There will be different versions of Mueller report for different people...

[The Barbarian]

Again, most polls had Hillary ahead by a statistical landslide.

Someone's had a little fun with your trust in them. Here's the summary of the major polls by Real Clear Politics:
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Predicted Clinton to win the popular vote by about 3 points. She won it by about 2 points. They lied to you. Sorry to tell you.

Trump's AG did what he could to avoid Trump getting hammered by Mueller's report, but it only softened the blow. Not a good day for Donald, um?

 

[Justified112]

Someone's had a little fun with your trust in them. Here's the summary of the major polls by Real Clear Politics:
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Predicted Clinton to win the popular vote by about 3 points. She won it by about 2 points. They lied to you. Sorry to tell you.

Trump's AG did what he could to avoid Trump getting hammered by Mueller's report, but it only softened the blow. Not a good day for Donald, um?

They said that she would win constitutionally by the electoral college by a landslide. They were going by the electoral college, not by popular votes when they predicted her landslide win.

It is only since she lost dismally based on the Constitution that they run to the popular vote. Presidents win according to the Constitutional electoral college, not by the popular vote.

 

[Justified112]

Barbarian observes:
I notice that your website merely made the claim and then named only four lawyers to support the claim. Given the reputation the "Daily Caller" has, I'm pretty sure I know why. Do you actually have any numbers to support the claim?

The claim has been supported. I said that only some of the Democrat members of the team were Hillary/Democrat donors. So even in your response, you cannot refute my claim. I have nothing to prove to you, at this point, since you have not actually debunked what I said.

So far, you've failed to show that Mueller "stacked" his investigation with Clinton supporters. Your blogger listed four, one of which was actually a republican supporter. Do you have any evidence at all for your claim?

It's common knowledge and you can look it up. But here's a site: Robert Mueller Team: Nine Donated to Hillary or Democrats | Heavy.com

I note that it claims most of the Mueller team were Clinton supporters, and then failed to support that claim.

But you can't refute that claim, either.

If so, it should be easy for you to provide us a list of all of them. It's rather obvious why no one does.

And yes, you made the claim so it's up to you to support it, or accept that no one will believe you.

I have provided it in the link above.

All the law says is that it's a felony to attempt to obstruct. And yes, ordering a subordinate to commit obstruction is an attempt.

And yet, Mueller could not produce an obstruction charge based on what YOU claim amounts to obstruction. I think it's better to leave this to someone like Mueller who actually knows what he is talking about. You clearly don't.

 

[The Barbarian]

The claim has been supported. I said that only some of the Democrat members of the team were Hillary/Democrat donors.

So it wasn't "stacked" after all. Thank you. Let's be real for a moment; if a significant number of Meuller people were supporters of Clinton, your site would have put them up on the blog, wouldn't they? C'mon.

So even in your response, you cannot refute my claim.

You seem to have withdrawn the "stacked" claim for "only some." And of course there's the problem that you can't even seem to show that most of them were democrats, much less Clinton supporters.

I have nothing to prove to you

You claimed that the team was "stacked", and now, you seem to be backing away from that one. What are we to conclude from that? Right.

And it's not up to me to show you're wrong. It's up to you to support the claim. Or... well, you know.

 

[The Barbarian]

They said that she would win constitutionally by the electoral college by a landslide.

(Barbarian checks)

Nope. Can't see one major poll that predicted that in the closing weeks. Hillary Clinton said it would be very close. So did all the major pollsters. Tell me what major polling organization predicted a landslide for Clinton at that time.

They were going by the electoral college, not by popular votes

(Barbarian checks) Nope. Can't find that. All the polling organizations were citing how many voters for whom.

when they predicted her landslide win.

We'll know that when you can come up with the polling organization and the date of the poll. As I showed you, all the major polls said it was going to be close. Average lead predicted in the popular vote was about 3 percent.

Let's see what you have. And I get why it's upsetting. The fact that most American voters didn't want your guy to be president probably makes you unhappy. But it's the reality. Find a way to live with it, and move on.

And show us all those polls predicting Hillary in a landslide at the end of the campaign. I'm sure everyone would be interested in reading them.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Since the report neither shows good or bad, it does indeed mean each side will read it differently. Kind of the problem with a report that shows he's not guilty and also not innocent.

 

[The Barbarian]

And yet, Mueller could not produce an obstruction charge based on what YOU claim amounts to obstruction.

What federal law says amounts to obstruction. One is guilty of a crime, even for only attempting obstruction. Trump is not off the hook, merely because his subordinates refused to do it for him.

