Once again: NO COLLUSION

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
You should stop assuming I haven't read it. I haven't read all of it, but I'm working on it.

Conspiracy to commit murder is pretty easy to prove. Plans, written statements, verbal statements... I know someone personally who conspired to murder her husband. She hired someone to do the job and planned everything. She was caught and will serve prison time until she's dead.

The thing about a president trying to stop an investigation because he knows he's guilty and aims to use his authority to stop it is a different thing. You have to know his state of mind - his intent. All facts point to Trump knowing he was not guilty of this and knew it was a burden on his presidency. Mueller could not come to his own conclusion that Trump actually committed obstruction. He passed the ball to congress. This has nothing to do with indicting Trump. It has to do with Mueller coming to a firm finding that Trump was, with absolutely certainty, guilty of obstructin. He could have still written that in his report even without an actual indictment. He chose not to.
If you read the report,all of it, you will see that muller says he could not come out and say was guilty of obstruction because DOJ policy is that they don’t comment on the guilt of parties in cases where they can not file an indictment. It’s right there in black and white.

So instead Mueller detailed the 10 instances that could meet the definition of obstruction. Then he provided an analysis of the evidence of each of those instances against the three necessary legal elements. Like I said, there were several that only met one or two of the elements. However, there were also several that mueller says met all three elemements. In other words, several cases that didn’t constitute obstruction and several that did.


BTW, I thought you said this wasn’t about intent :killingme
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
If you read the report,all of it, you will see that muller says he could not come out and say was guilty of obstruction because DOJ policy is that they don’t comment on the guilt of parties in cases where they can not file an indictment. It’s right there in black and white.

So instead Mueller detailed the 10 instances that could meet the definition of obstruction. Then he provided an analysis of the evidence of each of those instances against the three necessary legal elements. Like I said, there were several that only met one or two of the elements. However, there were also several that mueller says met all three elemements. In other words, several cases that didn’t constitute obstruction and several that did.


BTW, I thought you said this wasn’t about intent :killingme
It was repeatedly explained to the population that Trump could be prosecuted post-presidency for actual acts of crime, even if he was impeached for the crime(s).

What prosecution did the report recommend against the president, his family, or any member of the Trump campaign for campaign activities?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
and you must be a pathetic little douche who lives in his mommy's basement and also has an infatuation with people he pretends he is ignoring
It was repeatedly explained to the population that Trump could be prosecuted post-presidency for actual acts of crime, even if he was impeached for the crime(s).

What prosecution did the report recommend against the president, his family, or any member of the Trump campaign for campaign activities?
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
You should stop assuming I haven't read it. I haven't read all of it, but I'm working on it.

Conspiracy to commit murder is pretty easy to prove. Plans, written statements, verbal statements... I know someone personally who conspired to murder her husband. She hired someone to do the job and planned everything. She was caught and will serve prison time until she's dead.

The thing about a president trying to stop an investigation because he knows he's guilty and aims to use his authority to stop it is a different thing. You have to know his state of mind - his intent. All facts point to Trump knowing he was not guilty of this and knew it was a burden on his presidency. Mueller could not come to his own conclusion that Trump actually committed obstruction. He passed the ball to congress. This has nothing to do with indicting Trump. It has to do with Mueller coming to a firm finding that Trump was, with absolutely certainty, guilty of obstructin. He could have still written that in his report even without an actual indictment. He chose not to.
IMO Mueller left the obstruction angle open purposely.
Lets look at Mueller. and his background. Mueller was once head of the FBI.
He worked with Comey, Strzok, McCabe, and was part of the Deep State.
He was assigned to look for collusion and even though he belonged to this league of malcontents, he still could not find evidence of it.
But he had one shot left to get Trump.
Leave open the obstruction question.
 
Reactions: BOP

PsyOps

Pixelated
IMO Mueller left the obstruction angle open purposely.
Lets look at Mueller. and his background. Mueller was once head of the FBI.
He worked with Comey, Strzok, McCabe, and was part of the Deep State.
He was assigned to look for collusion and even though he belonged to this league of malcontents, he still could not find evidence of it.
But he had one shot left to get Trump.
Leave open the obstruction question.
I've posted this before. It does seem this was his purpose. What prosecutor doesn't come to a conclusion about a crime? You either find someone guilty of that crime or the presumption of innocence takes precedence: "I can't find enough evidence to recommend prosecution of this crime, therefore I must say he is innocent of it".

