███████████ Mueller Investigation Results Thread ███████████

[Que]

Look sweety, I'm aware that you and the rest of the geebee goon squad made up your feeble minds that Director Mueller wasn't going to find evidence to indict Trump as soon as he was appointed so I have no inclination to try to convince you of anything. It is your right to wallow in your chosen ignorance. Enjoy

I think it's a question of questioning predication and motivation for investigation and any potential consequences that might fall out from that investigation.

When you start from the point of view that Trump is clearly a slippery individual and no doubt has probably done something that, if known, might well result in a public backlash justifiable in removing him from office. This is a strategy that Democrats have successfully used time and time again not just with actual impeachment but by having people resign by running people out of office here in Arizona we lost two Republican Governors to nonsense, where unlike Trump they let Democrats define them.

So Republicans from the very beginning looked at this as I did in on this form repeatedly when everybody was saying Russia Russia Russia I kept asking colluded with the Russians to do specifically what? None of that ever made sense before we knew whether he had talked to her Russian not talked to a Russian where the Russians and offered helped helped didn't help none of it made any sense because nothing about this election results had anything to do with anything that someone in Russia is going to know how to influence. None of them are going to be able to get Hillary to be an idiot and stay home from states that she should have won.

THAT is where we are coming from.

Your team can't even get rid of the guy with a freezer literally full of cash and Bob Menendez. So don't talk to me about caring about the rule of law. You don't. Not you specifically but the collective you

 

[Que]

Correct, for part one, which is irrelevant regarding obstruction.

Says you. We say it is crucial.

~shrug~

If you can wrap your head around the idea that a person can "obstruct" the authorities from bringing them to "justice" (punish them) for a <non-existent> crime (that did not happen,) we obviously inhabit differing spheres of deductive reasoning technique.

Same reasoning that says it's OK to hound Michael Flynn because you tricked him into believing he had lied to the FBI, when the FBI itself, internally, believed he had not lied.

Same reasoning that it was OK to spring a perjury trap on Scooter Libby while pretending to investigate hiw Valerie Plame was outed, when not only did they already know who actually leaked it, they knew that neither Libby, nor the guy they were trying to maneuver Libby into implicating had anything at all to do with it.

Abuse of power under color of law is unconscionable. Even when you think it's justifiable to get some bad guy off the street or in this case to get some bad guy out of office. It's not okay.

You obviously think that this whole thing has been okay and continues to be okay. We seriously differ over that. We are never going to reach any sort of mutual understanding on such widely divergent views on what is acceptable and what is important.

If Trump was an actual Russian agent and we only know that because of an illegal wiretap it didn't happen. I don't care how much muck you dragged off the bottom of the swamp if the fishing expedition was not justified.

 

[jomar]

Says you. We say it is crucial.

~shrug~

If you can wrap your head around the idea that a person can "obstruct" the authorities from bringing them to "justice" (punish them) for a <non-existent> crime (that did not happen,) we obviously inhabit differing spheres of deductive reasoning technique.

...

The law says it’s not crucial. The three elements of obstruction make no mention of an investigations outcome...crime/no crime, guilt/innocence. The three elements are simply focused on interference of an investigation.

 

[Que]

The law says it’s not crucial. The three elements of obstruction make no mention of an investigations outcome...crime/no crime, guilt/innocence. The three elements are simply focused on interference of an investigation.

Of course it doesn't because the first question ANY judge or jury is going to ask is, WHAT was it they were obscuring and why would that coming to light be a problem for them?

Don't be obtuse.

Let's contrast this with the multiple felonies that Hillary Clinton admitted. Actual felonies not pretend felonies; real ones.

The statue that she violated specifically charges a person in possession of classified material to take certain affirmative actions to prevent something from happening. In other words if you don't do something you are guilty of a crime. Not only did she not take proper actions to ensure the classified documents remsinrd secure. she did the opposite she did affirmative things to make sure that those documents were not in a secure location. That's as guilty as you can possibly be and Comey's invented the standard that is not in the statute that says that she didn't have intent to do it. Even if you accept comey's ridiculous revision of the law she still guilty because she obviously intended to do exactly what she did because there's no other explanation for why she did what she did.

