Why the President did not obstruct Justice.

One of the main reasons we never should've got to see the "Mueller report", is that Mueller and his team did not have the courage to indict the President. Actually, more than that. By their own admission, they lacked the evidence to even show intent.

Again, they lacked the evidence to show intent. That's crucial in an obstruction case. But not only did they lack evidence of intent, there's ample evidence(the documents, access without citing executive privilege, etc) that Trump not only didn't obstruct the investigation he actively aided the investigation while criticizing it.

I did not read all of the second report, but reading people's commentaries filled in the rest to allow me to summarize in this way: Is criticizing a DOJ official obstruction? Only in the Special Counsel's world, but in the real world we have to deal with criticism everyday. I deal with it, being the notorious person I am with my controversial views.

The key factor is that obstruction, impeding has to have an actual function of obstructing/impeding. Being annoyed by something isn't the same thing as being obstructed in something.

The fact of the matter is, Mueller and his frivolous spending buddies were not impeded in anyway, obstructed in anything and it's a hard argument to make they were ever inconvenienced. By contrast, the team was able to make such arguments as it relates to Papadoulous's conduct.

On this front, the special counsel would lose in court and they know it. So their only gambit left is Trump's remarks to witnesses. These were silly remarks to make, and no defense attorney would advise them. But the actual statements themselves are non-threatening.

Let's start with the biggest, baddest one: Trump saying that Cohen's family members were criminals. You could imply this is an indirect threat that he'd have the DOJ open an investigation, but Trump doesn't say it and the Counsel wisely doesn't infer this(if, for example this were in a courtroom and I were Trump's lawyer, I'd submit an objection on the basis of pointless speculation, and it'd likely be sustained.)

More likely, a reasonable inference is that Trump was employing guilt-by-association. More shaming Michael Cohen, then actually intimidating him.Comments towards other witnesses were largely disparging comments, but disparging an individual is the furthest thing from intimidation.

It's actually the cut-off point. Donald Trump was saying to those various individuals 'You're dead to me'. In the case of Comey for example, it's a publicly known feud between the two. You can't possibly infer intimidation.

It's not that "we don't exonerate him", it's that the Counsel would have lost in court and had no desire to bring it to Court. So the Counsel did the next best thing: The Mueller report is now for all intents and purposes a political document.

The Democratic Party(except for a few) has still refused to return to the political arena, and to engage in an appropriate manner.

The problem is that every Republican House member, except maybe 1 or 2 holdouts will vote no. So it's not an unanimous house, and then when you get it to the Senate, ROFL. Schumer and Warren(and Sanders) not withstanding, most senators are aware of the reputation of the Senate. They're not going to destroy the reputation of the US Senate, just to throw out Donald Trump.

So the Democrats can be stupid enough to vote to impeach Trump, but doing so will return the House to conservative hands.

 

Actually, his report says he has more than enough evidence to charge the president, including "substantial evidence" of intent. Mueller says he didn't bring a charge because of DOJ policy that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.

 

That's not what's detailed in the report.

 

I'd say you're lying but that's against the rules. Besides you can't really lie about what you didn't read.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...bc984dc9eec_story.html?utm_term=.987238ebaa01

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/obstruction-charge-trump-mueller/index.html

I'll have quotes from the report momentarily. I can't wait to hear your concession.

 

Volume 2, page 89.

And Volume 2, Page 1

I can't wait to see you try to squirm out of this one.

 

This is the gist of it.

Mueller said he found crimes but wouldn't prosecute because it would affect Trumps ability to do his job?

What kind of nonsense is that?

And Mueller's evidence by the way relies on things like he thought Trump was trying to get him fired.

Laughable at best.

 

Your problem, American Nationalist, is that you see this obstruction case entirely in terms of the crime which Mueller fully investigated, not in terms of the cases he referred to New Yorks Southern District office. Maybe Trump was intending to impede Comey and Mueller from finding out enough to refer for possible charges on fraud, Tax evasion, or campaign finance laws. Maybe his intent had as much to do with his children and their spouses and their possible crimes New York is investigating , as it does this 'collusion' Mueller worked on. I think it very likely that Mueller drew a map in this report that he expected Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, might want to follow, should he find crimes involving Trump or his kin. Bharara does not have half the problems that may have impeded Mueller from pursuing a case against Pres.Trump. Mueller may not be able to clearly label the obstruction of justice and intent despite the conduct, because it was not his call to make, if the possible underlying crime was sitting in another DA's office, just waiting for a thorough investigation to finish. He wants Bharara to finish this and -

Follow the yellow brick road, follow the yellow brick road. Follow, follow, follow follow, follow the yellow brick road.

 

He didn't say that. He said he accepted the OLC's determination, which sets policy for the DOJ. Because his office is part of the DOJ, he accepted their conclusion.

What the hell are you even talking about? This is your best spin?

 

You are the only one spinning stuff here.

