Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Council Investigation Complete - results are ....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46



    "Where is the Love?"- D. Hathoway

    Comment


    • #47
      Yes it IS, WAS, and always will be a witch hunt. And they are desperate to keep the train rolling. Fishing expedition at it's finest:

      The chairman of the House Oversight Committee wrote an accounting firm seeking 10 years of Trump financial documents in the latest investigation to hit the president.
      Kung Wu say, man making mistake in elevator wrong on many levels.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Kung Wu View Post
        Yes it IS, WAS, and always will be a witch hunt. And they are desperate to keep the train rolling. Fishing expedition at it's finest:

        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-records.html
        Please enlighten me as to how House Democrats' actions are related to the Mueller investigation.

        Until it sinks in, I will keep repeating: Mueller was not appointed by democrats. Trump's DOJ appointed Mueller.

        Using your article to call the Mueller investigation a witch hunt is like saying JDShock thinks Trump is a terrible president, so obviously the Mueller investigation was a witch hunt.

        Comment


        • #49
          I haven't brought Mueller up in many weeks. The witch hunt started well before Mueller was ever involved.
          Kung Wu say, man making mistake in elevator wrong on many levels.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Kung Wu View Post
            I haven't brought Mueller up in many weeks. The witch hunt started well before Mueller was ever involved.
            Comey getting fired was just the gaslight that the gullible, with itching ears, needed. Ray Charles saw it.

            To wit:

            Obstruction.jpg

            Them lawyers really weren't so smart after all...

            Comment


            • #51
              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

              Comment


              • #52
                Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he hadn't been hounded for 2 years on something HE DID NOT DO, then even if he is guilty of OOJ, he would never have done it, correct?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by WuDrWu View Post
                  Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he hadn't been hounded for 2 years on something HE DID NOT DO, then even if he is guilty of OOJ, he would never have done it, correct?
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • jdshock
                    jdshock commented
                    Editing a comment
                    The report actually addresses this specific topic. Mueller says proof of a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. And he says "Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong."

                  • WuDrWu
                    WuDrWu commented
                    Editing a comment
                    I understand what you're saying but you didn't answer my question. (Kind of lawyered it up actually).

                    IF the fake accusations hadn't been created, then there would have been nothing to obstruct, correct?

                  • jdshock
                    jdshock commented
                    Editing a comment
                    WuDrWu - I must have misunderstood the question. Yeah, I guess that it's pretty easy to say "if the investigation didn't occur, then there would be no investigation to obstruct." I completely disagree with your assessment that it was an investigation "for 2 years on something HE DID NOT DO." The investigation resulted in numerous indictments related to Russian interference in our election. Barr today admitted that Russia interfered with our election. It was 100% a necessary investigation.

                    Those are not fake allegations. Those are real allegations, and he obstructed that investigation.

                • #54
                  I think that the Comey firing kept Mueller from saying No Obstruction. Just my personal opinion.

                  There are multiple articles saying that the Trump Administration cooperated above and beyond what was required.

                  I'm anxious for the whole truth to come out - if it ever does.

                  Comment


                  • shockfan89_
                    shockfan89_ commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Mueller's team looked at 10 specific items in determining if there was obstruction of justice. The end result is that Mueller team did not allege obstruction of justice.

                    Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can infer that means there was INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE of obstruction.

                    Why don't you feel free to point to the indictment of obstruction of justice? You should have no difficulty finding that indictment.

                  • jdshock
                    jdshock commented
                    Editing a comment
                    shockfan89_ - I mean honestly? What? Mueller believed he could not indict Trump because he is a sitting president. He says the same. That's the entire point. He lays out 10 things that look a whole lot like obstruction of justice and then says it's within Congress's purview to deal with those laws, but he (as a member of the DOJ) cannot indict a sitting president.

                    Do you truly believe that the lack of an indictment is sufficient evidence of innocence? The report could've said Trump texted nightly with Putin about their plans to steal the 2016 election and there wouldn't be an indictment. A lack of indictment is not evidence of innocence.

                  • shockfan89_
                    shockfan89_ commented
                    Editing a comment
                    You are really grasping at straws. Mueller absolutely could have chosen to indict Trump. The courts may have ruled he couldn't, but that would have been ammunition for impeachment. If Mueller couldn't do anything about Russian coordination/collusion then what was the point of a Special Counsel? And why did we hear non-stop from the liberal news media for the past two years that Mueller was going to indict Trump?

