Obstruction

[DvlDog4WVU]

Can you all help me understand how for months, the left pilloried anyone who dare mention the SC didn’t have the authority to indict the President. Now, the narrative has shifted to, “The SC as laid out in the legal theory, doesn’t have the authority to indict a sitting President, he left it up to Congress”. I can’t keep up with the spin of the left in the wake of another crushing defeat with the Mueller report.

Declared definitively, there was no collusion with Trump or the Trump campaign. Declared definitively, the Russian efforts were rebuffed by the Trump campaign.

Now, whiny Dems are on their next Quixotic crusade and their windmill is “obstruction” for a crime not committed, actually, a crime fully exonerated. The proof? He ordered someone to fire the SC (he is legally allowed to do), and it was never carried out. Enjoy another failure and continued futility. You’re going to ensure another 4 years of this guy.

 

[atlkvb]

Can you all help me understand how for months, the left pilloried anyone who dare mention the SC didn’t have the authority to indict the President. Now, the narrative has shifted to, “The SC as laid out in the legal theory, doesn’t have the authority to indict a sitting President, he left it up to Congress”. I can’t keep up with the spin of the left in the wake of another crushing defeat with the Mueller report.

Declared definitively, there was no collusion with Trump or the Trump campaign. Declared definitively, the Russian efforts were rebuffed by the Trump campaign.

Now, whiny Dems are on their next Quixotic crusade and their windmill is “obstruction” for a crime not committed, actually, a crime fully exonerated. The proof? He ordered someone to fire the SC (he is legally allowed to do), and it was never carried out. Enjoy another failure and continued futility. You’re going to ensure another 4 years of this guy.

Good points. Here's the head scratcher for me:

If Mueller was able to determine Trump did not "collude" with Russians to steal votes from Hillary (his original charge) how was he "obstructed" from making that determination? Wouldn't that be the problem if Trump was guilty of obstruction? Mueller thinks he "colluded" but was obstructed by Trump from making that case?

Instead, they're (Leftists) arguing the exact opposite...that even though Mueller was able to determine Trump did NOT collude, he was nevertheless 'obstructed' from making that determination!

Loopy.

 

[boomerwv]

The report lays out plenty of "collusion." What it claims to be unable to prove was criminal conspiracy. That isn't a prerequisite for obstruction.

The only one whining here is you. You support a grifter and you are willing to do anything to keep him in. You upset that people are calling out his abuses of power.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

The report lays out plenty of "collusion." What it claims to be unable to prove was criminal conspiracy. That isn't a prerequisite for obstruction.

The only one whining here is you. You support a grifter and you are willing to do anything to keep him in. You upset that people are calling out his abuses of power.

Wahhhhhhh

 

[dave]

The report lays out plenty of "collusion." What it claims to be unable to prove was criminal conspiracy. That isn't a prerequisite for obstruction.

The only one whining here is you. You support a grifter and you are willing to do anything to keep him in. You upset that people are calling out his abuses of power.

Lol. His abuses of power.

Enjoy the show asshat.

 

[Mntneer]

The report lays out plenty of "collusion." What it claims to be unable to prove was criminal conspiracy. That isn't a prerequisite for obstruction.

The only one whining here is you. You support a grifter and you are willing to do anything to keep him in. You upset that people are calling out his abuses of power.

 

[dave]

They found a new "big lie" to grasp onto. Based on no facts and ignoring many facts but they believe.

 

[atlkvb]

The report lays out plenty of "collusion." What it claims to be unable to prove was criminal conspiracy. That isn't a prerequisite for obstruction.

The only one whining here is you. You support a grifter and you are willing to do anything to keep him in. You upset that people are calling out his abuses of power.

Can you cite what part of the Federal registry in the codes of criminal conduct it spells out "collusion" and how Trump violated it to be guilty of breaking the Law?

If criminal conspiracy is required to be in violation of it and Trump's not, how is he guilty of violating whatever you can cite in the registry as a crime, and what part of that was "obstructed" that Mueller couldn't/didn't prove?

Please proceed.

 

[atlkvb]

They found a new "big lie" to grasp onto. Based on no facts and ignoring many facts but they believe.

