So, The Mueller report Is out....
- Thread starter bamaEER
- Start date
Yeah, I mean I’m reading what Barr said which was that the SC didn’t find sufficient evidence of collusion. But I’m reading some things voters should not like about this President and his campaign.
The Manafort strategy sessions and sharing polling data to figure out how to win the Midwest with Ukrainian and Russian intelligence for one.
The assertion that it was Russia that hacked the DNC and released the emails in a timely manner that benefited Trump.
The discussions about pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian foreign policy with members of the Trump campaign.
The multiple (MULTIPLE) instances of lying and destroying potential evidence by multiple Trump campaign affiliates. False testimony and actions SC stated prevented collection of evidence in the investigation.
And I really haven’t gotten very far into the report.
The Manafort strategy sessions and sharing polling data to figure out how to win the Midwest with Ukrainian and Russian intelligence for one.
The assertion that it was Russia that hacked the DNC and released the emails in a timely manner that benefited Trump.
The discussions about pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian foreign policy with members of the Trump campaign.
The multiple (MULTIPLE) instances of lying and destroying potential evidence by multiple Trump campaign affiliates. False testimony and actions SC stated prevented collection of evidence in the investigation.
And I really haven’t gotten very far into the report.
Lot’s of investigations still ongoing. LOL!
I’m sure trump is sweating bullets dreading the day January 20, 2021 comes.
I’m sure trump is sweating bullets dreading the day January 20, 2021 comes.
Lots of investigations not regarding Collusion or obstruction.
You lost. Loser.
Hillary's fuzz from her rancid box. Hillary is landslide told us enough about bama the clueless sack of potatoes.
You read what you wanted to read in Mueller's report.
Well reading the actual report you missed this:
"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
Well reading the report you missed this:
The investigation examined whether contacts between Russia and Trump figures involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future? Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination.
Well reading the report, you missed this:
The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort's sharing polling data and Russia's interference in the election ... [and] the investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts.
Well reading the report, you missed this:
The Office did not identify evidence in those contacts between Russians and people around Trump after the GOP convention of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian government. The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the Russian disinformation campaign.
Well reading the report you missed this:
The investigation did not establish that these contacts between Russians and people around Trump during the transition reflected or constituted coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russia in its election interference activities.
Well reading the report, you missed this:
The Mueller report is divided into two volumes. Volume I covers the collusion question. Volume II considers whether the president obstructed the investigation. Of course there would have been no obstruction investigation had there not been the collusion allegation to begin with. There would be no Volume II if there were no Volume I. There was NO obstruction because there was NO Collusion!
Mueller has determined there was no collusion. Not that there was no criminal collusion. Or no prove-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt collusion. Just no collusion. That is definitive.
"No collusion" "No obstruction". There is NO OTHER WAY to read Mueller's report, unless you have another agenda (like finding any other way to remove Trump from Office)
You didn't talk about that aspect of Mueller's report.
Well reading the actual report you missed this:
"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
Well reading the report you missed this:
The investigation examined whether contacts between Russia and Trump figures involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future? Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination.
Well reading the report, you missed this:
The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort's sharing polling data and Russia's interference in the election ... [and] the investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts.
Well reading the report, you missed this:
The Office did not identify evidence in those contacts between Russians and people around Trump after the GOP convention of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian government. The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the Russian disinformation campaign.
Well reading the report you missed this:
The investigation did not establish that these contacts between Russians and people around Trump during the transition reflected or constituted coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russia in its election interference activities.
Well reading the report, you missed this:
The Mueller report is divided into two volumes. Volume I covers the collusion question. Volume II considers whether the president obstructed the investigation. Of course there would have been no obstruction investigation had there not been the collusion allegation to begin with. There would be no Volume II if there were no Volume I. There was NO obstruction because there was NO Collusion!
Well, reading the report you missed this:
Mueller has determined there was no collusion. Not that there was no criminal collusion. Or no prove-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt collusion. Just no collusion. That is definitive.
- No part of the investigation was restricted
- No witnesses were refused for testimony
- No executive privilege was claimed
- No limits were placed on investigators
- No aspects of Trump campaign activities was hidden or concealed
- Mueller never was refused access to any information requested
- Paul Manafort's shady finances would not have come under investigation were it not for that question.
- Carter Page would not have been wiretapped were it not for that question.
- Michael Flynn would not have been interviewed by the FBI were it not for that question.
