There are 13 or 14 other investigations still going on that spun off of Mueller's.
Did you forget about those?
Mueller defends Barr: Says no contradiction on obstruction
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
There are 13 or 14 other investigations still going on that spun off of Mueller's.
Did you forget about those?
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 presented 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?
Naturally, Conservatives are trying to blame Hillary Clinton for the fact that Trump cheated, had his AG try to cover it up, only to be negated by Mueller himself.
You seem mad that Mueller's report concludes that Trump's team colluded with Russia, and that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation multiple times.
He's a pussy and you're a pussy, and like a pussy, you're fucked.
You're fucked because after this shit, no one is going to listen to your voice. You're going to be isolated. You won't have representation. No one will take you seriously.
Likely.....? That's real legalize there pal, about like your SCIENCE.
Yet not one indictment for OBSTRUCTION has came before a grand jury? Why? There is no probable cause. If there is.....show us the instance where Mueller established probable cause and indicted anyone while the grand jury was convened? Go ahead.....show us the indictments presented . You will not...because no such indictments where ever issued for OBSTUCTION against anyone on TEAM TRUMP....even those unprotected by a supposed DOJ guideline. Show us the text of anything NEW presented by Mueller. Its the same report, and it still reads the same....there was insufficient evidence to establish PROABLE CAUSE. Just like AG BARR concluded when Mueller left the decision up to the AG....not to CONGRESS. Fact.....there was a GRAND JURY convened by the Mueller Investigation....why depend upon a SPIN OFF if you have the goods (PROBABLE CAUSE)? The Mueller grand jury is over, there can be no do overs, if there was insufficient evidence then, there will always be insufficient evidence. What? Is someone supposed to request a a NEW GRAND JURY to go fishing for a crime to prosecute because Mueller failed to find any?
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Mullet’s non-indictment wouldn’t stand a chance in a jury trial.
A Senate trial could be a different matter since the nebulous ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ is an easier standard than ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.
Which, of course, was the whole point to Mullet’s Wednesday Word Salad where he gave his inconclusive conclusion that Trump was maybe guilty of obstruction. As we can all see, that was all the daylight Democrats needed.
Mullet is an arm of The Resistance and I had him pegged on day one.
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
Rambling bloviation.
Unread
I'm open to seeing it expressed in different words. How would you put it, and I'm speaking only of grammar, not politics.
Would you like to explain why it's really not unconstitutional, Darthy lol? From the transcript:
"The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited. A special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. The department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report, and I will describe two of them for you."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/politics/mueller-transcript.html
From the transcript. I did not use the word "innocent." Mueller did.
"The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate. And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation, where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election. These indictments contain allegations, and we are not commenting on the guilt or the innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty."
Dialect, not verb conjugation. Right, Miss Marple?
trump himself offered to be interviewed. His lawyers were afraid of letting him, knowing what a loose-lipped hothead he is.
Would you care to explain this phrase in a different way but still conveying the same meaning, Mr. Earl?
"The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation, and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime."
Certainly, Miss Marple. Mueller had no proof of obstruction or proof of non-obstruction.
Proof is required in America. No proof, no crime.
The salient part is...no proof of obstruction.
Did that help you, Miss Marple?
Actually it did not, Mr. Earl. No proof does not translate to no crime. Por ejemplo, we know that Seth Rich was murdered but we have no proof who committed the murder. It is still a crime, however, waiting for the evidence needed to get justice for Mr. Rich and closure for his family.
¿Entiendes?
You are partly correct, Miss Marple. No proof does not translate into anything other than no proof which in America means the end of the case, in legal terms.
I don’t believe anyone was convicted in the Rich matter.
Si, te entiendo, Senorita. Sin problema.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Right, and his offer to testify would be brought up in a trial if the ‘ten counts’ ever saw the inside of a courtroom.
Actually, the evidence presented in the Mueller report does clearly rise to the level of a crime and is close to a slam dunk for some of the obstruction when it comes to convincing an unbiased jury. Trump could argue he had no intent to obstruct but was simply trying to get people to testify truthfully but it would require him to testify in court since it the law says it is his responsibility to prove that defense with the preponderance of evidence. Some of the instances would be harder to prove and not likely to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but they certainly point to a pattern that supports intent on the ones that are easier to prove.
you know as well as I do that proving an obstruction without an underlying crime is almost impossible.
The defense is he was acting as an innocent man, and more importantly committed no ACTS of Obstruction.
Simply telling his staff "fire Mueller" isn't actionable -it's anger in the heat of the moment, fully justified
by what was a concerted effort to oust Trump -Mueller only being the latest vehicle.
A judge might even not hear the case, without an ACT of Obstruction -not even a corrupt intent
Actually, Mueller does have proof of obstruction. He lays the proof out in his report. Some of them are pretty clear cut cases of violations of the law with the only defense being that Trump was actually trying to get someone to testify truthfully. That requires Trump to show with the preponderance of evidence that that is what he was actually trying to do.
You should try reading the actual report instead of talking out of your ass.
Well, no, Snowflake.
In America, when there is “insufficient proof to pursue,” the law says that you are innocent.
Innocent until proven guilty, the bedrock of American jurisprudence.