 

I'm not 'squirming' out of anything. If the Special Counsel tried to bring this case to court, it would have lost. They were aware of that, that's why we're here today. So sure, let me break down what you've cited and put up a thorough defense of the President.

Example 1:

Before the President terminated Comey, the President considered it critically important that he was not under investigation and that the public not erroneously think he was being investigated. As described in Volume II, Section II.D, supra, advisors perceived the President, while he was drafting the Comey termination letter, to be concerned more than anything else about getting out that he was not personally under investigation. When the President learned of the appointment of the Special Counsel on May 17, 2017, he expressed further concern about the investigation, saying “[t]his is the end of my Presidency.” The President also faulted Sessions for recusing, saying “you were supposed to protect me.”

This is not evidence that the President is aware of an obstruction case made against him(public remarks aside.) . The President, as the example states was more concerned about the perception that he was under investigation, and the effects on his presidency. To suggest otherwise, is meaningless speculation without a basis on evidence and the Counsel would hear me object again, and I believe I'd get another sustaining. So that's twice(and actually several times), the counsel has relied on speculation when it repeatedly admitted, it lacked factual evidence to make a determination.

In court, this is a no-no. Even our good friend Mrtlegal would agree with my defense. The prosecution bares the burden of proving, not speculating.

We also, again run into the principle issue of actual Obstruction. What argument would Mueller and Co like to pose they were obstructed on?
Will you find it anywhere?(Well, save for redactions as Btthegreat acknowledges.) I'll refrain from making a complete authoritative statement, except in the sense that if they could make that argument we'd be at a different place right now. The evidence makes clear that they got WAY more investigative material then they would've been entitled to(as per the defense strategy of Dowd and Sekulow. )

It's not hard, they illustrated clearly the effects that Manafort and Papadoulous had. All they had to do, was make the same argument for Trump. They couldn't, because it wasn't there.

Example 2:

There also is evidence that the President knew that he should not have made those calls to McGahn. The President made the calls to McGahn after McGahn had specifically told the President that the White House Counsel’s Office—and McGahn himself-could not be involved in pressing conflicts claims and that the President should consult with his personal counsel if he wished to raise conflicts. Instead of relying on his personal counsel to submit the conflicts claims, the President sought to use his official powers to remove the Special Counsel. And after the media reported on the President’s actions, he denied that he ever ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel terminated and made repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story, as discussed in Volume II, Section II.I, infra. Those denials are contrary to the evidence and suggest the President’s awareness that the direction to McGahn could be seen as improper.

The Don McGahn story is really interesting, and I'm actually going to take a far more aggressive defense then just objecting. Let's read the relevant stature, to find out what's missing in the Prosecution's argument:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice

Missing in the stature, is the word 'attempted'. In other words, unlike attempted murder, etc. Obstruction of Justice is a charge that actually has to not only have willing intent, but it has to have an actual deed done to obstruct. And even in attempted criminal statures, the attempt has to be made. With rare exception to some statures, talking about committing a crime and actually committing a crime are two different things.

This is why for example when an FBI informant tries to entrap a would-be terrorist, the informant is legally obligated to allow an 'out'. He
cannot say "Well, we saw this guy frequent jihadist sites and that's all we need.' No, to avoid entrapment(among other issues), he has to allow for evidence to be shown that this guy would've acted anyway.

Bringing it back to the Don McGahn saga, Trump may very well have attempted to have Mueller fired but the attempt itself is not criminal. Only if he actually followed through on it. If he had insisted upon it, and bypassed McGahn(as McGahn had stated, he would resign.) This is how the Nixon case unfolded. The difference between Nixon and Trump, ironically is that Trump yielded to McGahn.

It does not suggest, whatsoever a 'corrupt' element(and even if it did, it's missing the all important 'deed' of actual obstruction.)

Even if we did submit this to the Counsel however, we'd also have to submit to the fact that Trump never brought it up again and while yes, Trump's not wanting it confirmed shows he knows it to be improper(because, McGahn told him), that doesn't prove anything to the Court.

Like all of the other arguments, the Counsel's argument is weak.

 

Because there is no inditable evidence he did. The AG is the last word on this.

Far better than just Comey, non lawyer deciding Clinton didn't commit a felony. Which she did .

Now Barr is going to investigate the crimes the Obama administration, DoJ and CIA committed and Clinton. Plus the Wieners!

Liberal Media has divided thus Country, not Trump.

 

You are squirming. You moved the goalpost. In your op you said that Mueller reported he could not find evidence of intent to support an obstruction case, and that this was Mueller’s stated reason for deciding not to prosecute the president. I told you that Mueller found substantial evidence of obstruction, but deferred to DOJ’s policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted. You had the gall to claim this isn’t what the report said. I responded with direct quotes from the report. Now you’re in full damage control. It seems you concede that the report doesn’t say what you claimed it does in your OP. But now you’re arguing that what Mueller found does not support evidence of intent. You don’t have a JD, so stop pretending you know what a sound legal argument looks like.

