Mueller defends Barr: Says no contradiction on obstruction

[Poor Richard Saunders]

you know as well as I do that proving an obstruction without an underlying crime is slmost 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 wht 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

It is not almost impossible. Ever hear of Scooter Libby? Or Martha Stewart? Barry Bonds? Conrad Black? Not to mention all the unknown names convicted without an underlying crime.
There is no "acting as an innocent man" defense. There is only the no intention to obstruct defense.

To prove obstruction under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, the Government must establish:

“„(1) that there was an agency proceeding;4 (2) that the defendant was aware of that

proceeding; and (3) that the defendant intentionally endeavored corruptly to influence,

obstruct or impede the pending proceeding.‟”

1 and 2 are givens. Trump knew that the investigation was happening.

The Supreme Court has said about obstruction that

“the natural and probable effect of the defendant‟s conduct
was interference with the investigation . . . [and] that the defendant was aware of this
effect.”

Further rulings state the evidence only needs to be sufficient to allow a rational juror to find that a
person acted with the requisite intent.

The facts as laid out by Mueller make is easy for a rational juror to find Trump acted with intent. Trump said as much on more than one occasion.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

In the eyes of the court you are innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't mean there is no evidence until the court convicts you. (How nice of you to not be able to argue the facts so you call me names.)
You really should read the report and then we could discuss the actual evidence. But it seems you are too busy name calling to arm yourself with facts.

 

[Earl]

In the eyes of the court you are innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't mean there is no evidence until the court convicts you. (How nice of you to not be able to argue the facts so you call me names.)
You really should read the report and then we could discuss the actual evidence. But it seems you are too busy name calling to arm yourself with facts.

I read the Barr summary and his conclusion (the only one that counts) was, Snowflake, that there was no collusion and insufficient proof to pursue obstruction. Your opinion is irrelevant.

There will be no impeachment. Pelosi is terrified of the destruction of the Democrat party if she pursued impeachment. There will be no indictments because the Justice Department has already concluded that a sitting president can not be indicted.

Checkmate, Snowflake.


.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I read the Barr summary and his conclusion (the only one that counts) was, Snowflake, that there was no collusion and insufficient proof to pursue obstruction. Your opinion is irrelevant.

There will be no impeachment. Pelosi is terrified of the destruction of the Democrat party if she pursued impeachment. There will be no indictments because the Justice Department has already concluded that a sitting president can not be indicted.

Checkmate, Snowflake.


.

Barr's summary doesn't lay out any facts. It isn't even a strong closing argument. Mueller is the one that lays out the facts in his report.

You aren't very good at chess, Moving a pawn doesn't result in checkmate. You actually have to capture the King for checkmate. The best Trump and you can hope for is a draw but at this point your king is the one in danger.

 

[Teflon Don]

Barr's summary doesn't lay out any facts. It isn't even a strong closing argument. Mueller is the one that lays out the facts in his report.

You aren't very good at chess, Moving a pawn doesn't result in checkmate. You actually have to capture the King for checkmate. The best Trump and you can hope for is a draw but at this point your king is the one in danger.

Barr’s summary wasn’t supposed to lay out facts. If Mullet had done what he was supposed to do, Barr could have released the report and not had to issue a summary.

Barr asked Mullet to redact all grand jury testimony prior to releasing the report to the DOJ. Mullet did not do as he was told. It was purposeful because he thought it would put Barr in a bind. Because now Barr would have to redact the information which would open him up to accusations of a cover up.

So Barr outmaneuvered Mullet and released his summary while he did the job Mullet was supposed to do

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Barr’s summary wasn’t supposed to lay out facts. If Mullet had done what he was supposed to do, Barr could have released the report and not had to issue a summary.

Barr asked Mullet to redact all grand jury testimony prior to releasing the report to the DOJ. Mullet did not do as he was told. It was purposeful because he thought it would put Barr in a bind. Because now Barr would have to redact the information which would open him up to accusations of a cover up.

So Barr outmaneuvered Mullet and released his summary while he did the job Mullet was supposed to do

You seem to be privy to information that doesn't exist in the real world.
Mueller, (his name is still Mueller and you might want to learn how to spell it.) included summaries in his report. The expectation on the part of the Mueller team was those summaries could be released to the public immediately since they contained no information that needed to be redacted. Barr left out much of what was in those summaries.

