Why the President did not obstruct Justice.

Yeah it wasn't very good.

She made it after she gained like 100 pounds.

 

The DOJ has a rule forbidding the indictment of a sitting President.

Mueller presented his evidence in prosecutorial way, meaning was there enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Mueller did not even try. He left it up to Congress.

Concerning Trump's indictment, when he does says "No collusion and no obstruction," that was determined two years ago.

The report does not find that Trump or his campaign aides had committed any crimes in their contacts with Russians, but it lays bare how Trump was elected with the help of a foreign power.

Trump never does his dirty work. He orders others to do it for him. Picture Trump meeting with four Russian operatives in Trump Tower. No, he sent his son, son-in-law, and campaign manager.

Although, he may not be personally involved, Trump is responsible for what his campaign did. For example, no doubt he knew that key members of his campaign (and family) were meeting four Russian operatives in his home.

Efforts by Trump to obstruct justice failed because others refused to "carry out orders."

Mueller wrote that no person — not even the President of the United States — is above the law, and that the US Constitution doesn’t “categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice.”

“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.” The Mueller Report.

Mueller intended for Congress to decide on the issues of conspiracy and obstruction because his hands were tied by the heretofore mentioned DOJ rule.

Immediately after learning that a special counsel had been appointed to lead the Russia investigation, the report said, Trump became distraught and slumped in his chair.

“Oh, my God. This is terrible,” he said. “This is the end of my presidency. I’m ****ed.”

 

Recalling the Trump Tower meeting on June 9, 2016, during which Trump's son, Trump's son-in-law, and Trump's campaign manager met with four Russian operatives at Trump's home, Trump Tower, to get dirt on Clinton, Mueller made this astonishing assessment.

"This meeting posed “difficult statutory and constitutional questions,” Mueller said in the report, but his office “ultimately concluded that, even if the principal legal questions were resolved favorably to the government, a prosecution would encounter difficulties proving that Campaign officials or individuals connected to the Campaign willfully violated the law.” (Emphasis on “willfully.”)" https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...t-mueller-report-said/?utm_term=.22411b363144

Anyone involved in an election campaign is expected to know campaign laws. Junior, Kushner, and Manafort clearly broke them. For a Presidential election campaign to seek a benefit from a hostile foreign power is a serious violation of federal law.

Why did Mueller let them off the hook?

One can only conclude that Mueller decided they were only subordinates doing Trump's bidding. The fault and the responsibility lies with Trump, not with his underlings.

 

Grand jury testimony and the underlying evidence in the Mueller Report can easily be reviewed by members of Congress with simple request to the appropriate court from the attorney general. Barr not only refuses to do this, but it is expected the DOJ will fight the Congressional subpoena in the courts. The court fight would take months, possibly a year or two.

Barr is supposed to be working for the American people and guarding our Constitution. He is not Trump's lawyer.

Why is it Barr is unwilling to provide the full Mueller Report to the American people's representatives in Congress?

By virtue of his bias and based on his performance so far, which includes lying to the people about the report, the answer is obvious. Barr is attempting to protect Trump.

It is anyone's guess why this proud man decided to degrade himself so badly. He is being so obvious. It is hope that Trump is paying him a lot of money. Barr is earning it. He is sacrificing his self-esteem.

 

What do you know about what a court does and does not appreciate? Besides, Mueller would have to convince a jury--not a court.

How can I argue against your non-arguments? It's as if I said All As are Bs, and therefore this A is a B. And you replied "Yeah well, Z!"

Also, yes I have a JD and as little I know about criminal law I can safely say you know a whole lot less.

Is this a fact or your opinion? It's funny how someone who accuses Mueller of injecting his own political bias can so readily inject his own.

That's not what speculation is.

Weaker than sauce? You've obviously never been to Chipotle.

Well his point is that the president did those things to obstruct justice. And the context suggests Mueller is probably right about that.

You're entitled to your bad opinion. But regardless of your bad opinion, that's not what Mueller said in his memo, contrary to your OP.