The crime can take any number of forms, whether it's bribery, tampering with evidence, lying to investigators, abusing one's power, or some other act intended to impede a criminal investigation. The federal obstruction of justice statute is written broadly and focuses more on the effect (or intended effect) of a particular action rather than the specific act itself. Therefore, seemingly innocuous acts could be construed as criminal activity if they have the intended effect of impeding justice.
...
But regardless of the specific section of federal law (1501 through 1521) cited in a particular case, the prosecution need not prove any actual obstruction -- the defendant's attempt to obstruct is enough.
Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw

Mueller is quite aware that the Justice Department has ruled that he can't indict a sitting president. So he did not. But he laid out the various times Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation. Which as you just learned, is a crime. So he made sure that the evidence would be passed on to Congress to decide if it was impeachable. It will also apply when Trump leaves office.

I think it's better to leave this to someone like Mueller who actually knows what he is talking about. You clearly don't.

 

[The Barbarian]

Since the report neither shows good or bad

It says Trump repeatedly attempted to obstruct the investigation. It's more than bad; it's a crime.

 

[Justified112]

So it wasn't "stacked" after all. Thank you. Let's be real for a moment; if a significant number of Meuller people were supporters of Clinton, your site would have put them up on the blog, wouldn't they? C'mon.

You should pay better attention. I said it was stacked with Hillary supporters/Democrats, SOME of whom were Hillary/donors. I didn't say it was stacked with Hillary donors.

You seem to have withdrawn the "stacked" claim for "only some." And of course there's the problem that you can't even seem to show that most of them were democrats, much less Clinton supporters.

I didn't withdraw a single thing I have said. And I have shown that all of the members were Democrats/Hillary supporters. That is what makes this report so important. It is an adversarial document against Trump, but could not come up with enough evidence to justify charging the president with a crime.

You claimed that the team was "stacked", and now, you seem to be backing away from that one. What are we to conclude from that? Right.

The team was stacked with Democrats. I have not backed off from that at all. You simply didn't read what I said. You should work on reading comprehension.

And it's not up to me to show you're wrong. It's up to you to support the claim. Or... well, you know.

I have supported my claim and you are impotent to actually provide a thoughtful, mature response.

 

[Justified112]

What federal law says amounts to obstruction. One is guilty of a crime, even for only attempting obstruction. Trump is not off the hook, merely because his subordinates refused to do it for him.

So if that is the case, why didn't anyone on the Mueller team charge Trump with a crime?

The crime can take any number of forms, whether it's bribery, tampering with evidence, lying to investigators, abusing one's power, or some other act intended to impede a criminal investigation. The federal obstruction of justice statute is written broadly and focuses more on the effect (or intended effect) of a particular action rather than the specific act itself. Therefore, seemingly innocuous acts could be construed as criminal activity if they have the intended effect of impeding justice.

And yet the entire Mueller team could not find enough reason to charge the president with a crime.

...
But regardless of the specific section of federal law (1501 through 1521) cited in a particular case, the prosecution need not prove any actual obstruction -- the defendant's attempt to obstruct is enough.

Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw

And again, no evidence of a crime by Mueller team.

Mueller is quite aware that the Justice Department has ruled that he can't indict a sitting president. So he did not. But he laid out the various times Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation. Which as you just learned, is a crime. So he made sure that the evidence would be passed on to Congress to decide if it was impeachable. It will also apply when Trump leaves office.

I think it's better to leave this to someone like Mueller who actually knows what he is talking about. You clearly don't.

Then you should leave it to someone like Mueller who knows what he is talking about. That's because Mueller's job is not to indict, but recommend an indictment to the DOJ. It is not the job of Mueller's team to indict the president. It was his job to state whether or not the evidence warranted an indictment and he could not provide sufficient cause to charge that the president committed crime. They could find to evidence that would rise to anything criminal where the president was concerned.

Nothing contained in the report outlines any impeachable offenses. The radical Left was talking about impeachment the very day after the election in Nov. of 2016, so the whole impeachment nonsense rings hollow. Democrats like Pelosi and Hoyer, the leaders in the House have backed away from impeachment. Not even they find a real cause for impeachment at this point.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Justified112]

,,

 

[Gigimo]

,,

Once you've been here awhile you'll find out this is quite prevalent.

 

[The Barbarian]

So if that is the case, why didn't anyone on the Mueller team charge Trump with a crime?

Because the DOJ's position is that a sitting president can't be indicted. That being so, Mueller laid out the evidence for the DOJ and Congress.

But regardless of the specific section of federal law (1501 through 1521) cited in a particular case, the prosecution need not prove any actual obstruction -- the defendant's attempt to obstruct is enough.

Nothing contained in the report outlines any impeachable offenses.

As you see, an attempt to obstruct justice is impeachable, and Mueller documents a number of attempts by Trump to obstruct. Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[The Barbarian]

I notice the interesting thing is that even Trump's most loyal apologists no longer argue that he didn't do anything wrong. They now assert that he can't be indicted for the things he did.

Until he leaves office.

 

[The Barbarian]

Again, most polls had Hillary ahead by a statistical landslide.

