Once again: NO COLLUSION

PsyOps

Pixelated
I have read part of the report and news reports/commentary on it and have concluded that there is some sense of Trump trying to interfere with the investigation. Barr mentioned 10 instances where Mueller left the door open for attempted obstruction. Trump attempted, through several legal aids and agencies heads to either stop the investigation, fire Mueller, or limit the scope of the investigation. What's interesting to me is that Mueller still couldn't come to a legal/criminal decision on whether this defines obstruction. I have no idea if attempting or conspiring to obstruct is a crime, but it seems it was something Trump tried to do. All we have to do on, at this point, is Mueller, Rosenstein, and Barr (all lawyers and so-called legal scholars) could not definitively conclude that Trump violated the law. I find this most interesting, since this is what the democrats are claiming. It is disturbing to me that Trump was out there in front of cameras saying that he was not going to interfere in the investigation, while behind the scenes, trying to interfere in the investigation. Again, since Mueller couldn't find definitive criminality in Trump's actions, I can only conclude that this isn't illegal.

So, is this impeachable? Do these attempts to interfere in the investigation fall under the definition of 'high crimes and misdemeanors'? I know democrats don't care if it does or doesn't. They are going for impeachment regardless. Can they just make up what defines a crime when it comes to the president, or is there actual documentation that explicitly defines what constitutes an impeachable crime?
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
I have read part of the report and news reports/commentary on it and have concluded that there is some sense of Trump trying to interfere with the investigation. Barr mentioned 10 instances where Mueller left the door open for attempted obstruction. Trump attempted, through several legal aids and agencies heads to either stop the investigation, fire Mueller, or limit the scope of the investigation. What's interesting to me is that Mueller still couldn't come to a legal/criminal decision on whether this defines obstruction. I have no idea if attempting or conspiring to obstruct is a crime, but it seems it was something Trump tried to do. All we have to do on, at this point, is Mueller, Rosenstein, and Barr (all lawyers and so-called legal scholars) could not definitively conclude that Trump violated the law. I find this most interesting, since this is what the democrats are claiming. It is disturbing to me that Trump was out there in front of cameras saying that he was not going to interfere in the investigation, while behind the scenes, trying to interfere in the investigation. Again, since Mueller couldn't find definitive criminality in Trump's actions, I can only conclude that this isn't illegal.

So, is this impeachable? Do these attempts to interfere in the investigation fall under the definition of 'high crimes and misdemeanors'? I know democrats don't care if it does or doesn't. They are going for impeachment regardless. Can they just make up what defines a crime when it comes to the president, or is there actual documentation that explicitly defines what constitutes an impeachable crime?
I plan on reading Vol II this weekend. I guess what I am most interested in is the timeline of the 10 instances. It appears that they were all within a short span of time immediately around the time the Special Prosecutor's investigation was announced. If so, it also sounds like cooler heads won out, Trump cooled down, and allowed the investigation run its course.
 

CPUSA

Well-Known Member
And if Eric Holder had issued a report clearing Obama you would take his word for it right? I know I didn’t/wouldn’t. That’s why I will read the report for myself. I was busy all day so I will get to it tonight.

You mean Barr’s ‘audition letter’ as it is being called doesn’t give you any reason to question his impartiality just a little?


I didn’t hear Rosenstein talk. I had to leave when Barr was taking questions. Did he actually say anything or are you basing your belief that he is in complete agreement with Barr on the fact that he stood silent behind his boss?
136543


Here...you've earned just as much as Tranny and the others have...
Ya'lls delusions about the Great & Glorious President Trump are frankly, pretty damn scary...
Either get the help you need or end your miserable lives.
Either one is acceptable...
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I plan on reading Vol II this weekend. I guess what I am most interested in is the timeline of the 10 instances. It appears that they were all within a short span of time immediately around the time the Special Prosecutor's investigation was announced. If so, it also sounds like cooler heads won out, Trump cooled down, and allowed the investigation run its course.

I'm totally convinced it was a panic move on Trumps part. He's not an insider that would know what his rights are as president. I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt that he just wanted it to go away because he knew he was innocent of collusion and didn't need this distraction. He had some smart people willing to say no to him; which ultimately protected him from actual obstruction.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I have read part of the report and news reports/commentary on it and have concluded that there is some sense of Trump trying to interfere with the investigation.

My take on that is he was throwing it out there, and his peeps said, "You can't do that." That's what advisor's are for. Trump: "I should shut this bogus investigation down." Advisors: "You can't."

