I never believed that Trump colluded......I thought his son and son in law likely tried to. But what I can't understand is how Mueller didn't recommend an obstruction charge or at least conclude there was obstruction? Some of argued that since there was no evidence of collusion that you can't have an obstruction charge but this case was far broader with many tentacles. I am not posting this as a right vs left question and I hope it doesn't morph into that, but how high is legal the bar for obstruction?
In this whole Mueller thing............
- Thread starter Original Mountaineer1
- Start date
Check your assumptions. How do you know Mueller did not conclude there was obstruction? Have you seen the report?
I can't believe how people just don't get very simple concepts.
I asked a question and you respond this way? Why would I be upset? I am far more upset that Duke won
I never believed that Trump colluded (no need too) and I never believed he obstructed (again, no need too), but I've always felt he would run the risk of getting wrapped up on something completely unrelated but dealing with tax/financial issues, or a perjury trap (like Bill Clinton) since he can't keep his mouth shut.
Proving Obstruction is a large hurdle, ever for Mueller, as Trump already has the legal right to fire people who "Serve at the will of the President", so IMHO the bar is very very high.
It's weird. You can get charged with obstruction for standing too close to an arrest.....
You sure? Cuz I swear I remember reading some posts from you where you posited it as fact.
His (OP) statement was "Mueller didn't conclude there was obstruction." I pointed out that we don't know that. No one has seen the Mueller report, except Barr and the POTUS' staff. I'm not saying Barr is making anything up.
FFS can no one on this board practice reading comprehension?
In fact, if you want to take Barr at his word for the time being, Barr himself says "The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction."
Reading comprehension and common sense should go hand in hand. Why would Barr claim Mueller didn't conclude obstruction if that wasn't the case?
FFS. Is this really happening? LMAO!
The OP says "Mueller didn't conclude there was obstruction."
Barr himself says "The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction."
There is one sure-fire way to end all of this speculation and lift clouds and answer many questions - release the damn report.
Did not collude and did not collude.....what is the trip up here? The report will be released, but time will be needed for redactions. Don't go all Trumper on us and start seeing DOJ DEEPSTATEs
I think everyone on this site agreed that "collusion" wouldn't get trump, obstruction would, if anything "got him."
That report won't be released. It is solely at the discretion of Barr. He already laid the ground work in his letter. He cited paragraph 6(e) of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure. If any of it is released, it will be what he cherry picks. So, he can say whatever the hell he wants about the report and no one will know the difference. When he is called to testify before the House Committee, he will limit his discussion to whatever he decides to release (if anything) and will limit his discussion to his 4-page letter. He can tell the House Committee to f'uck off and he can get away with it. The whole process is f'ucked up. The Counsel is/was not truly independent. The Counsel worked for the AG. I'm not accusing the AG of nefarious influence, I'm just pointing out that it is f'ucked up. The public should get to see the entire report but never will. One thing that the AG has already done to overstep his bounds is to make a conclusion. The charge for the AG is to NOT make a conclusion. His charge is to prepare a summary. It is up to Congress to draw a conclusion on obstruction or any other impeachable offense.
Firing Comey was within the Presidents authority to do so. IMO, he should have announced his firing for being a douche before taking office.
Well now--just because you want something to be doesn't make it a reality.
much less publicly threatening witnesses about to testify before Congress.
Obstruction can be construed in many ways. Any Trump team member that made a phone call or e-mailed anyone under investigation could potentially be charged with obstruction.......Hell.....many folks think Trump's tweets are obstruction. The mere act of defending ones self could be considered obstruction. I bet that the SDNY or the NY AG will get a grand jury to bring charges.
Thanks....I did. Just trying to point out some facts on how things work. Any rational person will understand and might consider what might happen.
Understand, odds increase significantly when attempting to explain possibilities to “rational” people. Most of the Libs on here are still in a state of shock and denial, rational would not be the first word that comes to mind when characterizing their well being, but good luck with it anyway.
No doubt about it......I wouldn't consider most of the libs on this board "rational". We have a few like Boom,Mule and Coop......but the rest are hard core political loons.