What the Mueller Hearing Was Really About

[Yarddog]

Go ahead and ignore all the parts of the Mueller report that stated there was not sufficient evidence to support collusion nor obstruction on the part of Trump. That was clear but you ignore it.

I'm not ignoring anything. You are reading what doesn't exist. The report says nothing about collusion which isn't a legal term. The report did give evidence that collusion took place. What the report says is that there wasn't sufficient evidence to support that the Trump campaign cooperated in the conspiracy with the Russians in interference in the election. They did, though, meet with Russians in an attempt to get material against Clinton which meets the criteria of collusion or conspiracy but this didn't rise to a criminal offence.

The report also outlined several obstruction attempts by Trump which are criminal. That Trump aides refused to follow through on his orders does not absolve him obstruction charges. Mueller said that DOJ regulations keep him from charging a sitting President with a crime but he could be charged after leaving office.

All of that is clear but YOU ignored it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Do you really think they'll do better than the "Hillary is a crook" fiasco? Do you remember Trey Gowdy stammering and evading questions from reporters when he finally had to admit there was nothing illegal there?

The difference between the democrats going free and the host of Trump underlings going to jail is, in Trump's case, there were actual crimes committed.

Reality still counts.

Clearly not to Democrats.

Given the reality we see right now, it's no surprise that democrats are siding with it. The republican "investigations" fell apart because they had no actual crimes to investigate. All those Trump people are going to jail, because they actually committed crimes.

And that's the reality.

No point in denying it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Go ahead and ignore all the parts of the Mueller report that stated there was not sufficient evidence to support collusion nor obstruction on the part of Trump. That was clear but you ignore it.

Show us where Mueller's report says there isn't enough evidence to show that Trump attempted to obstruct justice. Fact is, he documented a number of cases wherein we absolutely know he attempted to do that. And as you know, it's a felony to even attempt to obstruct justice.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Show us where Mueller's report says there isn't enough evidence to show that Trump attempted to obstruct justice. Fact is, he documented a number of cases wherein we absolutely know he attempted to do that. And as you know, it's a felony to even attempt to obstruct justice.

The special counsel Robert Mueller said in his final report in the Russia investigation that President Donald Trump's "efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful," but mostly because his advisers stopped him or refused to carry out his orders. - Mueller says Trump was unsuccessful in influencing the Russia investigation — but mostly because his aides didn't follow orders

Mueller: Trump told his aides to interfere in the investigation, they just didn’t listen

Trump failed at obstruction because his aides refused to carry out orders, Mueller finds

 

[The Barbarian]

The special counsel Robert Mueller said in his final report in the Russia investigation that President Donald Trump's "efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful," but mostly because his advisers stopped him or refused to carry out his orders. - Mueller says Trump was unsuccessful in influencing the Russia investigation — but mostly because his aides didn't follow orders

Mueller: Trump told his aides to interfere in the investigation, they just didn’t listen

Trump failed at obstruction because his aides refused to carry out orders, Mueller finds

And that's sufficient to establish that Trump committed a felony, each time. You don't have to be successful when you attempt to obstruct justice; you just have to try, in order to commit a felony.

 

[Zanting]

The Mueller hearing is all about stalling and distraction. It's over...just like the first time Mueller discussed it (although this time he appeared very unprepared to say the least)...there's nothing...there never was anything.

 

[Alien Lotus]

Show us where Mueller's report says there isn't enough evidence to show that Trump attempted to obstruct justice. Fact is, he documented a number of cases wherein we absolutely know he attempted to do that. And as you know, it's a felony to even attempt to obstruct justice.

It's already been proven in this thread and the other that speaks of this. Why repeat what you'll ignore. I knew you from WCF. Deep hatred for Trump forewarns folly to think reasonable truthful discourse is possible.
Have a great day.

 

[Alien Lotus]

I'm not ignoring anything. You are reading what doesn't exist. The report says nothing about collusion which isn't a legal term....

You're stating what is not nor has ever been true. Ever.
Definition of COLLUSION • Law Dictionary • TheLaw.com

Have a great day.

 

[Yarddog]

You're stating what is not nor has ever been true. Ever.
Definition of COLLUSION • Law Dictio

You're stating what is not nor has ever been true. Ever.
[URL='https://dictionary.thelaw.com/collusion/']Definition of COLLUSION • Law Dictionary • TheLaw.com

Have a great day.

nary • TheLaw.com[/URL]

Have a great day.

I guess I should have added in the US Federal Code. The word collusion is not a term used in Mueller's report because it does not exist in the US Federal Code.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Mueller hearing is all about stalling and distraction.