But let's talk about actual obstruction of justice you have either subpoenas issued or on the way for all of your emails and she's out there with the guy by the way that was sitting right next to Mueller with a hammer smashing little black berries and using bleach bit on a computer to make sure that none of that is ever recovered. That's a funny. That's funny obstruction of justice. And there's an underlying crime that she's covering up.

Get. The. Fuck. Out. Of. Here. With that absolutely ridiculously rigid reading of the statute which is never applied the way you're applying it.

 

[phrodeau]

Trump has allowed Hillary to go scot-free. Trump has allowed Mueller to waste millions of taxpayer dollars. Trump needs to resign, and allow Putin to take his place.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

It does have to have "corrupt intent," and an underlying crime to obstruct. There was neither. As I've already said there can be no obstruction when the President is exercising his Article I authority. So, stop the subversive lies.

The only bigger lying sack of shit than you is Trump himself.

You just make it up as you go along much like your Fuhrer

 

[Que]

Trump has allowed Hillary to go scot-free. Trump has allowed Mueller to waste millions of taxpayer dollars. Trump needs to resign, and allow Putin to take his place.

The only bigger lying sack of shit than you is Trump himself.

You just make it up as you go along much like your Fuhrer

Hurr duer, good ones!

 

[jomar]

Of course it doesn't because the first question ANY judge or jury is going to ask is, WHAT was it they were obscuring and why would that coming to light be a problem for them?

Don't be obtuse.

<snip, irrelevant to the actual topic and more whataboutism>

Get. The. Fuck. Out. Of. Here. With that absolutely ridiculously rigid reading of the statute which is never applied the way you're applying it.

LOL, settle down.

By your logic Trump committed a crime he was trying to hide.

Again, the end result of an investigation does not determine if obstruction applies.

For example, Trump knew he didn’t collude with Russia so he’s safe there. But for the sake of example let’s say he’s worried the special council’s focus isn’t narrow enough. The mandate is broad and wide reaching. So let’s say he’s worried the trail investigators follow will uncover unsavory things and maybe even reveal he’s doesn’t have much money at all. His ego can’t take that even if the unsavory things are not illegal.

So let’s say Trump attempts to get the lead investigator fired to derail the investigation. Let’s say he tries to get witnesses to not cooperate because he doesn’t want them telling where the skeletons are buried.

If he does those things he’s is attempting to interfere and impede an investigation. And that’s obstruction of justice. Doesn’t matter collusion was not found.

ETA: That is how I read it. If it is factually incorrect, I’m open to hearing from some actually in the know.

 

[icanhelp1]

The law says it’s not crucial. The three elements of obstruction make no mention of an investigations outcome...crime/no crime, guilt/innocence. The three elements are simply focused on interference of an investigation.

There is a difference between obstruction, obstruction of justice or obstructing a criminal proceeding. Exercising or operating within article II powers is not obstruction.

 

[icanhelp1]

LOL, settle down.

By your logic Trump committed a crime he was trying to hide.

Again, the end result of an investigation does not determine if obstruction applies.

For example, Trump knew he didn’t collude with Russia so he’s safe there. But for the sake of example let’s say he’s worried the special council’s focus isn’t narrow enough. The mandate is broad and wide reaching. So let’s say he’s worried the trail investigators follow will uncover unsavory things and maybe even reveal he’s doesn’t have much money at all. His ego can’t take that even if the unsavory things are not illegal.

So let’s say Trump attempts to get the lead investigator fired to derail the investigation. Let’s say he tries to get witnesses to not cooperate because he doesn’t want them telling where the skeletons are buried.

If he does those things he’s is attempting to interfere and impede an investigation. And that’s obstruction of justice. Doesn’t matter collusion was not found.

