"If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

If there is so much solid evidence of obstruction in Mueller's report then why is Nadler investigating for obstruction of justice?

bhsmte said:

That has zero bearing, on whether he states whether evidence supported an obstruction charge.

Click to expand...

I wish that were true, but in this case per DOJ policy there's no level of evidence would have supported an obstruction charge.

Potluck045 said:

What exactly in the whole of volume II stands out as solid evidence of obstruction?

Click to expand...

The whole of volume II. You should read it.

Potluck045 said:

If there is so much solid evidence of obstruction in Mueller's report then why is Nadler investigating for obstruction of justice?

Click to expand...

Probably because of the solid evidence of obstruction in Mueller's report.

KCfromNC said:

The whole of volume II. You should read it.

Click to expand...

Maybe Nadler should read the whole thing so he wouldn't have to put forth the effort to find evidence of obstruction. Would save a lot of time I think. And taxpayer money who already shelled out $40 million for Mueller's report.

Potluck045 said:

Maybe Nadler should read the whole thing so he wouldn't have to put forth the effort to find evidence of obstruction. Would save a lot of time I think. And taxpayer money who already shelled out $40 million for Mueller's report.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you think you're talking about here.

KCfromNC said:

I wish that were true, but in this case per DOJ policy there's no level of evidence would have supported an obstruction charge.

Click to expand...

Doesnt change my original point, which i think you missed.

Also, someone is lying about the impact the olc opinion had on muellers decision to not conclude on obstruction. Barr stated, he and others asked mueller 3 times, if the olc opinion was the reason mueller didnt conclude on obstruction and according to barr, mueller said no.

Yesterday, muellers statement appeared to contradict barr's testimony. This is why mueller needs to go under oath (as barr did) to answer specific questions and basically be cross examined as barr was. When someone is accused of a crime at trial, the investigtors who gather the evidence, face cross examination at trial. The public just paid 30 million for the investigation and mueller should be willing to under oath and answer questions.

If barr lied, he should be charged with perjury, but barr states there were other people who witnessed muellers responses. If mueller doesnt want to close the loop and be willing to answer questions under oath, it smells.

bhsmte said:

Doesnt change my original point, which i think you missed.

Click to expand...

No, I get it. You're either falling for or playing along with the whole "but if Mueller didn't bring charges on something he couldn't bring charges on, that means Donald is innocent" narrative. It isn't convincing.

Also, someone is lying about the impact the olc opinion had on muellers decision to not conclude on obstruction. Barr stated

Click to expand...

Bolding mine ... Found your answer for you.

KCfromNC said:

Probably because of the solid evidence of obstruction in Mueller's report.

Click to expand...

Probably?
I think this whole thing is based on probably. So far there hasn't been any press concerning exactly what "evidence" is being interpreted as solid... just "read the report" or Op Eds one way or another.... just opinion pieces that have no legs to stand up in court.

Useful maybe for moving the needle concerning Trump's job approval perhaps? Where he stands now impeachment would be near impossible with those numbers. Now, if they were in the low 20's or high teens then maybe impeachment would stand a chance.

Solid evidence in the report but Nadler has to keep the ball rolling. Sway public opinion? Yeah, I believe that's all this is for... separate Trump's supporters from him. But I don't think they are buying into it.

Potluck045 said:

Maybe Nadler should read the whole thing so he wouldn't have to put forth the effort to find evidence of obstruction. Would save a lot of time I think.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that he can - has the justice department released the unredacted report? At any rate, I'm sure that members of Congress will have their own questions for witnesses that have not yet been answered.

And taxpayer money who already shelled out $40 million for Mueller's report.

Click to expand...

The money spent on the investigation was more than recouped by the seizure of Paul Manafort's assets. As has been reiterated many, many times now. The net bill to the taxpayers was zero.

KCfromNC said:

No, I get it. You're either falling for or playing along with the whole "but if Mueller didn't bring charges on something he couldn't bring charges on, that means Donald is innocent" narrative. It isn't convincing.