These people really do think we're too stupid to see what they're doing. I have run through my head about what Mueller would have done with this if the GOP controlled the house. I think we know the answer to that.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
If you read the report,all of it, you will see that muller says he could not come out and say was guilty of obstruction because DOJ policy is that they don’t comment on the guilt of parties in cases where they can not file an indictment. It’s right there in black and white.

So instead Mueller detailed the 10 instances that could meet the definition of obstruction. Then he provided an analysis of the evidence of each of those instances against the three necessary legal elements. Like I said, there were several that only met one or two of the elements. However, there were also several that mueller says met all three elemements. In other words, several cases that didn’t constitute obstruction and several that did.


BTW, I thought you said this wasn’t about intent :killingme
I'm not sure where you get I didn't say this wasn't about intent. Intent lies the root of committing a crime like obstruction.

Your first paragraph is nonsense. What do we need a special counsel for, if not to determine whether someone committed a crime or not? He found evidence enough to recommend indictment on others who committed crimes. In other words, he came to the conclusion that there was enough evidence to determine they were guilty of that crime. If he is able to determine there was no evidence that Trump colluded, certainly he could have stated there was - if there was - enough evidence to conclude Trump colluded with the Russians. He made a definitive conclusion on that issue; and you're trying to say he couldn't when it come to obstruction?

To be clear... I'm not saying Mueller would conclude guilt or innocence. That's for a court of law to do. I'm saying that Mueller could have provided a definitive answer as to whether Trump obstructed justice or not, just as he did with collusion. Bottom line... Mueller didn't want to be the one that either fully exonerated or destroyed this presidency. He's wasn't going to be the bad guy in either side. He's a damn coward like the rest of his 'Deep State' crew.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure where you get I didn't say this wasn't about intent. Intent lies the root of committing a crime like obstruction.

Your first paragraph is nonsense. What do we need a special counsel for, if not to determine whether someone committed a crime or not? He found evidence enough to recommend indictment on others who committed crimes. In other words, he came to the conclusion that there was enough evidence to determine they were guilty of that crime. If he is able to determine there was no evidence that Trump colluded, certainly he could have stated there was - if there was - enough evidence to conclude Trump colluded with the Russians. He made a definitive conclusion on that issue; and you're trying to say he couldn't when it come to obstruction?

To be clear... I'm not saying Mueller would conclude guilt or innocence. That's for a court of law to do. I'm saying that Mueller could have provided a definitive answer as to whether Trump obstructed justice or not, just as he did with collusion. Bottom line... Mueller didn't want to be the one that either fully exonerated or destroyed this presidency. He's wasn't going to be the bad guy in either side. He's a damn coward like the rest of his 'Deep State' crew.
its like arguing about the end of a movie with someone who hasnt seen the movie...........


read muellers report. he clearly explains why he cat issue and idictment agaisnt a sitting POTUs and he clearly explains why he cant even say that he would if he could becuase of DOJ rules and procedures.

What Mueller could have done in regards to obstruction is to do exactly what he did with regard to collusion; exonerate him if he found no evidence. In the case of collusion Mueller clearly states that Trump did not commit collusion. He could not do that in the case of obstruction because he found plenty of evidence of obstruction. THerefore he did the only thing he could; list those instances and provide a legal analysis of each.

If Mueller had issued an indictment or even stated that he would if he could, you and the propagnadists ver at Fox would be screaming that Mueller had exceeded his authority and taken a power only given to congress in the COTUS.


I love how Mueller is back to being a deepstate agent. It was just last week that you and the talking heads on the right were holding Mueller up as the gold standard of fairness based on Barr's 'summary'. :killingme
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
"I can't find enough evidence to recommend prosecution of this crime, therefore I must say he is innocent of it".


Mueller hould have SAID NOTHING sans any Proof instead he is Tee'ing this up for Congress and Impeachment
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
its like arguing about the end of a movie with someone who hasnt seen the movie...........


read muellers report. he clearly explains why he cat issue and idictment agaisnt a sitting POTUs and he clearly explains why he cant even say that he would if he could becuase of DOJ rules and procedures.
And you aren't reading what I post. First of all... I have a job and am a busy person. I don't have the time you have to read a 400+ page report in a matter of a few days.

