And what did Bill Clinton stop? Nothing either. So you apply a higher standard to Clinton to Trump? Trump DESPERATELY tried to actually obstruct justice. His subordinates barely kept it from happening. Recall Watergate where Nixon said on tape that he wanted the FBI to stop investigating the break in. He ordered John Dean to tell them to stop on tape. That's the smocking gun. Trump asked Comey to stop investigating the Russia thing after Flynn was fired. Comey refused. Comey was fired. Trump ask McGann to get rid of Mueller. He ignored him. That's just two of the examples. So true, technically Trump didn't get his way....only thanks to insubordination by people who clearly recognized the man was trying desperately to commit a crime. So what do you call that? Stupidity? Incompetence? What? And whatever you call it, why would 40% of any intelligent people still vote for it? That's like the mob voting for a boss who doesn't understand why they have to launder money. That guy would get whacked and replaced. So the real question is, if what you say is all true, that Trump failed to obstruct (as noted in the report only by people refusing to follow his orders at times) and people KNOW this about him and still support him, you basically are saying his supporters are OK with a bumbling criminal? I think I would rather you say he's a criminal and let's impeach him, but whatever.
Hmm, you find it delicious that agony drips from my keyboard? Are you licking my keyboard? And the dancing banana is a bit...well it begs the question as to if your this happy, what is YOUR keyboard dripping with? My butt isn't hurt unlike Trump's friends who will be going to federal prison. And again, you dodged the quote. The president isn't exonerated on obstruction. So dance away banana man! The bottom line is Congress now has a roadmap to investigate the president and harass him all the way through 2020. That's not something you should celebrate, but I suspect it's because you aren't thinking about it properly.
How about that tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch? Do you have a problem with that? What about Hillary Clinton having emails deleted and devices destroyed? Losing any sleep over that? I doubt it.
Obstruction of phantom crime investigation is laughable. Mueller investigated 10 incidences of "possible obstruction". Nothing there. Sorry for your luck. So you say Trump wanted to obstruct......he did not fall into that trap. He wanted to shitcan Mueller but he did not, no matter how badly he wanted to. Actions, not thoughts are the rule of law. Sorry for your luck again, Mr Thought Police.
Are you kidding??? Edwin Meese (AG for Reagan) - Was Chief-of-Staff for the 1980 Reagan Presidential Campaign. Almost did not get confirmed because of a report by Archibald Cox that accused Meese of "blindness to abuse of position". Made a list of responsibilities between him as AG and James Baker (CoS). Meese's "responsibility" (as AG) was listed as "Counselor to the President for Policy (with Cabinet Rank)". William Barr (AG for George H.W. Bush) - Yes....the same William Barr. Janet Reno (AG for Clinton) - Protected Bill Clinton so much that The House Reform and Oversight Committee voted to recommend Contempt of Congress charges. John Ashcroft (AG for G.W. Bush) - Did not really protect Bush, but did have a huge self-righteous stick up his butt. Albert Gonzales (2nd for G.W. Bush) - Was very involved with GW's Presidentail Campaign. Was Counsel to GW before becoming AG. Was even part of GW's counsel before GW ran for President. Eric Holder (AG for Obama) - Deputy AG under B. Clinton and pardoned Marc Rich at Clinton's request. Though there was plenty of controversial aspects of his term as AG, he is probably the only modern day AG that is not linked with blatant protection of the President. Loretta Lynch (2nd AG to Obama) - Met privately with Bill Clinton while an investigation was on-going into Hillary. Instructed Comey to not refer to the investigation into Hillary as an "investigation, but to refer to it as a "matter". Her career is fraught with partisan actions.
Thanks for not answering my keyboard question. As in, thanks from all of humanity. No, Mueller found 10 incidences of possible obstruction that he didn't indict over because of the DOJ guidelines. The only way they were ACTUAL obstructions if if we indict, try and convict Trump for them. So in others, it's always alleged or possible until proven in court. Are you saying you would prefer Trump to win at his day in court? Great! Let's indict him! Oh, this is where you realize you don't understand how anything works, huh? He ordered Mueller to be fired. He didn't think it. He CALLED and said "FIRE THE GUY." I'm paraphrasing, but he didn't think it. You can lie to yourself all you want. McGann simply refused to do it and ignored the ORDER which is an ACTION. Wow, you really are dense or at least very good at pretending to be when defending your guy.
I expect history will write a different story than today's discussion. Twenty or maybe fifty years from now history will write this as a failed attempt to overthrow the presidency. History will name Obama, the Clintons, Lynch, Comey, and so many others along with the main stream leftist media and their collusion in all of this hysteria!
That's not what he said. "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." The evidence.... presents difficult issues. Not DOJ guidelines, but the evidence.
The President could have fired him personally. What part of your clouded mind doesn't get this? McGann simply didn't do it. If Trump wanted wanted to insert himself into the equation, he'd have done it personally. You still don't get it.
No they don't. Obstruction doesn't have to succeed. Nixon tried and failed. He corruptly endeavored. He tired to impede the due and proper administration of the law. He failed, but he tried. And his intent was corrupt because it was to avoid the end of his presidency as he said himself out loud which is noted in the report. If he wasn't worried about finding a conspiracy with Russia, he wouldn't have said that and then tried to fire Mueller.
You need to google the definition of obstruction of justice. And while the president can fire Mueller, he was doing to stop the investigation. NOT because Mueller should have been fired. Remember when Nixon fired Cox? Or do you not read about reality that destroys your fantasies?
Mueller's tenure wasn't any different than Comey's. If it were (D)'s wouldn't have introduced HR's to protect him. If Trump though he was a political hack, he was within his authority to fire him. Mueller like Comey is an ADMINISTRATOR, not an INVESTIGATOR. Strzok and Page went right on trying to frame Trump after Comey was fired, and would have continued without Mueller too. Mueller's problem? Everyone Trump could have possibly obstructed? Fugitives from justice who've perjured themselves.
No, that's not what he said. Here's the full paragraph. See that first sentence? That says they did not find facts to indicate the president didn't commit a crime. The sentence you quoted indicates it would be difficult to PROSECUTE based on the facts they found. That's VERY different than saying the evidence indicates no crime occurred. If you can't see that difference then you are willfully ignoring it. Prosecutors don't prosecute cases every day based on how they would win in court. OJ Simpson had a difficult case to prosecute and was found not guilty. Are you saying he didn't kill his wife? Because he did. He just couldn't be prosecuted. Mueller is saying that in a traditional obstruction case, this one would be difficult. That's all that means. And then the famous last sentence, no exoneration. Sorry, but if this same paragraph were written about Barack Obama, you would be demanding impeachment and resignation and you know it. This is not a good thing for Trump what's written above.
Mueller states he could not prove a negative. So? And how does that change what he said about the "difficult issues" with the evidence? Evidence, not DOJ rules. If you don't have the facts to prosecute, as you state, you don't persecute, and the investigation ends. Why do you think the fact Mueller could not prove a negative means anything?
The only obstruction of justice here was an investigation designed to keep a duly elected President from performing his duties as Commander in Chief. That's it. No collusion, no obstruction by Trump. What's hilarious about Comey's firing is that Trump fired the guy who Hillary was seething about and hellbent to fire herself. You just can't make this stuff up. It writes its self!
"this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" That is the only part that means anything.