ETA: That is how I read it. If it is factually incorrect, I’m open to hearing from some actually in the know.

Some conversations with private counsel could, under article II be incriminating but falls under executive privilege and is private. Without that protection a president would not be able to function or discuss anything with counsel for fear of prosecution later on. No president could govern under those conditions. The Mueller report did not have to go public and no one would be the wiser of what conversations happened in confidence. Because of the way the mueller report was conducted ( for all to see ) put MCgahn between a rock and a hard place. You never saw Obama reveal any of his private consultations.

 

[jomar]

There is a difference between obstruction, obstruction of justice or obstructing a criminal proceeding. Exercising or operating within article II powers is not obstruction.

I cited obstruction of justice earlier, which the hearings were using, I believe.

I know there’s current OLC protections, but for dems in the hearings intent matters. And intent is an element of obstruction of justice.

 

[jomar]

Some conversations with private counsel could, under article II be incriminating but falls under executive privilege and is private. Without that protection a president would not be able to function or discuss anything with counsel for fear of prosecution later on. No president could govern under those conditions.

Sure, that makes perfect sense. Kind of the same for you and me with attorney-client privilege. But if you move from spitballing and put certain things in action the landscape changes.

 

[HisArpy]

I cited obstruction of justice earlier, which the hearings were using, I believe.

I know there’s current OLC protections, but for dems in the hearings intent matters. And intent is an element of obstruction of justice.

This is where you're STILL not getting it.

The intent (what I called unlawful intent because "criminal intent" is "unlawful" and various jurisdictions use different terms for the same thing) cannot be formed if the person uses LAWFUL authority.

Back in 1973 Nixon fired Archibald Cox (the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal). A second prosecutor was eventually appointed to replace Cox. The SCOTUS determined that the firing of Cox was illegal based on the language of the statute at the time (something different than Mueller's appointment statute) which contained provisions not present today. BUT when Nixon was eventually charged for impeachment, the first grounds were indeed Obstruction of Justice. However, the evidence for obstruction were based in Nixon's attempts to cover up the Watergate break in and conceal who did it, NOT his termination of Cox. Cox's termination was unlawful, but Nixon's use of his Art II power negated that as a criminal act and changed it to a civil wrongful termination from employment.



The OLC guidelines are irrelevant other than basically stating that the President cannot be indicted while in office. The mechanism for charging a President for criminal conduct is to open an impeachment inquiry in Congress and then proceed from there via a committee investigation. Mueller was fully capable of saying he found sufficient evidence that Trump committed a crime. At that point the report could have been used as part of a Congressional committee impeachment inquiry. He did not because, as he said, he could not based on the evidence he discovered.

What the D's were hoping for was that Mueller would do their dirty work for them in order to avoid soiling their hands with an actual impeachment inquiry which US citizens had no stomach for. In that, they failed. Not only did they choose the wrong mechanism, but there was nothing illegal for their investigator to find.

 

[moarBB]

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/68/f8/24/68f8247fcf935f144838d161368bd2f9.png

 

[icanhelp1]

Sure, that makes perfect sense. Kind of the same for you and me with attorney-client privilege. But if you move from spitballing and put certain things in action the landscape changes.

