Superfreak
Verified User
LMAO... Thanks for proving your stupidity once again. You say you want to know why he didn't 100% CLEAR him, but you didn't say confirm him 100% innocent? Seriously, you're an idiot.
Mueller defends Barr: Says no contradiction on obstruction
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
LMAO... Thanks for proving your stupidity once again. You say you want to know why he didn't 100% CLEAR him, but you didn't say confirm him 100% innocent? Seriously, you're an idiot.
Superfreak
Verified User
Note to christie... If you CLEAR someone 100% of allegations, then they are also 100% innocent of those allegations.
Who has been cleared 100%?
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Because there were instances where Trump’s actions *could be* interpreted as obstruction.
Supposedly, ten such instances. But so what? Any time an investigation is going there’s probable cause to suspect criminal behavior—or there is no investigation.
In similar instances where they’re dealing with complex situations the subject most generally isn’t *cleared 100%*. Someone accused of robbing a bank who proves he was somewhere else when the robbery occurred is ‘cleared 100%. But a bank robbery is a single event and the subject was either present at the robbery—or he wasn’t.
Trump was all over Twitter condemning the Witch Hunt; there were probably dozens of instances where he had the opportunity to obstruct; he had heated exchanges with people under him and allegedly said he wanted Mullet fired. And I have absolutely no reason to doubt any of it.
But so what? Prosecutors aren’t going to rush off to court with their ‘possible instances’ obstruction without considering what a defense team might have to say about it. A jury trial means discovery. It means putting all the cards on the table—including, the exculpatory cards. Of which, Trump has more than a few.
Remember Mullet not being able to get an interview with Trump? It was because Mullet got every document requested and every interview requested—except the one he needed the most. And he wasn’t deprived of that interview because Trump was ‘obstructing’ the investigation.
It was exactly the opposite. Mullet was deprived of the interview because he knew he couldn’t convince a judge one was necessary.
No ‘reasonable prosecutor’ would charge Trump with obstruction given ALL the evidence. Mullet was free to conclude obstruction but come short of indicting him. At the end of the day an indictment is just paper work.
But Mullet’s conclusion was inconclusive. Any other investigation would be declared over and done with.
In fact, that was about the only thing Mullet said clearly and succinctly the other day. ‘It’s over’.
And yet you still have not provided a link to any law that you think was broken. Your vague arguments don't prove anyone committed a crime. You can't even point to the relevant statute.
Your argument is that if I send you a classified email and you don't know it is classified then you should go to jail. That isn't the way the law works in this case. If you bothered to look at the rest of what Comey said you would find that you or I would probably not be charged with a crime because no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Comey goes on to say that the response to those actions would be administrative and not criminal. I have already linked to that particular law. Just because someone breaks a law doesn't make it a crime unless the law specifically makes it such. Comey doesn't say the statute violated is a criminal one. He only says that a statute was potentially violated.
You should look at what else Comey said. "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
It seems Comey is clearly stating you or I would not be charged with a crime in similar circumstances.
So, you are arguing that the Republicans are not reasonable when they attempted to remove Clinton from office for obstruction in a civil case. Actually, there are a lot of cases of prosecutors bringing charges of obstruction without an underlying crime. Two pretty notable names are Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby.
The problem for Trump is 10 instances of obstruction become a pattern that is pretty hard to ignore.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
There was nothing to prevent Mullet from concluding Trump committed a crime—and he didn’t.
It past time ignore it.
Mueller, and his name is still Mueller in spite of your ad hominem, lays out why he couldn't conclude Trump committed a crime and the reason was not because Trump didn't commit one. The reason he didn't say Trump committed a crime is because Trump would not be able to defend himself in court due to the DoJ policy of not indicting a sitting President.
It might be time for you to actually read the MUELLER report instead of trying to argue things that you know nothing about.
No he pointed to 10 instances where he could not even establish the first tenant of Law Enforcement criteria.....PROBABLE CAUSE. Find one instance where Mueller actually declared there was sufficient evidence to establish the PROABLE CAUSE for further investigation. If Mueller wanted to charge Mr. Trump with obstruction....all he would have to do is declare there is probable cause that future incrimination can be established when Mr. Trump leaves office and is no longer protected by DOJ guidelines. Did He say that? Did he declare there was PROBABLE CAUSE for future investigation? If he did.....show it to us. Its a simple request.
