Once again: NO COLLUSION

[PsyOps]

What digging. Barr clearly said Mueller identified 10 discrete instances where trump may have committed obstruction. He also said he didn’t see any criminal intent.

I’d like to read it for myself and decide. Are you just going to accept the AGs word for it?

Show me anywhere where someone (Barr or otherwise) said that Trump 'may have committed' obstruction.

And I know where you're going with this 'intent' crap. Comparing intent with Clinton's actions and with Trump's is apples to oranges. Trump fired Comey knowing full-well the investigation would continue. Trump had the authority to stop the whole thing, and never did. In order for Trump to have tried to obstruct justice, he had to have an intentional means to do so. In Hillary's case of mishandling classified, there is no requirement for intent; even though there was plenty of evidence of intent.

And this is why Mueller passed on making judgment of obstruction - because he cannot prove that Trump fired Comey with the intent of obstructing the investigation. In these cases, the presumption of innocence, devoid of concrete evidence, overrules.

 

[CPUSA]

What digging. Barr clearly said Mueller identified 10 discrete instances where trump may have committed obstruction. He also said he didn’t see any criminal intent.

I’d like to read it for myself and decide. Are you just going to accept the AGs word for it?

You are absolutely pathetic!! It isn't going to matter what you read. You're too damned stupid to accept the truth in this entire 2 year charade.
Just stop commenting here. Every damn time you post, you show the world that you aren't even smart enough to tie your shoelaces correctly.

 

[This_person]

And this is why Mueller passed on making judgment of obstruction - because he cannot prove that Trump fired Comey with the intent of obstructing the investigation. In these cases, the presumption of innocence, devoid of concrete evidence, overrules.

While I think - legally speaking - you are absolutely correct, there's more to it than that.

Legally, he did not specifically state (seemingly) that he could not prove obstruction. He left that conclusion out.

Now, why would he do that? It is my belief that he specifically, intentionally left that out in order for Congress to have the ability to make that determination in an impeachment proceeding. If he specifically said, "no proof, therefore it didn't happen" he would have removed that ammunition from Congressional prosecutors of impeachment. He specifically, intentionally was non-committal on that to give them what they needed, if they choose to take it. Just my opinion.

 

[vraiblonde]

Judging by some of the posts in here, our resident batshit crazy progs are losing what passes for their mind.

 

[vraiblonde]

Now all the progs have to quick run to MSNBC to get their talking points so they can pretend they watched the Barr presser and understood what he was talking about.

 

[vraiblonde]

Apparently CNN is melting down HARD.

MELTDOWN: Benny Johnson, Laura Ingraham, Greg Gutfeld and others MOCK the crap out of CNN's post-Barr coverage

They're going to need a bigger desk soon.

twitchy.com

 

[Midnightrider]

Show me anywhere where someone (Barr or otherwise) said that Trump 'may have committed' obstruction.

And I know where you're going with this 'intent' crap. Comparing intent with Clinton's actions and with Trump's is apples to oranges. Trump fired Comey knowing full-well the investigation would continue. Trump had the authority to stop the whole thing, and never did. In order for Trump to have tried to obstruct justice, he had to have an intentional means to do so. In Hillary's case of mishandling classified, there is no requirement for intent; even though there was plenty of evidence of intent.

And this is why Mueller passed on making judgment of obstruction - because he cannot prove that Trump fired Comey with the intent of obstructing the investigation. In these cases, the presumption of innocence, devoid of concrete evidence, overrules.

It might be apples and oranges and it might not. I’m going to read the report and decide for myself.

And Barr most certainly said that Mueller identifies 10 instances that may have amounted to obstruction but that mueller chose not to make a prosecutorial decision on them.

 

[GURPS]

Show me anywhere where someone (Barr or otherwise) said that Trump 'may have committed' obstruction.

There was NO Collusion so there can be NO Obstruction

 

[GURPS]

Judging by some of the posts in here, our resident batshit crazy progs are losing what passes for their mind.

I wonder which Prog they are arguing with ... Transporter, Salmon or Midnight Humper

 

[vraiblonde]

I wonder which Prog they are arguing with ... Transporter, Salmon or Midnight Humper

I'm guessing Trans is going off on a spittle-flying tirage.

