Russia probes II -- The Mueller Report

[Setton]

4 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

@Tiggs

From my understanding,there has to be a proven criminal act before "obstruction" can occure...no criminal act,no obstruction.

You can obstruct justice without a crime being committed. For example, making a false statement is obstruction, even if the person you are trying to protect didn't actually commit any crime. 

[CrimsonKing]

Just now, Setton said:

You can obstruct justice without a crime being committed. For example, making a false statement is obstruction, even if the person you are trying to protect didn't actually commit any crime. 

I get ya on that,but the "flimsy" garbage of making a false statement after a 2 1/2 year investigation of a sitting American president being bought and paid for by Russians...making a false statement just won't cut it,not one bit lol

Going to have to be some SERIOUS criminal acts proven to impeach and indict...

[Gertdoggy]

2 minutes ago, Setton said:

You can obstruct justice without a crime being committed. For example, making a false statement is obstruction, even if the person you are trying to protect didn't actually commit any crime. 

No false statement was given so your example makes no sense.

 

You are correct that you can obstruct justice without a crime being committed. Since he did not obstruct justice he was not charged with a crime. This seems pretty simple to assert without even reading the report. From what I have gotten through so far all "obstruction" seem extremely petty with nothing directly being done to actually obstruct anything. 

[Tatetopa]

2 hours ago, aztek said:

lol, love the liberal media posting "the report did not exonerate trump" on almost every site.  of course it did not, it was not aimed at that, the report supposed to prove his involvement which it miserably failed to do.  he needs no exoneration, he is not charged with anything

The investigation was supposed to investigate the President's involvement.  It did that, not really a failure.  If Mueller was an honest man he did his duty.  

[CrimsonKing]

1 minute ago, Gertdoggy said:

No false statement was given so your example makes no sense.

 

You are correct that you can obstruct justice without a crime being committed. Since he did not obstruct justice he was not charged with a crime. This seems pretty simple to assert without even reading the report. From what I have gotten through so far all "obstruction" seem extremely petty with nothing directly being done to actually obstruct anything. 

Setton was just giving an example...

While true "making a false statement" could be viewed as obstruction,i think it would then come down to ruling on human error or intent to deceive...it would have to be something provable beyond doubt to try and prosocute which i do not believe was found.

[Setton]

9 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

I get ya on that,but the "flimsy" garbage of making a false statement after a 2 1/2 year investigation of a sitting American president being bought and paid for by Russians...making a false statement just won't cut it,not one bit lol

Going to have to be some SERIOUS criminal acts proven to impeach and indict...

Absolutely, I don't see there being anything here to base an impeachment on. Just worth highlighting that obstruction doesn't require a second crime to be committed. 

8 minutes ago, Gertdoggy said:

No false statement was given so your example makes no sense.

My example was just that - to simply describe what obstruction is. Anything else you read into it is on you. 

Quote

You are correct that you can obstruct justice without a crime being committed.

I know. 

Quote

Since he did not obstruct justice he was not charged with a crime.

That's not actually how criminal law works. To be found guilty, there must be proof 'beyond reasonable doubt'. To prosecute, there must be 'a reasonable chance of conviction'. 

Just because those two thresholds aren't met, it doesn't mean a person did not (factually) commit said crime. Only that they are (legally) not guilty of it. Interestingly, that's also why defendants are found 'not guilty' instead of 'innocent'. 

Quote

This seems pretty simple to assert without even reading the report. From what I have gotten through so far all "obstruction" seem extremely petty with nothing directly being done to actually obstruct anything. 

I suggest perhaps that you do read it then, if you're going to comment on its findings. 

[CrimsonKing]

Just now, Setton said:

Absolutely, I don't see there being anything here to base an impeachment on. Just worth highlighting that obstruction doesn't require a second crime to be committed. 

My example was just that - to simply describe what obstruction is. Anything else you read into it is on you. 

I know. 

That's not actually how criminal law works. To be found guilty, there must be proof 'beyond reasonable doubt'. To prosecute, there must be 'a reasonable chance of conviction'. 

Just because those two thresholds aren't met, it doesn't mean a person did not (factually) commit said crime. Only that they are (legally) not guilty of it. Interestingly, that's also why defendants are found 'not guilty' instead of 'innocent'. 

I suggest perhaps that you do read it then, if you're going to comment on its findings. 