- Zillions of hours on cable TV would not have been expended on Trump-Russia were it not for that question.
- And in the largest sense, there would have been no Mueller investigation were it not for that question.
"No collusion" "No obstruction". There is NO OTHER WAY to read Mueller's report, unless you have another agenda (like finding any other way to remove Trump from Office)
You didn't talk about that aspect of Mueller's report.
Last edited:
The report tells you that Trump committed obstruction of justice and the only reason he wasn't indicted is because he is a sitting president. He says the only reason multiple white house officials weren't indicted was because they refused to carry out orders from Trump. He then goes as far as to say that Congress needs to take up the issue of the Presidents abuses of power. Then he adds that they have been sure to documents this evidence while memories are fresh *if* they need to use it later.
Barr tried to make paint a picture of the report having cleared Trump and that there just wasn't enough evidence to prove obstruction. That wasn't the case. There is a mountain of evidence, but the policy of DOJ is that a sitting President can't be indicted. Barr even specifically said that Mueller did not suggest Congress take up the question of obstruction, so he did it. He said this direct lie less than two hours before the report was released. How can you call a press conference to lie about something that is going to come back on you before lunch?
The report confirms that reports Trump called "fake news" were absolutely true. It confirms that the Press Secretary just makes **** up on the spot. It proves that the President had very little actual control over his administration. Officials plead the 5th and destroyed evidence. It's just a great day for the WH.
Barr tried to make paint a picture of the report having cleared Trump and that there just wasn't enough evidence to prove obstruction. That wasn't the case. There is a mountain of evidence, but the policy of DOJ is that a sitting President can't be indicted. Barr even specifically said that Mueller did not suggest Congress take up the question of obstruction, so he did it. He said this direct lie less than two hours before the report was released. How can you call a press conference to lie about something that is going to come back on you before lunch?
The report confirms that reports Trump called "fake news" were absolutely true. It confirms that the Press Secretary just makes **** up on the spot. It proves that the President had very little actual control over his administration. Officials plead the 5th and destroyed evidence. It's just a great day for the WH.
How was Mueller's investigation "obstructed"? What was the crime he was prevented from uncovering? You can't have "obstruction" unless evidence of a crime was prevented from being discovered! What crime did Mueller have trouble discovering or finding evidence for? What was "obstructed"?
Neither is you answering my direct question with a criminal activity. Nice dodge.
(btw the report didn't find any criminal activity obstruction)
So...where is it written in the report?
Name the crime @Boomerwv Mueller was prevented (obstructed) from discovering?
Type ans here:
The crime was ________________________
It's NOT in the report!
Actually, I understand why a Trump supporter wants to avoid reading this report like the plague. I'll help you out.
Mueller’s report detailed extraordinary efforts by Trump to abuse his power as president to undermine Mueller’s investigation. The case is so detailed that it is hard to escape the conclusion that Mueller could have indicted and convicted Trump for obstruction of justice—if he were permitted to do so. And the reason he is not permitted to do so is very clear: Department of Justice policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president.
Mueller still could have reached a conclusion regarding obstruction of justice, but he believed it would be unfair to reach a conclusion that Trump could not rebut in court. How do we know this? Because Mueller says it. If he had reached a conclusion that Trump obstructed justice, Mueller wrote, Trump could not go to court to obtain a “speedy and public trial” with the “procedural protections” afforded to a criminal defendant by the Constitution.
Though Mueller determined there was no “collusion” between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, he makes clear that proving obstruction does not require the existence of such an underlying crime. There are many reasons, including fear of personal embarrassment, to explain why the president might have tried to impede the special counsel’s investigation. “The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong,” Mueller wrote. Moreover, Mueller’s team “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations.”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/19/barr-obstruction-mueller-trump-226664Mueller still could have reached a conclusion regarding obstruction of justice, but he believed it would be unfair to reach a conclusion that Trump could not rebut in court. How do we know this? Because Mueller says it. If he had reached a conclusion that Trump obstructed justice, Mueller wrote, Trump could not go to court to obtain a “speedy and public trial” with the “procedural protections” afforded to a criminal defendant by the Constitution.
Though Mueller determined there was no “collusion” between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, he makes clear that proving obstruction does not require the existence of such an underlying crime. There are many reasons, including fear of personal embarrassment, to explain why the president might have tried to impede the special counsel’s investigation. “The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong,” Mueller wrote. Moreover, Mueller’s team “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations.”