Too late for stalling. Mueller has documented a number of attempts by Trump to obstruct justice, each one of them a felony.

And while republicans on the committee tried all sorts of distractions, the report remains. As soon as Trump leaves office, he will be indictable.

It's over...

Not until he leaves office. Then he'll get his day in court.

 

[The Barbarian]

I guess I should have added in the US Federal Code. The word collusion is not a term used in Mueller's report because it does not exist in the US Federal Code.

The republican focus on "collusion" is, as one person here mentioned, a mere "distraction."

But Trump's repeated attempts at obstruction are well-documented in the report.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Show us where Mueller's report says there isn't enough evidence to show that Trump attempted to obstruct justice. Fact is, he documented a number of cases wherein we absolutely know he attempted to do that. And as you know, it's a felony to even attempt to obstruct justice.

It's already been proven in this thread and the other that speaks of this.

No one else can find it there, either. Because it doesn't exist in the report. What the report does document, is a number of cases wherein Trump attempted to obstruct justice, but failed, mostly because the people ordered by Trump to commit obstruction, refused to do so. Each of those is a felony.

• In February 2017, attorney general Jeff Sessions was considering recusing himself from election-related investigations because of his role in Trump’s campaign. The president instructed White House counsel Don McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing himself.
• He was angry that Sessions disobeyed, telling advisors his attorney general should “protect” him.
• Trump urged Sessions to “un-recuse” himself.
• The president contacted US intelligence agency leaders, asking them to publicly dispel any suggestion that he was connected to the Russian interference.
• He called FBI chief Comey again, requesting that he “lift the cloud” by stating that the president wasn’t being investigated personally.

Terminating troublemakers

• In a May 2017 congressional hearing Comey declined to answer questions about whether the president was personally under investigation. Trump fired Comey, first claiming publicly that the termination was based on his mishandling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
• Yet Trump told Russian officials that he had “faced great pressure because of Russia,” which had been “taken off” by Comey’s firing.
• Trump subsequently admitted in an interview that he’d planned to dump the FBI head because “this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.”

Undermining Mueller

• Special counsel was appointed in May 2017. Trump predicted to advisors that it would be “the end of his presidency.”
• He told aides that Mueller had conflicts of interest that barred him from serving, though the claim had already been dismissed as meritless by the DOJ.
• When the media reported in June that the president was being investigated for obstructing justice, Trump criticized the probe and DOJ in a series of tweets.
• He then directed White House counsel Don McGahn to pressure the DOJ about Mueller’s alleged conflicts of interest, but McGahn declined.

Attempts to control the investigation

• The president in May 2017 met with Corey Lewandowski, a private advisor, directing him to tell Sessions to publicly announce that the Russia investigation was “very unfair” to the president, who had done nothing wrong.
• Soon after, Trump criticized Sessions in an interview with the New York Times and in tweets, making it clear that the attorney general’s job was in jeopardy.
• Lewandowski then asked senior White House official Rick Dearborn to deliver Trump’s message to Sessions, but Dearborn ultimately did not.

Presidential editing

• In the summer of 2017, Trump learned that reporters were inquiring into a 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials, including his son, Donald Trump Jr., and a Russian lawyer allegedly offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton.
• Trump directed aides not to disclose the emails setting up the meeting.
• Before the emails became public, Trump edited his son’s statement, deleting a line acknowledging that the meeting was with “an individual who…might have information helpful to the campaign.” The president instead claimed they met to discuss adoptions of Russian children.
• When reporters questioned Trump’s involvement in writing his son’s statement, his personal lawyer repeatedly denied it.

Pressure for protection

• In early summer 2017, Trump called Sessions, again urging him to reverse his recusal from the Russia investigation. Sessions declined.
• In October, Trump met with Sessions privately to ask him to investigate Hillary Clinton.
• Two months later, in another meeting, Trump suggested again that Sessions “un-recuse” himself and supervise the Russia investigation, saying he’d be a “hero.” Trump said, “I’m not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly.” Sessions again declined.

Falsifying the record

• In early 2018, journalists reported that Trump had earlier directed McGahn to have Mueller removed from the investigation, and that the White House counsel had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. Trump told officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a false record.
• McGahn confirmed the accuracy of the reports.
• Trump then met with McGahn personally, pressuring him to deny what happened.

Seeking secret information

• After Flynn began cooperating with Mueller’s probe, Trump’s personal counsel called his attorneys asking for a “heads-up” if they learned of “information that implicates the president.”
• When Flynn’s lawyers said they could not share data, Trump’s attorney threatened that he’d let the president know of Flynn’s “hostility.”
• In contrast, when his former campaign manager Paul Manafort was on trial, Trump publicly praised Manafort and teased a presidential pardon. After Manafort was convicted, Trump said he was “a brave man” for refusing to “break.”