I hear ya man,i've skimmed through it..."mostly" lol

I could see some making a false statement by sheer accident just after freaking out by being investigated...many will say "well if you havn't done anything wrong,then you have nothing to worry about"

That's a complete load of crap though,and those same people would be ***ting their pants if the investigation turned to them lol

 

[Gertdoggy]

5 minutes ago, Setton said:

 

I suggest perhaps that you do read it then, if you're going to comment on its findings. 

I am in the process of reading it as I stated however the sentence you quoted was me referencing other people who have not read the report. 

Have you read the entire report? 

 

[Gertdoggy]

9 minutes ago, Setton said:

That's not actually how criminal law works. To be found guilty, there must be proof 'beyond reasonable doubt'. To prosecute, there must be 'a reasonable chance of conviction'. 

Just because those two thresholds aren't met, it doesn't mean a person did not (factually) commit said crime. Only that they are (legally) not guilty of it. Interestingly, that's also why defendants are found 'not guilty' instead of 'innocent'. 

If Mueller could have charged Trump he would have. Whether it held up in court and Trump was found guilty is different. We have a special counsel that used unusual back handed tactics to try and take Trump out. If there was anything that wouldn't have been laughed out of court to charge Trump with they would have done it and let the chips fall where they may. The reason no charges were filed was not because of the reasonable doubt burden but because there was just nothing there.

[Jerry Gallo]

2 hours ago, Einsteinium said:

Well the guy surrounds himself with criminals

We talking Blago, Rezko, Ayers and the bundlers type of criminals or worse than that?

[Gromdor]

So, I've been reading the report and there is so much good stuff in it for a bunch of claims and posts in the past. DNC hacking pages 36 - 49.  Even talks about Seth Rich on page 48.

Not sure I would be running around claiming, "exoneration".  The report does list many very suspicious activities with the Russians.  Basically pages 66 - 168.

At this point it's about the same credibility as Jussie Smollett.  There was most likely collusion but Mueller didn't uncover enough to charge for criminal conspiracy. (Page 180 Section C First Paragraph)

Pages 180-182 covered why they didn't file conspiracy charges on what was uncovered.

Pages 183-190 was why they didn't do campaign finance charges.

The last 200 pages was about Trump's obstruction of justice.

 

All in all, I hate to say it doesn't settle things at all.  Almost everything in it was negative and nothing truly absolved Trump.  It just basically said, "Here's all the bad things he's done, but we couldn't string it together enough to bring charges."

 

[Vorg]

So at this point, the Russia probe has shifted to neutral.

[Gromdor]

4 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

So at this point, the Russia probe has shifted to neutral.

Yeah, I think so too. 

[Tiggs]

7 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

@Tiggs

From my understanding,there has to be a proven criminal act before "obstruction" can occure...no criminal act,no obstruction.

I don't think the Democrats have a chance in hell for an impeachment from this...

From the obstruction statute:

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

Source: Cornell

As far as I'm aware -- covering up a criminal act is covered by "Whoever corruptly". Lots of Or's after that, so seems as if it's not an absolute requirement.

However -- I believe the position of the Attorney General is that securing a conviction in court is unlikely without that criminal intent, presumably based on prior DOJ conviction rates.

And as far as indicting the president goes -- the AG's word is final.

An impeachment for obstruction only requires a majority vote from the House, but the same basic consideration is in play.

Namely -- would the Senate convict without criminal intent? IMO -- they wouldn't.

[Jerry Gallo]

I wish I had better timing...around 4:30p I Googled the word "collusion" and it had 54M hits. I then Googled "obstruction" and it had 46M hits. At 6:30p, "collusion" had 58M hits, "obstruction" has 140M. If only I had performed this experiment a week ago. Seems to me the only thing that changed today is the narrative.  

Edited April 18, 2019 by Jerry Gallo

[CrimsonKing]

36 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

From the obstruction statute:

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

Source: Cornell

As far as I'm aware -- covering up a criminal act is covered by "Whoever corruptly". Lots of Or's after that, so seems as if it's not an absolute requirement.

However -- I believe the position of the Attorney General is that securing a conviction in court is unlikely without that criminal intent, presumably based on prior DOJ conviction rates.

And as far as indicting the president goes -- the AG's word is final.

An impeachment for obstruction only requires a majority vote from the House, but the same basic consideration is in play.

Namely -- would the Senate convict without criminal intent? IMO -- they wouldn't.

