Once again: NO COLLUSION

[PsyOps]

considering mueller found numerous instances were trump's actions met all three elements, yes.

I'm not so sure that's what Mueller's report says at all; that all three 'elements' (obstructive act, nexus to a proceeding, and intent ) are met.

1. There was not actual obstructive act.
2. Under the 'Nexus to a proceeding' Aguilar was ultimately acquitted of obstruction.
3. On intent... Trump did try (or intend) to either stop the investigation or narrow the scope of it. So, there is an element of intent, but only in conspiring to do so. But, since those attempt never transpired in actual obstruction, this goes back to #1 where there was actual obstruction. So, is conspiring to obstruct a crime? There also requires the element of "consciousness of wrongdoing". Was Trump actually conscious that he was doing wrong? This requires that we get into his head and know his thoughts.

Same question stands - How is it that Mueller still could not come to an definitive conclusion that Trump actually committed obstruction?

Obstruction: a thing that impedes or prevents passage or progress; an obstacle or blockage.
Obstruction: the action of deliberately hindering a legal process.

Given the investigation ran its full course (nearly two years), hundreds of people interviewed/interrogated, thousands of hours, dozens of agents and lawyers... based on the definitions above, which part of the investigation did Trump actually obstruct?

 

[stgislander]

1. There was not actual obstructive act.
2. Under the 'Nexus to a proceeding' Aguilar was ultimately acquitted of obstruction.
3. On intent... Trump did try (or intend) to either stop the investigation or narrow the scope of it. So, there is an element of intent, but only in conspiring to do so. But, since those attempt never transpired in actual obstruction, this goes back to #1 where there was actual obstruction. So, is conspiring to obstruct a crime? There also requires the element of "consciousness of wrongdoing". Was Trump actually conscious that he was doing wrong? This requires that we get into his head and know his thoughts.

I'm still reading the report. Regarding #3 though... remembering that this is a Special Counsel and not an Independent Counsel, it is still within the power of the Executive to stop or narrow the scope of the investigation correct?

 

[PsyOps]

I'm still reading the report. Regarding #3 though... remembering that this is a Special Counsel and not an Independent Counsel, it is still within the power of the Executive to stop or narrow the scope of the investigation correct?

And that is the other part that defeats any sort of obstruction charge; my understanding the president had the authority to put a stop to it any time he wanted. I don't think there's any mention of that in Mueller's report.

 

[Kyle]

Feinstein requested a copy of Mueller's report in Chinese so her staffers can read it too.

 

[This_person]

Feinstein requested a copy of Mueller's report in Chinese so her staffers can read it too.

 

[Yooper]

Feinstein requested a copy of Mueller's report in Chinese so her staffers could read it, provide comments, and deliver it to PLA intelligence analysts more quickly.

If I may suggest a slight modification...?

Yours works just fine though.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Midnightrider]

I'm not so sure that's what Mueller's report says at all; that all three 'elements' (obstructive act, nexus to a proceeding, and intent ) are met.

1. There was not actual obstructive act.
2. Under the 'Nexus to a proceeding' Aguilar was ultimately acquitted of obstruction.
3. On intent... Trump did try (or intend) to either stop the investigation or narrow the scope of it. So, there is an element of intent, but only in conspiring to do so. But, since those attempt never transpired in actual obstruction, this goes back to #1 where there was actual obstruction. So, is conspiring to obstruct a crime? There also requires the element of "consciousness of wrongdoing". Was Trump actually conscious that he was doing wrong? This requires that we get into his head and know his thoughts.

Same question stands - How is it that Mueller still could not come to an definitive conclusion that Trump actually committed obstruction?

Obstruction: a thing that impedes or prevents passage or progress; an obstacle or blockage.
Obstruction: the action of deliberately hindering a legal process.

Given the investigation ran its full course (nearly two years), hundreds of people interviewed/interrogated, thousands of hours, dozens of agents and lawyers... based on the definitions above, which part of the investigation did Trump actually obstruct?

there were 10 instances that were analyzed. As I said there were several where all three were met, several where some were met but not all, and a couple were it was hard to say if all three had been met.


the report described exactly why mueller didn’t come to a recommendation on obstruction. He can’t clear trump and he is not allowed to even state it if he thinks trump should be charged because of DOJ policy.

 

[Toxick]

If I'm sitting around at the bar obviously drunk and I tell friends I plan on driving home (which would be a crime if I did) and my friends stop me from doing so I've still committed a crime?

You absolutely committed the crime in your mind.


Some would say that's even worse than committing the actual crime.

 

[Yooper]

You absolutely committed the crime in your mind.

Some would say that's even worse than committing the actual crime.

Well, as my mind is bigger than the anti-Trumpers and #NeverTrumpers say Trump's mind is, then any "crime" Trump considered commiting wouldn't even qualify as a Class D misdemeanor.

So what then is the big deal...? It's like Trump's critics wan to have it both ways.

To my mind, so to speak.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[This_person]

there were 10 instances that were analyzed. As I said there were several where all three were met, several where some were met but not all, and a couple were it was hard to say if all three had been met.


the report described exactly why mueller didn’t come to a recommendation on obstruction. He can’t clear trump and he is not allowed to even state it if he thinks trump should be charged because of DOJ policy.

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.

 

[Hijinx]

Mueller was a part of the Deep State.
He wanted to find collusion badly.
He screwed over a lot of people looking.
He couldn't find what he was looking for so he left this bomb of obstruction in his report.

The guy is a chicken sh1t. IMO.

 

[Midnightrider]

Mueller was a part of the Deep State.
He wanted to find collusion badly.
He screwed over a lot of people looking.
He couldn't find what he was looking for so he left this bomb of obstruction in his report.

The guy is a chicken sh1t. IMO.

Remember the good old days when trump, and Trumpers were singing muellers praises based on Barr’s summery? Seems like just last month

Now that we can see Barr’s analysis was BS Trumpers have relegated mueller back to the deepstate

 

[This_person]

Remember the good old days when trump, and Trumpers were singing muellers praises based on Barr’s summery? Seems like just last month

Now that we can see Barr’s analysis was BS Trumpers have relegated mueller back to the deepstate

I remember the good ol' days when Democrats/liberals/progressives were saying they'd be happy with the Mueller report. Now that it shows no collusion, no coordination, and no obstruction they are finding Easter eggs and saying, "but he couldn't do what we wanted him to do, so now WE have to do it." Yeah, the good ol' days indeed.

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.