So is Barr the Attorney General or Trumps personal lawyer?

[JLB777]

Oh good grief.....!

Grief is surely coming to those criminals who conspired against our President, illegally for their own corrupt intentions.



JLB

 

[JLB777]

No, according to the Mueller Report, which the NY Times was referencing.

Feel free to stay in your fact free bubble.

The fact is there was no crime committed by our President.


The fact is, the Democrats know that justice is coming for those corrupt officials who conspired with Clinton.


The Democrats have nothing to run on and no one to run that can come close to Trump.

Trump 2020.


Continuing to make America Great Again.


JLB

 

[Allandavid]

The fact is there was no crime committed by our President.

Unless you consider obstruction of justice a crime, of course....

 

[JLB777]

Unless you consider obstruction of justice a crime, of course....

Of course obstruction of justice is a crime.


What is the justice that was obstructed?


Collusion?


JLB

 

[Allandavid]

Of course obstruction of justice is a crime.


What is the justice that was obstructed?


Collusion?


JLB

Ummmm...you may have heard of it.

It was called the Mueller Investigation...!!

 

[Zanting]

And you have a link to the transcript of the phone call?

Again...the phone call is documented...do you really believe that this conversation wouldn't be recorded?

Furthermore, Barr discusses it openly and publicly...do you really believe he would set himself up?

Of course you do...so no point in trying to change your opinion.

 

[Zanting]

So, you’re relying on the word of someone who has demonstrated himself to be a liar over these matters...

Right...

He hasn't been proved a liar except in the narrative of the democrats...they have to claim something now that their Russia hoax didn't work.

 

[JLB777]

Ummmm...you may have heard of it.

It was called the Mueller Investigation...!!

I asked you a specific question.


What justice did President Trump, obstruct?


What was it that he obstructed?


Did he obstruct the investigation into collusion?


For there to be a crime of “obstruction of justice”, there must be a crime in the first place, that he committed and was being investigated for?


What was his initial crime that he was being investigated for that he obstructed?


Was it the crime of collusion?


Because collusion is not a crime.


That’s what you and the rest of the Democrats just don’t seem to understand.


Mueller understands it.

Barr understands it.


There was no crime for President Trump to obstruct an “investigation” into.


That would be like you telling the police they can’t come into your house to search it, because they have a reasonable suspicion your watching TV, and you are charged with obstruction of justice.


There is no crime in watching TV and therefore they have no right to come in and search your home, hoping to find some other evidence to charge you with.


Therefore you were not obstructing justice, you were obstructing an illegal search of your home.


Do you understand this?



JLB

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Unless you consider obstruction of justice a crime, of course....

What obstruction!!?? The report was completed! The report was released! Just what exactly did he obstruct!!??

Oh, BTW, NO COLLUSION!!!!!

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

I asked you a specific question.


What justice did President Trump, obstruct?


What was it that he obstructed?


Did he obstruct the investigation into collusion?


For there to be a crime of “obstruction of justice”, there must be a crime in the first place, that he committed and was being investigated for?


What was his initial crime that he was being investigated for that he obstructed?


Was it the crime of collusion?


Because collusion is not a crime.


That’s what you and the rest of the Democrats just don’t seem to understand.


Mueller understands it.

Barr understands it.


There was no crime for President Trump to obstruct an “investigation” into.


That would be like you telling the police they can’t come into your house to search it, because they have a reasonable suspicion your watching TV, and you are charged with obstruction of justice.


There is no crime in watching TV and therefore they have no right to come in and search your home, hoping to find some other evidence to charge you with.


Therefore you were not obstructing justice, you were obstructing an illegal search of your home.


Do you understand this?



JLB

He did answer your question. The justice being obstructed was the Justice Department i.e. The Mueller Investigation. If the Justice Department (or Other governmental body) is investigating something, you cannot mess with them, even if there investigation turns up empty.

Think about what would happen if that wasn’t a crime. If I committed murder, it behoove me greatly to lie to investigators, tamper with evidence, and intimidate witnesses (all as brazen as I want) because if I succeed in derailing the investigation I’d walk free. In order for there to be a chance at justice, you need to make it a crime to mess with their investigations (whether successful or not). That’s what the crime “Obstruction of Justice” is for.

 

[KCfromNC]

I read and then posted the full report...not bits and pieces.

Still don't see anything addressing the quotes I posted.

 

[KCfromNC]

You mean the report by the guy who was in on the selling of 25% of our Uranium to the Russians???


That Bob Mueller? LOL!!!!



That’s funny.




JLB

Poe's Law strikes again?

 

[whatbogsends]

The fact is there was no crime committed by our President.

The fact is, the Democrats know that justice is coming for those corrupt officials who conspired with Clinton.

The Democrats have nothing to run on and no one to run that can come close to Trump.

Trump 2020.

Continuing to make America Great Again.

JLB

There were several crimes outlined in the Mueller Report. No surprise, Trump is doing whatever he can to control the narrative and prevent full disclosure of the report.

Your "facts" aren't particularly true.

 

[whatbogsends]

Again...the phone call is documented...do you really believe that this conversation wouldn't be recorded?

Furthermore, Barr discusses it openly and publicly...do you really believe he would set himself up?

Of course you do...so no point in trying to change your opinion.

No, I don't think "Barr would set himself up".