Flipping on Cohen

• From September 2015 to June 2016, Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen pursued the Trump Tower Moscow project and briefed him on it repeatedly.
• In 2017, Cohen lied to Congress about the project after Trump’s counsel told him to “stay on message” and not contradict the president.
• In April 2018, the FBI searched Cohen’s home and office. Trump publicly asserted that Cohen wouldn’t “flip” and contacted him to say “stay strong.”
• Cohen discussed a future presidential pardon with Trump’s personal counsel.
• But after Cohen began cooperating with Mueller’s inquiry in the summer of 2018, Trump publicly called him a “rat.”

A Mueller Report obstruction of justice refresher

Why repeat what you'll ignore.

Everyone knows why you won't present what you claim. No point in denying it. As you see, from the report, Trump repeatedly attempted to obstruct justice. He can't be indicted until he leaves office, though.

I knew you from WCF. Deep hatred for Trump forewarns folly to think reasonable truthful discourse is possible.

If you were there, you'd know that just after the inauguration, I wrote that Trump might turn out to be a better president than most people thought. I was wrong, but it was some time before I made that conclusion. So I'm guessing you're getting a story second-hand there.

 

[Alien Lotus]

I guess I should have added in the US Federal Code. The word collusion is not a term used in Mueller's report because it does not exist in the US Federal Code.

How "Collusion" Appears in the Mueller Report | emptywheel

 

[Yarddog]

How "Collusion" Appears in the Mueller Report | emptywheel

Thanks for proven my point.

 

[Alien Lotus]

Thanks for proven my point.

You didn't read the link. And after all that trouble I went to to find it, copy and paste it .
I disproved your point.
What anti-Trumpers and those who suffer the dread affliction of TDS don't realize is that "Collusion", is synonymous with "Conspiracy" and "Complicity".
Which do appear in the United States Code.

1907. TITLE 8, U.S.C. 1324(A) OFFENSES
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).
(More & Source: 1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses

I. PRELIMINARIES A. Complicity Law Generally To begin with, I should note a few basic points about the law of complicity that will serve as background for the discussion to follow. Accomplice liability is generally thought to be derivative in nature.18 That is, the liability of the accomplice is thought to be parasitic on the liability of the principal wrongdoer. Accordingly, under existing law, accomplices are traditionally punished as principals. 19 That is, they are convicted of the principal’s underlying crime and thus are subject to the 18. See, e.g., Sanford H. Kadish, Complicity, Cause and Blame: A Study in the Interpretation of Doctrine, 73 CALIF. L. REV. 323, 337 (1985) (“The secondary party’s liability is derivative, which is to say, it is incurred by virtue of a violation of law by the primary party to which the secondary party contributed.” (footnote omitted)). 19. 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) (2012) (“Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.”).same panoply of sentencing options as the principal20 (even if judges have discretion to tailor sentences as the facts of the case may warrant21).
Source /Continues:
https://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/law/students/publications/llj/pdfs/vol47/Sarch.pdf

 

[Yarddog]

You didn't read the link. And after all that trouble I went to to find it, copy and paste it .
I disproved your point.
What anti-Trumpers and those who suffer the dread affliction of TDS don't realize is that "Collusion", is synonymous with "Conspiracy" and "Complicity".
Which do appear in the United States Code.

1907. TITLE 8, U.S.C. 1324(A) OFFENSES
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).
(More & Source: 1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses

I. PRELIMINARIES A. Complicity Law Generally To begin with, I should note a few basic points about the law of complicity that will serve as background for the discussion to follow. Accomplice liability is generally thought to be derivative in nature.18 That is, the liability of the accomplice is thought to be parasitic on the liability of the principal wrongdoer. Accordingly, under existing law, accomplices are traditionally punished as principals. 19 That is, they are convicted of the principal’s underlying crime and thus are subject to the 18. See, e.g., Sanford H. Kadish, Complicity, Cause and Blame: A Study in the Interpretation of Doctrine, 73 CALIF. L. REV. 323, 337 (1985) (“The secondary party’s liability is derivative, which is to say, it is incurred by virtue of a violation of law by the primary party to which the secondary party contributed.” (footnote omitted)). 19. 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) (2012) (“Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.”).same panoply of sentencing options as the principal20 (even if judges have discretion to tailor sentences as the facts of the case may warrant21).
Source /Continues:
https://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/law/students/publications/llj/pdfs/vol47/Sarch.pdf

Sure I read it and it agreed with what I wrote. Now, I'm not sure why you posted this unless you mixed up your posts.

