Questions for Mueller

I'm waiting on Bob Mueller. Shouldn't take but a couple minutes for Bob to say Trump obstructed justice, on this date, by doing this. Even reciting that 10 times shouldn't take more than an hour.

 

Waiting on Bob Muelleer???

My God, the report has been out now for...more than three months! What are you waiting for?

Huh? You mean like

(Mueller Page 113) "Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated , the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn 's account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President's conduct towards the investigation."​

And all the others?

Man!!! What else do you want to know? It's all there!

 

Hey ... you got bent out of shape when I said fwd your evidence to the House. They missed all of that? Mueller made a record of what McGahn was directed to do, and say. Mueller did not state that the directions McGahn received amounted to obstruction. You SHOULD be asking what else Nadler needs from Bob Mueller. Yep ... reports been out for months, and it still doesn't say the things you'd like it to.

 

Not according to the AG, the DAG and the Office of Legal Counsel and Congress cannot charge and prosecute criminal acts.
What justice was obstructed?

 

I don't know which is the more dangerous circumstance. That the two top law enforcement officers in the country routinely lie, or that the public largely has become complacent about it. It's the new normal.

 

The NYT is out with a list of questions for Mueller.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Do you believe President Trump cooperated with your investigation?
THE CONTEXT
After more than a year of negotiations, the president refused to be questioned by prosecutors. He also refused to answer any questions related to allegations of obstruction of justice or to the presidential transition period. He submitted written replies to questions, but they revealed little.

If Mr. Trump were an ordinary citizen, would you have found that there was sufficient evidence to charge him with obstruction of justice?
THE CONTEXT
This is probably the most burning question for Mr. Mueller, but good luck getting him to answer it. His report cites a 2000 opinion by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel which states that a sitting president cannot be criminally charged. Given that, the prosecutors never analyzed whether the evidence against Mr. Trump amounted to a prosecutable case. Still, one would assume the team discussed it, at least informally.

 

LOL, Mueller could have subpoenaed Trump to testify but didn't. Ask yourself why.

 

No. You did! That's why I told you not to worry about the House. Worry about your own lack of information.

Starting to fee informed now? You haven't even started to get your feet wet.

Mueller (page 157-ff): Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels.
...
The President 's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.
...
18 U.S.C .
§ 1512( c )(2). Section I 512( c) provides:

(c) Whoever corruptly-
...
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences , or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


​

 

Trump wil lbe impeached by the house, not the senete

then dems will then ask the public to do what republicans refuse to do... fire Trump in 2020

lock him up, lock him up

 

So Trump was upset over an investigation started with no predicate crime to start with and you find that his behavior would be unusual? In the end he took his advisors advice and did not interfere so there is still no 'there there' as Strzok said about collusion which Mueller determined in the final report.

Is intent to stop a bogus investigation a crime? I would say the investigation started with no predicate crime to investigate would be the real crime.

 

Trump tower meeting, ect... just cause Trump failed at it, doesn't many he did not attempt it

 

So you still have nothing other than conspiracy theories. To be expected.

 

the Trump tower meeting happened, it's not a conspiracy theory - lol

too soon for trump supporters to try and re-write history

 

I think the former, because the reason it becomes normal is that they don't check each other. If the President doesn't hold the AG accountable, and the AG doesn't hold the President accountable... we're in a mess. That's why Congress needs to hold them both accountable. But this Senate keeps saying that they won't.

 

Rep. Matt Gaetz
@RepMattGaetz
·
4h

We want to know why in the world we had 22 months of President
@realDonaldTrump
being accused of being a Russian agent with ZERO evidence. We’re going to expose the bias

 

He can be "upset", but the one thing you don't want to do if you're innocent is obstruct the investigation. You want everybody to cooperate and get your name cleared as quickly as possible.

 

And of course, he didn't and in fact turned over millions of documents, advised everyone to cooperate, and never used executive privilege. Guess what Mueller found on collusion?

 

Definitely the former. We had a lying prez who committed crimes and an AG who tried to cover for him before at the time of Watergate. The difference now is Trump/Barr have a powerful propaganda machine at their disposal. Because of that machine, and the undying loyalty of the minions it creates, congressional Repubs are cowed in to supporting Trump even though they know he is guilty of impeachable offenses.
Pure and simple, it's a threat to our democracy.

 

I'm surprised you don't have a copy. I have two, would you like one?

 

The intent of Nadler's hearings are to make sure OOJ is on the prosecutorial table for after the elections next year.

 

What is according to the AG, the DAG and the Offce of legal council? And of course Congress cannot charge criminal acts. But they can impeach a President so obviously guilty of obstruction of justice.

And if you haven't read the Mueller report ( which is obvious) suggest you do so.

And we now know of course that Barr is Trump's stooge so his opinion certainly doesn't count for anything. He lies just like Trump.

 

Yes. That's why we've had all those hearings with McGahn and Rosenstein and Flynn and...

 

Nah I'm good. I don't actually have one TBH, but this reminds me that I should.

I've managed to make it 52 years without reading one, which means that I stayed out of trouble.

 

Lolz ... the DOJ isn't the 4th branch of government and executive branch appointees are most certainly accountable to the nations chief executive. That doesn't mean the AG isn't obliged to investigate criminal conduct in the executive branch. Though credible allegations with tangible evidence a statute has been violated has to be the standard ... or "we're in a mess" like the one Lynch created. AG Barr and IG Horowitz are cleaning up the mess the Obama admin.made of the DOJ & FBI.

 

I've never read the complete report myself and I was surprised to hear that a lot of members of Congress hadn't either so I'm curious to ask did your reading of the report provide you with some Enlightenment or level of satisfaction?

Was it worth the time invested I guess is what I'm asking. I tend to focus my time and energy on things more close to home and of course Seinfeld reruns.