I do, however, think Barr thinks that he, as head of the DOJ, is above the law.

Moreover, if they don't allow Mueller to testify (which they are working to prevent happening), how would Barr's falsehood be proven? Even if Mueller testifies and his testimony contradicts Barr, it will be a he said/he said case, unless there is a recording (of which you've claimed, but provided zero substantiation for your claim), and that recording is released (which they will fight as well).

 

[whatbogsends]

I asked you a specific question.


What justice did President Trump, obstruct?


What was it that he obstructed?


Did he obstruct the investigation into collusion?


For there to be a crime of “obstruction of justice”, there must be a crime in the first place, that he committed and was being investigated for?


What was his initial crime that he was being investigated for that he obstructed?


Was it the crime of collusion?


Because collusion is not a crime.


That’s what you and the rest of the Democrats just don’t seem to understand.


Mueller understands it.

Barr understands it.


There was no crime for President Trump to obstruct an “investigation” into.


That would be like you telling the police they can’t come into your house to search it, because they have a reasonable suspicion your watching TV, and you are charged with obstruction of justice.


There is no crime in watching TV and therefore they have no right to come in and search your home, hoping to find some other evidence to charge you with.


Therefore you were not obstructing justice, you were obstructing an illegal search of your home.


Do you understand this?



JLB

The Mueller investigation was looking into multiple crimes, including, but not limited to, those related to Russian interference. The Mueller investigation found evidence of several crimes, many of which were successfully prosecuted. Trump's actions attempted to stifle the Mueller investigation, as well as to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with investigators (witness tampering). Regardless of "collusion" (which Mueller specifically stated he didn't investigate as "collusion" doesn't have a criminal statute), Trump obstructed a legal investigation. That is obstruction of justice.

Your analogy is nonsense, just like the rest of your argument.

 

[LoAmmi]

I asked you a specific question.


What justice did President Trump, obstruct?


What was it that he obstructed?


Did he obstruct the investigation into collusion?


For there to be a crime of “obstruction of justice”, there must be a crime in the first place, that he committed and was being investigated for?


What was his initial crime that he was being investigated for that he obstructed?


Was it the crime of collusion?


Because collusion is not a crime.


That’s what you and the rest of the Democrats just don’t seem to understand.


Mueller understands it.

Barr understands it.


There was no crime for President Trump to obstruct an “investigation” into.


That would be like you telling the police they can’t come into your house to search it, because they have a reasonable suspicion your watching TV, and you are charged with obstruction of justice.


There is no crime in watching TV and therefore they have no right to come in and search your home, hoping to find some other evidence to charge you with.


Therefore you were not obstructing justice, you were obstructing an illegal search of your home.


Do you understand this?



JLB

Why wouldn't people just obstruct all investigations? If the results were nothing, then they are completely free, even in their actions was the reason the investigation found nothing.

 

[Allandavid]

I asked you a specific question.


What justice did President Trump, obstruct?


What was it that he obstructed?


Did he obstruct the investigation into collusion?


For there to be a crime of “obstruction of justice”, there must be a crime in the first place, that he committed and was being investigated for?


What was his initial crime that he was being investigated for that he obstructed?


Was it the crime of collusion?


Because collusion is not a crime.


That’s what you and the rest of the Democrats just don’t seem to understand.


Mueller understands it.

Barr understands it.


There was no crime for President Trump to obstruct an “investigation” into.


That would be like you telling the police they can’t come into your house to search it, because they have a reasonable suspicion your watching TV, and you are charged with obstruction of justice.


There is no crime in watching TV and therefore they have no right to come in and search your home, hoping to find some other evidence to charge you with.


Therefore you were not obstructing justice, you were obstructing an illegal search of your home.


Do you understand this?



JLB

The investigation was undertaken to determine the extent to which Russia had interfered with your electoral process on behalf of Trump and whether or not his campaign had assisted them in that process.....don’t you read the news...!??

THAT’S what he attempted to obstruct...And that’s a crime...!

You are obviously completely ignorant of the law. There does NOT necessarily have to be an underlying crime for obstruction to occur....simply that an investigation has been impeded...

 

[Pommer]

teamwork

 

[bhsmte]

The fact is there was no crime committed by our President.


The fact is, the Democrats know that justice is coming for those corrupt officials who conspired with Clinton.


The Democrats have nothing to run on and no one to run that can come close to Trump.

Trump 2020.


Continuing to make America Great Again.

The reality is, there may have been crimes committed both by trump and those investigating him.

We will know in time, when more facts are revealed.

JLB

 

[NotreDame]

You are obviously completely ignorant of the law. There does NOT necessarily have to be an underlying crime for obstruction to occur....simply that an investigation has been impeded...

Oh, thou protesteth too much for thine own good! Admonishing another as “completely ignorant of the law” is paradoxical when your own generalized remark is also “ignorant of the law.” The “law” here referring to the obstruction of justice statutes, but not any obstruction statutes, rather the specifically applicable obstruction statutes Trump was investigated as possibly violating. They are referenced in the Report.

Mueller very plainly tells the reader what is needed and it’s a “nexus to a pending proceeding or contemplated official proceeding.” Where in the Report, or in the relevant and applicable federal law, is “simply that an investigation has been impeded” sufficient?

Or is this but one more instance, amidst your several instances, where you speak positively on a subject but the substance of the subject doesn’t support what you’ve said?