Didn't Hillary get cleared by Comey because of no ill intent. She really obstructed justice by deleting 30,000 emails and using an unsecured server but got off because of no ill intent. She was given a pass even after a crime was committed. Trump whispers in Mcgahn's ear and the whole world comes crashing down. What actions were put in motion? none!! Trump let it all hang out, didn't fire Mueller, let the investigation continue and because he didn't impose executive privilege Nadler want's to hang him. Just a tidbit, this whole Nadler revenge saga goes back to 1985 and the Penn rail yard development which Nadler opposed. Nadler is out for revenge and is using scorched earth tactics while destroying our political system. And Andrew Weissman; a Clinton attorney is the true author of the Mueller report. Why don't you read up on Weissman and how he was admonished by SCOTUS over the Enron ( Anderson vs U.S., NO 04-368 ) scandal and Weissman's unprecedented and scandalous use of obstruction of justice to destroy Enron. Funny how a DOJ document spiral's into an obstruction of justice rallying call and a criminal investigation using phrases and opinions such as not exonerated, the very tactics used by Weissman back in the day. Weissman is the king of process crime and strong arm tactics. Just look at the Roger Stone raid, typical Weissman tactic and you wonder why we have reservations about obstruction of justice by Nadler and Weissman. This whole thing is a shit shute. The Chickens are coming home to roost. Hillary Clinton, Clapper, Brehnan, Ohr and others.

 

[jomar]

This is where you're STILL not getting it.

The intent (what I called unlawful intent because "criminal intent" is "unlawful" and various jurisdictions use different terms for the same thing) cannot be formed if the person uses LAWFUL authority.

You’re saying that Trump could fire Mueller because he was afraid where the investigation would lead and corrupt intent wouldn’t apply because he’s the president and protected by article II.

If true, dems in the hearings were incorrect on obstruction? If so, why weren’t repubs screaming bloody murder? They’re all lawyers and should know this shit.

The OLC guidelines are irrelevant other than basically stating that the President cannot be indicted while in office. The mechanism for charging a President for criminal conduct is to open an impeachment inquiry in Congress and then proceed from there via a committee investigation.

Given the current senate be a symbolic move if the they go for it.

Mueller was fully capable of saying he found sufficient evidence that Trump committed a crime. At that point the report could have been used as part of a Congressional committee impeachment inquiry. He did not because, as he said, he could not based on the evidence he discovered.

He chose not to make a determination from the outset based on the OLC guidelines, regardless of what he found. Maybe he shouldn’t have done that.

What the D's were hoping for was that Mueller would do their dirty work for them in order to avoid soiling their hands with an actual impeachment inquiry which US citizens had no stomach for. In that, they failed. Not only did they choose the wrong mechanism, but there was nothing illegal for their investigator to find.

Despite your position, your last sentence will be debated by experts and talking heads.

Mueller may have not been his old self, but was smart enough not to read from the report and he tried to stay non-partisan.

 

[Kantarii]

I thought we were done with the Mueller Report after that hearing? Jesus, Democrats keep holding on to the fantasy that they’re going to undo the 2016 election or something.

 

[LukNotLuke]

I thought we were done with the Mueller Report after that hearing? Jesus, Democrats keep holding on to the fantasy that they’re going to undo the 2016 election or something.

No one has said anything of that, liar.

 

[jomar]

Didn't Hillary get cleared by Comey because of no ill intent. She really obstructed justice by deleting 30,000 emails and using an unsecured server but got off because of no ill intent. She was given a pass even after a crime was committed.

Hillary should have known better, everyone has to check off on the security inservice. But she’s not the first or the last if we want get into whatabout javanka, which I don’t. Have Trump open it back up.

Trump whispers in Mcgahn's ear and the whole world comes crashing down. What actions were put in motion? none!! Trump let it all hang out, didn't fire Mueller, let the investigation continue and because he didn't impose executive privilege Nadler want's to hang him. Just a tidbit, this whole Nadler revenge saga goes back to 1985 and the Penn rail yard development which Nadler opposed. Nadler is out for revenge and is using scorched earth tactics while destroying our political system.

Huh, not familiar with that history. Everyone holds grudges that run deep, eh?

I’d say Trump has a hand in some destroying.