As you now realize, the average poll had her up by about 3 points among likely voters. She ended up getting 2 points better than Trump among people who actually voted. If that strikes you as a "statistical landslide", we've located the problem. Would you like me to show you, again?

The media was predicting Trump was going to get slammed by the Mueller report.

He's frothing and whinging about it, so I guess they were right. The key is Mueller's revelation that Trump repeatedly attempted to obstruct the investigation. That will be sufficient, under federal law.

The fact that none of his underlings were willing to listen to him, is not a defense.

If you try to kill someone and fail because you weren't smart enough to take off the safety, you aren't innocent of a crime.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
And once again, we see "If you doubt my claim, then it's up to you to prove it's wrong." presented by the defense.

Once you've been here awhile you'll find out this is quite prevalent.

Thanks, but that's the signal for a touchdown. If you want proof, I won't tell you to go and find it yourself; I'll show you. Do you want proof?

 

[HannahT]

It says Trump repeatedly attempted to obstruct the investigation. It's more than bad; it's a crime.

Okay. Yet, if they aren't charging him? It doesn't raise to the level of going forward. Just like with Hillary, and how they came down on her issue with the server and classified information.

In both cases they spoke of intent, and that is where the fuzzy part comes in. Anyone can say it's more than bad; it's a crime. Unless, they are moving forward - which they don't seem to be doing - it's also a dead issue.

 

[The Barbarian]

Okay. Yet, if they aren't charging him? It doesn't raise to the level of going forward. Just like with Hillary, and how they came down on her issue with the server and classified information.

If Clinton had attempted to obstruct justice, she'd have been indicted, because she wasn't a president. Mueller did not indicted Trump because the Justice Department opinion is that a sitting president can't be indicted.

In both cases they spoke of intent,

Not according to Comey. "Careless" is the opposite of "intent."

Anyone can say it's more than bad; it's a crime.

More to the point, federal law says that an attempt to obstruct is a crime. And Mueller documented a number of instances where Trump attempted to commit obstruction.

When Trump leaves office, he can then be indicted.

 

[Justified112]

Because the DOJ's position is that a sitting president can't be indicted. That being so, Mueller laid out the evidence for the DOJ and Congress.

No, I didn't ask you why Mueller didn't indict him. My question is why didn't Mueller lay out the fact that a crime had been committed?

But regardless of the specific section of federal law (1501 through 1521) cited in a particular case, the prosecution need not prove any actual obstruction -- the defendant's attempt to obstruct is enough.

Yet, the Mueller report doesn't claim a crime had been committed. That's the problem for you. You act as if a crime has been committed, but the Mueller team did not find that Trump committed a crime.

As you see, an attempt to obstruct justice is impeachable, and Mueller documents a number of attempts by Trump to obstruct. Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

No, YOU don't know what you're talking about because the Mueller report doesn't say what you're saying. You are trying to charge Trump with a crime that Mueller report doesn't state even happened.

 

[Justified112]

As you now realize, the average poll had her up by about 3 points among likely voters. She ended up getting 2 points better than Trump among people who actually voted. If that strikes you as a "statistical landslide", we've located the problem. Would you like me to show you, again?

You're trying to go by the popular vote. But that is not the way we conduct our elections. The popular vote isn't the way we measure who wins. Trump won by a landslide when you go by the electoral college, which is how we constitutionally elect our presidents. The following is a map of the election results from the standpoint of the Electoral College:

At 232 to 306, it was a landslide victory over Hillary.

He's frothing and whinging about it, so I guess they were right. The key is Mueller's revelation that Trump repeatedly attempted to obstruct the investigation. That will be sufficient, under federal law.

If that were true, Mueller would have found that a crime had been committed, but he didn't. None of his minions thought a crime had been committed either.

The fact that none of his underlings were willing to listen to him, is not a defense.

Yes it is. You cannot convict someone of a crime or misdeed they wanted do, but didn't actually do. You cannot convict someone of rape because they wanted to rape someone, but had a car accident on the way to victim's location and landed in the hospital.

If you try to kill someone and fail because you weren't smart enough to take off the safety, you aren't innocent of a crime.

That's not the same thing, though. It is a crime to point a gun at someone loaded or unloaded. That is not analagous to what the president did. Trump didn't fire his advisors in order to find advisors who would do his bidding. He actually listened to his advisors who knew that if Trump fired Mueller it would be a disaster, regardless of the reason Trump had in mind for doing so. They knew how it would be interpreted, so they wisely chose not to do what he ordered them to do and it paid off for Trump in the long term.

In the original context, the president wanted to fire Mueller, and replace him with someone he thought would be more competent to complete the investigation. His wanting to fire Mueller wasn't an attempt at halting the investigation, but to get someone he thought would be more fair minded, particularly since Mueller's team was made up of Democrats and included no conservatives that would be more favorable to the president. Had the team been more evenly balanced, Trump would have been less upset about the investigation.