 

[Alien Lotus]

Sure I read it and it agreed with what I wrote. Now, I'm not sure why you posted this unless you mixed up your posts.

No, I didn't mix up my posts.
You're nitpicking so as to avoid admitting you were wrong. You said: "I guess I should have added in the US Federal Code. The word collusion is not a term used in Mueller's report because it does not exist in the US Federal Code."
While Collusion is synonymous with the other terms I shared prior that do appear in the U.S Code.
Mueller's duties , the scope of his office when he was investigating Trump do not include declaring if he is guilty of anything. He can't do that. While the law guarantees Trump has the same rights as the rest of us. Innocent until proven guilty. Mueller's report cannot assess guilt!
While the language Mueller used was in keeping with the letter of that protection when he said there was no evidence..... (Of what after he said that is what cleared Trump from any wrong doing). That was what Mueller could do. Declare there was no evidence.

When he added that ridiculous line about not clearing him of guilt, in his own words, Mueller was doing two things there. He was placating the Left who, when many are lawyers, know exactly what the limits of a Special Investigator are , also know those who don't know much will point to that line and say, "see! Mueller himself couldn't say Trump was not guilty....."
Mueller's saying that in any way means ZERO in matters of jurisprudence. But Mueller & the deplorable Left knew anti-Trumpers don't know that and they latched onto those words so as to further the lie that Trump must be guilty of something when Mueller said he didn't exonerate him.
Mueller couldn't exonerate a glass of water as Special Investigator. That wasn't in his duty pack. He knew that! But he also has a vendetta against Trump so he thought throwing that bit of mud , baseless impotent mud though it was, would keep the hounds on the left baying Trump is guilty of everything they imagine. Because for that type of TDS sufferer truth is negotiable.

 

[Yarddog]

No, I didn't mix up my posts.

Then why did you post all that which doesn't apply to what we were talking about?

You're nitpicking so as to avoid admitting you were wrong.

Your article must have been nit picking as well because it said what I've said. Collusion isn't in the US code.

Mueller's duties , the scope of his office when he was investigating Trump do not include declaring if he is guilty of anything.

I haven't implied that it was. It is a jury's place to declare guilt. It was Mueller's place to investigate Russian election interference and if the Trump campaign coordinated with them in their actions. He could also charge people with whatever crimes he may find during his investigation.

He can't do that. While the law guarantees Trump has the same rights as the rest of us. Innocent until proven guilty. Mueller's report cannot assess guilt!

I agree and he didn't but he could and did charge people with crimes.

While the language Mueller used was in keeping with the letter of that protection when he said there was no evidence.....

He didn't say that there was no evidence. He outlined evidence but the evidence didn't lead to "coordination" with the Russian government in the interference charges.
Mueller showed "collusion" when the campaign met with Russians in an attempt to get dirt on Clinton. There were other instances, as well, but those did not rise to coordination with the Russian government which would have been illegal.

When he added that ridiculous line about not clearing him of guilt, in his own words, Mueller was doing two things there. He was placating the Left

Mueller's report wasn't meant for the Left. It was intended to give his boss, the AG, a rundown of what the investigation found.

Mueller charged those that he found evidence of a crime but it is always a jury which declares guilt or innocence but he can give his opinion to his boss and that is what he did when he said the evidence doesn't exonerate Trump of obstruction.

 

[Zanting]

Too late for stalling. Mueller has documented a number of attempts by Trump to obstruct justice, each one of them a felony.

And while republicans on the committee tried all sorts of distractions, the report remains. As soon as Trump leaves office, he will be indictable.



Not until he leaves office. Then he'll get his day in court.

I find it very interesting that this is still being touted as fact...speculation, hearsay has never been evidence of anything. Furthermore...the entire investigation was based on lies...no facts present at all in an attempt to find something and they failed...and they keep failing. Now he is still accused by the left of obstructing a non[existent issue.

 

[The Barbarian]

I find it very interesting that this is still being touted as fact...

Each case of Trump attempting to obstruct the investigation is well-documented. No point in denying the facts.

Furthermore...the entire investigation was based on lies...

I don't think that's going to be a very smart defense in court. Mueller was very careful to document everything. He's got a very good record on assembling facts against organized crime.

no facts present at all in an attempt to find something and they failed...and they keep failing. Now he is still accused by the left of obstructing a non[existent issue.

It happens that even attempting to obstruct an investigation is a felony. That's how it works.