: 1) do a search on the word “sitting”, and read what Mueller wrote about sitting presidents. 2) read the article by Michael Conway I linked to above.
Contrary to what George has been saying in this thread, the Mueller report says “[if] the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.“
the Mueller report says “[if] the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.“
That is the problem. It implies that it is the job of the counsel to declare innocence. It is not. If it were, the investigation would be never ending, given the nature of attempting to prove a negative. That statement is insidious in its implication that he may have obstructed justice, but you figure it out, Congress. Guilty until proven innocent. I’ll bet that’s the slimebag Weissman’s words.
I think Mueller is saying the procedure is different for an investigation of a sitting president.
Bob, if a prosecutor can’t determine that they should prosecute, no charges are brought and the assumption is left that the target of their investigation is “innocent.” Mueller’s job isn’t to prove Trump didn’t commit a crime. and it would be bizarre if he even tried. The only question he has to answer is whether he can prove Trump committed a crime. He said he can’t, and that’s the end of it.
No prosecutor proves that his target didn’t, say, rob a gas station, because maybe the target actually did. Just because there’s no evidence that the gas station was robbed doesn’t mean it wasn’t, and just because the accused seems to have an airtight alibi doesn’t mean that he actually has a secret identical twin he’d found on Facebook who was covering for him.
George you said “The only question [Mueller] has to answer is whether he can prove Trump committed a crime. He said he can’t, and that’s the end of it.”
George, it is time for you to read the Mueller report’s section on obstruction of justice (or at least its introduction and conclusion). I can not say with confidence that I fully understand (yet!) what Mueller is saying about his investigation of a sitting president, but I’m certain he is saying that he didn’t structure his report the way a prosecutor would, because he isn’t acting as prosecutor.
If I understand Mueller correctly (and help me out here if you think I’m wrong, by citing Mueller’s report), even if Mueller had proof that Trump committed murder, he wouldn’t have said so in his report, because Trump is a sitting president.
he didn’t structure his report the way a prosecutor would, because he isn’t acting as prosecutor.
No, indeed he is not. He, along with Weissman and all of the other Clinton donors he hired, is acting as an Inquisitor. Trump wasn’t obstructing justice; he was obstructing a frame up. As we’ll learn in detail in a few weeks.
And if Mueller had proof that Trump committed murder, I’m quite confident that he would have said so in his report. He didn’t say he had proof that Trump obstructed justice because he didn’t have proof that Trump obstructed justice.
Mueller said ” we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes”
Why wouldn’t that include 1st degree murder?
Read that one again Bob-1.
Mueller made the accusations but Trump can’t challenge them in court. He can’t clear himself, and that was the point of Mueller not making a determination. Democrats say there was obstruction, while overlooking, “… this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime…” and instead focus on the other part, “…it also does not exonerate him.”
This is engaging in the unfair behavior that Mueller said they weren’t going to engage in. Worded differently, the conclusion is neutral. There was no determination that obstruction took place. That means Trump is innocent.
There is corrupt intent behind the SC writing the report, just as there was corrupt intent behind spying on the Trump campaign, trying to influence the election with claims of Russian collusion, and trying to overthrow a duly elected President in a coup.
The Mueller report obstruction of justice section suggests if Trump weren’t president, he would’ve been indicted.
Likely because as President; he had the authority granted to him in Article 2 of the US Constitution to fire the people fired. Just like as President, he can also do many other things that could get people indicted. For example, can you imagine a private individual getting away with allowing units in their control to burn down a home with children in it? Yet President Clinton was never indicted, because he was the sitting President.
Here is more, but not all, of the relevant part:
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. 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.” 1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the
Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
28 C.F .R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exerc ising
prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal
criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to
govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.
Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted,
it recognizes that a cr iminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible . The OLC
opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in
safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast , a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought , affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator .5
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report , could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term , OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment ‘s] secrecy, ” and if an indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to govern.” 6 Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report ‘s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining “that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense .” Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
Bob, elsewhere the report says almost the opposite of that. It’s an extremely inconsistent document, and probably by design.
As AG Barr stated, there are three hurdles that must be proved to make a case of obstruction, and Mueller didn’t establish even one.