To me that is not obstruction, or even attempted obstruction. It's like me saying, "I should punch that bitch in the mouth," but not doing it. If I suggest it but don't do it, it's not assault.

By all accounts Trump was forthcoming and didn't try to impede the investigation at all. The bots are being told to make a big deal out of him being pissed, but I think most of us would be pissed if we were being investigated for political purposes and lied about in the media every day. It's just more bullshit from the dishonest fake news media that are trying to overthrow our government and take down our President.

The Democrats are being bratty toddlers. They don't get their way so they kick and scream and throw themselves on the floor. "I hate you I hate you I hate you! I'm gonna hold my breath and then you'll be sorry!" I'm bored with their antics and I have to believe the majority of Americans are as well.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
The bots are also saying that the report didn't "prove Trump innocent". Because that's how they think: anyone they hate is guilty and it's up to them to prove their innocence.

How it really works in this country is that it's up to the prosecutor or investigator to prove guilt, not the accused to prove their innocence. All these armchair lawyers blathering their ignorance all over social media are boring as well. "Trump has to prove his innocence! He's such a fascist!" They are so mindless they completely miss the irony in their ravings.
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
They are so mindless they completely miss the irony in their ravings.
Their self awareness switch is in the off position and permanently disconnected.

The rantings of Sappy, Tranny, MR or COC are all the evidence needed.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
I have read part of the report and news reports/commentary on it and have concluded that there is some sense of Trump trying to interfere with the investigation. Barr mentioned 10 instances where Mueller left the door open for attempted obstruction. Trump attempted, through several legal aids and agencies heads to either stop the investigation, fire Mueller, or limit the scope of the investigation. What's interesting to me is that Mueller still couldn't come to a legal/criminal decision on whether this defines obstruction. I have no idea if attempting or conspiring to obstruct is a crime, but it seems it was something Trump tried to do. All we have to do on, at this point, is Mueller, Rosenstein, and Barr (all lawyers and so-called legal scholars) could not definitively conclude that Trump violated the law. I find this most interesting, since this is what the democrats are claiming. It is disturbing to me that Trump was out there in front of cameras saying that he was not going to interfere in the investigation, while behind the scenes, trying to interfere in the investigation. Again, since Mueller couldn't find definitive criminality in Trump's actions, I can only conclude that this isn't illegal.

So, is this impeachable? Do these attempts to interfere in the investigation fall under the definition of 'high crimes and misdemeanors'? I know democrats don't care if it does or doesn't. They are going for impeachment regardless. Can they just make up what defines a crime when it comes to the president, or is there actual documentation that explicitly defines what constitutes an impeachable crime?
so Barr's summary was pretty far off.......
First and foremost barr said the OLC's statement on indicting a president was not part of Mueller's decision making process. It clearly was. Then there was plenty of evidence of obstruction provided.




If you read the introduction to Volume II it clearly describes that the SC can not make a call on obstruction because of the OLC's determination that a president can not be indicted. The report goes on to say that they cant even say if they would bring charges if permitted because it would be unfair since the POTUS wouldn't have a due process to refute those charges. The report then says that this is a question for congress to take up.
I agree. I see several of the instances that ammount to obstruction as detailed in the report. The analyses seem clear and fair.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
The bots are also saying that the report didn't "prove Trump innocent". Because that's how they think: anyone they hate is guilty and it's up to them to prove their innocence.

How it really works in this country is that it's up to the prosecutor or investigator to prove guilt, not the accused to prove their innocence. All these armchair lawyers blathering their ignorance all over social media are boring as well. "Trump has to prove his innocence! He's such a fascist!" They are so mindless they completely miss the irony in their ravings.
you really should read the report spitbubble. not that you will understand it, but your should try
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Their self awareness switch is in the off position and permanently disconnected.

The rantings of Sappy, Tranny, MR or COC are all the evidence needed.

They're just random psychopaths. When our Congresstards and CIA directors start raving in that same vein, THAT is a problem.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
My take on that is he was throwing it out there, and his peeps said, "You can't do that." That's what advisor's are for. Trump: "I should shut this bogus investigation down." Advisors: "You can't."

To me that is not obstruction, or even attempted obstruction. It's like me saying, "I should punch that bitch in the mouth," but not doing it. If I suggest it but don't do it, it's not assault.

