There was no effort to obstruct. That is another hoax perpetrated by the left. No prosecutor speculates about what can not be proven as the Mueller team did. That is nothing but political legal malpractice.
It's not a hoax, it's supported by evidence - it's all in Volume II of Mueller's report. If you're familiar with the contents, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. If you haven't read the report, or at least analyses of it, then you don't really have a basis for your assertions. The case is not based on speculation. There are 3 elements to an obstruction charge: 1) an obstructive act; 2) a nexus to an official proceeding; 3) corrupt intent. There no question about the fact that Trump committed some acts that obstructed or tried to obstruct the Mueller investigation, and there's no question about the fact that the Mueller investigation was an official proceeding (it's irrelevant that Trump supporters think the investigation shouldn't have occurred; that has no bearing on its status). The one item that can be disputed is whether or not the case can be made for a corrupt intent. To assess this, you'd have to examine the circumstantial evidence that Mueller outlines. I've done it, and 1000 former federal prosecuters have done it. I don't believe there's a good case for all of the acts, but there's a good case for 3 or 4 of them. BTW, his pardoning of Trump and commutation for Roger Stone don't help Trump's case. Sorry if I'm boring you with facts and analysis, but that's the way it works.
Thank you for helping me to see Mueller's conclusions more clearly. From "Mueller's words", I so see clearly now, "we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes", and, "Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought." Then, 'in plain Texas talk', when confronted with the choice between ****ing, and, 'getting off the pot', Mueller chose to get off the pot. OK... got it. Again, thank you. Through all this morass of legalese, it emerges essentially as I'd thought in the first place... Trump did nothing for which he needed to be charged with a crime. But, if it does surface that Trump committed a crime (ANY crime) and that it's still within the statute of limitations, he should be charged, stand trial, and, if found guilty, be punished according to the law. Or, he could 'bug-out' and head for a country with no extradition treaty with the U. S. Of those, I think I'd choose two -- Nepal, and, Cape Verde. Mountains and islands in an ocean... it's hard to beat that. And he could afford lavish villas in both of them....
Their is no evidence. All that is is speculation. If there was evidence Trump would have been charged. No ethical prosecutor makes a statement that the Mueller team did.
Meh... 'never say never'. Trump's got LEGIONS of people who really, thoroughly hate his guts and everything he has ever done and stands for. At 12:01 PM on January 20, 2021. Think: would you put something like that past an FBI that had a creature like James Comey running it at any time in the past ten years...? BUT, if Trump did commit crimes, he should be charged, stand trial, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I've only repeated this about two hundred times during the last four years....
The Mueller team in their report claimed that their investigation did not exonerate Trump. That is a completely unethical statement from a special prosecutor. Their job is to investigate and charge based on evidence. It is not their job to exonerate.
Their conclusion based based on the fact that there was no evidence on which to charge Trump. The fact that they stated that Trump could not be exonerated in the final report is unethical.
I already showed why this is obviously false. If you're going to ignore facts and just repeat your unsupported belief, there's no point in discussing it with you.
Are you concluding this from Mueller's words?! ...Or are you just saying you don't see any crimes, and that Mueller hasn't explicitly proven you wrong about this. The latter is not completely unreasonable, but the former suggests one of us isn't reading the words right. Note that you are the one pushing for severe punishment, whereas I'm fine with a commutation. If nothing else, this proves I'm not just out to get him because I hate him.
OK, I'll try again. Read these words of Mueller's, from the introduction to Volume II. We first describe the considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation,and then provide an overview of this Volume: First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment." (After this, he explains why, but we can get to that later) This is saying that he determined not to make a decision about whether or not to prosecute (i.e. "initiate or decline a prosecution"), and his investigation was GUIDED by this - it was a determined prior to the investigation. If you disagree with my interpretation, then explain how you interpret these words.
It's stated on page 11: "The Special Counsel," the Order stated, "is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017," including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). This granted him authority to prosecute any and all crimes he uncovered, except that he was expressly forbidden from doing so with the President: Volume II, page 1: The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F .R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.
No, you didn't. You must not have understood the question, so I'll simplify it. I interpreted a statement of Mueller's. Do you agree with my interpretation? (Yes/no) If you answer NO, then (follow-up question) how do you interpret those words?
Mueller (actually Andrew Weismann who unethically put Arthur Anderson & Associates out of business and cost tho us of people their jobs - Mueller really didn’t know much about the final report) had no case. There is one way to interpret that.
how or why could or would trump be able to pardon himself without being found guilty of a crime?? a person is innocent until found guilty in a court of law.. trump went to court and was found not guilty by the senate,, here is my question .. can trump have Barr charge him for crimes he may be charged with after leaving office?? then, trump pleads guilty to all crimes charged to speed up the process then resigns and pence pardons him then when he is Donnie J citizen he will claim he cannot be charged for the same crime twice it is called DOUBLE JEOPARDY ...
Asyklum seekers are NOT "illegal aliens", Cy! They are the direct result of the nefarious criminal policies of St Reagan. MOVING the goalposts AFTER it was LEGAL to seek Asylum once INSIDE our borders is disingenuous. YOUR biggest LOSER*-in-Chief ABDUCTED those small children and that is a CRIME Against Humanity so he deserves to spend the rest of his miserable life ROTTING in a jail cell.
WRONG! The PARTISAN Republican Senate FAILED to hold YOUR biggest LOSER*-in-Chief ACCOUNTABLE for his CRIMES. Facts matter.
Trump was never tried in a court of law for anything. And the Mueller Report did not find any evidence that would hold up in court. The House impeachment was a political event. It had nothing to do with anything criminal.
My post #105 got 'mangled' somehow, and an entire paragraph was left out (not by you... rarely the software in the Forum does strange stuff). Anyway, my post #103 said what I intended, using Mueller's own words (which you were kind enough to provide). Here it is again, from post #103, with emphasis in RED added this time: "Thank you for helping me to see Mueller's conclusions more clearly. From "Mueller's words", I see clearly now, "we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes", and, "Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought." I think the contemporary argot equivalent is, "Nothing-burger".... Next, it's very magnanimous of you to be satisfied with "a commutation" (of sentence) for Trump in a purely HYPOTHETICAL situation wherein he is charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced. I, however, would not be satisfied with that... I would want the 'book' to be thrown at him -- to the same extent that it SHOULD have been thrown at Hillary Clinton for arrogantly, ignorantly, and STOOPIDLY breaking national security laws governing classified information. What can I say? Justice is a 'sometime' thing in this country, but we Americans are still probably the best of a very bad lot....
