Mueller defends Barr: Says no contradiction on obstruction

Poor Richard Saunders said:
To charge a crime you have to have several things.
1. A criminal statute
2. evidence that the criminal statute was broken
3. If the statute requires intent, then some evidence of that intent.

This is some pretty basic stuff.
1. Which statute do you allege Hillary violated? Until you even name the statute there is no argument about gross negligence.

Without a specific statute you are quite the "Lock her up" idiot. Trump is innocent but Hillary guilty? There is a lot more evidence that Trump obstructed justice than there is of Hillary violating any law you wish to bring up. Whether Trump could be convicted because of the intent question is up in the air but the 10 instances cited by Mueller show a distinct pattern. On their own, I think some of the instances Mueller cites are unprosecutable because there is room for reasonable doubt. Other instances are pretty solidly laid out with facts that are not disputable. For the statutes that Trump may have violated, I direct you to page 219 of the Mueller report where he lists 5 statute sections that apply.
Click to expand...

Hillary mishandled classified information in ways that would land me and you in federal prison. But she was saved by a word change.

Note that Mullet and Comey did the same thing but Comey gets fired for it while Mullet arrogantly refuses to even answer questions before he leaves the department. Both of them cited instances of violations without actually bringing an indictment.

Which on its face isn’t noteworthy because evidence of a violation doesn’t necessarily equal an indictment. There may be evidence that Trump obstructed Justice but—to borrow Comey’s language, ‘no reasonable prosecutor’ would charge Trump because there was no underlying crime and because Trump waived executive privilege and never actually obstructed Mullet’s investigation.

And it turns out Mullet was a ‘reasonable prosecutor’ because he declined to prosecute—and he HAD to know how weak an indictment it would be. But being the despicable weasel that he is, Mullet pulled a Comey and smeared Trump with innuendo and gave House Democrats their ‘road map’ to impeachment.

The whole affair reeks and is an embarrassment.
 
Darth Omar said:
Hillary mishandled classified information in ways that would land me and you in federal prison. But she was saved by a word change.

Note that Mullet and Comey did the same thing but Comey gets fired for it while Mullet arrogantly refuses to even answer questions before he leaves the department. Both of them cited instances of violations without actually bringing an indictment.

Which on its face isn’t noteworthy because evidence of a violation doesn’t necessarily equal an indictment. There may be evidence that Trump obstructed Justice but—to borrow Comey’s language, ‘no reasonable prosecutor’ would charge Trump because there was no underlying crime and because Trump waived executive privilege and never actually obstructed Mullet’s investigation.

And it turns out Mullet was a ‘reasonable prosecutor’ because he declined to prosecute—and he HAD to know how weak an indictment it would be. But being the despicable weasel that he is, Mullet pulled a Comey and smeared Trump with innuendo and gave House Democrats their ‘road map’ to impeachment.

The whole affair reeks and is an embarrassment.
Click to expand...

Ignorant dumbfuck. How many times does it have to be explained to you about the ability to indict a sitting President?

How many times does it have to be explained to you that Mueller wasn’t acting in a prosecutorial role with Trump?

Now, you’ve been informed multiple times. You are now crossing into being ignorant to being a liar.
 
Last edited:
This thread went over for stretch about like this........

giphy.gif
 
Darth Omar said:
Hillary mishandled classified information in ways that would land me and you in federal prison. But she was saved by a word change.

Note that Mullet and Comey did the same thing but Comey gets fired for it while Mullet arrogantly refuses to even answer questions before he leaves the department. Both of them cited instances of violations without actually bringing an indictment.

Which on its face isn’t noteworthy because evidence of a violation doesn’t necessarily equal an indictment. There may be evidence that Trump obstructed Justice but—to borrow Comey’s language, ‘no reasonable prosecutor’ would charge Trump because there was no underlying crime and because Trump waived executive privilege and never actually obstructed Mullet’s investigation.

And it turns out Mullet was a ‘reasonable prosecutor’ because he declined to prosecute—and he HAD to know how weak an indictment it would be. But being the despicable weasel that he is, Mullet pulled a Comey and smeared Trump with innuendo and gave House Democrats their ‘road map’ to impeachment.

The whole affair reeks and is an embarrassment.
Click to expand...

So you can't point to the statute under which you would charge Hillary? Why am I not surprised? Actually, we would not be in jail if we did what Hillary did for the same reason Hillary isn't in jail. No court would convict based on the lack of evidence of any crime and the lack of a statute that we could be charged under. If it is as you try to make it out to be, you would now be guilty of the crime you accuse Hillary of because you have a post from me that contains (c) which must mean my post is classified and you downloaded that to your computer. Shouldn't you go turn yourself in and demand to be prosecuted to prove your claim is correct.

Mueller, his name is Mueller in spite of your idiotic ad hominems, did not do the same thing. Mueller was tasked with writing a report under the SC statute. Comey held a press conference to announce he wouldn't be charging someone which goes against DoJ policy then he held a news conference to say he was reopening an investigation which is really against DoJ policy. Mueller had the powers of an AG. Comey did not. Rosenstein's letter about Comey states his findings should have been presented to a prosecutor, not released to the public. Mueller IS a prosecutor.

TO claim no reasonable prosecutor would charge obstruction because there is no crime shows a complete lack of understanding of the law or what prosecutors do. Mueller clearly lays out why there is no legal requirement that there needs to be an underlying crime in his report. Ken Starr accused Bill Clinton of obstruction in a civil case. Can you explain how a civil case has an underlying crime? Your argument again is idiotic.

You should really read the Mueller report. Mueller didn't decline to prosecute because he couldn't get a conviction. He was unable to indict under DoJ guidelines. That is the stated reason for not indicting. (Learn to spell Mueller.)

