Mueller report: Barr lied! There was was obstruction... and... surprise surprise...

Oh you mean like Eric Holder? Or perhaps I should say President Obama's "wing-man" as he referred to himself!

 

Nope. Those are Robert Mueller's words, and he issued a report of 400+ pages of damning information about Bonespurs.

Have you read it yet? (No)

 

Which is apparently not good enough for dems!

 

Or maybe unwilling. Unless there is a point in me doing so, despite the fact that you can look up the video yourself.

 

So, there shouldn't be any accountability?

 

The first sentence sums your views up perfectly.

 

Mueller wrote:

“With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice,”

Here’s what Mueller’s report says about what Congress can do:

“Under [the Office of Legal Counsel’s] analysis, Congress can permissibly criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the President, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence, because those prohibitions raise no separation-of-powers questions.”

“The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regardless of their source. We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President’s ability to fulfill his constitutional mission.”

“Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President’s conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

Mueller also says Congress has power when it comes to weighing in if the president decides to grant any presidential pardons, even though Trump has broad authority to pardon whoever he wants:

“For example, although the President’s power to grant pardons is exclusive and not subject to congressional regulation, Congress has the authority to prohibit the corrupt use of ‘anything of value’ to influence the testimony of another person in a judicial, congressional, or agency proceeding, which would include the offer or promise of a pardon to induce a person to testify falsely or not to testify at all. The offer of a pardon would precede the act of pardoning and thus be within Congress’s power to regulate even if the pardon itself is not.”

 

That's right. Now there is no longer a need to say "I think Trump committed crimes". Now the facts show that he did.

 

Especially considering the new facts about trying to get Flynn to stop cooperating with Mueller.

I also wonder about the suspicious activity with the Deutsche Bank. Could be money laundering.

 

You must be reading the fake news version. What country are you from? In the U.S. we are innocent till proven guilty, Mueller himself said nearly the same thing Comey said about Hillary, "no reasonable prosecutor" would charge him.

 

What does this have to do with the report not being good enough for dems?

There should, but I just thought that the dems trusted Mueller that's all.

 

Democrats wont be satisfied until Trump wins in 2020

 

The point is so that you can see that Crist simply DID NOT ASK Barr if he was aware of any concerns!

 

That was your point? What Crist didn't ask was your point? All those posts for... that? Gawd!

Once again, a waste of time. How many times have I told you that you need to make your point at the beginning.

 

Is there any Trumpette who really believes it's a coincidence that the Orange Fraud refused to answer even written questions on the subject of obstruction?

 

Like, "Did you obstruct justice?"
Trump, "No."

 

The imperial President

"I'm having a good day," Trump said recently. "It’s called no collusion, no obstruction.”

"This should never happen to another president ever again,” he added, again calling the Mueller Report a “hoax."

Today the innocent President used executive privilege to prevent Don McGahn, former White House counsel, testifying before Congress.

Trump's lawyer, technically the U.S. attorney general, refused to appear before Congress.

The innocent Trump refuses to allow Congress to examine his tax returns.His refusal breaks U.S. law.

The innocent Trump is using executive privilege to prevent Congress from seeing the full, unredacted version of the Mueller Report and the underlying evidence.

The Trump White House has not held a press conference in nine weeks.

Trump has had two press conferences in 29 months, both disasters, and it is doubtful he will hold another.

It is clear he has become the secret President, avoiding questions from reporters, avoiding the American people. He has beome the imperial President.

Anyone who actually believes Trump is innocent is living a fantasy.

 

It is self-evident from the post above that Trump is acting very guilty of multiple crimes, including conspiracy and obstruction of justice. It is clear from the post above that Trump is currently engaged in obstruction of justice.

That begs a question. Why does the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel defend Trump? Indeed, combined with the performance of the U.S. Attorney General, William Barr, the DOJ is acting like an attorney firm for Trump. In its opinion, the OLC failed to consider that it is the President himself who is under suspicion and being investigated. It cited a 50 year old precedent that had nothing to do with Presidential involvement in alleged crimes.

Don McGahn failed to show up for his hearing today. McGahn quit as White House Counsel, refusing to do what Trump wanted him to do.

Robert Mueller is now "reticent" about appearing before the House Judicial Committee.

William Barr was once a highly respected jurist who served once before as the U.S. Attorney General. Now he is acting like Trump's defense lawyer who said Trump was justified in saying the Mueller Report was a "witch hunt" and a "hoax." Barr has characterized the FBI investigation of Russian interference in our 2016 election as "spying."

The Office of Legal Counsel is a highly respected unit. McGahn, Mueller, and Barr (before he became Trump's defense lawyer) are all highly respected professionals. All are protecting a President who is acting every bit like he is guilty. Refusing to cooperate with Congress and becoming a secret President, walling himself off from the people, are not the actions of an innocent person.

So, the question is why. Why are highly respected jurists defending Trump?

Don't get me wrong. I am not asking them to convict Trump. I am asking them each to be fair, impartial, and present their findings to the American people and its representatives. Instead, they refuse to face the American people and its representatives. Instead they defend the secret Presidency.

Why?

 

Blah, blah, blah, narrative, narrative, blah.

For Pete's sake! Give it a rest, already.

 

I guess that's the point. He knew he'd have to lie or incriminate himself so he refused to answer at all.

 

Would you try to make a case for the prosecution if you were the defendant? That's just ignorant.

 

I notice that you didn't disagree with my assertion that Crist didn't ask this question! So does this mean that you are unable to refute this assertion?

 

Catch-22?

 

If you are asking if I did not declare that I did not refute that I disagree that Crist did not ask the question that you state he did not ask, then the answer is most definitely not no.