You gotta hand it to the Left...they're creative if not altogether deranged.

 

[dave]

Can you cite what part of the Federal registry in the codes of criminal conduct it spells out "collusion" and how Trump violated it to be guilty of breaking the Law?

If criminal conspiracy is required to be in violation of it and Trump's not, how is he guilty of violating whatever you can cite in the registry as a crime, and what part of that was "obstructed" that Mueller couldn't/didn't prove?

Please proceed.

The report states there is no collusion. The sheep are back to looking at any and all connections between Trump and anyone who ever knew him and a russian or russion liquor as collusion.

Its a truly insane group of conspiracy theorists.

 

[atlkvb]

The report lays out plenty of "collusion." What it claims to be unable to prove was criminal conspiracy. That isn't a prerequisite for obstruction.

OK...so if no conspiracy was proven or discovered, what exactly was the obstruction covering up?

• Trump obstructed Justice (of what?)
• Investigation of a criminal conspiracy (to do what?)
• Collusion! (with whom?)
• Russians! (to steal Hillary's votes)

OK...but....

• No collusion was found (didn't exist)
• No one "conspired" with any Russians (didn't happen)
• No evidence was discovered (where was the obstruction?)
• Trump didn't help Mueller prove the allegations (that's the obstruction)[eyeroll]

 

[dave]

OK...so if no conspiracy was proven or discovered, what exactly was the obstruction covering up?

• Trump obstructed Justice (of what?)
• Proof of a criminal conspiracy (to do what?)
• Collusion! (with whom?)
• Russians! (to steal Hillary's votes)

OK...but....

• No collusion was found (didn't exist)
• No one "conspired" with any Russians (didn't happen)
• No evidence was discovered (where was the obstruction?)
• Trump didn't help Mueller prove the allegations (that's the obstruction) [eyeroll]

Special prosector full of seasoned prosecutors cant find a conspiracy.

Internet wannabe lawyers....find conspiracy that suppsedly cant be prosecuted.

Yeah....not crazy at all.

 

[atlkvb]

Special prosector full of seasoned prosecutors cant find a conspiracy.

Internet wannabe lawyers....find conspiracy that suppsedly cant be prosecuted.

Yeah....not crazy at all.

I'm close to leaving 'em all alone Dave. Traveling down the road of crazy leads you to crazy. At this point I'll just wait for the IG, AG, & CI (Congressional investigations) to complete their inquiries, issue their findings and hopefully refer some of these folks for criminal prosecutions.

Anything less than that and all this amounts to was a giant waste of time and a blueprint for the next corrupt crowd to do it even better.

Done with it...these folks on the Left are loco and driving me nuts!

 

[WVU82_rivals]

"If Clinton was elected, great; everything continues as normal. However, if Clinton was not elected the preexisting weaponization of government needed a cover story, a plausible legitimate reason for why political surveillance/spying was taking place."

This is why they needed the Steele Dossier.

A hoax from the beginning...

 

[Shirley Knott]

"If Clinton was elected, great; everything continues as normal. However, if Clinton was not elected the preexisting weaponization of government needed a cover story, a plausible legitimate reason for why political surveillance/spying was taking place."

This is why they needed the Steele Dossier.

A hoax from the beginning...

The Mueller Report is a gigantic onion fertilized by the lies of socialist followers of MSM and leaders in our government. The stench of this onion permeates in the posts of leftist supporters who refuse to believe the findings of the AG.....

 

[Keyser76]

The report that totally exonerates Donnie is all ********, ya'll won, enjoy. But if you read it, it really makes ya'lls case for what a Patriotic and honorable hero you have, lol, unlike that liberal POS Mueller.

 

[dave]

The report that totally exonerates Donnie is all ********, ya'll won, enjoy. But if you read it, it really makes ya'lls case for what a Patriotic and honorable hero you have, lol, unlike that liberal POS Mueller.

You havent read the report so shut up.

 

[atlkvb]

The report that totally exonerates Donnie is all ********, ya'll won, enjoy. But if you read it, it really makes ya'lls case for what a Patriotic and honorable hero you have, lol, unlike that liberal POS Mueller.