There’s no mens rea or acta reus. No corrupt intent, as there was no underlying crime to cover up, and no acta reus, actual obstruction of justice.
To prove obstruction requires proving “corruptly”, and according to the courts, “corruptly” has been described to mean “for an evil or wicked purpose,” United States v. Ryan, 455 F.2d 728, 734 (9th Cir. 1972);
So now you have to prove that Trump’s intent was evil or wicked in trying to stop an attempted coup against the government of the United States, and evil or wicked in trying to halt the continued attempts to overturn the results of a US Presidential election and continued attempts to undermine the government of the United States. Alleging corrupt intent is not good enough, the government has to prove it. Since there was no underlying crime to cover up, good luck with that.
And the following might also apply, although I’m not sure because I’m not a lawyer.
That’s from the DoJ’s justice manual
Unless Trump was trying to block one of the ongoing grand juries or trials for Manafort or Flynn, or for one of the various Russian companies accused of hacking, he wasn’t blocking any court proceeding aimed at him in the Russian collusion investigation because there was and is no such court case.
Under the broader wording of 18 U.S.C. § 1512, section (b)(3) proscribes interference with “the communication to a (Federal) law enforcement officer . . . of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense.”
That presents a problem because collusion is not a Federal offense, and thus 18 U.S.C. 1512 might not even apply.
But again, I’m not a lawyer so your mileage may vary, but Barr is a lawyer and he is not going to proceed with an obstruction case.
George, this is a huge thread, and maybe you missed a comment I made regarding your (and Barr’s) insistence that there can be no obstruction of justice if there is no underlying crime to cover up. Here’s what I said:
—
And, George, regarding your contentions you made earlier today, in the same piece I linked to, Michael Conway makes another point:
“… contrary to William Barr’s legal position, Mueller concluded that a person can criminally interfere with an investigation even if no underlying crime is ever proven. This makes legal sense: A person is guilty of obstruction if he urges a witness to lie to an FBI agent at the outset of an investigation, even if the prosecutor never indicts anyone for the incident under investigation.”
—
George, you and I are not lawyers, and Barr and Michael Conway are, but credentials aside, I think Conway makes an interesting point. Do you have any reaction to it? If you urge me to lie to the FBI about something that you are never indicted for, have you nevertheless obstructed justice?
Did you lie to the FBI? Asking for a friend.
Frankly, I’ve been telling everyone to lie to the FBI at each and every opportunity because their leadership had become a corrupt agency that was trying to undermine American’s faith in our elections and governmental institutions. Putin actually pushes that goal, too.
The Mueller investigation is just a continuation of the FBI leadershiop’s attempt to subvert a US election, and failing that, to attempt a coup d’etat via the 25th Amendment, or via impeachment on false charges and manufactured evidence, and failing that, on obstruction of the coup attempt. So why on Earth would any American cooperate with them on anything other than a kidnapping, murder, or missing child case, since that would just be advancing their evil plans? They’ve delegitimized themselves.
So is Trump legally obligated to cooperate with an attempt from within the US intelligence agencies to overthrow the US government? I would say not. And yet cooperate he did! Every single witness testified. Every requested document was handed over. He didn’t even exert executive privilege when it clearly applied.
And now, as he Tweeted, the tables have turned and the investigators are going to be investigated for everything, including Treason with a capital T.
Democrats are still hung up on the fact that Mueller specifically wouldn’t exonerate Trump in the second half of the report, a second half which shouldn’t have even been written.
It’s a witch hunt, and there’s no way for Trump to prove he’s not a witch to the satisfaction of investigators.
Suppose they tied a rope around him and threw him in a lake to see if he floated. He might resist, saying he can’t swim, but that would be taken as evidence of guilt. So they throw him in, he sinks like a stone, and they pulled him out. But as in the past, they wouldn’t accept that as proof he wasn’t a witch because he could’ve swallowed rocks or used a spell, which is even more proof that he’s a witch.
So next they might have him recite sections of the Bible, on the theory that witches can’t speak scripture. But Trump knew this: “[D]uring the Salem Witch Trials, the accused sorcerer George Burroughs flawlessly recited the prayer from the gallows just before his execution. The performance was dismissed as a devil’s trick, and the hanging proceeded as planned.” So he probably won’t play that game.