 

[dukkha]

It is not almost impossible. Ever hear of Scooter Libby? Or Martha Stewart? Barry Bonds? Conrad Black? Not to mention all the unknown names convicted without an underlying crime.
There is no "acting as an innocent man" defense. There is only the no intention to obstruct defense.


1 and 2 are givens. Trump knew that the investigation was happening.

The Supreme Court has said about obstruction that


Further rulings state the evidence only needs to be sufficient to allow a rational juror to find that a
person acted with the requisite intent.

The facts as laid out by Mueller make is easy for a rational juror to find Trump acted with intent. Trump said as much on more than one occasion.

those required ACTS. there were no ACTS of Obstruction.
you are trying to convict someone based on their intent but no actual obstruction was committed.

further the intent can be considered a protestation of innocense since there was no corrupt motive behind the
protestation


Your'e as bad as Mueller and his " NOT not guilty" thesis. TDS

 

[Teflon Don]

You seem to be privy to information that doesn't exist in the real world.
Mueller, (his name is still Mueller and you might want to learn how to spell it.) included summaries in his report. The expectation on the part of the Mueller team was those summaries could be released to the public immediately since they contained no information that needed to be redacted. Barr left out much of what was in those summaries.

It wasn’t up to Mullet what should be released or not released. Mullet defied a direct order from his boss AG Barr. Barr acted accordingly

Mullet is afraid to testify because he doesn’t want to answer tough questions by Republicans. I don’t blame him

 

[Teflon Don]

those required ACTS. there were no ACTS of Obstruction.
you are trying to convict someone based on their intent but no actual obstruction was committed.

further the intent can be considered a protestation of innocense since there was no corrupt motive behind the
protestation


Your'e as bad as Mueller and his " NOT not guilty" thesis. TDS

According to leftists, an innocent man proclaiming his innocence is now obstruction

They are desperate and flailing. I am enjoying the show.

Wait until Barr starts releasing the crimes of the Obama administration. What did Obama know and when did he know it?

Who will take the fall?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

those required ACTS. there were no ACTS of Obstruction.
you are trying to convict someone based on their intent but no actual obstruction was committed.

further the intent can be considered a protestation of innocense since there was no corrupt motive behind the
protestation


Your'e as bad as Mueller and his " NOT not guilty" thesis. TDS

Too bad the law doesn't require obstruction to occur. It only requires that it be attempted. Your misrepresentation of the law doesn't change the law or the facts. An attempt to obstruct violates the same law as an ACT of obstruction does.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It wasn’t up to Mullet what should be released or not released. Mullet defied a direct order from his boss AG Barr. Barr acted accordingly

Mullet is afraid to testify because he doesn’t want to answer tough questions by Republicans. I don’t blame him

When are you going to actually talk about the Mueller report? Your refusal to even deal with Mueller proves you can't discuss this.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

According to leftists, an innocent man proclaiming his innocence is now obstruction

They are desperate and flailing. I am enjoying the show.

Wait until Barr starts releasing the crimes of the Obama administration. What did Obama know and when did he know it?

Who will take the fall?

No. The MUELLER report lists 10 instances of possible obstruction. Not one of them is based on Trump proclaiming his innocence. If you knew who Robert Mueller was, you might know that.

 

[Teflon Don]

When are you going to actually talk about the Mueller report? Your refusal to even deal with Mueller proves you can't discuss this.

You want to talk about the Mueller report?

Why didn’t he indict anyone close to the President?

Why didn’t he indict Putin?

Why does he only pay scant reference to the Steele Dossier?

Forget indicting Trump. He indicted nobody of substances. You leftists were 100% convinced he would take Don Jr down for the Trump Tower meeting. Why didn’t Mullet do that?

No conspiracy
No collusion
No obstruction

Case closed

 

[Teflon Don]

No. The MUELLER report lists 10 instances of possible obstruction. Not one of them is based on Trump proclaiming his innocence. If you knew who Robert Mueller was, you might know that.

Well if it is as clear cut as you claim the democrat party should have all they need to begin impeachment proceedings. I mean 10 instances sure is a lot. When will Nancy get moving? What is she waiting on?

Does it mean she has a weak case if she doesn’t?