Hey Keyser does the Mueller report outline how Hillary won the popular vote?

 

[JWBinDC]

Good points. Here's the head scratcher for me:

If Mueller was able to determine Trump did not "collude" with Russians to steal votes from Hillary (his original charge) how was he "obstructed" from making that determination? Wouldn't that be the problem if Trump was guilty of obstruction? Mueller thinks he "colluded" but was obstructed by Trump from making that case?

Instead, they're (Leftists) arguing the exact opposite...that even though Mueller was able to determine Trump did NOT collude, he was nevertheless 'obstructed' from making that determination!

Loopy.

First of all, Mueller didn't determine the Trump campaign didn't "collude", which is not a legal term. He did not find that Trump's (and campaign's) numerous and documented contacts with Russian linked and affiliated persons rose to the level of criminal conspiracy. Read the report to understand that is a very narrow look at the issue, and requires evidence and substantiation beyond a reasonable doubt. That's very different from yelping about "No Collusion", where evidence abounds that Russia offered and Trump gleefully accepted any assistance Russia provided. To wit: Paul Manafort delivered detailed polling data to a known Putin confidante, but hey....that's just fine, right??

Secondly, the vast majority of prosecutors I've heard opine on the subject have been very clear that NO underlying crime is a necessary in order to engage in obstruction of justice. He also did NOT conclude what you are claiming. He very clearly laid out ten possible areas of obstruction and explicitly said that due to the standing DOJ rule that prohibits the indictment of a sitting president, he was not making a traditional prosecutorial judgement, explicitly stated that if the evidence had supported exoneration in this regard it would have be so stated. AND, he made several references/statements to the role Congress has in conducting oversight and holding any POTUS accountable for corrupt/criminal acts.

I know this won't preclude you and others from taking what you want from the report, but at least try and be factual about what the report does and doesn't say.

 

[JWBinDC]

I'm close to leaving 'em all alone Dave. Traveling down the road of crazy leads you to crazy. At this point I'll just wait for the IG, AG, & CI (Congressional investigations) to complete their inquiries, issue their findings and hopefully refer some of these folks for criminal prosecutions.

Anything less than that and all this amounts to was a giant waste of time and a blueprint for the next corrupt crowd to do it even better.

Done with it...these folks on the Left are loco and driving me nuts!

I'm close to leaving 'em all alone Dave. Traveling down the road of crazy leads you to crazy. At this point I'll just wait for the IG, AG, & CI (Congressional investigations) to complete their inquiries, issue their findings and hopefully refer some of these folks for criminal prosecutions.

Anything less than that and all this amounts to was a giant waste of time and a blueprint for the next corrupt crowd to do it even better.

Done with it...these folks on the Left are loco and driving me nuts!

But Benghazi and government related email investigations were all good, right? Sounds like you guys just don't like it, when "it's your time in the barrel", to quote one of your own.

 

[dave]

First of all, Mueller didn't determine the Trump campaign didn't "collude", which is not a legal term. He did not find that Trump's (and campaign's) numerous and documented contacts with Russian linked and affiliated persons rose to the level of criminal conspiracy. Read the report to understand that is a very narrow look at the issue, and requires evidence and substantiation beyond a reasonable doubt. That's very different from yelping about "No Collusion", where evidence abounds that Russia offered and Trump gleefully accepted any assistance Russia provided. To wit: Paul Manafort delivered detailed polling data to a known Putin confidante, but hey....that's just fine, right??

Secondly, the vast majority of prosecutors I've heard opine on the subject have been very clear that NO underlying crime is a necessary in order to engage in obstruction of justice. He also did NOT conclude what you are claiming. He very clearly laid out ten possible areas of obstruction and explicitly said that due to the standing DOJ rule that prohibits the indictment of a sitting president, he was not making a traditional prosecutorial judgement, explicitly stated that if the evidence had supported exoneration in this regard it would have be so stated. AND, he made several references/statements to the role Congress has in conducting oversight and holding any POTUS accountable for corrupt/criminal acts.

I know this won't preclude you and others from taking what you want from the report, but at least try and be factual about what the report does and doesn't say.

Turn off CNN.