So how about the touch test, where the accused touches the bewitched to see if it affects them? Two English women passed that test in a 1662 trial, but they were hanged anyway.
How about testing his incantations by beseeching the devil to relieve the bewitched’s symptoms? Yet again, if it doesn’t work it proves nothing, but if it does work it proves the charge and he’s executed as a witch.
These are the Democrat’s new legal standards. The accused is guilty, they can’t prove their innocence, and they must be burned as a witch – because obviously they’re a witch and any proof to the contrary must be the work of Satan.
Yes, sort of like this historical movie.
Bear in mind, these are just allegations. They are not statements of that have been adjudicated in court. Prosecutors say all kinds of things and are typically challenged by the defense but that can’t happen here because Mueller hasn’t allowed Trump due process.
There was no cross examination of witnesses and the Trump administration wasn’t given the materials collected by the SC.
Trump wasn’t even allowed due process rights to challenge the conflicts of interest of the people who made up the SC, some of whom participated in the Clinton Cover Up, SpyGate, and the attempted coup post-election.
So, if the SC knew they couldn’t bring charges, then why did the investigation go on so long? Why would they even bother investigating Trump if there was no way to hold him accountable if there was collusion?
You do realize that the Obama administration was spying on Trump the entire campaign and all of this information was available to the DOJ and then in turn the SC when it was formed? Mueller wasn’t going to learn more over the next two years than the CIA, FBI, and NSA already knew. They knew the whole time there was no collusion. So why didn’t Mueller say that on day two instead of dragging out the investigation two years?
Knowing there was no collusion, they knew they had to get Trump on a process crime but that wouldn’t take two years either. Dragging the investigation out did allow the Democrats to use the Collusion Delusion to win the House, it shielded the Obama administration and Hillary campaign from being held accountable for the spying, it dominated the news, damaging the President’s mandate and had a negative impact on him enacting his legislative and foreign policy agenda.
“So, if the SC knew they couldn’t bring charges, then why did the investigation go on so long? Why would they even bother investigating Trump if there was no way to hold him accountable if there was collusion?”
Mueller explicitly explains that in his report, and I quoted what he said above. Here it is again:
Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted,
it recognizes that a cr iminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible . The OLC
opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in
safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.
Sorry, footnotes in the Mueller report jumbled my quote. Go to the searchable version of the report, and search on the word “fresh” (as in “when memories are fresh”) and you’ll see what I quoted in context. The key thing is that Mueller regarded his report as a factual report. Congress could use this report for impeachment purposes, and prosecutors could use this report after the president is no longer in office.
But as Barr indicated, the report offers no path to a successful prosecution because the obstruction charges won’t bring a conviction. Did Trump act with a corrupt intent? There’s no possible way to establish that because he was rightly frustrated about being a victim of a political witch hunt. Did he obstruct justice? No, because every piece of evidence Mueller’s team requested was turned over, without even raising justified Presidential prerogatives.
So without an intent and without a crime, what are you going to try him for, being Orange?
” Did he obstruct justice? No, because every piece of evidence Mueller’s team requested was turned over, without even raising justified Presidential prerogatives.”
Mueller’s report listed 10 possible obstructions of justice (plus an eleventh which was censored in the report we get to see). Trump’s cooperation in turning over documents does not excuse those 10 possible obstructions of justice.
George, it sounds to me (and I could be mistaken) like you haven’t looked at the report. I certainly haven’t read most of it. Maybe we should both read it.
It “excuses” them in the sense that they indicate that he had no corrupt intent to obstruct justice, particularly given that in none of those cases, other than possibly his unwillingness to be interviewed, did he actually obstruct justice. Talking about firing people, telling people to lie, even firing people (like Comey) is not an obstruction of justice, unless it actually impedes an investigation. In his mind, to the degree that he was obstructing anything, it was obstructing a frame up and abuse of power by the previous administration. And that will become ever more clear in the next few weeks when (among other things) Horowitz’s report comes out.
George, you also say “There’s no possible way to establish that because he was rightly frustrated about being a victim of a political witch hunt.”
