Every time you feel the urge to call illegal immigrants "criminals", remember this...

Which one of our standards of proof do you imagine Mueller stated?

 

What are you trying to say? That that's from the legal code?

Or is it you just need me to explain to you how seeking to get something of value that was illegally obtained is immoral?

If it's the latter, I think most Trump loyalists are impermeable to morality at this point. They have to be. Otherwise, how could they support a guy who does things like... separating children from their parents as a matter of policy (for example)? Morals need to be checked at the counter before entering, to join the "Trump cult". So it's difficult to explain moral wrong to them. However, there are some who have answered to that same statement you quote acknowledging it's immoral, but stating that they don't care because it's not illegal. It displays how low Trump has taken his cult.

Not meaning to compare any of this to the "holocaust" or anything, my dad (who was stationed in Germany during the occupation) used to describe to us the moral backlash that regular Germans felt at having left moral values on the back-burner for all those years. I'm sure most Trump supporters are decent people. And, in the same way, eventually they will look back at this and realize in shame how they were manipulated.

 

I don't do "imagine". I quote.

Mueller (Page 9 and ff) "Three basic elements are common to most of the relevant obstruction statutes: ( 1) an obstructive act; (2) a nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding; and (3) a corrupt intent. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(c)(2). We describe those elements as they have 'been interpreted by the courts.[...and so on]"​

 

McConnell has no control over the House.

And I don't remember his convictions. Please elaborate.

 

I am simply pointing out that your claim that collusion is immoral has no basis in fact. So now you nimbly shift to "seeking to get something of value that was illegally obtained is immoral." That could be true, and it could be illegal, but it has nothing to do with Trump or Mueller, other than in your fantasy.

 

I feel silly pointing out the obvious which is Mueller is pointing out the criteria for proof of obstruction. Mueller never said that any of Trump's actions met those conditions of proof, which you asserted he had.

 

Shift? How so? That's the only type of collusion I know in this case. Do you know of others?

Now you really intrigue me. I can't even think of any other "collusion" that is not obtaining "dirt" about Hillary. Mueller mentioned a total of 272 contacts between Trump campaign operatives and agents of the Russian government I though every single one of them were ultimately directed, at some level or another, to obtain "dirt on Hillary". What else? Please do elaborate.

Unless you're saying that the Trump campaign had nothing to do with Trump and that the Mueller report had nothing to do with Mueller (or Trump), I have no idea what you're talking about

 

I don't "assert" I quote.

All the quotes in the link below are from the "Intent" part. But the page numbers indicated are where the Overview of each case starts. Then the Evidence for each is layed out. And finally the Analysis where he explains how the requirements for each of the three criteria (Act, Nexus, Intent) are met. The four cases I quote meet 100% of the criteria. The six I don't mention are still uncertain in one or two aspects of the criteria, according to Mueller.

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...imes-100-proven-in-the-mueller-report.556547/

 

All of your (and Mueller's) "sure fire" proofs of obstruction are fantasies. First there is no evidence that Trump attempted to remove the special counsel. Second there can be no obstruction with the president talking to his chief counsel -- who he let testify to Mueller without limitation, by the way. Third there can be no obstruction if the president carries out his constitutional duties, which include firing a FBI Director, a Special Counsel (especially if the Special Counsel is not a primary officer), an Attorney General, or anyone else. Fourth, Sessions recused himself from matters associated with Russia and collusion. He did not recuse himself from obstruction investigations or things like Prosecuting Manafort. So asking Sessions (if he actually did) to manage other aspects that Mueller was investigating is perfectly proper and legal. Overall, Mueller stating that there is evidence that Trump did this or that that would have satisfied the requirements for proof of obstruction is not the same as proving obstruction.
In short, there is no there there. You should be a tad more suspect at Mueller's careful wording as he subtly weaves his way through the path of insinuating tons but stating nothing, which he had to do in order to write his Volume II.

 

Ah! That's exactly the point where I wanted to get you to. The point where you attack Mueller.

Not because Mueller is some sort of demigod who is infallible, or anything like that.. But when you attack somebody who is broadly regarded by politicians on both political parties as one of the most through, honest and knowledgeable legal scholars of our time, you damn well better have some real good arguments.

Let's hear them....

Ok. So your first argument is denying the evidence. As far as "real good arguments" go, doesn't quite look like a good start. Just one example. The second of several phone calls McGahn received from Trump on this subject (McGahn's testimony).