By all accounts Trump was forthcoming and didn't try to impede the investigation at all. The bots are being told to make a big deal out of him being pissed, but I think most of us would be pissed if we were being investigated for political purposes and lied about in the media every day. It's just more bullshit from the dishonest fake news media that are trying to overthrow our government and take down our President.

The Democrats are being bratty toddlers. They don't get their way so they kick and scream and throw themselves on the floor. "I hate you I hate you I hate you! I'm gonna hold my breath and then you'll be sorry!" I'm bored with their antics and I have to believe the majority of Americans are as well.

I thought about that; that he was simply seeking legal avenues to shut down the investigation. Like I mentioned - Trump being an outsider is unfamiliar with what he can and can't legally do. But, he seemed to be hitting up every legal advisor he could find to find a way to shut this thing down. Mueller obviously couldn't find legal standing to determine that what Trump did was illegal. Therefore, the only conclusion, from a legal standpoint, is that he did not obstruct, nor were his intentions were to obstruct in an illegal manner.

House democrats are going to use it against him anyway - and that's the angle I'm coming from.
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
My take on that is he was throwing it out there, and his peeps said, "You can't do that." That's what advisor's are for. Trump: "I should shut this bogus investigation down." Advisors: "You can't."

Your take...based on having read none of the report?

To me that is not obstruction, or even attempted obstruction. It's like me saying, "I should punch that bitch in the mouth," but not doing it. If I suggest it but don't do it, it's not assault.

Huh...so that's not being an "armchair lawyer"? Of course you haven't actually read the report.

By all accounts Trump was forthcoming and didn't try to impede the investigation at all. The bots are being told to make a big deal out of him being pissed, but I think most of us would be pissed if we were being investigated for political purposes and lied about in the media every day. It's just more bullshit from the dishonest fake news media that are trying to overthrow our government and take down our President.

Whose "accounts"? Who is telling you what to think? Please tell us again how you are SUCH an independent mind! Please tell us again how you are not a hypocrite?!!

The Democrats are being bratty toddlers. They don't get their way so they kick and scream and throw themselves on the floor. "I hate you I hate you I hate you! I'm gonna hold my breath and then you'll be sorry!" I'm bored with their antics and I have to believe the majority of Americans are as well.

Sounds like you would make an awesome Democrat!!
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
House democrats are going to use it against him anyway - and that's the angle I'm coming from.

Trump could cure cancer and walk on water, and the Democrats will keen and sob about how horrible he is. They are a joke and no reasonable person takes them seriously anymore. Only raving loons like Trans and his band of bots are still in the cult. The Dems have pretty much destroyed themselves with TDS.
 

TCROW

Well-Known Member
My take on that is he was throwing it out there, and his peeps said, "You can't do that." That's what advisor's are for. Trump: "I should shut this bogus investigation down." Advisors: "You can't."

To me that is not obstruction, or even attempted obstruction. It's like me saying, "I should punch that bitch in the mouth," but not doing it. If I suggest it but don't do it, it's not assault.

By all accounts Trump was forthcoming and didn't try to impede the investigation at all. The bots are being told to make a big deal out of him being pissed, but I think most of us would be pissed if we were being investigated for political purposes and lied about in the media every day. It's just more bullshit from the dishonest fake news media that are trying to overthrow our government and take down our President.

The Democrats are being bratty toddlers. They don't get their way so they kick and scream and throw themselves on the floor. "I hate you I hate you I hate you! I'm gonna hold my breath and then you'll be sorry!" I'm bored with their antics and I have to believe the majority of Americans are as well.

That ain’t the way it works homeslice.

Here’s a bit from page 325, since you won’t bother to read it:

In late January 2018, the media reported that in June 2017 the President had ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel fired based on purported conflicts of interest but McGahn had refused, saying he would quit instead. After the story broke, the President, through his personal counsel and two aides, sought to have McGahn deny that he had been directed to remove the Special Counsel. Each time he was approached, McGahn responded that he would not refute the press accounts because they were accurate in reporting on the President's effort to have the Special Counsel removed. The President later personally met with McGahn in the Oval Office with only the Chief of Staff present and tried to get McGahn to say that the President never ordered him to fire the Special Counsel. McGahn refused and insisted his memory of the President's direction to remove the Special Counsel was accurate. In that same meeting, the President challenged McGahn for taking notes of his discussions with the President and asked why he had told Special Counsel investigators that he had been directed to have the Special Counsel removed.

If you plan to rob a bank but are prevented from going through with it, it’s still a crime you ignorant ingrown sausage link.
 
Top