Muller addresses this in his report:
The term “corruptly ” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights ofothers. A preclusion of”corrupt” official action does not diminish the President’s ability to exercise Article II powers. For example , the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment , avoiding financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment. To the contrary , a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law. It also aligns with the President’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.
Was the President “rightly frustrated”? Or was he trying to prevent personal embarrassment or avoid financial liability?
I agree it it impossible to know in the sense used in philosophy classes, but philosophical sense. Of course. But I don’t think it is impossible for there to be sufficient evidence for a jury to decide what Trump was up to.
That should have read: I agree it it impossible to know in the sense used in philosophy classes, but I don’t think it is impossible for there to be sufficient evidence for a jury to decide what Trump was up to.
It is not impossible in theory for there to be sufficient evidence, but such evidence was not offered in the report, unless by “what he was up to” you mean being angry at being framed and abused by his political enemies in a sham investigation from fabricated evidence.
Bob, do you think you could convince all twelve jurors that there was no way that Trump was just pissed off at a witch hunt, beyond all reasonable doubt?
I sure couldn’t, even if the jurors were all running for the Democratic party’s nomination, which is highly unlikely since Trump’s lawyers get to challenge potential jurors during selection.
And as Rand pointed out, if Trump had a corrupt intent to obstruct justice, he could’ve have obstructed it several times a day, every day. There would have been a clear pattern of stonewalling, assertions of executive privilege, and the destruction of documents.
Compare what he did to Clinton’s actions. Even back in the White Water investigation, her law firm files mysteriously disappeared when under subpoena, and then later magically reappeared in her office. That was routine for her.
In the e-mail investigation she didn’t just talk about destroying evidence, she ordered it destroyed, repeatedly, and that destruction was carried out. She stonewalled at every step, refused to hand over her servers (the FBI had to show up and grab them), and then used Bleach Bit to make sure she hadn’t left anything for law enforcement to find. She repeatedly lied to and misled investigators, altered evidence (the e-mails she handed over to Congress contained major deletions from the versions uncovered by Guccifer 2). So clearly there was obstruction of justice.
Did she have a corrupt intent? Yes she did, since she was hiding the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation, which was acting illegally as an influence pedaling crime syndicate, as can be confirmed by numerous foreign officials who donated to it or were subject to pressures from those who were.
James Comey, the same person who kicked off the Mueller investigation, said he could not find sufficient reason to charge her with anything.
Needless to say, such blatant injustice, having two ridiculously different standards for criminal behavior, won’t long be tolerated. And that’s why Barr is going to put a jury in a box and start calling witnesses.
How ironic, considering they destroyed the integrity of the criminal justice system by coordinating with political operatives and foreign agents to overturn the results of a US Presidential election.
This mirrors Jim Comey’s overweening hubris, where he assumed that he was the only unbiased, non-partisan, honest person in Washington, and then took a wrecking ball to an election to make sure our elections are free of undue influence. He is Don Quixote, convinced he was the last chivalrous knight, causing one disaster after another due to his own delusions.
Titling his book, “Higher Loyalty” was a bit on the nose. Not sure why he would admit to his crimes like that, other than to be viewed positively by collusion truthers as he sits in jail.
Rand, you said “talking about firing people, telling people to lie, even firing people (like Comey) is not an obstruction of justice, unless it actually impedes an investigation.”
Well, lets look at one of the 11.
The 5th of the 11th possible obstructions of justice was Trump’s order to McGhan to remove the special counsel!
McGhan quietly did not carry out the order.
This seems to me to be an example of impeding the investigation.
If anyone wants to argue about this, it might help if you read Page 77 to Page 90 of Volume II of the Mueller report. You can find it in the searchable version by looking for
“E. The President’s Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel”
If he didn’t remove the special counsel, the investigation wasn’t impeded. And if he had been removed, and it was done for cause (he certainly had plenty), it is within the Article II powers of the president. You seem to want to have it both ways; Trump can be treated differently because he is the president, but he’s not allowed to do things differently because he’s the president. You and Mueller need to make up your minds.
“If he didn’t remove the special counsel, the investigation wasn’t impeded. “
He attempted to impede it. Is that sufficient for obstruction of justice charges?