Bolding mine ... Found your answer for you.

Click to expand...

I am not falling for anything, i am turning over rocks and not simply choosing sides.

You found the answer, cool. Your level of digging, seems to be like this; this person i agree with so i believe, this person i disagree with, so they must be lying.

LOL

KCfromNC said:

No, I get it. You're either falling for or playing along with the whole "but if Mueller didn't bring charges on something he couldn't bring charges on, that means Donald is innocent" narrative. It isn't convincing.


Bolding mine ... Found your answer for you.

Click to expand...

By the way, you obviously selectively read posts, to conclude i believe trump is innocent of obstruction.

Tells me a bit about your clear bias.

Potluck045 said:

Probably?

Click to expand...

Seems like the most likely connection. After Mueller's report and press conference it should be obvious that he's handing the matter over to the House Judiciary committee to continue the investigation.

So far there hasn't been any press concerning exactly what "evidence" is being interpreted as solid... just "read the report"

Click to expand...

What more do you want? I mean, seriously, there's a report describing multiple instances of Donald trying to stop the investigation. What else do you need? I get the attempts to try and minimize that, but this isn't convincing in the least.

Yeah, I believe that's all this is for... separate Trump's supporters from him.

Click to expand...

That plus the special prosecutor appointed to investigate interference into our elections by a foreign power dedicated an entire volume of his report to the evidence of a sitting president working to obstruct that investigation. Don't forget that part.

bhsmte said:

Your level of digging, seems to be like this; this person i agree with so i believe, this person i disagree with, so they must be lying.

Click to expand...

I can see I've hit a bit close to home, but I've explained my actual, fact-based reasons for distrusting Barr to you in previous posts. If you'd like to retain a shred of credibility, please refrain from lying about them.

RocksInMyHead said:

I'm not sure that he can ....

Click to expand...

Then how do some readers come to the conclusion there is solid evidence of obstruction?

I can say this though. If I were being accused of something I did not do I'd be against any and all effort to be framed too.

Potluck045 said:

Then how do some readers come to the conclusion there is solid evidence of obstruction?

Click to expand...

Probably because they understand what is contained in Volume II of Mueller's report.

Potluck045 said:

If there is a solid case then show the solid evidence to support it. But after these years of investigation with nothing but political opinion as a result I suppose letting go of the dream to overturn the legal vote of the people can be difficult.

.

Click to expand...

How foolish to ask for evidence when obstructing justice is the crime. The defendant to be (Individual 1) has refused to respond to subpoenas, forbidden employees and firmer employees to testify, tried to fire anyone who wasn't slavishly devoted to him, and engaged in media disinformation campaigns.

It is weaving through the courts, and when the defendant to be has lost, you will have the evidence you need.

In the meanwhile there is so much smoke we are crawling on our bellies coughing to the exit, astonished that some are breathing the noxious fumes and saying "Ain't no fire."

Fantine said:

In the meanwhile there is so much smoke we are crawling on our bellies coughing to the exit, astonished that some are breathing the noxious fumes and saying "Ain't no fire."

Click to expand...

Not to mention the posts trying to manufacture a big deal over the fact that a guy prevented from his boss from saying there's a fire isn't explicitly saying there's a fire. As if that means anything other than he's bound by policy.

Fantine said:

How foolish to ask for evidence when obstructing justice is the crime. The defendant to be (Individual 1) has refused to respond to subpoenas, forbidden employees and firmer employees to testify, tried to fire anyone who wasn't slavishly devoted to him, and engaged in media disinformation campaigns.

It is weaving through the courts, and when the defendant to be has lost, you will have the evidence you need.

In the meanwhile there is so much smoke we are crawling on our bellies coughing to the exit, astonished that some are breathing the noxious fumes and saying "Ain't no fire."

Click to expand...

After the report was made public Trump could do these things. Had he done them during the investigation then he would be cited as being obstructive as his lawyers had advised.

But now things have changed. He can now fight back against those false allegations. And I don't blame him. An innocent man is not going to stand by while he is being railroaded.