OK, so you yourself didn't (couldn't) name the exact "crime" Mueller was prevented or "obstructed" from discovering. What was his charge? To discover if Trump "colluded" with the Russians' attempts to influence the '16 election. correct? Did Mueller find that? Was that a crime?
What about the rest of the article you copied? Where's the "crime" Mueller was "obstructed" from determining?
Any crime mentioned as "abuse of power"? No!
"could have indicted"? Well why didn't he? A crime deserves an indictment does it not?
Again, obstruction of what? Any crime mentioned? No!
Indictments are usually followed by specifically named crimes. Was one named here to be indictable? No!
"Unfair"? Mueller didn't indict Trump because he thought it would be "unfair"? Really?
Still, was any crime obstructed named here? No!
The crime was against his investigation? His investigation found no crime!
So he's calling Trump a "criminal defendant" without naming the crime!
Nice
kay: So just what would Trump be "defending" in court? His honor? I thought you go to court to defend yourself against criminal charges? Any named here? No!
Oh No? Then what was "obstructed"? His work? His conclusions? So you don't need an actual crime to obstruct justice, just the "suggestion" of one? Still, no crime named here either!
"may have tried to impede"? He didn't impede. He didn't obstruct. There was no crime! What was it, so far it hasn't been named in your article.
So now we're into a crime that could have or may have hurt the Justice system? I'm asking for the actual crime that actually "obstructed Justice"? do you see it? I don't.
So the acts were "capable" of exerting influence or "exerted influence" and therefore criminally obstructed justice? Which one was the criminal activity boomer? [eyeroll]
@Boomerwv steps into the batter's box...here's the pitch...
struck out...sit down!
What about the rest of the article you copied? Where's the "crime" Mueller was "obstructed" from determining?
Any crime mentioned as "abuse of power"? No!
"could have indicted"? Well why didn't he? A crime deserves an indictment does it not?
Again, obstruction of what? Any crime mentioned? No!
Indictments are usually followed by specifically named crimes. Was one named here to be indictable? No!
"Unfair"? Mueller didn't indict Trump because he thought it would be "unfair"? Really?
Still, was any crime obstructed named here? No!
The crime was against his investigation? His investigation found no crime!
So he's calling Trump a "criminal defendant" without naming the crime!
Nice
kay: So just what would Trump be "defending" in court? His honor? I thought you go to court to defend yourself against criminal charges? Any named here? No!Oh No? Then what was "obstructed"? His work? His conclusions? So you don't need an actual crime to obstruct justice, just the "suggestion" of one? Still, no crime named here either!
"may have tried to impede"? He didn't impede. He didn't obstruct. There was no crime! What was it, so far it hasn't been named in your article.
So now we're into a crime that could have or may have hurt the Justice system? I'm asking for the actual crime that actually "obstructed Justice"? do you see it? I don't.
So the acts were "capable" of exerting influence or "exerted influence" and therefore criminally obstructed justice? Which one was the criminal activity boomer? [eyeroll]
@Boomerwv steps into the batter's box...here's the pitch...
struck out...sit down!
Last edited:
But now there is no way for the circus to get Trump. They can spin Mueller however they want but Barr slammed the door shut.What did I say.....
OK, so you yourself didn't (couldn't) name the exact "crime" Mueller was prevented or "obstructed" from discovering. What was his charge? To discover if Trump "colluded" with the Russians' attempts to influence the '16 election. correct? Did Mueller find that? Was that a crime?
What about the rest of the article you copied? Where's the "crime" Mueller was "obstructed" from determining?
Any crime mentioned as "abuse of power"? No!
"could have indicted"? Well why didn't he? A crime deserves an indictment does it not?
Again, obstruction of what? Any crime mentioned? No!
Indictments are usually followed by specifically named crimes. Was one named here to be indictable? No!
Any crime obstructed named here? No!
The crime was against his investigation? His investigation found no crime!
So he's calling Trump a "criminal" without naming the crime! Nice
Oh No? then what was "obstructed"? His work? His conclusions? No crime named here either!
"may have tried to impede"? He didn't impede. He didn't obstruct. There was no crime! What was it, so far it hasn't been named in your article.
Now we're into a crime that could have or may have hurt the Justice system. I'm asking for the crime that "obstructed Justice"?
So the acts were "capable" of exerting influence or "exerted influence" and therefore obstructed justice? Which one was criminal activity? [eyeroll]
@Boomerwv steps into the batter's box...here's the pitch...
struck out...sit down!
