Special Council Investigation Complete - results are ....

[wufan]

I am unaware of any instance in which innocence of the underlying crime has been a defense of obstruction of justice.

Even if you "didn't do" the underlying allegation, you have an obligation to comply with ongoing investigations.

You also have to show intent. That is questionable. No AG would take this to court on such unsubstantiated charges, or do you think he is getting the Jussie Smollet treatment?

[pinstripers]

It's done. Get over it.

[jdshock]

Thanks for the addition to the discussion!

[ShockingButTrue]

That's it. But, being honest with ourselves (wokism) means admitting that IMPEACH was, is, and will always be, the clarion call of Jan. 20, '16.

That's their story, and by god, they're sticking to it. ; D

Buncha' go***** Snowflakes (that's for you-know-who)!

[ShockingButTrue]

The Mueller report is out. Initial skimming of summaries reveals pretty interesting stuff.

Mueller seems to heavily rely on the fact that a sitting president cannot be indicted. He specifically says the fact that the president cannot be indicted results in a fairness issue if an "internal report" would show an "accusation of a crime," which is why he refrains from explicitly stating whether the president committed crimes. He goes on to state "if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

TOTAL EXONERATION

I'm assuming you're being cheeky.

What exactly does "based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgement" mean? He's really guilty? You're not making any sense.

What did the AG have to say about it?

[pinstripers]

[jdshock]

You also have to show intent. That is questionable. No AG would take this to court on such unsubstantiated charges, or do you think he is getting the Jussie Smollet treatment?

The DOJ cannot indict a sitting president because they literally cannot do so under existing DOJ guidance.

I don't have any idea what the Smollet treatment would be in this particular factual scenario.

I think that intent is incredibly easy to prove in this case. I absolutely disagree with the idea that no prosector would bring this case. If Mueller agreed with that statement, Mueller would not have set forth these theories. He specifically said so.

Barr's defense to corrupt intent was literally that Trump was so unhappy about the investigation that any attempt to interfere couldn't be corrupt. That's mind boggling. No, I absolutely believe that Mueller put forth ten counts of, at a minimum, borderline cases of obstruction that could be brought (if not against a president) immediately. He explained why this was Congressional authority to enforce. And then Barr said "it's my job, and there was no obstruction!"

[pinstripers]

****ing go away

[jdshock]

Relax man. We're on a basketball discussion board. Nothing to get worked up about.

[wufan]

The DOJ cannot indict a sitting president because they literally cannot do so under existing DOJ guidance.

I don't have any idea what the Smollet treatment would be in this particular factual scenario.

I think that intent is incredibly easy to prove in this case. I absolutely disagree with the idea that no prosector would bring this case. If Mueller agreed with that statement, Mueller would not have set forth these theories. He specifically said so.

Barr's defense to corrupt intent was literally that Trump was so unhappy about the investigation that any attempt to interfere couldn't be corrupt. That's mind boggling. No, I absolutely believe that Mueller put forth ten counts of, at a minimum, borderline cases of obstruction that could be brought (if not against a president) immediately. He explained why this was Congressional authority to enforce. And then Barr said "it's my job, and there was no obstruction!"

I don’t see intent. One could SUPPOSE intent, but I see no PROOF of intent.

If we can’t get him on collusion, we will get him on blocking investigation on collusion. This seems incredibly petty, and I feel like intent to get Trump is provable.

[jdshock]

Well, we will have to agree to disagree. Intent is absolutely not difficult to establish here, and it is clear as day in the report.

To be clear, however, Mueller must have believed intent could be established. If he did not think it could be established, he would have said so.

[wufan]

Agree with your first paragraph. Disagree with your second. There are several ways he could have gone:

Trump obstructed (didn’t happen)

Trump didn’t obstruct (didn’t happen)

Trump tried to obstruct but showed no intent (didn’t happen)

Trump tried to obstruct but failed (didn’t happen)

Trump obstructed a non-crime, which isn’t obstruction. (Didn’t happen)

I don’t know if Trump obstructed, but he is kinda an ass and kinda immature so you figure out if that’s a crime or impeachable or whatever. I’m not going to be held responsible for this clown world BS. (What Mueller said).

[jdshock]

wufan - I think I must be misunderstanding your response. The second paragraph is not a subjective judgment call. Mueller literally says that if they had "confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." If he felt like intent could not be shown, he would state that because intent is an element of obstruction.