 

Again, all speculative. Not even hard evidence. It's not even circumstantial evidence. It would NEVER hold up in a court of law. Ever. Mueller hid behind the 'can't indict' rule, but William Barr/Rosenstein(and reportedly others in the justice department) looked at it from the standpoint if it could be prosecuted, and came to the conclusion I am telling you.

If the Counsel had taken this to Court, Counsel would've been beaten six ways to Sunday. It's an awful case.

 

Intent is only present in a determined crime. No crime so intent is irrelevant.

 

What specifically obstructed the investigation?

 

Your non-argument, is NOT an argument. It's just you blathering. So apparently, you know less of law then I do. Because I've given you ample opportunity to make an argument that the Counsel's findings are substantial, that they're not largely speculative and thin on evidence. Where evidence does exist, I argue a contradicting viewpoint.

You would make an absolutely crappy prosecutor, because your job right now is not to say "All As are Bs, and therefore this A is a B. And you replied "Yeah well, Z!"

Your job is to make the argument that "A" is an "A". The moment you have to portray it's a B, is the moment that you're already concurring to my viewpoint, without admitting it.

Counsel by its OWN admission in its own report, lacked substantial physical evidence(and even circumstantial evidence) in many of its findings. Where there's a lack of evidence, you typically do not prosecute.

But the Counsel couldn't do that. Just like you can't do that. Rather than be truthful to the facts, you speculated where there was none and treated that speculation as evidence. It isn't.

Outside of the Courtroom, this blasphemy is acceptable. Inside of it? I'd be having real fun with Mueller's team.

 

None of the 12 potential instances will hold up ANYWHERE. Mueller never states "investigator [x,y, or z] was prevented from doing [a,b, or c] ... Mueller never states Trump withheld or concealed anything either. Mueller did state that Cohen insisted he was not instructed to lie. Adam Schiff and his allies think Americans are too stupid to understand reports. Well, some are. The DNC identity group I dub: the "too stupids".

 

"Why the President did not obstruct Justice."

AKA evidence of Cognitive Dissonance among BLOTUS supporters who refuse to accept what is actually stated about TEN OCCASIONS when the BLOTUS did attempt to obstruct justice.

 

In the case of evaluating obstruction, not necessarily true. Your statement would be correct, in any other criminal case(IE: Murder, etc. But then the reason we have manslaughter is where it's determined that a person didn't have intent to kill. Normally, a reckless endangerment charge supplements.). But when evaluating obstruction, intent becomes primary in determining whether or not to file the charge.

Barr/Rosenstein applied the law, to its correct stature. It's Mueller and his team who've taken a pretty radical(and fairly weak) stance that criticism of his team, or critical comments about other people(Cohen, etc) could be seen as obstruction/intimidation.

But the reason Mueller had to take this weak position, is that it was the only way he could justify the existence of the team. We also have to note, that they delayed this investigation by nearly a year(I promise you, it didn't take them two years to conclude that Trump and the Russians didn't conspire to his victory.)

That delay, is misconduct. You don't "investigate in silence" to build a nonexistent case. I haven't taken that argument, but I will now.

If Comey had just said what the President ASKED him to say, if the counsel had released its findings on a timely manner(like say, every two weeks, and ending formally in about 6-8 months), a lot of the President's "comments" wouldn't exist, therefore no obstruction.

But it was not in the prosecutor's interest to be fair to the subject of the investigation. After all, being fair meant this thing would've ended as soon as it started.

If Trump's legal team wanted, it could easily argue for Mueller to be disbarred, given his legal theory's lack of respect for the court, and even greater lack of respect for the subject of the investigation.

 

If only speculative arguments could be decisive. But usually they're rejected in court. I'd get a lot of sustainments if this played out in court.

 

Obstruction of justice by the BLOTUS is an IMPEACHABLE offence. There is nothing speculative about the TEN attempts made by your BLOTUS.

 

Get on with it

 

You're taking the prosecution's argument, as the only argument. You don't even get to hear a valid defense(I've made one, several actually as the Prosecution has stepped into many unforced errors. Acknowledged by virtually NO ONE in this thread so far.) And that's the cruelest part of what Mueller and his team have done.

