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

It wasn't their call because Presidents are indicted.

 

You don't have the right to obstruct an investigation just because you din't like it.

Read about obstruction:

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

You can see why several hundred former prosecutors said Trump would have been indicted if he wasn't President.

 

If its not the AG of the US job to indict the POTUS based off the special investigation's report, then whos job is it then? I liked Barr's answer when he said the people will decide in Nov 2020 at this point.

 

That's like saying some random psychiatrist would commit Trump for being "crazy" when nothing is actually on their shoulders to give that opinion. Hell, Foxx in Chicago wouldn't prosecute someone she had dead to rights with all the evidence and a grand jury indictment sitting on her desk when it came down to brass tax. Hell, I could say (as a former baseball player) I could hit Randy Johnsons fastball to win a world series "IF I was up to bat against him". Facts are that opinions of people on the sidelines don't mean ****, so settle down there arm chair quarterback, Trump isn't going to be prosecuted for Obstruction for this hoax of an investigation. The left is as bad on this as the right was when they called for Obama's birth certificate.

 

No need to read it. Mueller operated without any interference or obstruction. If they want to charge Trump for wishing he could stop the investigation or wanting to stop it, then they should do so. He may have wanted to fire Mueller because there was no basis for the whole thing in the first place and the investigation hampered the president from doing his job. I think it would have been appropriate for him to do so except that it wouldn't have stopped the process. The whole thing is a national embarrassment.

 

They weren't charged with any collusion. Do you comprehend what you read?

 

It's DoJ policy not to indict a sitting President for any reason. Barr took it upon himself (under orders from the White House) to exonerate Trump.

It's one thing for us to endorse that view (I do), but it's a disgrace for the AG to make the statement when he's withholding the full Mueller report from Congress who have the duty to consider impeachment, and he has the special duty as the nation's top law enforcement official to be--and appear to be--unbiased.

Richard Nixon got the boot he deserved. Slick Willie Clinton was disgracefully defended by Congressional Democrats and escaped the justice he deserved. Finally, the Orange Oaf should get the boot for his behavior toward women (nearly two dozen accusations of sexual assault) and his obstruction of the Mueller investigation. Remember, Mueller was investigating more than Trump himself and Trump couldn't have known if other people were colluding with Russia.

The only way the 2020 election brings the Imperial Presidency to heel is if the American people vote Trump and those who support him from office.

 

Hundreds of former federal prosectors disagree with you.

Trump should get the boot for obstructing the Mueller investigation.

The Orange Oaf could only know what he did and Mueller was looking into the possible involvement of many people.

 

Huh?

Trump should be impeached and convicted for obstruction. Senate Republicans, however, have already indicated clearly by words and deeds that impeachment is futile.

The investigation was legit and there's no way Trump could be sure about the guilt or innocence of anyone but himself. Fatso took it on himself to obstruct Mueller.

You can't excuse Trump's obstruction by pointing the finger at "the left" or Democrats or RHINOs or anyone else.

The same thing I said to Democrats who supported Slick Willie when he was impeached: you're supporting a dirtbag.

 

So you think Mueller, Rosenstein, and Barr all took orders from the WH? LOL, what a hoot. Mueller claimed no charges and neither did Rosenstein or Barr. One needs evidence not feelings to charge a crime. Right now the hysterical lefties have only feelings.

 

Not Mueller, but I think it's likely Barr and Rosenstein are toadying.

No, Mueller summarized:

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.​

Hundreds of former federal prosecutors say they believe Trump obstructed Mueller.

Your "hysterical lefties" red herring is noted. Are you just repeating a line you heard?

 

Collusion is not a legal term. However both houses of Congress will continue to investigate Trump, his campaign, his financial dealings and those who are part of his administration. It comes with the territory. Bill Clinton was investigated continuously for 6 years. That’s politics post Watergate. Trump and his fan boys need to quit whining. Makes them look like a bunch of thin skinned sissies.

 

Yeah, he punted because of lack of evidence.

 

Did they give any examples of how Mueller was hamstrung because of Trump?

But as you know, he did not obstruct it.

Whatever that means.

 

Uh huh. Lack of evidence ... that's why hundreds of former federal prosectors say otherwise.

 

Yes. They wrote, in part:

The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:​

· The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;​

· The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and​

· The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.​

The entire letter...

https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1​

I think he did obstruct.

It means Trump had no way of knowing whether or not some people in his campaign might have been colluding with the Russians. Fatso calling the investigation a "hoax" is nonsense.

 

We are talking past each other. You offer a legal definition and I offer a common sense one. Regular people like me don't think someone should be prosecuted for an intention to obstruct. We think they should be prosecuted for actually obstructing. I agree that Trump intended to obstruct and I provided a perfectly legal reason for him to do so. Unlike us, he knew there was no conspiracy with Russia. He knew it was a hassle for him. I don't agree that he obstructed. It simply didn't happen.

 

Name them. I expect a full list.

 

Unhonorable AG William P. Barr moonlighting as Donald "The Biggest Loser" Trump's personal lawyer has been served by Rep. Jerrold Nadler House Judiciary Committee Chair for in contempt.
Journalist Ian Millhiser said in this video today at 13 minutes,

"Congress in theory can claim that Barr is in contempt they can send the Sergeant In Arms to round him up and arrest him, but the AG has got an entire armed law enforcement apparatus behind him, but I don't think they want a shoot out between the Sergeant of Arms and the US Marshals."

Really? Law is decided by which Justice Department office has the most guns? Really? You mean if the tables were turned, Trump wouldn't send in a military team to enforce the Congress' power to enforce a contempt warrant? The Democrats always--always pull back at the last moment. That is why they will lose to the Biggest Loser.

 

Yes and Mueller WON when they did respond.

What's dumb is you actually believing that "recognition". Seems the only patriots in America are trumpettes these days.

 

803 signatories so far.

https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1

 

I see zero signatures on your link

 

That's not true. One of the more blatant obstructions was his dangling of a pardon to Manafort. Subsequently, Manafort lied to the special counsel. If Manafort knows of some wrongdoing by the President and failed to disclose it out of loyalty and hope for a pardon, that would absolutely be a highly significant obstruction of the investigation. May there wasn't any such wrongdoing, but that's irrelevant to the crime of obstruction - it's illegal to try and influence testimony.

 

Not quite, "discovery" is just the beginning of a case, its rather lengthy and it is very unlikely to have been completed already. In its first appearance, the Russian entity (I think called "Concord") noted one of the 3 businesses (a subsidiary or affiliate of theirs) prosecuted by Mueller was not legally in existence at the time the alleged crime took place.

 

Yes, course the daily fines help and their first appearance didn't seem to impress the judge at all.