Mueller to make important statement

[This_person]

...the citizen's actions towards the FBI's investigation....


@Chris0nllyn
You're a Libertarian, yes? Tell me what you think of that statement above.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

...the citizen's actions towards the FBI's investigation....


@Chris0nllyn
You're a Libertarian, yes? Tell me what you think of that statement above.

I don't think anything of it. Why should I?

 

[Midnightrider]

It’s fun watching people who have never read the report pretend to be experts on its ‘lack of evidence’.


Stop being ignorant, read the report

 

[This_person]

It’s fun watching people who have never read the report pretend to be experts on its ‘lack of evidence’.


Stop being ignorant, read the report

Ready to debate the positions of the person you quoted, since you have no thoughts of your own?

Come on, I'll debate that person - just cut and paste their answers!

 

[This_person]

I don't think anything of it. Why should I?

They did an investigation about something that's not a crime, such that the special counsel had to put in his report that they told him to investigate something that is not a crime so they investigated what they thought the actual task should be, then they investigated a citizen for how they responded to being investigated.

What part of that sounds like it is worthy of governmental action, or prosecution?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

They did an investigation about something that's not a crime, such that the special counsel had to put in his report that they told him to investigate something that is not a crime so they investigated what they thought the actual task should be, then they investigated a citizen for how they responded to being investigated.

What part of that sounds like it is worthy of governmental action, or prosecution?

They investigated another Country potentially influencing our national election. you don't feel that was worthy of investigating?

Obstruction is a crime. And a "citizen's actions towards the FBI's investigation" could be obstruction.

 

[This_person]

They investigated another Country potentially influencing our national election. you don't feel that was worthy of investigating?

Obstruction is a crime. And a "citizen's actions towards the FBI's investigation" could be obstruction.

The potential of another country potentially influencing our election (they didn't influence, but they tried) was worthy of investigating - long before the Obama Administration as it has been going on for a bare minimum of 50 years. And, they did, and the results of THAT are in Volume I.

Volume II is about how a citizen responded to being investigated for a crime he did not commit. The end result being, the investigator (according to the Mueller apologists, not the report) says he can't do a damned thing about it anyway. Seems the whole point of Volume II was - partisan/ideological hackery on the sitting president.

 

[Kyle]

Accusing them of being partisan shitbags pulling a frame job against you is not obstruction.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Volume II is about how a citizen responded to being investigated for a crime he did not commit. The end result being, the investigator (according to the Mueller apologists, not the report) says he can't do a damned thing about it anyway. Seems the whole point of Volume II was - partisan/ideological hackery on the sitting president.

Volume II is about obstruction cases surrounding Volume I which you admit was warranted. See the other thread, because I honestly don't see what was in Volume II that you feel is ideological.

I'd love to see examples of that.

 

[This_person]

Volume II is about obstruction cases surrounding Volume I which you admit was warranted. See the other thread, because I honestly don't see what was in Volume II that you feel is ideological.

I'd love to see examples of that.

How do you obstruct "justice" if there was no underlying crime? Yes, I know, a dozen Russians speaking broken English had a better marketing campaign going than the multi-million dollar one Hillary had, so we indicted them for Facebook posts, but, Trump wasn't a part of that yet he and his family and his co-workers were all being investigated. Everyone knew before going into the investigation that the Trumps and the campaign did not have anything to do with the attempt at influencing the public with the Russians. So, for the useless indictments against the Russian military folk who will never, ever be served, let alone tried, and justice will never be served, it was worth the tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, because.....well, I'm not sure why, but it must have been.

Volume II is ideological in that is a report about something the intended reader, the AG, could do nothing. The SC could do nothing. The meaninglessness of it is astounding in that there would be no obstruction (and, clearly, there WAS no obstruction) if there was no investigation, and there was no honest foundational reason for the investigation. Fruit of the rotten tree and all that. So, there should have been no report beyond, "nothing we can do, so thanks for coming. Tip your waitresses, folks!" That there is a whole lot of confusion - exactly what Mueller was claiming to try and forestall - is a travesty. And, you paid for it. And I paid for it. And, I'm not happy with that.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

How do you obstruct "justice" if there was no underlying crime? Yes, I know, a dozen Russians speaking broken English had a better marketing campaign going than the multi-million dollar one Hillary had, so we indicted them for Facebook posts, but, Trump wasn't a part of that yet he and his family and his co-workers were all being investigated. Everyone knew before going into the investigation that the Trumps and the campaign did not have anything to do with the attempt at influencing the public with the Russians. So, for the useless indictments against the Russian military folk who will never, ever be served, let alone tried, and justice will never be served, it was worth the tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, because.....well, I'm not sure why, but it must have been.

Volume II is ideological in that is a report about something the intended reader, the AG, could do nothing. The SC could do nothing. The meaninglessness of it is astounding in that there would be no obstruction (and, clearly, there WAS no obstruction) if there was no investigation, and there was no honest foundational reason for the investigation. Fruit of the rotten tree and all that. So, there should have been no report beyond, "nothing we can do, so thanks for coming. Tip your waitresses, folks!" That there is a whole lot of confusion - exactly what Mueller was claiming to try and forestall - is a travesty. And, you paid for it. And I paid for it. And, I'm not happy with that.