“And if he had been removed, and it was done for cause (he certainly had plenty), it is within the Article II powers of the president. “
Mueller discusses whether he had cause in pages 77-90 of the report. No one in the executive branch except for Trump himself thought he had cause.
He attempted to impeded it.
That presumes that removing Mueller would have actually impeded justice.
Is that sufficient for obstruction of justice charges?
It depends on why he did it. Unlike Hillary’s felonies and Comey’s unilateral rewriting of the Espionage Act, intent actually is an element of this particular crime.
No one in the executive branch except for Trump himself thought he had cause.
It doesn’t matter what anyone else thought. The only person whose intent matters is Trump.
If you sincerely believed you were being framed by a corrupt process, and had the power to do something about it, what would you do?
How did that impede the investigation, since nothing ever came of it? If not for their questioning of McGhan, the investigators wouldn’t have even known that it had happened. It’s an undetectable event, which is vastly different from slamming into a brick wall. In objective terms, it affected the investigation no more than my cat did, and he’s never even been to DC.
Your position must also require that Trump wanted to fire the special counsel, yet somehow over the course of two years couldn’t manage to get his orders carried out, even though he would fire his own daughter in the blink of an eye. He had the power, the will, and countless opportunities to make sure the special counsel was fired, yet no firing took place.
To hold that he was simply unable to carry his intent into action is not credible, and thus the idea that he had actual intent isn’t supportable.
What is credible is that he often rants and everybody knows whether he’s serious or not. That’s why McGhan took no actions and apparently didn’t even feel the need to follow up on the idea, and why nobody else, including Trump, did either.
What you have is the equivalent of trying to prove an attempted murder charge when the only evidence is against the defendant is when he was commuting to work and muttered “Change lanes or die, you slow bitch!” as he stayed stuck in traffic behind his own daughter.
It would be laughed out of court.
Rand, Here is my quick reply: Mueller talks about all of this in Pages 77-90 of Vol II of his report.
For example, Mueller talks about how Trump sought to deny that he called McGahn to fire Mueller, indicating that he knew the calls were improper.
I would not expect you to take the preceding paragraph as sufficient evidence. If you would like, although it is a bit tedious, I could go through Mueller’s argument point by point. After that, maybe we’ll be done with the 5th possible obstruction, and we can talk about the other 10.
Even if Trump knew that the calls were improper (or rather, knew that some would consider them to be so), they were done (I know you’ll be shocked at this) impulsively and in anger and frustration, not (unlike Hillary Clinton) out of some carefully considered devious intent. The fact that he asked McGhan to do it, and didn’t just do it himself (which he certainly could have) is probably evidence of some subconscious intent to to put a buffer on his feelings. Once again, if Trump really wanted to obstruct justice, he passed up many, many opportunities to do so, legally (e.g., claiming Executive Privilege).
You said yourself that the report is “strange.” It’s strange because Mueller’s team is straining to come up with something, anything to get Trump on, even though there’s nothing legally there. And yes, I hope you understand at this point that citing Mueller’s report (written by partisans based on an investigation with no legal predicate) holds zero water with me. I understand it as well as you do, and Barr has the right take. And whatever respect I ever had for Bob Mueller has pretty much evaporated.
So please stop wasting my time and blog bandwidth with what Bob Mueller says. The number of copulations I have to give about what Bob Mueller says is zero. If you have any arguments of your own to make (though you seem not to), then make them. You don’t seem to be doing very well.
“If not for their questioning of McGhan, the investigators wouldn’t have even known that it had happened. It’s an undetectable event, ”
No, that’s not true, and Mueller discusses this too:
“And in the days leading up to June 17, 2017, the President made clear to Priebus and Bannon, who then told Ruddy, that the President was considering terminating he Special Counsel. Also during this time period, the President reached out to Christie to get his thoughts on firing the Special Counsel. This evidence shows that the President was not just seeking an examination of whether conflicts existed but instead was looking to use asserted conflicts as a way to terminate the Special Counsel.”
That’s out of context. I could just cut and paste pages 77-90 into this blog, if Rand is ok with that. Obviously, you might not buy Mueller’s argument, but we are talking about whether Mueller would have recommended indicting Trump for obstruction of justice if he was not the sitting president, and Mueller’s strongly worded language shows that he would have.