And Andrew Weissman; a Clinton attorney is the true author of the Mueller report. Why don't you read up on Weissman and how he was admonished by SCOTUS over the Enron ( Anderson vs U.S., NO 04-368 ) scandal and Weissman's unprecedented and scandalous use of obstruction of justice to destroy Enron. Funny how a DOJ document spiral's into an obstruction of justice rallying call and a criminal investigation using phrases and opinions such as not exonerated, the very tactics used by Weissman back in the day. Weissman is the king of process crime and strong arm tactics. Just look at the Roger Stone raid, typical Weissman tactic and you wonder why we have reservations about obstruction of justice by Nadler and Weissman. This whole thing is a shit shute. The Chickens are coming home to roost. Hillary Clinton, Clapper, Brehnan, Ohr and others.

I don’t feel sorry for Enron, but...

I’m fine with following the trail no matter who and let what happens happen.

You know, I was once the legislative chair for a statewide organization trying to get parity for a thing. Met with lots of state representatives and lobbyists. Truly sausage making. I didn’t have the stomach for it. Can’t imagine what it’s like on a federal level.

 

[Rightguide]

Earlier I had referred to the President's article i authority, I meant Article II authority. My apologies to all and to Jomar.

 

[CandiCame]

Trump has allowed Hillary to go scot-free. Trump has allowed Mueller to waste millions of taxpayer dollars. Trump needs to resign, and allow Putin to take his place.

Glorious Leader will never resign but if they don't impeach him now I will have lost all faith in the federal government. If that doesn't happen then we have to come to terms that we live in lawless anarchy and nothing means anything anymore.

 

[Que]

LOL, settle down.

By your logic Trump committed a crime he was trying to hide.

Again, the end result of an investigation does not determine if obstruction applies.

For example, Trump knew he didn’t collude with Russia so he’s safe there. But for the sake of example let’s say he’s worried the special council’s focus isn’t narrow enough. The mandate is broad and wide reaching. So let’s say he’s worried the trail investigators follow will uncover unsavory things and maybe even reveal he’s doesn’t have much money at all. His ego can’t take that even if the unsavory things are not illegal.

So let’s say Trump attempts to get the lead investigator fired to derail the investigation. Let’s say he tries to get witnesses to not cooperate because he doesn’t want them telling where the skeletons are buried.

If he does those things he’s is attempting to interfere and impede an investigation. And that’s obstruction of justice. Doesn’t matter collusion was not found.

ETA: That is how I read it. If it is factually incorrect, I’m open to hearing from some actually in the know.

You would have to read and understand the portion you snipped to understand the difference, so you are clearly not open to hearing anything you don't already believe.

 

[moarBB]

Glorious Leader will never resign but if they don't impeach him now I will have lost all faith in the federal government. If that doesn't happen then we have to come to terms that we live in lawless anarchy and nothing means anything anymore.

anti fa

illegal aliens

sanctuary cities

 

[jomar]

You would have to read and understand the portion you shipped to understand the difference, so you are clearly not open to hearing anything you don't already believe.

“...the portion you shipped...” What does that mean?

Sure I am. You just have to be convincing with facts and truth, not spin and opinion. How about you?

 

[icanhelp1]

Hillary should have known better, everyone has to check off on the security inservice. But she’s not the first or the last if we want get into whatabout javanka, which I don’t. Have Trump open it back up.



Huh, not familiar with that history. Everyone holds grudges that run deep, eh?

I’d say Trump has a hand in some destroying.



I don’t feel sorry for Enron, but...

I’m fine with following the trail no matter who and let what happens happen.

You know, I was once the legislative chair for a statewide organization trying to get parity for a thing. Met with lots of state representatives and lobbyists. Truly sausage making. I didn’t have the stomach for it. Can’t imagine what it’s like on a federal level.

You should feel bad for the thousands of innocent Enron employees who lost their jobs because of that scumbag Weissman. Weissman should have been disbarred, instead, he's back perpetuating more partisan chicanery and trying to exact revenge for Hillary's lost election. Nadler is already 6 steps too far in political quicksand and is going to ruin any chances of success in 2020. This investigation is all about revenge, not justice. There are several player who used the DOJ and the NSA to sabotage Trumps chances and enhance Hillary's. Chickens are coming home to roost.