• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Here it is: The Mueller report is out.

Always in His Presence

Jesus is the only Way
Site Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
50,383
18,240
Broken Arrow, OK
✟1,082,094.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
WRONG.....how surprising.

ATTEMPTED obstruction is also a crime...

As Mueller states, “Under general principles of attempt law, a person is guilty of an attempt when he has the intent to commit a substantive offense and takes an overt act that constitutes a substantial step towards that goal

Like ordering McGahn to sack Mueller....twice!

And of course the special counsel found enough evidence to support it.

Oops. No he didn’t. And he said so in the report.

He said he could not exonerate him, but also did not have enough evidence Beyond a reasonable doubt. Don’t just use one part of the statement.

If he and 19 attorneys couldn’t find enough evidence in 2 years of investigating I doubt you can
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That's not the issue. Truth is authoritative not subjective. If you would read the report in volume two you will see why Mueller had to conclude that obstruction happened.

Where did mueller go on the record, that obstruction happened, that are worthy of impeachment proceedings or criminal charges?
 
Upvote 0

Always in His Presence

Jesus is the only Way
Site Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
50,383
18,240
Broken Arrow, OK
✟1,082,094.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Where did mueller go on the record, that obstruction happened, that are worthy of impeachment proceedings or criminal charges?

QFT.
 
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
6,190
3,436
67
Denver CO
✟249,265.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The charge is obstruction, not talking about obstruction.

The obstruction has to have happened.

The obstruction was instructing McGahn to tell Rosenstein to fire Mueller so the act of obstruction did happen.

While “mere abstract talk” does not suffice, any “concrete and specific” acts that corroborate the defendant’s intent can constitute a “substantial step.” United States v. Irving, 665 F.3d 1184, 1198–1205 (10th Cir. 2011). Thus, “soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime” may qualify as a substantial step.

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act”

Volume 2, Page:85
On Saturday, June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn and directed him to have the Special Counsel removed.571 McGahn was at home and the President was at Camp David.572 In interviews with this Office, McGahn recalled that the President called him at home twice and on both occasions directed him to call Rosenstein and say that Mueller had conflicts that precluded him from serving as Special Counsel.573

On the first call, McGahn recalled that the President said something like, “You gotta do this. You gotta call Rod."574 McGahn said he told the President that he would see what he could do.575 McGahn was perturbed by the call and did not intend to act on the request.576 He and other advisors believed the asserted conflicts were “silly” and “not real,” and they had previously communicated that view to the President.577 McGahn also had made clear to the President that the White House Counsel’s Office should not be involved in any effort to press the issue of conflicts.578 McGahn was concerned about having any role in asking the Acting Attorney General to fire the Special Counsel because he had grown up in the Reagan era and wanted to be more like Judge Robert Bork and not “Saturday Night Massacre Bork."579 McGahn considered the President’s request to be an inflection point and he wanted to hit the brakes.580

When the President called McGahn a second time to follow up on the order to call the Department of Justice, McGahn recalled that the President was more direct, saying something like, “Call Rod, tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and can’t be the Special Counsel.”581 McGahn recalled the President telling him “Mueller has to go” and “Call me back when you do it.”582 McGahn understood the President to be saying that the Special Counsel had to be removed by Rosenstein.583 To end the conversation with the President, McGahn left the President with the impression that McGahn would call Rosenstein.584 McGahn recalled that he had already said no to the President’s request and he was worn down, so he just wanted to get off the phone.585

McGahn recalled feeling trapped because he did not plan to follow the President’s directive but did not know what he would say the next time the President called.586 McGahn decided he had to resign.587 He called his personal lawyer and then called his chief of staff, Annie Donaldson, to inform her of his decision.588 He then drove to the office to pack his belongings and submit his resignation letter.589 Donaldson recalled that McGahn told her the President had called and demanded he contact the Department of Justice and that the President wanted him to do something that McGahn did not want to do.590 McGahn told Donaldson that the President had called at least twice and in one of the calls asked “have you done it?”591 McGahn did not tell Donaldson the specifics of the President’s request because he was consciously trying not to involve her in the investigation, but Donaldson inferred that the President’s directive was related to the Russia investigation.592 Donaldson prepared to resign along with McGahn.593

That evening, McGahn called both Priebus and Bannon and told them that he intended to resign.594 McGahn recalled that, after speaking with his attorney and given the nature of the President’s request, he decided not to share details of the President’s request with other White House staff.595 Priebus recalled that McGahn said that the President had asked him to “do crazy s***,” but he thought McGahn did not tell him the specifics of the President’s request because McGahn was trying to protect Priebus from what he did not need to know.596 Priebus and Bannon both urged McGahn not to quit, and McGahn ultimately returned to work that Monday and remained in his position.597 He had not told the President directly that he planned to resign, and when they next saw each other the President did not ask McGahn whether he had followed through with calling Rosenstein.598
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
6,190
3,436
67
Denver CO
✟249,265.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Where did mueller go on the record, that obstruction happened, that are worthy of impeachment proceedings or criminal charges?
Please examine post#349 for only one of the examples.
 
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
6,190
3,436
67
Denver CO
✟249,265.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I asked where mueller himself, claimed obstruction charges are called for.
Respectfully this is what you asked for: "Where did mueller go on the record, that obstruction happened, that are worthy of impeachment proceedings or criminal charges?"