By refusing to prosecute the President, as well as not making an even-balanced assessment of its case, it essentially slandered the President while presuming an authoritative word.

If any one of us had been prosecuted, Mueller wouldn't have had the luxury of hiding behind "don't give Trump any "sneak peeks". No, he would've had to turn over all relevant material to the defense, who then can make its argument in court.

Mueller had an 8-ball on being able to prosecute Trump without convicting him. What a fine case for a prosecutor. But as a moral man? Mueller loses a lot of points.

 

Your BLOTUS has ZERO morals!

Mueller was under no obligation to do the work of Guilliani.

Not once has Guilliani produced anything remotely resembling a coherent defense of your BLOTUS.

All it will take is to put your BLOTUS on the stand and he will be found guilty by the jury.

 

In these special circumstances, he was. Or at the very least in the words of Trey Gowdy: A prosecutor's job is to indict or not indict. Not to write a heavily speculative report, for the purposes of impeaching the President. It shows that Trump was right that Mueller was a political actor. He decided not to take the noble actions of law, and instead relied on the mob of the street.

And I admit, Giuliani isn't exactly the greatest public defender. And I'm not claiming myself to be the Shakespeare of public defenders. But I am claiming to make a public defense(several, actually.)

If nothing else, understand this: Being President was a legal liability for Donald Trump. Disgustingly, he didn't have access to all of the defensive tools that most of us have, if we were so unfortunate to be the target of an investigation. If Trump did have access(IE: Relevant material, and a Courtroom to make a legal defense), the so-called obstruction wouldn't even exist.

This 'case', is some of the worst carnages of misjustice we've ever seen. It started on a rumor that turned out to be false, and extended to build its absolutely flimsy obstruction case.

 

Impeachment, just like Jim "weasel move" Comey's firing, is done at the pleasure of the respective persons with the authority to exercise such discretion. I like the fact that liberals ignore this tid bit. As a result of Jimmy "the weasels" firing ... ALL the crooked investigators? PROMOTED. McCabe's team of "insurance adjusters" all moved up a notch. McCabe as director, and Strzok / Page as special, special agents assigned to special counsel. With new super powers!

 

You were ranting and railing against Mueller the entire time that he was conducting his investigation and you are still pretending that it is all his fault that your BLOTUS attempted to obstruct justice and committed Campaign Finance violations.

That is NOT how justice works in our nation.

Your BLOTUS will get his day in court to answer the charges.

My bet is that he will take a plea deal just like his co-conspirator Cohen did.

 

As Squidward said: Someone, get on with it. If Counsel made a substantial case, we should hear it(hell, Counsel had the opportunity in its report to make an uncontested case, and the fact that this post even exists, should show proof that it failed to do so, substantially.)

 

Funny, as it slips away, they get louder and bolder.
Entertaining to watch

 

Actually, the report largely(if not entirely) makes it clear that it wasn't a violation of campaign finance laws. Having read the relevant material, I agree. If 'dirt' is purported to be a thing of value, then every politician in the 21st century has violated campaign finance laws.

Those laws were strictly FINANCIAL, hence 'finance' laws. Likewise, in the event of the Stormy Daniels argument it relies a lot on believing Cohen's fictional account that Trump "made him do it". But, we believe in autonomy in this country. It has to be shown that Trump had substantial influence, and that he wielded this influence to actually make Cohen do something.

Not. "Well, it's implied". An implication, is Cohen's own judgment. If Trump contests this judgment, it doesn't even have to be proven. Just the contest alone, invalidates Cohen's argument.

You've got to hope that Pecker and the Trump Organization's CEO(I forgot his name/can't spell it) have more than Cohen. Because if he's their key witness, they grossly overcharged.

 

Pecker is a credible witness and there is the money trail that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Cohen is a lawyer and knows when a plea deal is the smart move. He could have tried fighting it in court but instead admitted to his guilt under the weight of the evidence against him and your BLOTUS.

Denial of the evidence is not going to make it disappear.