 

MAGA, MAGA, and MORE MAGA

 

Russia's interference in a US presidential election to help Trump and hurt Clinton remains the matter of vital national security that cannot be buried by hyper-partisan interests. With patriotic Americans asking questions such as "Why did Trump's operatives have so many secret meetings with Putin's and lie about them?" the quest for truth will endure.

Besides securing multiple indictments, convictions, confessions, and incarcerations of Trump cronies, the Trump Justice Department Special Counsel has uncovered evidence that's fueling several ongoing criminal investigations in various jurisdictions that will be exposing the facts for quite some time, facts that Trump would hope to bury deeper than his promised tax returns.

Don't expect everyone to welcome the truth:

​

Meanwhile, the unstable Trump, given his capacity to devour reams of information, seemed far more content with his Barr haiku than his Mueller saga.

​

After Barr's sugar-coated synopsis:

​

And after Mueller's scathing, in-depth assessment:

​

 

​

After Barr's sugar-coated synopsis:

​

And after Mueller's scathing, in-depth assessment:

​

Yep, giddy ecstasy signals that pissy tantrumps will quickly ensue.

 

What he said is it is up to Congress to define obstruction of justice, what happened here did not amount to obstruction of justice therefore no charges filed. And a grand jury can issue the indictment. Then if Congress impeachers and removes it can proceed else it waits until he is out of office as happened with Clinton. If Mueller found a crime he would have indicted, he did not.

 

Nope.

President Flim Flam's attempts to meddle with the Russia probe was at least partially motivated by the fear that investigators might uncover conduct that Don himself believed could be perceived as criminal, Mueller said in his redacted report.

Mueller’s assessment undercuts efforts by Billy the Bagman Barr in defending his decision to clear Trump of obstruction by emphasizing the lack of an underlying crime of collusion with Russia for Trump to cover up.

It also suggests that Mueller had found evidence of a corrupt intent in at least some of the episodes he investigated as part of his obstruction inquiry.

 

Trump was acting like Tonya Harding did to Nancy Kerrigan before the Olympics. The only difference is that Tonya actually got somebody to whack Nancy in the shins. Trump kept asking around but nobody would do it for him. Poor Donny.

 

Can you point me to the page in the report where he said that? Thanks in advance.

 

Gee it sure would’ve been nice if Journalists had done their jobs and made it abundantly clear that due to DOJ guidelines Mueller was never gonna have anything. So this whole investigation was pointless then. You really think old news is gonna get Republicans to change their minds?

 

I love how he raises objections in his imagined court case.

 

And he couldn't, or he would've filed one. But he didn't. Instead, he listed out these hypothetical examples that would be absolutely destroyed in a criminal court setting. The report is one of hypotheticals, which a court does not appreciate. Even if the court did appreciate it(which, again it doesn't), the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Hell, it's insufficient to have a trial. I could easily file for dismissal.

I'd ask if you'd have a JD, but that's irrelevant because you haven't bothered to argue for Mueller. So, again I repeat for you the material facts of the case:

Counsel found absolutely no evidence of obstruction(and in fact, lacks the argument to make one for obstruction), what it has found were events it politically disagreed with, and tried to turn it into a fact of evidence. Which we call speculation.

The case is weaker than sauce. And as an impeachment document? Hell no. I'm not going to degrade impeachment to 'things the President did that we don't like'

You and MissingMayor don't like the reality, but that's the reality. Accurately stated in the OP and I will repeat it here: Counsel had no case. Counsel had no business entertaining a case to begin with.

 

That's not what's said, not even in the quoted portion.

Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct—and, most immediately, to reports that the President was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice.

Another poster already poked grips with the word 'potential'(in a criminal case, you either state the charge or you don't. You don't use the word potential.) Along the same lines, you don't use the word "indicates". Which is a synonym for "appears". It either shows it, or it doesn't. You don't get to go half-way and say "You COULD imply" this.

You could, but we're not a junta court. Donald Trump has the same rights as any other accused person. But, picking holes in the awful word choosing of Counsel in it's laughable case isn't necessary. Counsel has never made the argument of its obstruction.

What is the fundamental argument of obstruction, that the counsel would actually argue? Was it made aware of the McGahn conversation prior to it happening, or at the time that it happened? What were the effects of the call, and/or the NYT report?

Again, it's NOT hard in the case of both Manafort and Papadoulous, Counsel made its arguments. So it's not that they are philosophically unaware of how to make the argument. So, why is there a complete lack of an argument in Trump's case?

For a crime to occur, there must be a harm.(Now we're going back to the basics of law school). There's literally no such thing as a harmless crime.(That's the argument for marijuana legalization across the states.)

The Counsel insults His Honor and the Jury, by bringing forth such a trashy case to its docket. And at least, they had enough sense not to do it.

 

She has a porn video you know.

 

If I was into print, she would be pretty low on my list.