You undermine any reasonable argument you might have by not using his correct name. (Not that you have a reasonable argument.) Your entire post reeks but you clearly don't have the sense to be embarrassed by your lack of facts.
 
christiefan915 said:
I'm not supporting impeachment until the evidence is rock solid. And if I were a RW I'd be worried that the investigation didn't clear trump beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Click to expand...

That is the problem with liberal morons. You don't understand our justice system. You think it is 'guilty until proven innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt'.
 
christiefan915 said:
You must be thinking that Mueller never looked at evidence. Guess you're forgetting that something did come out of the investigation, like 34 people getting indicted with eight convictions. A lot of these people were pretty close to trump.
Click to expand...

The vast majority were Russians. The Americans indicted were not indicted for collusion or obstruction etc... some like Manafort were exposed for other crimes committed long before joining trump (though Clinton friend Podesta did not get indicted... shocking!), others were indicted for 'lies'.
 
Superfreak said:
That is the problem with liberal morons. You don't understand our justice system. You think it is 'guilty until proven innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt'.
Click to expand...

“As set forth in the report, after the investigation, if we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”
 
Stretch said:
"If we had had the confidence that the president had not clearly committed a crime,
we would have said so," Mueller announced. He once again pointed to inconclusive evidence.
They did not have that confidence. They did not have that evidence to indict.

Therefore, if Mullet DID conclude he committed a crime, he would indict. Oh wait......he did NOT indict. :cool:
Click to expand...

Man, you really have a problem with reading comprehension and processing. But then you're a Trump supporter so there you go.

He said: "If we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”

If the president did not commit a crime, WE WOULD HAVE SAID SO. Not WE WOULD INDICT.

Thank God you're not a lawyer.

 
Stretch said:
No obstruction charges were recommended by Mueller. He also said he stands by his report.
You have squat.
Click to expand...

I got this:

Mueller said: "If we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”

No wonder you suck Trump's dick. You're not smart enough to know a charlatan when you see one. I bet used car salesmen love it when you walk into the showroom.

zp2xzRetEc4gcBWYFuusgTFTjNPetc6t-34.jpg


Pun intended.

tenor.gif
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
So you can't point to the statute under which you would charge Hillary? Why am I not surprised? Actually, we would not be in jail if we did what Hillary did for the same reason Hillary isn't in jail. No court would convict based on the lack of evidence of any crime and the lack of a statute that we could be charged under. If it is as you try to make it out to be, you would now be guilty of the crime you accuse Hillary of because you have a post from me that contains (c) which must mean my post is classified and you downloaded that to your computer. Shouldn't you go turn yourself in and demand to be prosecuted to prove your claim is correct.

Mueller, his name is Mueller in spite of your idiotic ad hominems, did not do the same thing. Mueller was tasked with writing a report under the SC statute. Comey held a press conference to announce he wouldn't be charging someone which goes against DoJ policy then he held a news conference to say he was reopening an investigation which is really against DoJ policy. Mueller had the powers of an AG. Comey did not. Rosenstein's letter about Comey states his findings should have been presented to a prosecutor, not released to the public. Mueller IS a prosecutor.

TO claim no reasonable prosecutor would charge obstruction because there is no crime shows a complete lack of understanding of the law or what prosecutors do. Mueller clearly lays out why there is no legal requirement that there needs to be an underlying crime in his report. Ken Starr accused Bill Clinton of obstruction in a civil case. Can you explain how a civil case has an underlying crime? Your argument again is idiotic.

You should really read the Mueller report. Mueller didn't decline to prosecute because he couldn't get a conviction. He was unable to indict under DoJ guidelines. That is the stated reason for not indicting. (Learn to spell Mueller.)

You undermine any reasonable argument you might have by not using his correct name. (Not that you have a reasonable argument.) Your entire post reeks but you clearly don't have the sense to be embarrassed by your lack of facts.
Click to expand...

Mishandling classified information, storing classified information on a private server isn’t a crime? It breaks no laws? You or I can do that—and no worries?

Do you really mean to claim that? How can you possibly be that dense?

I never said an underlying crime is a necessity for an obstruction charge. My point is it WEAKENS an obstruction charge to the point REASONABLE prosecutors would pass on it, for the simple reason juries are the final arbiters on the worth of indictments. Which was essentially Comey’s claim vs Hillary. Comey didn’t claim Hillary was as innocent as freshly fallen snow—he claimed her potential violations were such no reasonable prosecutor would take the case.

Here’s Comey in his own words:

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

Note also that Comey said there were potential violation of *statutes*. Do I seriously have to name them for you?

And Mullet, Mullet, Mullet, Mullet, Mullet, Mullet.
 
domer76 said:
Sure he did.
Click to expand...

Hey, is it ok if I lead an investigation on the man who just turned me down for a job the other day? Oh, and yeah, he just fired a good buddy of mine, as well.

Oh, yeah, one more thing. I have a notion to investigate him for obstruction [since the primary focus of the investigation is a bit of long shot—I need a fallback] and my buddy would be a principal witness in an obstruction trial. Should a trial actually ever occur.

Nudge-nudge wink-wink.
 
Darth Omar said:
Hey, is it ok if I lead an investigation on the man who just turned me down for a job the other day? Oh, and yeah, he just fired a good buddy of mine, as well.

Oh, yeah, one more thing. I have a notion to investigate him for obstruction [since the primary focus of the investigation is a bit of long shot—I need a fallback] and my buddy would be a principal witness in an obstruction trial. Should a trial actually ever occur.

Nudge-nudge wink-wink.
Click to expand...

Sure he did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top