As pertains to this new question you have asked, Mueller from the outset of the report said that his team intentionally refrained from making any determination either for or against bringing charges, because of the DOJ policy that you cannot indict a sitting President.
 
Upvote 0

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
72
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
And of course the special counsel found enough evidence to support it.

Oops. No he didn’t. And he said so in the report.

He said he could not exonerate him, but also did not have enough evidence Beyond a reasonable doubt. Don’t just use one part of the statement.

If he and 19 attorneys couldn’t find enough evidence in 2 years of investigating I doubt you can

Please show where Mueller states that he “did not have enough evidence” to support a charge of obstruction.

That’s ok....I’ll wait...
 
Upvote 0

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
72
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I asked where mueller himself, claimed obstruction charges are called for.

bhsmte, did you not read the section of the report wherein Mueller states that, due to adherence to OLC protocols, he cannot bring charges against a sitting president...?
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Respectfully this is what you asked for: "Where did mueller go on the record, that obstruction happened, that are worthy of impeachment proceedings or criminal charges?"

As pertains to this new question you have asked, Mueller from the outset of the report said that his team intentionally refrained from making any determination either for or against bringing charges, because of the DOJ policy that you cannot indict a sitting President.

My original question stands; where did mueller go on the record, that obstruction HAPPENED.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
bhsmte, did you not read the section of the report wherein Mueller states that, due to adherence to OLC protocols, he cannot bring charges against a sitting president...?

Uh huh. Did he stated though that he personally concluded, that obstruction did indeed happen in this case and he would have charged trump, if he wasnt president?
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Please show where Mueller states that he “did not have enough evidence” to support a charge of obstruction.

That’s ok....I’ll wait...

He didnt. He also didnt state, there is enough evidence to support a charge of obstruction.

He basically punted and it will be interesting to see if and how he answers this question, when he testifies, which i believe he will.

So we are back to what i have stated all along; some lawyers could put together a legit argument for obstruction and others could put together a legit defense argument to the charge. In other words, hilary, 2.0.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
29,100
9,371
65
✟443,958.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Well all I can say is we'll see. From what I am seeing the real issue for the president is the attempted firing of Mueller. I don't see an issue at all with Comey due to the fact he serves ONLY at the president's discretion and can be fired for any or no reason. Asking Session not to recuse himself is just asking the AG to do his job.

Trying to get Meuller fired is more problematic. Whether or not it rises to actual obstruction or attempted will be a matter for the lawyers to decide.
 
Upvote 0

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
72
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Uh huh. Did he stated though that he personally concluded, that obstruction did indeed happen in this case and he would have charged trump, if he wasnt president?

No...and he explains his position very carefully.

Because the protocols prevent him from bringing charges, the otherwise accused person is denied their ‘day in court’ where they might face their accuser. Mueller considers it a matter of fairness to not speculate about future charges, other than a very general reference to the limits of presidential immunity.

“Mueller added that the President "does not have immunity after he leaves office" and that his team "conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available."”

Mueller's report leaves open possibility of post-White House criminal exposure for Trump - CNNPolitics
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What we have post report, is what many expected, people just choosing sides and cherry picking what supports their case. Same thing happened with the hilary email fiasco.

A part of me, hopes the dems do impeach and i think they could find enough to do so and the house only needs a majority vote. When it gets to the senate (like bill clinton), good luck.

Impeachment, would provide some good entertainment though.
 
Upvote 0

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
72
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
He didnt. He also didnt state, there is enough evidence to support a charge of obstruction.

He basically punted and it will be interesting to see if and how he answers this question, when he testifies, which i believe he will.

No, he didn’t “punt”...because he didn’t have a football to kick...

He had no opportunity to bring charges, whether warranted or not, due to the existence of those OLC protocols. He makes this very clear...
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
No...and he explains his position very carefully.

Because the protocols prevent him from bringing charges, the otherwise accused person is denied their ‘day in court’ where they might face their accuser. Mueller considers it a matter of fairness to not speculate about future charges, other than a very general reference to the limits of presidential immunity.

“Mueller added that the President "does not have immunity after he leaves office" and that his team "conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available."”

Mueller's report leaves open possibility of post-White House criminal exposure for Trump - CNNPolitics

All correct. But, where did he state, in his personal conclusion, obstruction charges are warranted?
 
Upvote 0

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
72
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What we have post report, is what many expected, people just choosing sides and cherry picking what supports their case. Same thing happened with the hilary email fiasco.

A part of me, hopes the dems do impeach and i think they could find enough to do so and the house only needs a majority vote. When it gets to the senate (like bill clinton), good luck.

Impeachment, would provide some good entertainment though.

I wish there was more cherry-picking...many people are just making up conclusions from thin air...
 
Upvote 0

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
72
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
All correct. But, where did he state, in his personal conclusion, obstruction charges are warranted?

For the umpteenth time, he doesn’t. And he doesn’t, as he very comprehensively explains, because it would be unfair to do so. If you can’t bring a charge, you shouldn’t even suggest that one is warranted, because the referred party has no opportunity to defend themself at court.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: jardiniere
Upvote 0