It is actually impressive to see someone this delusional.
you are wasting your time on Dave. the dude is a real nut job
The Obstruction Case Against Trump that Barr Tried to Hide - POLITICO Magazine
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/19/barr-obstruction-mueller-trump-226664
Hey @Boomerwv OK so I get it you refuse to name an actual crime Mueller was "obstructed" from investigating with Trump so let me try it this way:
Let's say Paul Manafort "obstructed justice" when Mueller's goons went after him. Would 'ya say there was an alleged crime he was trying to keep Mueller from discovering? Or how about all those Russian bot social media trolls Mueller indicted? If they had "obstructed" him investigating their nefarious activity...wasn't there some actual criminal activity involved that Mueller was pursuing?
Then we have Micheal Cohen, Trump's slippery ex-attorney. Let's say he decided to remain loyal to Trump instead of turning into a snitch and he "obstructed" Mueller's investigation into his criminal activity. Surely you'd argue there was legitimate criminal activity with him right? Clearly that would have been "obstruction of justice" correct?
Or let's even take Trump himself. Suppose the SDNY Federal Prosecutor was restricted by Trump from obtaining important financial records and transactions involved in his alleged money laundering and tax evasion scheme. Wouldn't Trump then be guilty of "obstruction of justice" behind that investigation? Aren't those alleged crimes they're currently looking into?
So again I ask you, what is the crime Mueller was "obstructed" from learning about while investigating Trump for "collusion"? He found no collusion and obviously wasn't "obstructed" from making that determination was he? So what else was he looking for that Trump kept him from knowing about or "obstructed justice" on? And please don't tell me to "read the report" because as I pointed out to you in post #33 last night, there is no other crime mentioned in Mueller's report involving Trump other than his investigation of "collusion" which ironically isn't even a crime!
Trump cannot be guilty of "obstructing justice" of an investigation without a crime. Mueller wasn't prevented from making his determination of "no collusion" on the part of Trump and the AG looking at all the rest of Mueller's evidence gathered during his investigation determined there was "no obstruction" for Mueller reaching his conclusion of "no collusion" correct?
Make sense?
Ok now, understanding what I've just explained to you, can you answer my question?
What was the crime Mueller was investigating that Trump "obstructed justice" on? Silence is not an acceptable answer! [winking]
Let's say Paul Manafort "obstructed justice" when Mueller's goons went after him. Would 'ya say there was an alleged crime he was trying to keep Mueller from discovering? Or how about all those Russian bot social media trolls Mueller indicted? If they had "obstructed" him investigating their nefarious activity...wasn't there some actual criminal activity involved that Mueller was pursuing?
Then we have Micheal Cohen, Trump's slippery ex-attorney. Let's say he decided to remain loyal to Trump instead of turning into a snitch and he "obstructed" Mueller's investigation into his criminal activity. Surely you'd argue there was legitimate criminal activity with him right? Clearly that would have been "obstruction of justice" correct?
Or let's even take Trump himself. Suppose the SDNY Federal Prosecutor was restricted by Trump from obtaining important financial records and transactions involved in his alleged money laundering and tax evasion scheme. Wouldn't Trump then be guilty of "obstruction of justice" behind that investigation? Aren't those alleged crimes they're currently looking into?
So again I ask you, what is the crime Mueller was "obstructed" from learning about while investigating Trump for "collusion"? He found no collusion and obviously wasn't "obstructed" from making that determination was he? So what else was he looking for that Trump kept him from knowing about or "obstructed justice" on? And please don't tell me to "read the report" because as I pointed out to you in post #33 last night, there is no other crime mentioned in Mueller's report involving Trump other than his investigation of "collusion" which ironically isn't even a crime!
Trump cannot be guilty of "obstructing justice" of an investigation without a crime. Mueller wasn't prevented from making his determination of "no collusion" on the part of Trump and the AG looking at all the rest of Mueller's evidence gathered during his investigation determined there was "no obstruction" for Mueller reaching his conclusion of "no collusion" correct?
Make sense?
Ok now, understanding what I've just explained to you, can you answer my question?
What was the crime Mueller was investigating that Trump "obstructed justice" on? Silence is not an acceptable answer! [winking]
Last edited:
Mueller didn't charge Trump — but his report is a brutal indictment
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...ge-trump-his-report-brutal-indictment-n996191
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...ge-trump-his-report-brutal-indictment-n996191