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

[Fantine]

Read the report. Ten cases of obstruction of justice during the investigation were clearly delineated.

The documentary evidence--in additional obstruction--has not been provided, due to the defendant to he's orders.

 

[Potluck045]

Read the report. Ten cases of obstruction of justice during the investigation were clearly delineated.

The documentary evidence--in additional obstruction--has not been provided, due to the defendant to he's orders.

Ok, so why is Nadler investigating for obstruction if the evidence is out there for all to see? Two years of investigating not enough?

BTW,
Has anyone ever done a comparison between the Starr report and the Mueller report? The Starr report was very explicit about evidence uncovered. But the Mueller report is mostly food for one's opinion. The Starr report was so revealing that the democrats passed laws about how much could be made public... unredacted.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

What does any of this have to do with the evidence for obstruction in Volume II of Mueller's report?

 

[KCfromNC]

Ok, so why is Nadler investigating for obstruction if the evidence is out there for all to see?

Because their job is oversight of the executive branch.

Has anyone ever done a comparison between the Starr report and the Mueller report? The Starr report was very explicit about evidence uncovered. But the Mueller report is mostly food for one's opinion.

Says the brand new poster who had to be told that the Mueller report was the one which contained evidence of Donald obstructing the investigation. Given that, you'll excuse me if I don't find this particular claim credible.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

Still not sure why you think it is so important that Mueller make known his opinion about whether he could charge someone he couldn't charge. It seems totally irrelevant to pretty much anything. I mean, I guess it could just be idle curiosity but it does feel suspiciously close to much of the Trump apologetics floating around.

 

[TheBear]

1) Does this statement from Mueller's press conference today change your understanding of the report?

2)If it does: How?
If it does not: Why not?


Personally, it doesn't change my understanding as this is what I have understood from the beginning.

Blind post -
1) Proving a negative is impossible.
2) Whatever happened to the principle of "Innocent unless proven guilty"?

 

[bhsmte]

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.

LOL

 

[bhsmte]

Still not sure why you think it is so important that Mueller make known his opinion about whether he could charge someone he couldn't charge. It seems totally irrelevant to pretty much anything. I mean, I guess it could just be idle curiosity but it does feel suspiciously close to much of the Trump apologetics floating around.

I gave the reason clearly.

 

[Potluck045]

Says the guy who had to be told that the Mueller report was the one which contained evidence of Donald obstructing the investigation. Given that, you'll excuse me if I don't find this particular claim credible.

No claim. Nadler knows the laws that were passed back then and why. Yet, he expected Barr to act illegally. When Barr would not cross that line then he was accused of bias. To the casual news reader that would appear as if Barr was/is indeed on Trump's side. A cover up if you will.

Again, if there is so much evidence then why don't the dems run with it to impeach? With Trump's approval numbers as they are I don't think it would be politically enhancing especially against a backdrop of a strong economy aided in part by the revocation of many Obama-era regulations and restrictions.

People know the Mueller investigation was a frame job to paint Trump as a traitor, a Russian operative or anything else derogatory. But that failed so the focus went to obstruction. And that's not working out so hot either.

 

[bhsmte]

Still not sure why you think it is so important that Mueller make known his opinion about whether he could charge someone he couldn't charge. It seems totally irrelevant to pretty much anything. I mean, I guess it could just be idle curiosity but it does feel suspiciously close to much of the Trump apologetics floating around.

I would tend to think, the person actually in charge of the investigation, make a conclusion and be willing to go under oath and answer questions about the same.

If he isnt willing, it gives me pause and sort of takes away the credibility just a bit.

 

[Potluck045]

Anyway,
I need to get ready for work. Don't want anyone thinking I'm ignoring them. The afternoon shift. We're not allowed to "text" and work being that it's kinda against company policy. lol
Catch ya'll tomorrow.

 

[Fantine]

Ok, so why is Nadler investigating for obstruction if the evidence is out there for all to see? Two years of investigating not enough?

.

The Mueller report resulted in over 30 indictments and many pleas and convictions. The Starr report--predictably--yielded nothing.

Maybe Nadler is investigating because there are loads of impeachable offenses Mueller didn't even look at. 10,000 lies to Congress and the American people. Profiteering from his office. Putting his business before country in decision making.

Ignoring our national security by failing to secure our voting system.

There are lawsuits and criminal investigations in several states.

In addition, Nadler was not given the evidence on which Mueller's report was based.

 

[Fantine]

I would tend to think, the person actually in charge of the investigation, make a conclusion and be willing to go under oath and answer questions about the same.

If he isnt willing, it gives me pause and sort of takes away the credibility just a bit.

If there is an impeachment, he will be required to testify. Impeachment carry more clout.

 

[rambot]

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.

You are working on the assumption he is being framed.

He is not.

 

[rambot]

Side question:

Trump could be charged with all of this once he is no longer president right?

 

[bhsmte]

If there is an impeachment, he will be required to testify. Impeachment carry more clout.

Yes indeed. It shouldnt require that though.

 

[bhsmte]

Side question:

Trump could be charged with all of this once he is no longer president right?

Yes and there is nothing in the constitution, that says a sitting president cannot be charged. It is only an olc opinion, which some legal scholars, disagree with.

 

[rambot]

Blind post -
1) Proving a negative is impossible.
2) Whatever happened to the principle of "Innocent unless proven guilty"?

1. Ahh... The oft misunderstood can't prove a negative argument.
A lack of evidence could be considered proof. BUT any evidence that indicates a positive disproves a negative.
There is no evidence that the dog people of Mars affected the election of 2016 and we can safely assume they didn't. But if we find some evidence that they did...well, now we have an issue.
2). It was a blind post so don't sweat it but....as has been reported several times, he couldn't be proven guilty legally. The problem is that him and his team keep doing things, like, not subtle things, to arouse suspicion.

Whatever happened to arm's length between the executive and judicial branch?
I mean if we are asking fundamental questions......

 

[wing2000]

One more time; there is no policy, that prevented mueller from reaching a conclusion on his own investigation. Prosecutors dont indict, grand juries do.

I understand that's your position. Mueller interpreted the DOJ policy differently.

 

[Fantine]

Or Barr probably ordered Mueller to interpret DOJ policy that way.