 

[PsyOps]

There was NO Collusion so there can be NO Obstruction

That has been an argument against obstruction. However, there was a valid investigation, and regardless of guilt or innocence of a crime, you can still illegally obstruct that investigation. My argument is, how could Trump obstructed this investigation by firing Comey knowing full-well the investigation would continue regardless of Comey's status? In a court of law, Trump would have been found not guilty because there just wasn't evidence to prove he committed obstruction; that's why Mueller came to that conclusion of making no decision one way or the other. He's basically saying "I have no idea if he obstructed; so I can't say he did or didn't". Which is no different than a court saying "not guilty". The presumption of innocent, devoid of concrete evidence, always rules.

 

[GURPS]

That has been on of the Progressive Arguments - Firing Comey was obstruction

 

[vraiblonde]

That has been an argument against obstruction. However, there was a valid investigation, and regardless of guilt or innocence of a crime, you can still illegally obstruct that investigation. My argument is, how could Trump obstructed this investigation by firing Comey knowing full-well the investigation would continue regardless of Comey's status? In a court of law, Trump would have been found not guilty because there just wasn't evidence to prove he committed obstruction; that's why Mueller came to that conclusion of making no decision one way or the other. He's basically saying "I have no idea if he obstructed; so I can't say he did or didn't". Which is no different than a court saying "not guilty". The presumption of innocent, devoid of concrete evidence, always rules.

Comey was fired because he's a dirty traitor. Anyone can see that, especially given his behavior after his firing. I really hope the DoJ will go after these people and not let them get away with trying to overthrow our government. I want John Brennan to die in prison, no lie. I want Hillary Clinton in prison where she belongs. I want Barack Obama held accountable for his crimes. This spying business is exactly like Watergate, and was absolutely done at Obama's request. He needs to be punished for that.

 

[Kyle]

Tranny Meltdown in full bloom!

 

[stgislander]

If those "10 episodes” of possible obstruction all deal with Comey's firing, there's nothing to worry about. Everybody wanted him gone.

 

[PsyOps]

It might be apples and oranges and it might not. I’m going to read the report and decide for myself.

And Barr most certainly said that Mueller identifies 10 instances that may have amounted to obstruction but that mueller chose not to make a prosecutorial decision on them.

And the part you conveniently left out: "Instead the report recounts 10 episodes involving the president, and discusses potential legal theories for connecting those theories to the elements of an obstruction offense. After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the office of legal counsel, and other department lawyers, the deputy attorney general and I concluded that the evidence developed by the special counsel, is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense."

Now, are you going to tell me you have some sort of superior legal information and knowledge that Barr doesn't have, considering the efforts he went through to prove whether obstruction happened? Are you going to tell me that you're going to read the report and somehow come to a better legal conclusion that he?

Tell me MR, where did you get your law degree, how long have you been practicing, and where have you practiced?

 

[PsyOps]

Comey was fired because he's a dirty traitor. Anyone can see that, especially given his behavior after his firing. I really hope the DoJ will go after these people and not let them get away with trying to overthrow our government. I want John Brennan to die in prison, no lie. I want Hillary Clinton in prison where she belongs. I want Barack Obama held accountable for his crimes. This spying business is exactly like Watergate, and was absolutely done at Obama's request. He needs to be punished for that.

It's worse than Watergate, because Obama and Hillary used people at the highest level of our government to do this spying. High level government officials using government agencies to spy on political enemies. It is amazing these people are still walking our streets and exercising their free speech rights to blatantly lie in order to take down the president. But they have failed on every front. And now, with these new investigations being opened, maybe there will be some accountability.

 

[PsyOps]

Are you just going to accept the AGs word for it?

His report is based on the Mueller report. Are you telling you me Muller lied too? If you believe that, why bother reading the report. You've already made up your mind.

To answer your question... yes, I am taking Barr word for it. I have no reason or evidence to believe he is lying. Those sentiments have nothing to do with Trump, or any support I might have for him. It has to do with the fact that this thing has been investigated to death and they found NOTHING. Mueller isn't out there disputing Barr's findings. Rosenstein - who appointed Mueller - is in complete agreement with Barr. All of the lawyers and courts that help Barr with his conclusions found no illegality. What the heck more do you want? What could you possibly glean from reading the report that Barr (who has read the ENTIRE report) didn't?

 

[GURPS]

Tranny Meltdown in full bloom!

 

[GURPS]

Tell me MR,

dude you trying to teach a pig to sing