Secondly... I have posted this several times. I am not saying Mueller should have or could have indicted Trump. I am saying that he could have found that there was enough evidence to state that Trump committed obstruction. He could have stated there was no, or not enough, evidence to to show Trump obstructed, just like he stated there was no evidence of collusion. He gave a definitive finding on collusion, but sat on the fence with obstruction. There is either evidence enough to find he obstructed, or there's not. In a justice system there is no middle ground.
 
Last edited:

Yooper

Socket 1, Intel 80486
PREMO Member
its like arguing about the end of a movie with someone who hasnt seen the movie...........
No. It's more like arguing with someone who has seen the end of the movie but keeps trying to tell everyone that it ended differently.

Alternately, if we're going to talk about movies, Part II of the report is like the bad initial Director's Cut of "Bladerunner." Like the "Bladerunner" DC, Part II should never have been published. It is strictly a partisan, bit of unethical pettiness.

So if it's important for you to read me say, "Yes. Good point," okay. good point. This is all so tiresome.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
And you aren't reading what I post. First of all... I have a job and am a busy person. I don't have the time you have to read a 400+ report in a matter of a few days.

Secondly... I have posted this several times. I am not saying Mueller should have or could have indicted Trump. I am saying that he could have found that there was enough evidence to state that Trump committed obstruction. He could have stated there no, or not enough, evidence to to show Trump obstructed, just like he stated there was no evidence of collusion. He gave a definitive finding on collusion, but sat on the fence with obstruction. There is either evidence enough to find he obstructed, or there's not. In a justice system there is no middle ground.
no, he couldn't have, and if you read the report you will understnad exactly why.

Here is a hint for you, you dont have to read the first volume since Mueller says in it that there was no collusion by trump. Start with Volume II and read all of the legal background and rationale.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
No. It's more like arguing with someone who has seen the end of the movie but keeps trying to tell everyone that it ended differently.

Alternately, if we're going to talk about movies, Part II of the report is like the bad initial Director's Cut of "Bladerunner." Like the "Bladerunner" DC, Part II should never have been published. It is strictly a partisan, bit of unethical pettiness.

So if it's important for you to read me say, "Yes. Good point," okay. good point. This is all so tiresome.

--- End of line (MCP)
so you read the report?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
read muellers report. he clearly explains why he cat issue and idictment agaisnt a sitting POTUs and he clearly explains why he cant even say that he would if he could becuase of DOJ rules and procedures.
It was repeatedly explained to the population that Trump could be prosecuted post-presidency for actual acts of crime, even if he was impeached for the crime(s).

If Mueller found a crime, he could have and should have recommended prosecution post-presidency. He absolutely could do that.

He didn't.

It's clear why he didn't do that - and should be even to you.
 

Yooper

Socket 1, Intel 80486
PREMO Member
so you read the report?
This is a trick question, right?

Because no matter what my response is the reply will be something along the lines of, "Gotcha."

Think what you will: re, whether I read it or not. There's no upside to me playing this game.

So since we're on the movie theme, I'm taking a lesson from "War Games": sometimes it's better to just not play. So I'm not.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
This is a trick question, right?

Because no matter what my response is the reply will be something along the lines of, "Gotcha."

Think what you will: re, whether I read it or not. There's no upside to me playing this game.

So since we're on the movie theme, I'm taking a lesson from "War Games": sometimes it's better to just not play. So I'm not.

--- End of line (MCP)
thats a lot of BS that says you didn't read the report.


so in the movie theme, i am the only one who actually saw the movie.......
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
thats a lot of BS that says you didn't read the report.


so in the movie theme, i am the only one who actually saw the movie.......
In the movie theme, I read the book so I get all the parts you choose NOT to get.

It was repeatedly explained to the population that Trump could be prosecuted post-presidency for actual acts of crime, even if he was impeached for the crime(s).

If Mueller found a crime, he could have and should have recommended prosecution post-presidency. He absolutely could do that.

He didn't.

It's clear why he didn't do that - and should be even to you.
 
Top