Mueller (Page 86) "Call Rod, tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and can 't be the Special Counsel."... "Mueller has to go" [...] "Call me back when you do it."​

The general nature of the calls were confirmed by testimony by his chief of staff, Annie Donaldson. Both Preiebus and Bannon recalled in their testimony that McGahn told them the President had asked him to do "crazy sh!t" and he planned to resign. And Chris Christie received received a call from Trump asking him what he thought about him (Trump) firing Mueller himself, which Christie advised against.

Normally, I would just quote. I am only summarizing the evidence on this point because you apparently refuse to read it and it would be too long to quote.

So ... you were saying..."no evidence"....?

Mueller (Page 8 A threshold question is whetherthe President in fact directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed. After news organizations reported that in June 2017 the President had ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President publicly disputed these accounts , and privately told McGahn that he had simply wanted McGahn to bring conflicts of interest to the Department of Justice 's attention . See Volume II, Section II.I, infra. Some of the President's specific language that McGahn recalled from the calls is consistent with that explanation.Substantial evidence, however, supports the conclusion that the President went further and in fact directed McGahn to call Rosenstein to have the Special Counsel removed.​

Mueller (Page Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers . The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regard less of their source.​

Mueller quoting Sessions (Page 4 "During the course of the last several weeks, I have met with the relevant senior career Department officials to discuss whether I should recuse myself from any matters arising from the campaigns for President of the United States. Having concluded those meetings today, I have decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.".​

In the immortal words of Trump Junior: "I love it!" Looks to me like you chose the wrong guy to attack. 'Cause this one does not leave a single point unanswered. Every time I see somebody criticizing him, Mueller amazes me even more. It's as if he read your mind months in advance and just knew what you were going to come up with.

Tell me what you still don't understand. I have a quote for everything.

 

They seem to be suffering from Trump derangement syndrome. Their record is skipping, the needle is stuck in the same grove at he 20 second mark, but all they hear is beautiful music. They're insane.

 

If Hillary Clinton had been Elected in 2016, would you have started a thread like this condemning her Criminal behavior.

 

Of course he wouldn't. And we all know she actually violated federal laws governing classified material handling. And she also obstructed justice by deleting 30,000 emails after the FBI requested them.

 

Who's Hillary Clinton?

Show me a Report like this one about any President and I'll start twenty threads!

Especially if that President and their supporters start calling hard working immigrants "criminals".

 

You continue to dance all around the mulberry bush or jog real close to the finish line to impress the crowd but never quite make it. Show me where Mueller ever said he had sufficient evidence to prove obstruction. I mean that precisely, not "have a lot of evidence", "seen some things that look really bad", or any other dancing around the bush weasel words, implications, or insinuations. What did Mueller tell Barr? Hmmmm??

I did chuckle at your retort to my statement, "He did not recuse himself from obstruction investigations or things like Prosecuting Manafort" by replying in bold type that, in essence, he did not recuse himself from obstruction investigations or things like prosecuting Manafort. Neither of which are "related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.".

 

I don't "dance"... I quote. I don't know why you're attacking me. Your beef is with Mueller.

I already gave four cases. You refused to read them.... or address them. I don't know which, or if both. Maybe you missed it. Here it is again....

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...imes-100-proven-in-the-mueller-report.556547/

No idea where you got those quotes. Don't remember ever seeing anything even remotely resembling that when I read the Mueller Report. You'd have to specify the page number (like I do) Following the above link and in other places on the report the phrase "substantial evidence" can be seen several times.

I can quote anything on the report. I can quote anything on the letter. What do you want to know?

You don't think Trump's campaign manager was "kinda" related to Trump's campaign?

In any case, it doesn't matter, because the obstructive act had nothing to do with Manafort.

Mueller (Page 97): "Taken together, the President's directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign, with the Special Counsel being permitted to "move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections."​

 

You are the one that is putting your own words into Mueller's spin (accurate, but none the less, spin)

I recognize that you think changing a word here and there is perfectly OK if it helps make your point. The Mueller quotes in three of your references are "Substantial evidence indicates.......", as you say, and in the fourth, "There is evidence that at least one purpose......." Nowhere does he say There is sufficient evidence to prove.

Of the thousands of people who worked on Trump's campaign, how many would you guess might have broken some law sometime, and how many did Mueller go after? The answer to the former was probably hundreds, and to the latter a few -- only those that Mueller though he could squeeze (and torture in Manafort's case) into admitting something nefarious..... and all of which failed.