                    That would be like saying Ken Starr couldn't indict Clinton for lying under oath so there would have been no point to state that he lied under oath in his report. The report should have just stated that if Clinton was telling the truth I would have said he was telling the truth.

                • #55
                  Originally posted by WuDrWu View Post
                  Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he hadn't been hounded for 2 years on something HE DID NOT DO, then even if he is guilty of OOJ, he would never have done it, correct?
                  Re-quoting to make a broader point: the appointment of Mueller was to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."The investigation was not solely predicated on finding "conspiracy" between Trump and the Russian government. Trump being innocent on the conspiracy front (and I'm using conspiracy instead of "collusion" because that is what Mueller uses in his report) is not a reason to obstruct the remaining investigation.

                  Moreover, it's incredibly important to be aware of the context in which Mueller was appointed. Mueller was appointed in the wake of Trump firing Comey and saying it was because the FBI was looking into the Russia stuff. Fox News, Trump, Republicans, etc. they're all going to be out in full force saying that obstruction was a side investigation and the only thing that was important was the conspiracy component. That is a blatant re-write of history. Mueller was only appointed because it looked like Trump was obstructing justice by firing Comey and instructing him on how to handle the investigation.

                  Comment


                  • jdshock
                    jdshock commented
                    Editing a comment
                    shockfan89_ - I feel like I'm talking to a wall here. You do not have to think you are personally under investigation to obstruct justice. I would not be so quick to cite the report on this subject because it does not support your side. Mueller explicitly says that the "other stated rationals" (such as the Clinton investigation) are not supported by the evidence. Page 75.

                  • shockfan89_
                    shockfan89_ commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Do you even believe this nonsense you are spouting? What possible reason would POTUS have for obstructing justice if he wasn't under investigation? Trump absolutely wanted the Russian hoax to end because it impacted his presidency with the fake news media reporting on it every night for 2 years. That doesn't mean he obstructed the investigation. It meant he knew it was bogus, knew it didn't occur, so it was a waste of time.

                    Edit: By the way, we must be looking at different versions of the report. My page 75 talks about the Moscow Tower project and mentions nothing about Comey???
                    Last edited by shockfan89_; April 18, 2019, 02:05 PM.

                  • jdshock
                    jdshock commented
                    Editing a comment
                    shockfan89_ - page 75 of volume 2, the obstruction portion of the report.

                • #56
                  I do absolutely encourage everyone to read at least the summaries in the Mueller report. Don't just listen to what Fox or CNN or whoever has to say on the subject. Obviously, you don't need to read all 400 pages to have a general conversation, but the executive summaries are only about 15 pages in total.

                  People who simply parrot whatever they hear on TV are going to do a major disservice to dialogue on this subject.

                  Comment


                  • #57
                    Originally posted by jdshock View Post
                    I am unaware of any instance in which innocence of the underlying crime has been a defense of obstruction of justice.
                    Are there any instances where the action being insinuated as obstruction of justice is specifically within the accused's prerogative? Firing the FBI Director is absolutely the President's prerogative (the director can also be impeached by Congress). According to this Congressional Research Service document (www.crs.gov), "There are no statutory conditions on the President’s authority to remove the FBI Director."
                    Kung Wu say, man making mistake in elevator wrong on many levels.

                    Comment


                    • shockfan89_
                      shockfan89_ commented
                      Editing a comment
                      "Firing Comey would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural and probable effect of interfering with or impeding the investigation--for example, if the termination would have the effect of delaying or disrupting the investigation or providing the President with the opportunity to appoint a director who would take a different approach to the investigation that the President perceived as more protective of his personal interests."

                      And none of that happened. So therefore any logical person would conclude that was not the basis for obstruction.

                      POTUS never tried to have Mueller fired. He said that Mueller is conflicted, which is extremely obvious, but even if Mueller was removed, that wouldn't end the investigation.

                    • jdshock
                      jdshock commented
                      Editing a comment
                      shockfan89_ - "Substantial evidence, however, supports the conclusion that the President went further and in fact directed McGahn to call Rosenstein to have the Special Counsel removed." (pg 88 - vol. 2).

                    • shockfan89_
                      shockfan89_ commented
                      Editing a comment
                      jdshock - I understand that, but the Special Counsel wasn't removed so how can that be used as obstruction of justice?