The TRUTH lies in the actual number of INDICTMENTS that Mr. Mueller issued for Grand Jury consideration in relation to ALL THOSE OBSTRUCTIONISTS (supposed) that Mr. Trump ordered to do this or do that that hindered the Mueller Investigation. Just how many indictments did Mr. Mueller issue for OBSTRUCTION to those who were not protected by the executive privilege provided to the POTUS. How many indictments where issued to those not protected by DOJ guidelines in relation to Obstruction of Justice? -0- Zero, Goose Egg, Null.
WHY? Mueller could not establish PROBABLE CAUSE for indicting even those who were UNPROTECTED by DOJ guidelines.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause
Last edited:
The left isn't ignoring anything. They'll impeach anyway. Stop fretting and just sit back and wait for Nancy to impeach (or not). Relax
The left isn't ignoring anything. They'll impeach anyway. Stop fretting and just sit back and wait for Nancy to impeach (or not). Relax
This is comparable to the Dog that always chases traffic......just what does the bad ass dog do with the traffic once he catches it.....HE NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY, its all about the chase. LMAO
Just what is this little barking dog going to do with the SEMI that is Donald J. Trump? More than likely the barking dog with end up in the ditch with Trumps tire marks up and down his spine. There has never been a POTUS removed from office via impeachment.....even the one's that were charged and actually indicted for felonies such as Nixon and Blow Job. Mueller did not even find PROBABLE CAUSE that this POTUS committed a crime or obstructed an investigation into the non crime of COLLUSION. But they are going to run him down....and.....and.....do what exactly? 
This is comparable to the Dog that always chases traffic......just what does the bad ass dog do with the traffic once he catches it.....HE NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY, its all about the chase. LMAO
LOL! Nice visual.
The left isn't ignoring anything. They'll impeach anyway. Stop fretting and just sit back and wait for Nancy to impeach (or not). Relax
I think it will be more interesting to see if Trump is indicted after he is no longer President or if he will pardon himself for all the obstruction that he claims he never did.
Lies of course.
Here's the document to which you're referring.
Notice how it doesn't say anything you claim it does:
Wait, I thought Mueller exonerated Trump?
So back when you said that it did, you were really just bullshitting and lying.
No...Mueller holds the power or authority to exonerate NO ONE. What the AG declared was the LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE exonerated the innocent, as the Mueller report presented not one instance of establishing probable cause for Collusion or Obstruction. If he did....show us the text where Mueller established probable cause and if he did why were no indictments ever considered against ANYONE other than the POTUS for OBSTRUCTION, all those who supposedly did this or did that for Mr. Trump...who were not protected via executive privilege or DOJ guideline. If obstruction did occur …….. someone must have been ordered to obstruct and must have carried out those orders. Where are the grand jury indictments? There are -0- grand jury indictments for obstruction......NONE. Why? Mueller could not establish PROBABLE CAUSE.
Of course Mueller could not "exonerate" anyone....in this nation everyone is innocent until proven guilty, not the inversion. As I stated earlier, at least we know now where COMEY got the idea that his job was to exonerate rather than prosecute, when he EXONERATED HILLARY and circumvented the need for the Attorney General, and the Judicial branches of government. Comey.....declared that no prosecutor could prosecute her because there was no INTENT established. It was just a quinky ding that Hillary did not know it was a crime when she deleted over 30k emails, fried all her harddrives and even took a literal hammer to some of her mobile communication devices. She simply DID NOT KNOW she was engaging in a crime...she was ignorant. But, Mueller did not exonerate because Mr. Trump did knew he was attempting to stop/defend against an unjust investigation that demonstrated there was never a crime of Russian Collusion/Conspiracy?
Conclusion? Me thinks that Mueller is still pissed that Trump told him to eat shit and die when Mueller requested his old job back as head of the FBI. Me Thinks Mueller does not want to go to capital hill and testify to all those Republicans with 1001 questions concerning the content of his REPORT.
Me thinks that the republicans may still get their chance if Spit slinger decides to impeach.
Last edited:
So it seems to me that you need to read Mueller's Report, because you're talking about something you know nothing about.
BTW - there are something like 13 or 14 other investigations currently happening that were spun off Mueller's, that likely have to do with the obstruction committed by others.
Also, the reason Mueller didn't indict Trump was solely because of OLC guidelines, which Mueller talks about in his Executive Summary in Volume II of the report you refuse to read.