You are misstating what Mueller said. He did not say "I don't know if Trump obstructed." He stated that he cannot indict Trump. If Trump were not the president of the United States, I absolutely believe that he would be facing charges for obstruction of justice.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Special counsel Robert Mueller's lengthy report made public Thursday reviewed President Donald Trump's attempts to muddy the investigation, including efforts to tamper with witnesses, but decided not to charge him with obstruction in part because there was no underlying crime and many of the attempts were carried out in plain view.

Let it go lol... Trump is the master puppeteer. He knew how far he could go before he broke the law. Trump wanted this report released - he ordered it released.


T


...:cool:

[C0|dB|00ded]

I just hope the Dims try to spin something out of this report, Trump does too. One side playing chess, the other checkers.


T


...:cool:

[pinstripers]

Just read a story titled "the six biggest takeaways from the Mueller report." Not a single one of those biggest things was that there was zero Russian collusion. ARE YOU SHITTIN ME??

[C0|dB|00ded]

Those stories are written for the deranged and forced on the hard working Americans by the Commie outfit, Google. Just look at my "top list".




MadCow (and others) tryin' to save their shows after the massive ratings drop from No Collusion.


T


...:cool:

[ShockingButTrue]

The whole investigation was a g****** sham! I don't have a problem with people who blindly believe what cnn tells them about the President being a spy; Deserving of pity, maybe. But claiming that he won the election because of russia is a whole different animal. That won't work. Neither will claims of obstruction, with no proof. CASE CLOSED!

The bottom line is Snowflakes still aren't over the fact he won the election, and obviously they'll subvert the democratic process to overturn it, if that's what it takes, by god!

I'm starting to believe TDS is actually a true diagnosis.

[pinstripers]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/opinion/barr-media-trump.html?fbclid=IwAR0R7JfugsEFa79x6Zz7pgVMO1YxCX5Jj5zJQMsaBy3ZMV-_4u826RhOzxM

[wufan]

wufan - “I think I must be misunderstanding your response. The second paragraph is not a subjective judgment call. Mueller literally says that if they had "confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." If he felt like intent could not be shown, he would state that because intent is an element of obstruction.

You are misstating what Mueller said. He did not say "I don't know if Trump obstructed." He stated that he cannot indict Trump. If Trump were not the president of the United States, I absolutely believe that he would be facing charges for obstruction of justice.”

Your second paragraph IS a subjective take. “Mueller must have believed intent could be established. If he did not think it could be established, he would have said so.”

Why didn’t he say obstruction COULD be established if it was so obvious? He must have believed that it couldn’t be established or he would have said so.

[jdshock]

wufan - “I think I must be misunderstanding your response. The second paragraph is not a subjective judgment call. Mueller literally says that if they had "confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." If he felt like intent could not be shown, he would state that because intent is an element of obstruction.

You are misstating what Mueller said. He did not say "I don't know if Trump obstructed." He stated that he cannot indict Trump. If Trump were not the president of the United States, I absolutely believe that he would be facing charges for obstruction of justice.”

Your second paragraph IS a subjective take. “Mueller must have believed intent could be established. If he did not think it could be established, he would have said so.”

Why didn’t he say obstruction COULD be established if it was so obvious? He must have believed that it couldn’t be established or he would have said so.

Have you not read the executive summaries of the report? Or my other posts in this thread? There is no sentence where he says "obstruction can be established" because he could not indict a sitting president. He uses this logic to say he cannot even say if a crime was committed. He literally explains why he doesn't say "obstruction was committed," and that reason is constitutional.

What he does do is lay out the evidence, and he says it is because Congress can enforce obstruction laws and because presidents can be indicted after leaving office.

As I've said over and over again in this thread, he EXPLICITLY says that he would state if he felt obstruction could not be established. Since intent is an element of obstruction, he could have used that as a basis for believing obstruction could not be established. He does not say obstruction cannot be established. Therefore, Mueller must believe intent is able to be established. This is not subjective. This is just objective logic. He also literally explains why he doesn't say "obstruction was not committed" and that reason is because he factually did not agree with that statement.

You don't have to agree with Mueller, but objectively speaking he must have believed intent could be established. I mean, he analyzed intent in each instance of alleged obstruction. Read the executive summaries.