 

What? Wait a minute. That's a serious accusation. I haven't put any words into the quotes. Please tell me what "words" you think I have added to them. And prove it by citing the real quotes. If you prove that I have altered a quote I would be willing to report myself to the mods and demand that I receive a serious sanction.

OLC says... Not allowed!!!

Mueller (Page The standard set forth in the Justice Manual is whether the conduct constitutes a crime ; if so, whether admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction...​

Again: It's as if Mueller were reading your mind.

I don't "guess". I quote.

Mueller (APPENDIX D)
SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE TRANSFERRED, REFERRED, AND COMPLETED CASES

This appendix identifies matters transferred or referred by the Special Couns el's Office, as well as cases prosecuted by the Office that are now completed.
...​

"Failed"?

Mueller (D-3)On October 27, 2017, Paul Manafort and Richard Gates were charged in the District of Columbia with various crimes (including FARA) in connection with work they performed for Russia-backed political entities in Ukraine. On February 22, 2018, Manafort and Gates were charged in the Eastern District of Virginia with various other crimes in connection with the payments they received for work performed for Russia-backed political entities in Ukraine .During the course of its´[HARM TO ONGOING MATTER] , the Special Counsel's Office developed substantial evidence with respect to individuals and entiTies that were ´[HARM TO ONGOING MATTER]
...
(D-3 footnonte) Manafort was ultimately convicted at trial in the Eastern District of Virginia and pleaded guilty in the District of Columbia. See Vol. I, Section IV.A.8. The trial and plea happened after the transfer decision described here.
​

 

I did not say you altered the quotes. I said you put your own interpretation (words) into Mueller's quotes.

Who or what is OLC??????

I didn't say Mueller failed to get convictions. I said he failed to get any sordid confessions out of his victims, which was the sole reasons for their prosecutions.

And, as a by the way. it is illegal for Mueller to transfer any non-related cases without the explicit approval of the AG.​

 

What interpretation? I summarize when the quotes are disperse or too long. If you think anything in my summary is inaccurate, you are welcome to use your own quote, or call me out on it. And I also comment in amazement at how thorough Mueller is.

The Office of Legal Counsel

"Victims"? No idea what you're talking about. He got plenty of confessions from many of the criminals he prosecuted. The victims were the American People. Not sure what you expected us, the American People, to confess to.

Mueller (D1) "After consultation with the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Office has transferred responsibility for those matters to other components of the Department of Justice and the FBI."
​

Anything else you thought you caught one of the most thorough prosecutors in our life-times doing "wrong"?

 

You cited Mueller's quote to claim Mueller had proof of obstruction when Mueller never said that, as I pointed out. To repeat proof is sufficient evidence to get a conviction. It is not "substantial evidence" or any such.

[QUOTE}"Victims"? No idea what you're talking about. He got plenty of confessions from many of the criminals he prosecuted. The victims were the American People. [/QUOTE]I thought I was clear, but maybe not. Mueller wanted his victims to confess to wrong doing by Trump, not by themselves. His tactics for squeezing out information he wanted included prosecuting his victims for anything he could muster up.

​

Mueller quietly squeezed through a loophole. The law says to assign unrelated cases he must get authority from the Attorney General, not the Deputy AG who was acting AG only for matters of Russian coordination and the election. But nobody was paying attention or counting.

 

Impeachment starts in the House, McConnel has nothing to do with that. Its the cowardice of Democrats, they have been calling for Trump's impeachment since the day he was inaugurated. Can you people not take responsibility for anything? ​

 

So what? I quoted the proof that Mueller gave.

The rest of your arguments are weak and irrelevant to the fact that the President of the United States has been proven to be a criminal.

Bottom line is that, unless he comes up with some "self-pardoning" scheme, or that both parties agree to do away with our whole criminal system, I don't see how he could avoid doing prison time.

 

Or border crashers or job seekers or, more appropriately, illegal immigrants.

 

Nixon was not implicated in the Watergate break in (the underlying crime). However he was accused of obstructing justice for trying to undermine the investigation by trying to abuse his power to pressure others to get rid of the prosecutors and stop the investigation. This whole “no underlying Crime” crap doesn’t hold any water. Obstruction is obstruction. The best defense for Trump regarding obstruction is that he is a natural sociopath therefore he did not intend to commit a crime but rather acted to “fight back” against those he deemed as his enemies.