‘Trust Me’....???

[Ringo84]

It...uh...was an "extremely narrow and selective summary". To wit:
Josh Marshall on Twitter

Odd, though, that a report that is "exonerating" would have at least one person on here whining about the report trying to "get Trump impeached". So unfair to uncover the president's crimes!
Ringo

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

So unfair to uncover the president's crimes!
Ringo

What crimes? That's the point. Why do you seem so disappointed that there was no crimes committed by the president? Wouldn't that be a good thing?

 

[Ringo84]

What crimes? That's the point. Why do you seem so disappointed that there was no crimes committed by the president? Wouldn't that be a good thing?

There were crimes committed that Mueller laid out in his report. It might help if you bothered to actually read it instead of attempting to gaslight people here.
Ringo

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

There were crimes committed that Mueller laid out in his report. It might help if you bothered to actually read it instead of attempting to gaslight people here.
Ringo

What crimes did the Mueller report say President Trump committed?

 

[Ringo84]

What crimes did the Mueller report say President Trump committed?

Pretty sure we've been through this: obstruction of justice.

Educating youself instead of bloviating about matters you seem ignorant of (possibly by choice) would be helpful.
Ringo

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Pretty sure we've been through this: obstruction of justice.

Educating yourself instead of bloviating about matters you seem ignorant of (possibly by choice) would be helpful.
Ringo

"He cannot obstruct justice by exercising his exclusive authority to fire his appointees for any reason or no reason at all. He doesn’t Even have to give a reason. Congress tried twice to restrict that authority by statute. In fact, the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s VP who succeeded him after Lincoln’s assassination, was because of Johnson’s refusal to snide by the Tenure of Office Act. A subsequent Congressional attempt to restrict the President’s authority was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Congress cannot achieve the same result by trying to bring it under an obstruction of justice statute.

Further, you cannot instruct justice by publicly proclaiming your innocence. Not only is that protected by the first amendment, obstruction of justice requires a corrupt interference (“hey, I didn’t do it and I think the prosecutor is out to get me and the entire investigation is illegal” will not qualify, even if you are guilty. How much more inappropriate to base a corruption claim on that kind of statement if you are in fact innocent. Do we want, as a matter of policy, to base an obstruction charge on protestations of innocence? I think not.

Yes, obstruction can occur even when someone is innocent but, as I said, it must be corrupt. Suborning perjury, bribing a witness, etc., may be obstruction, but nothing that is claimed as a basis for obstruction of justice by Trump fits the bill." -Mark Pollot, J.D. Constitutional Law & Civil Rights, University of San Diego School of Law (1986)

 

[Ringo84]

All very interesting, but it's not the reasons given for obstruction. It was the repeated attempts to seize control of the SCO and lying on the part of Donny's lackeys that form the basis of the obstruction charge: The Episodes of Potential Obstruction of Justice by Trump in the Mueller Report

There's also this:
Mueller Rejects View That Presidents Can’t Obstruct Justice

Here's a more abbreviated article about the actions that Mueller thought constituted the strongest case for obstruction: Which Trump Obstruction Acts Did Mueller Find To Be Most Obstruction-y?

So you can whine about how the report "didn't show any criminal activity", but that isn't supported by reality.
Ringo

 

[Allandavid]

"He cannot obstruct justice by exercising his exclusive authority to fire his appointees for any reason or no reason at all. He doesn’t Even have to give a reason. Congress tried twice to restrict that authority by statute. In fact, the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s VP who succeeded him after Lincoln’s assassination, was because of Johnson’s refusal to snide by the Tenure of Office Act. A subsequent Congressional attempt to restrict the President’s authority was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Congress cannot achieve the same result by trying to bring it under an obstruction of justice statute.

Further, you cannot instruct justice by publicly proclaiming your innocence. Not only is that protected by the first amendment, obstruction of justice requires a corrupt interference (“hey, I didn’t do it and I think the prosecutor is out to get me and the entire investigation is illegal” will not qualify, even if you are guilty. How much more inappropriate to base a corruption claim on that kind of statement if you are in fact innocent. Do we want, as a matter of policy, to base an obstruction charge on protestations of innocence? I think not.

Yes, obstruction can occur even when someone is innocent but, as I said, it must be corrupt. Suborning perjury, bribing a witness, etc., may be obstruction, but nothing that is claimed as a basis for obstruction of justice by Trump fits the bill." -Mark Pollot, J.D. Constitutional Law & Civil Rights, University of San Diego School of Law (1986)

Vol. II, Page 157: The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance.

 

[Allandavid]

Vol. II, Page 177: Accordingly, based on the analysis above, we were not persuaded by the argument that the President has blanket constitutional immunity to engage in acts that would corruptly obstruct justice through the exercise of otherwise-valid Article II powers protecting the integrity of its own proceedings and the proceedings of Article III courts and grand juries

 

[Allandavid]

Vol. II, Page 182: If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.

 

[Allandavid]

Vol. II, Page 5-6: In early 2018, the press reported that the president had directed McGahn to have the special counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. The president reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and to create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the special counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the president had directed McGahn to have the special counsel removed. The president then met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the reports. In the same meeting, the president also asked McGahn why he had told the special counsel about the president’s effort to remove the special counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversation with the president. McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the president to be testing his mettle.

 

[Fantine]

Let's put Trump on trial for obstruction, with William Barr as defense attorney and an attorney of Congress' choice for prosecutor (I would suggest Adam Schiff.)

Las Vegas oddsmakers could handle the bet pool. A percentage of their profits could reduce the national debt.

It would be entertaining and fund-raising.

I'll put $10 on conviction.