” That’s why McGhan took no actions”
THat’s not true either, as Pages 77-90 of the Mueller report Vol II make clear. C’mon, it is less than 14 whole pages. Read it!
Better yet, keep reading. Here’s what’s on page 90:
”
F. The President’s Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
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, 20 17, 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 Lewandowsk i 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.”
We all should read the whole thing!
Bob,
How does any of that show corrupt intent? Was Trump leaning toward those actions to cover up the fact that he worked for Vladimir Putin or had conspired with the GRU? No. There was no collusion and thus nothing to cover up.
In order to make a case for obstruction of justice, you have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trump was trying to hide criminal collusion with the Russians. Making that doubly difficult is the fact that collusion doesn’t even exist as an offence, as it’s not illegal.
And you’ve got the problem that justice wasn’t obstructed and you’re reading Mueller’s very own report with your own eyes.
So you have none of three things you must establish to make the case, and virtually no chance of establishing even one of those things.
It’s like prosecuting a murder case without a motive, a victim, and a crime scene, just allegations that the target was at one point very angry about being harassed and muttered on several occasions that someone should just shoot the judge.
Mueller’s report is a prosecution document, detailing every little facet that they uncovered, in hopes that perhaps all those disconnected facts would come together into a coherent pattern that would establish things like corrupt intent. But they didn’t. They just remained unconnected events that only show that Trump was pissed off about being the victim of a corrupt partisan witch hunt, which is itself a valid defense against the charge of corruption of justice.
These prosecution documents are normally never released to the public because most people don’t know how to read them. They are filled with lots of allegations, possibilities, questions, and otherwise rather damning information about things that don’t meet the standards for proceeding with a prosecution.
Anyone else subject to such a two-year investigation by a platoon of biased and angry prosecutors would probably look far, far worse, and I doubt have the people in Congress could survive one. Pick a random member. I’d wager than an investigation into Diane Feinstein would burn up two hundred pages examining whether she has acted as an agent of the Chinese Communist Party, and whether she knew her driver and close aide was a Chinese spy. It would burn up another hundred pages looking at her billionaire husband’s lucrative government contracts. Even if all of his dealings were scrupulously honest and aboveboard, there would be a whole lot of smoke, and parts of the report would look totally damning.
“And yes, I hope you understand at this point that citing Mueller’s report (written by partisans based on an investigation with no legal predicate) holds zero water with me.”
I’m very sorry hear that. I was find it interesting to discuss the Mueller report here.
You don’t want to discuss it, you just want to quote and cite it. You have not made any serious responses to what George and I have written other than saying “Mueller disagrees with you,” even though the quotes you provide from Mueller are not responsive to our arguments. Again, why do you put so much faith in a report that you yourself admit is “strange”?
We’ve explained to you multiple times why it’s strange, and yet you persist. I get that you’d rather talk about a report that was written to distract from the real story than to talk about the real story, which is that Obama administration officials abused their power and obstructed justice to help the candidate of Obama’s party, and then abused their power to first prevent the opposition campaign from winning and then, when that failed, continued to do so to cripple his administration and attempt to reverse the election, or at least remove him from office. We get that you and other Democrats don’t like the real story, but now, finally, it’s time to talk about the real story.
That doesn’t explain why the investigation went on so long. The investigation into collusion was over the first day. The claims of obstruction arose after the truth was known about collusion.
As you have noted, Part 2 was not presented in a legal fashion. There was no due process or fairness as Mueller put it. If the intent was to engineer impeachment, that is not part of the legal process Mueller claims to protect. It is also as corrupt as Comey and his co-conspirators engineering the formation of the SC when they already knew there was no collusion.
They had the CIA, NSA, FBI, and State Department up Trump’s rear for the entire campaign and the released text messages show that those doing the spying knew there was no collusion.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=70SrdDgWwjA
Is this obstruction if justice? Or maybe a “conspiracy against the United States”? Surely it is at least reason to open a counterintelligence investigation.
The CIA could find out if there is coordination between these international socialist groups, foreign governments, cartels, and the Democrat party.
Bob-1, you might want to think on that in the context of how the SC was instigated, the people who made up the SC team, the actions of the Obama administration during the campaign, and the non-existence of Russian collusion.