Yeah i shoulda put "without provable deception" lol

That said Trumps own wild reactions to some things have made some things a little "fishier" than maybe they were...then again,i never met anyone who got investigated for anything that didn't get a bit enraged weather inoccent or not!...meh

[acidhead]

 

[CrimsonKing]

24 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

I wish I had better timing...around 4:30p I Googled the word "collusion" and it had 54M hits. I then Googled "obstruction" and it had 46M hits. At 6:30p, "collusion" had 58M hits, "obstruction" has 140M. If only I had performed this experiment a week ago. Seems to me the only thing that changed today is the narrative.  

Meh...immediately after the initial announcement all a sudden "Trumps tax returns" became their battle cry once again,until Barr said he'd have to redact some info,then ALL of the lefts inner Maddow showed through again like some kinda demented Bruce Banner/Hulk fiasco 

[+joc]

4 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Because I can read.

Read what?  The New York Times?  You didn't read the Mueller report...so...what did you read?

[+joc]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

No, it doesn't... 

 

Kind of a no brainer though isn't it?  Yes it is!  Because, you know damn well if they had evidence of obstruction...it would be in there!  They don't.  So instead of saying...we found no evidence...mmmm hmmm...all that so the Global Leftist Media can continue their narrative.  It is painfully obvious Setton...are you really so dutifully duped by the media and Obama's corrupt justice dept?

[CrimsonKing]

Trump said the other day he was going to personal donate to the reconstruction of Notre Dame...

I'd be willing to bet if i started a thread on it,we'd see either almost complete avoidance of said thread,or half or more b***hing and complaining that "if he's really worth as much as he says he is,$25+ million is bulls***! "

We've reached...The Trumplight Zone 

[+Hammerclaw]

Right now, the Liberal narrative is transitioning--kicking screaming and crying--from Republican Watergate to Republican White Water. For the rest of his term, instead of throwing stones, they'll sling mud--any kind of mud--hoping, somehow, enough will stick to justify their futile draconian impeachment fantasy. Politics ain't polite and the next election cycle is shaping up to be a particularly dirty one. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[+and-then]

28 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Right now, the Liberal narrative is transitioning--kicking screaming and crying--from Republican Watergate to Republican White Water. For the rest of his term, instead of throwing stones, they'll sling mud--any kind of mud--hoping, somehow, enough will stick to justify their futile draconian impeachment fantasy. Politics ain't polite and the next election cycle is shaping up to be a particularly dirty one. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I believe that Impeachment is now guaranteed.  It would be a literal miracle if he was removed, though.  It would require 66 votes and the Dems are roughly 10-15 short even in a worst case for the President.  I just pray that AG Barr is a man of integrity and that he will give as much scrutiny to the antics that led to the "investigation" as the Dems and FBI gave to their coup attempt.  If he creates a "dossier" of facts that lead to real proof that criminal wrongdoing was engaged in by the leadership in FBI, CIA and DNI, and possibly higher, he will be placed under extreme pressure to appoint another SC to let the nation know exactly what happened.  There has never been anything like this before and if it slides under the table the rule of law here is dead.  You watch how hysterical their tone will become if he announces an SC investigation into this mess.  They will begin to scream "Constitutional Crisis"  and demand that he be Impeached or indicted.  They cannot allow him to present the facts of what they've been engaged in.  It might very well destroy the Party.

[Agent0range]

What I learned from the report.  The press secretary lies to you on a daily basis, and you don't give a damn.  There would have been obstruction of justice if aides carried out Trump's orders.  But, in the government, it's illegal to not follow an order if it's illegal.  Good thing his aides are smarter than him.  It's clear the investigation didn't start because of the dossier, no matter how many time And Then and F3SS say it did.  And it points out at least a dozen lies from Trump directly, from plans for a tower in Moscow to writing a statement about a Russian meeting in New York.  But, hey, who cares if he lies, right?  It's not against the law. 

The man was surrounded by criminals.  So, we have a President, who is so dumb not to realize what the people around him are doing, or we have a genius President who is a criminal who knows how to keep his nose clean.  Either way, you the right can own that trash.

Edited April 19, 2019 by Agent0range

[bison]

Obstruction of justice by Mr. Trump does not require that anyone carry out his orders to do so. The attempt to prevent the rightful workings of the law is quite sufficient for this crime to have been committed. There is ample documentary evidence that Mr. Trump attempted to obstruct justice on numerous occasions.  

The failure to charge him was not based on Mr. Trump's supposed innocence, or the weakness of the case against him. It was Mr. Mueller's belief that a sitting President could not be prosecuted. This point is still being debated, and is by no means settled. It seems an especially disgraceful act in Mr. Trump's case, since his oath of office as President included a promise to uphold the law.  

Edited April 19, 2019 by bison