                      You could also argue Trump knew he was innocent of colluding/coordinating with Russia so his thoughts about removing the Special Counsel were based on saving taxpayer money from being wasted. The facts prove Trump was right to want to remove the Special Counsel since there was no collusion/coordination.

                      I don't see how you think this rises to the level of obstruction of justice, because it didn't happen. If Mueller had been removed, and another Special Counsel not appointed, and this report was never created, then I could side with you on obstruction.

                      And don't try to use the excuse that it doesn't need to be successful to be obstruction. Everyone knows that, I am pointing out that you also have to have intent to prove obstruction, and you don't have intent. That is why Mueller didn't recommend charges. There wasn't enough evidence to prove it, which also translates to no obstruction charge.
                      Last edited by shockfan89_; April 19, 2019, 08:08 AM.

                  • #58
                    Muller did not exhonerate Trump on obstruction. Just laid out the facts that they found.

                    Dems in congress will just pick up the baton and keep going.

                    If Dems hadn't annointed Mueller as baby Jesus and built a gold statue to him and promised impeachment based on his findings, they may have been able claim victory. But obviously the whole chirade did its part.
                    "When life hands you lemons, make lemonade." Better have some sugar and water too, or else your lemonade will suck!

                    Comment


                    • #59
                      I'm pulling this out in its own thread because it is important. shockfan89_ has said we heard "non-stop from the liberal news media for the past two years that Mueller was going to indict Trump." I do not know what "liberal news media" you have been watching, but this is dead wrong. It is possible certain liberals thought Mueller would indict Trump. That was never, ever going to happen. Mueller has the utmost respect for the institutions of the DOJ. The DOJ does not believe it can indict a sitting president.

                      As to your question about the Starr report - Ken Starr couldn't indict Clinton, according to DOJ opinion. Clinton was impeached by Congress because of what was in the Starr report. And to be clear, Ken Starr actually thinks you can indict. There was no way, no how, that Mueller thought he could indict Trump no matter what kind of smoking gun he found. Read the report, he puts all of this in there. He literally says he cannot indict a president and that it would be unfair to say he committed a crime. Ken Starr and Robert Mueller are very different people. Back when I made my "predictions" post, I explicitly called out the possibility that Mueller thought he could indict as one of the unlikely "other" events.

                      Comment


                      • shockfan89_
                        shockfan89_ commented
                        Editing a comment
                        I don't know where you have been but I have heard the fake news media CNN, ABC, and MSNBC nearly daily talk about Mueller indicting POTUS. It is pretty easy to believe they were just lying then like they were lying about collusion.

                        To the point of Mueller indicting a sitting POTUS: Then why IN THE HELL did Mueller accept the appointment of Special Counsel to investigate POTUS? This is a freaking cop out by Mueller. Oh I can't indict a sitting President (never mind I found no evidence of any wrong doing) but I will makeup all these reasons he could be indicted to please the Democrats so they don't look quite as stupid since everyone knew there was no collusion or coordination.

                        Bottom line is there was no collusion, there was no obstruction, and now it is time to indict Comey, Clapper, Brennan, and likely Mueller for all of there illegal activity. I can't wait to see the pre-dawn raids on their houses and see them facing bogus charges like lying to federal prosecutors. I hope their lives, and their families lives, are ruined as a result of their willingness to break the law and continue this false narrative for nearly three years.
                        Last edited by shockfan89_; April 18, 2019, 03:18 PM.

                      • jdshock
                        jdshock commented
                        Editing a comment
                        shockfan89_ - I don't know what to tell you. The point of the Mueller's post was to investigate Russian interference and possible ties to Trump. He had indictment authority for many people. He did not have indictment authority as against Trump himself. I've been saying it from day one. Most knowledgeable people have. It was always, always, always going to result in a report.

                        He did not "makeup all these reasons he could be indicted." He literally cannot be indicted as a sitting president. Nothing in there is to be read as suggesting Trump could be indicted. He cannot be.

                        If you can find CNN, ABC, and MSNBC articles or clips talking about indictment of Trump, more power to you. Those people didn't know what they were talking about.

                    • #60
                      I know this isnt the news, but he is the media, and I'm guessing he doesn't get his news from Fox. This is the epitome of the Left's boner for Mueller and their unicorn fantasy.

                      And for all intents and purposes, the report will not dissuade the Lefties from believing everything in this song. Trump just isn't going to jail.....

                      Yet.
                       
                      "When life hands you lemons, make lemonade." Better have some sugar and water too, or else your lemonade will suck!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X