 

[TarHeelEer]

First of all, Mueller didn't determine the Trump campaign didn't "collude", which is not a legal term. He did not find that Trump's (and campaign's) numerous and documented contacts with Russian linked and affiliated persons rose to the level of criminal conspiracy. Read the report to understand that is a very narrow look at the issue, and requires evidence and substantiation beyond a reasonable doubt. That's very different from yelping about "No Collusion", where evidence abounds that Russia offered and Trump gleefully accepted any assistance Russia provided. To wit: Paul Manafort delivered detailed polling data to a known Putin confidante, but hey....that's just fine, right??

Secondly, the vast majority of prosecutors I've heard opine on the subject have been very clear that NO underlying crime is a necessary in order to engage in obstruction of justice. He also did NOT conclude what you are claiming. He very clearly laid out ten possible areas of obstruction and explicitly said that due to the standing DOJ rule that prohibits the indictment of a sitting president, he was not making a traditional prosecutorial judgement, explicitly stated that if the evidence had supported exoneration in this regard it would have be so stated. AND, he made several references/statements to the role Congress has in conducting oversight and holding any POTUS accountable for corrupt/criminal acts.

I know this won't preclude you and others from taking what you want from the report, but at least try and be factual about what the report does and doesn't say.

Sir, this is Waffle House.

 

[dave]

But Benghazi and government related email investigations were all good, right? Sounds like you guys just don't like it, when "it's your time in the barrel", to quote one of your own.

One of those things is not like the other.

 

[JWBinDC]

Sir, this is Waffle House.

Astute...brilliant even.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

First of all, Mueller didn't determine the Trump campaign didn't "collude", which is not a legal term. He did not find that Trump's (and campaign's) numerous and documented contacts with Russian linked and affiliated persons rose to the level of criminal conspiracy. Read the report to understand that is a very narrow look at the issue, and requires evidence and substantiation beyond a reasonable doubt. That's very different from yelping about "No Collusion", where evidence abounds that Russia offered and Trump gleefully accepted any assistance Russia provided. To wit: Paul Manafort delivered detailed polling data to a known Putin confidante, but hey....that's just fine, right??

Secondly, the vast majority of prosecutors I've heard opine on the subject have been very clear that NO underlying crime is a necessary in order to engage in obstruction of justice. He also did NOT conclude what you are claiming. He very clearly laid out ten possible areas of obstruction and explicitly said that due to the standing DOJ rule that prohibits the indictment of a sitting president, he was not making a traditional prosecutorial judgement, explicitly stated that if the evidence had supported exoneration in this regard it would have be so stated. AND, he made several references/statements to the role Congress has in conducting oversight and holding any POTUS accountable for corrupt/criminal acts.

I know this won't preclude you and others from taking what you want from the report, but at least try and be factual about what the report does and doesn't say.

So he was cleared of the crime he was investigated for?

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[atlkvb]

First of all, Mueller didn't determine the Trump campaign didn't "collude", which is not a legal term. He did not find that Trump's (and campaign's) numerous and documented contacts with Russian linked and affiliated persons rose to the level of criminal conspiracy. Read the report to understand that is a very narrow look at the issue, and requires evidence and substantiation beyond a reasonable doubt. That's very different from yelping about "No Collusion", where evidence abounds that Russia offered and Trump gleefully accepted any assistance Russia provided. To wit: Paul Manafort delivered detailed polling data to a known Putin confidante, but hey....that's just fine, right??

Secondly, the vast majority of prosecutors I've heard opine on the subject have been very clear that NO underlying crime is a necessary in order to engage in obstruction of justice. He also did NOT conclude what you are claiming. He very clearly laid out ten possible areas of obstruction and explicitly said that due to the standing DOJ rule that prohibits the indictment of a sitting president, he was not making a traditional prosecutorial judgement, explicitly stated that if the evidence had supported exoneration in this regard it would have be so stated. AND, he made several references/statements to the role Congress has in conducting oversight and holding any POTUS accountable for corrupt/criminal acts.

I know this won't preclude you and others from taking what you want from the report, but at least try and be factual about what the report does and doesn't say.

That's fair enough. I hope they impeach him, present their evidence, send it to the Senate and take a vote on his "guilt". Trump won't even have to campaign in 2020 to win in a landslide.