Russians weren't the only ones indicted, despite you parroting that multiple times.

Desipte your repeated claims that Volume II is useless, it spells out the legal basis for obstruction which says that that one can, in fact, be charged with obstruction despite no underlying crime. See pages 156-158 in Volume II.

Second, many obstruction cases involve the attempted or actual cover-up of an underlying crime. Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had an improper obstructive purpose, see, e.g. , United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 1988), or that he contemplated an effect on an official proceeding, see, e.g., United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558, 591 (2d Cir. 2015). But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating, in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that "obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime"). Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.

 

[This_person]

Russians weren't the only ones indicted, despite you parroting that multiple times.

Who was indicted for the underlying basis of the investigation - Russian interference in the election?

Desipte your repeated claims that Volume II is useless, it spells out the legal basis for obstruction which says that that one can, in fact, be charged with obstruction despite no underlying crime. See pages 156-158 in Volume II.

Yes, except the popular interpretation is that for this individual, nothing can be done about it. So, what's the point?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Who was indicted for the underlying basis of the investigation - Russian interference in the election?

Yes, except the popular interpretation is that for this individual, nothing can be done about it. So, what's the point?

We know, based on Rosenstein's memo, that Mueller's scope did not just include the interference claim, but anything related. I understand why you'd only want to limit indictments around a part of the overall investigation, but that conveniently ignores the indictments that came from the investigation as a whole. Flynn, Manafort, Cohen, Papadapolus, Butina, and Stone.

"Yes?" So, you knew one can be charged with obstruction despite an underlying crime but said the contrary anyway?

What can be done about it? As you've pointed out about 24,907 times, he can be charged post-presidency. Just because nothing can be done right now, and just because the report doesn't say "we'll wait until he's not President", doesn't mean nothing can be done, ever.

 

[Gilligan]

I just wish the House would get impeachment proceedings started now. Then all the arguing can stop.

 

[Gilligan]

What can be done about it? As you've pointed out about 24,907 times, he can be charged post-presidency. Just because nothing can be done right now, and just because the report doesn't say "we'll wait until he's not President", doesn't mean nothing can be done, ever.

Anyone giving odds on the chances of Trump being tried and convicted of obstruction ....ever? When was the last time anyone went to jail for obstruction when it was determined that there was no underlying crime in the first place?

 

[This_person]

We know, based on Rosenstein's memo, that Mueller's scope did not just include the interference claim, but anything related. I understand why you'd only want to limit indictments around a part of the overall investigation, but that conveniently ignores the indictments that came from the investigation as a whole. Flynn, Manafort, Cohen, Papadapolus, Butina, and Stone.

And, what about Flynn, Manafort, Cohen, Papadololus, et al, had anything to do with Russian interference in our election?

"Yes?" So, you knew one can be charged with obstruction despite an underlying crime but said the contrary anyway?

I've said that about a hundred times it can be done. It's just next to impossible to prove someone had a criminal intent when the underlying crime didn't exist. Almost no reasonable jurist would agree that a defendant, knowing they did not commit a crime would have as an intent to obstruct the investigation that will prove they did not commit that crime.

What can be done about it? As you've pointed out about 24,907 times, he can be charged post-presidency. Just because nothing can be done right now, and just because the report doesn't say "we'll wait until he's not President", doesn't mean nothing can be done, ever.

Why doesn't the report say that he should be indicted post-presidency?

Did you hear? The AG says that Mueller could have said, "a crime existed, but we cannot indict."

 

[This_person]

I just wish the House would get impeachment proceedings started now. Then all the arguing can stop.

it won't stop. They'll simply say that the Senate was too partisan to convict, and therefore the Senate is not fit to serve either.

Now, if they include 100 Senators in that last clause, I would agree. End them all as Senators tomorrow and have the state legislatures appoint their replacements - you know, repeal the 17th.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

And, what about Flynn, Manafort, Cohen, Papadololus, et al, had anything to do with Russian interference in our election?

It is all in Volume I and the indictment I provided. If all else fails, try Google.

I've said that about a hundred times it can be done. It's just next to impossible to prove someone had a criminal intent when the underlying crime didn't exist. Almost no reasonable jurist would agree that a defendant, knowing they did not commit a crime would have as an intent to obstruct the investigation that will prove they did not commit that crime.

Luckily they don't need to as an underlying crime isn't required. As was pointed out I don't know how many replies ago.

Why doesn't the report say that he should be indicted post-presidency?

You'll have to ask Mueller.

Did you hear? The AG says that Mueller could have said, "a crime existed, but we cannot indict."

Didn't the report say that?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

When was the last time anyone went to jail for obstruction when it was determined that there was no underlying crime in the first place?

A good place to start would be the case law in my quote above, from the report, whose sentencing guidelines said obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime.

 

[TCROW]

Anyone giving odds on the chances of Trump being tried and convicted of obstruction ....ever? When was the last time anyone went to jail for obstruction when it was determined that there was no underlying crime in the first place?

Here’s another bell-end who didn’t read the report.