Trump's Four Obstruction of Justice Crimes 100% proven in the Mueller Report

Afraid to respond? None of those are difficult questions. I realize the answers would be embarrassing to you.

 

Barr testified before Congress. He's fully open to any request to testify before Congress. It is Mueller who has said he won't that his report stands on it's own. And on its own there are no crimes, no collusion, no nothing.

 

No he didn't. He said exactly the contrary. That he wasn't exonerating Trump, but he didn't investigate with the intent to prosecute him because of OLC instructions. You're still not making sense.

I am not. But it's becoming clear you're the one who is lost.

That was the only thing he was allowed to do related to accusing him of a crime. Don't take my words out of context.

What veredict? Quote!

Wrong!!!! Mueller is a Special Prosecutor. the job of a Special Prosecutor is to prosecute. You can't "prosecute" without having a position.

In the case of Trump, he is unable to prosecute a sitting President, which he didn't. Or to state that Trump was guilty of a crime, which he didn't!

That's all. I don't know what you heard (or thought you heard) from some "American Attorney", but bring him here and I'll set him straight in a second! I don't care if they're a Supreme Court Justice! I'll be happy to take them on!

Dear God, no! Fortunately! Because you don't know what you're talking about!

Not only is it "simple". It's complete B.S.

 

It's just amazing isn't it.

 

No one cares about obstruction, especially with no underlying collusion crime.

 

Roseinstein would have chosen Mueller's replacement. The investigation would not have been obstructed or impeded.

 

Correct the processing of the indictment must wait until he leaves office, it doesn't prohibit the indictment being draw based on the charges to await his leaving office.

Why are you putting the President above the law, the legal process just cannot proceed until he is no longer in office for whatever reason. The day Clinton was leaving office the IC Robert Ray went to the the White House with the indictment the OIC had written up and told him he would be prosecuted upon leaving office but they were willing to allow a plea bargain because he he had already been held in contempt of court for the perjury and obstruction of justice and witness tampering and subornation of perjury costing him $90,000 and then the fact had had paid the planitff in the underlying federal civil rights lawsuit $900,000 to settle her grievances. So he lost his license to practice law for 5 years.

Had Mueller found any crimes committed he could do exactly the same, he did not and the AG the DAG and OLC agreed, no obstruction of justice. Nadler and his little committed can't create any either.

 

You did not read the link I sent. That was not the reason the OLC ordered Mueller not to prosecute Trump

Mueller (Page 172) OLC applied such a balancing test in concluding that the President is not subject to criminal prosecution while in office, relying on many of the same precedents discussed in this section. See A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222, 237-238, 244-245 (2000)​

And the reasons for not even being able to say that Trump committed a crime are on the link I gave you.

Makes no difference. Those were his orders.

Wrong!!!!

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...even-say-that-trump-committed-a-crime.556548/

This time... read!!!

What splitting-hair nonsense is this? So what? THIS DOJ adopted that criteria as its own. DOJs don't each make up all criteria every time there is a change in the Presidency.

Good to hear. Now please show it.

 

So was B.Clinton's "crime".

 

HE DEFINITELY IS to blame for his inhumane policies that is so far beneath anyone who claims to be a smart human. There was no complaints about the policies until he changed them to behave like a dictator and a thug toward asylum seekers, and your judgement on this puts you in his camp.

 

No worse than your false assertion that Mueller "found nothing" and that there are "no horrible trump words or actions to denounce". It's ALL just as true or false. ALL the same. You think it's ok for you to post such garbage so I did the same, and all of a sudden you object.

As long as you keep posting such unmitigated depravity I will do the same.

 

Yes it does!

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...even-say-that-trump-committed-a-crime.556548/

 

It's a strawman, he has no power to exonerate anyone, that's not what prosecutors do. He found nothing to charge with and the AG and the DAG and the OLC agreed.

 

His office was free to write up an indictment and inform the AG who would then inform the Congress to decide whether to remove from office and then the indictment would be served and prosecution begun.

The person serving as President is not above the law I don't know why you guys keep insisting he is.

 

One doesn't have anything to do with the other.

 

Don't go all hair-splitting on me. You know what I mean.

Mueller (Statement May 29, 2019) : "As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that."​

 

No he wasn't. Read the link! Completely and explicitly forbidden to do that per OLC instructions and court precedent!

 

Well, actually he did. No collusion or conspiracy which Mueller knew early on so most of his investigation was trying to put together an obstruction charge, to which he was unsuccessful. Obstruction of what? The WH turned over millions of documents, everyone cooperated, and Trump never claimed executive privilege. Talking to advisors? Taking advice?

The stretch you have to make on this would kill most people.

 

I never said that Mueller could charge him. I agree with Mueller that he couldn't charge Trump. I said that Mueller could have said "yes, President Trump broke XXX laws, here's why I believe that....". That is not the same as charging the President with a crime.

 

Nothing in the OLC forbids Mueller from doing anything. It is an opinion. Mueller could have indicted and let it go to the courts. Also, nothing in the OLC stopped Mueller from outlining any crime without indicting. His excuse was pathetic and political

 

You linking to your own thread in which you quote Mueller does not change what is actually in 9-27.220...which I linked directly to....and which you ignored. Again, nothing in 9-27.220 actually prohibited Mueller from saying "yes, President Trump broke XXX laws, here's why I believe that....".

And that criteria is the same that they've had for a very long time. Even before 2000. Only difference is that it was made official in 2000. If you studied history you would know this.

I already have. You link to Mueller, I link to an actual .gov site. Pretty sure that .gov trumps Mueller.

 

That's right. Trump's attempt to avoid having his crimes discovered and understood by obstructing justice is much more serious. But I'm not at all surprised you feel it's no big deal.

 

What crimes are those?

 

You're not understanding what you read. 9-27-220 is mentioned to indicate why a sealed indictment is not an alternative.

Why they can't say that is explicitly explained in the link I gave you.on the quote from the Mueller Report. And you haven't even referred to that. Why?

The references that Mueller gives outside the report are irrelevant to this discussion. I doubt a prosecutor of Mueller's experience would misquote any of them, and that the OLC would mistakenly use them to give him his orders, and that of all human beings alive, including thousands of attorneys with decades of prosecutorial experience in this country who have read the Mueller Report wouldn't find the error, you and only you would be the only one to spot the mistake. But even if that were so, that's his problem. I couldn't care less. Put him and the whole OLC in jail, for all I care. And go pick up your "honorary junior attorney ring". The point is that the text explains the instructions from the OLC he received that precluded him from, not only prosecuting a sitting President, but even so much as claiming that a sitting President had committed a crime.

And you have not said a word about that. Why???

You assume wrong!

It does not! Mueller was a special prosecutor. The reason special prosecutors exist is so that they can prosecute government officials. The only one with authority over the special prosecutor is the deputy Attorney General following recommendations by the OLC. The rest of the government has no authority whatsoever over him.

 

I'm not playing your game.