Mueller Finds 10 Obstruction Cases That Barr Says Aren't Crimes

Pelosi marshalling her troops:

Pelosi wants to continue harassing Trump, try to get those tax returns and financial records, look into the Trump Organization, that charity SDNY was concerned about, with all those hotels maybe some breach of the “emoluments clause”?

There is this appearance denouncing Trump is all the Democrats know how to do.

Don’t impeach unless this is popular?

She won’t push for impeachment unless she thinks this will benefit Democrats.

Rather hyperbolic, Trump isn’t a threat to Democracy, Democrats have appear to have fully adopted their own inflammatory rhetoric about Trump being a Nazi, fascist dictator.

But there is an interesting issue; should Democrats jeopardize their chance to defeat Trump in 2020 in order to “save democracy”?

We don’t have that survey of popular support for impeachment Jim Himes was asking for, if it showed impeachment not popular enough, should Democrats hold off on “saving democracy”?

Democrats realize Trump won’t get impeached by the Senate, so their hearings in the House would be just grandstanding and gesticulation, then a resolution sending the sentence to the Senate where it gets shot down, how would that affect the campaign? Would it make voters think Republicans who voted against impeachment are a threat to democracy, or would they think Democrats just need to move on?

 

But nothing Trump did amounted to a criminal offence, no 'high crimes' here as Mueller observes, nothing that meets the evidential requirements. The AG and his deputy agreed and now congress has decided the same. Where does that leave the conspiracy theorists?

 

Untrue. First, there being insufficient evidence from the Mueller Report doesn't mean that additional evidence isn't right under out noses.

If you'd read the report, you'd know that part of the reason for "insufficient evidence" was that a number of witnesses lied, pleaded the 5th amendment, and otherwise obfuscated---or, in the case of Bonespurs J. McLiar, didn't testify.

Congress can add to the record established in the Mueller Report to flesh that out.

Moreover, "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't mean what you've posted. Try to google it.

 

What evidence? What evidence is 'right under our noses' that Robert Mueller didn't find in 2 years and $35 million dollars worth of investigation? Yes, there is insufficient evidence, no matter what the reason, there is insufficient evidence (and surely if the witnesses were proven to have lied they'd have been prosecuted?). I did google high crimes and misdemeanors and it's definition was exactly what I though it was.

 

Are we supposed to pretend that Mueller thinks that they are crimes? Are we suppose to pretend that Mueller disagrees with Barr?

 

Mueller's leaving DOJ soon. Guess we will see what he says about this afterwards.

 

Once again, you make statements without making any analysis whatsoever. Mueller did not state that "nothing Bonespurs J. Dumbshit amounted to a criminal offense", not did he state that there were "no high crimes or misdemeanors".

Read the damned report. Quit stating things as fact when you have no earthly idea what the report actually says.

What Mueller did do is listed a number of contacts between the Bonespurs campaign and Russians, and specifically stated that Bonespurs knew about Russian interference and expected to benefit from it. He also specifically listed a number of actions taken by Bonespurs which could constitute obstruction of justice, and also specifically stated that he was honoring OLC policy that a sitting (on his brains) President may not be indicted, and then went on to state that Congress may hold a corrupt president to account.

Get on the stick. The information is readily available to you, so use it.

 

Don't you have an opinion now?

 

Its in the law. Obstruction needs to have intent to be prosecutable. Unlike hosting a classified server in your basement which could lead to a breach of security which doesn't need to show intent for that crime to be prosecuted.

 

You really get 0 points awarded to your argument when you make these 3rd grade name calling rants. It just shows that you know you have lost in reality and objectively when you resort to these juvenile ad homs.

 

Mueller Finds 10 Obstruction Cases That Barr Says Aren't Crimes.

So did Mueller. He could have charged if he thought there were crimes and, in fact, had a responsibility to do say.

 

Also note that when there is no actual obstruction but only intent, it is very hard prosecute. The report shows there was intent but reality shows that there was no actual obstruction. Justice was not obstructed in the end. As a prosecutor I wouldn't go forward with a charge.

 

For the uninformed. Mueller could certainly have suggested charges without indicting. He didn't.

 

If the intent is to stop the investigation because it was bogus to begin with and fouling the nation's business then that would not be considered obstruction since the intent would not be criminal. The investigation into conspiracy was based on the dossier and it is now looking like that was purely political without merit so it may turn out that all of Mueller's indictments could be overturned based on fruit of the poison tree.

 

I'm no lawyer but I think you make a fair point.

 

Mueller explained why he wouldn't recommend charges even if he thought they were justified.

 

Read this about obstruction before you give the Orange Oaf a pass on obstruction.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter73&edition=prelim

 

No, sadly it isn't.

If there was anything remotely resembling an impeachable offense, the process of impeachment would already be underway.

 

If there was no crime why did Mueller indict several people and outline the case that Russia ran an illegal coordinated campaign to help Trump win the election? Have you even read the report?

 

Funny, that was Mueller's job but he punted for politics. Barr and Rosenstein determined there was not enough evidence to charge.

 

Yes, intent. An investigation started based on bogus information would make anyone want the stupid investigation to end. Fact is the investigation was never obstructed so...

 

If the Russians kept Hillary from being elected how do we compensate them for such a huge favor?

 

The truth ,Muller found what he believed were 10 possible items of Obstruction, he obviously was uncertain about whether they were indictable or he would have clearly concluded the President committed obstructionon on but he did not and left that conclusion up to the AG based his, Mullers , report.

 

Well for starters if you had read the report he details ten incidents of obstruction of justice and lays out the case matching evidence explaining how it meets the legal standards of the various elements of the statutes.

He couldn't indict but he did specifically refer the next step to congress to take it further and also offered that while it is the DOJ guidance that a sitting president can't be indicted, he can be the minute he leaves office. He found lots.

and let's not forget, regardless of the fact there wasn't enough evidence for conspiracy, there was more than enough evidence of sleazy, questionable and criminal behavior of the principle trump people, including hisownself. He is individual 1 afterall.

And the Mueller probe actually MADE MONEY nabbing around $50 mill in fines and confiscations.

Trump is a disgrace to his office and his nation and is the laughingstock of the world.

 

Because he knew none of those GRU agents would ever get hauled into court to defend themselves. One of the the 3 Russian business entities did respond and their challenge sent Mueller’s team scrambling to curtail discovery.

The critical left needs to recognize the evidence truly is weak, insisting they’ve got a case despite Mueller’s conclusions and notwithstanding the increasing evidence of intelligence community malfeasance is dumb.