The whole story is bogus...it was a pre-fabricated attempt to overturn the results of Hillary's popular vote victory. [winking]

 

[atlkvb]

So he was cleared of the crime he was investigated for?

oh no no Dog...according to that he is possibly still guilty of not refusing contacts with Russians and possibly even thinking about colluding with them or accepting their offers for help which is just as bad as actually colluding with them even if he didn't! [eyeroll]

 

[Mntneer]

Can you all help me understand how for months, the left pilloried anyone who dare mention the SC didn’t have the authority to indict the President. Now, the narrative has shifted to, “The SC as laid out in the legal theory, doesn’t have the authority to indict a sitting President, he left it up to Congress”. I can’t keep up with the spin of the left in the wake of another crushing defeat with the Mueller report.

Declared definitively, there was no collusion with Trump or the Trump campaign. Declared definitively, the Russian efforts were rebuffed by the Trump campaign.

Now, whiny Dems are on their next Quixotic crusade and their windmill is “obstruction” for a crime not committed, actually, a crime fully exonerated. The proof? He ordered someone to fire the SC (he is legally allowed to do), and it was never carried out. Enjoy another failure and continued futility. You’re going to ensure another 4 years of this guy.

Obstruction.... It's all they have left.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Obstruction.... It's all they have left.

That dog just ain’t gonna hunt.

 

[atlkvb]

Obstruction.... It's all they have left.

Well if that doesn't work, they can always try "attempted obstruction". [eyeroll]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[JWBinDC]

That's fair enough. I hope they impeach him, present their evidence, send it to the Senate and take a vote on his "guilt". Trump won't even have to campaign in 2020 to win in a landslide.

The whole story is bogus...it was a pre-fabricated attempt to overturn the results of Hillary's popular vote victory. [winking]

I think your tinfoil hat is working great.

 

[Mntneer]

That dog just ain’t gonna hunt.

I like how they cite the attempt to fire Mueller as obstruction.

 

[Keyser76]

You havent read the report so shut up.

Oh but I have skippy, well, not the redacted parts but who has? You mean you are on here not knowing what you are talking about? what a shock. Don't mind me, I'm just laughing at you, totally owned.

 

[Keyser76]

I like how they cite the attempt to fire Mueller as obstruction.

Yeah, cause if you wanted to obstruct an investigation who would be stupid enough to think they could just fire the top guy, oh wait, my bad, lmfao!

 

[atlkvb]

"I read the Mueller Dossier so you don't have to. The first part: No collusion but Mueller tries to imply otherwise. Part two: dishonest, gossipy attack on @RealDonaldTrump. Mueller op suggests prosecuting Trump for criticizing them! Trump should have fired the whole lot of them".

See...right there is a crime! You can't "criticize" a legitimate inquiry made up to smear you! That's obstruction of Justice...it was Justice to get Trump out of Office and he was mad he was being accused of something he didn't do and had no right to either get upset about that or criticize it! He should have just shut up and let the charges stick! Who asked him to run for President anyway, or challenge anything about Washington D.C.? Traitor!

 

[atlkvb]

Oh but I have skippy, well, not the redacted parts but who has? You mean you are on here not knowing what you are talking about? what a shock. Don't mind me, I'm just laughing at you, totally owned.

Hey Keyser, did the report outline how many more "popular votes" Hillary got than Trump, and how he tried to steal those too?

 

[JWBinDC]

So he was cleared of the crime he was investigated for?

No, that's not how prosecution works. Mueller did not find sufficient grounds to charge with conspiracy. That doesn't mean there was "no evidence" of a conspiracy, nor does it mean there wasn't abundant evidence of unsavory and improper contact. Again, assistance was offered and accepted. Your head would be exploding, if it was a Dem. And.....obstruction does not require the underlying crime to even exist or be successfully prosecuted.

 

[dave]

Oh but I have skippy, well, not the redacted parts but who has? You mean you are on here not knowing what you are talking about? what a shock. Don't mind me, I'm just laughing at you, totally owned.

Sure you have. There were not happy hour coupons attached so nobody is buying that.