Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bluerules009

Mueller report clears Trump on Obstruction too.

Recommended Posts

I don’t think the report clears him completely on obstruction.  He clearly ordered people to attempt to interfere with the process, they just didn’t do it.  So, in the end, there was no obstruction because McGahn refused but he definitely wanted Mueller to be fired and the investigation terminated and gave orders to make that happen.  If McGahn had fired Mueller or made it happen somehow, Trump would be facing impeachment right now.  He may still (although I think that’s a bad idea at this point).  

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I don’t think the report clears him completely on obstruction.  He clearly ordered people to attempt to interfere with the process, they just didn’t do it.  So, in the end, there was no obstruction because McGahn refused but he definitely wanted Mueller to be fired and the investigation terminated and gave orders to make that happen.  If McGahn had fired Mueller or made it happen somehow, Trump would be facing impeachment right now.  He may still (although I think that’s a bad idea at this point).  

Mueller clearly left this door open for congress.  Mueller didn't bring charges of obstruction, so in the legal sense he was cleared.  

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

It said there was no evidence to support an obstruction charge.  I realize you could care less about truth but it is fun destroying you over and over.

 

Mueller can’t conclude it but MWCBoard lefties have been concluding it for 2 years...  😂 

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pokebball said:

Mueller clearly left this door open for congress.  Mueller didn't bring charges of obstruction, so in the legal sense he was cleared.  

I disagree.  Mueller clearly stated he’s taking the position you can’t indict a sitting president so he was never going to bring charges regardless of what was found.  

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I disagree.  Mueller clearly stated he’s taking the position you can’t indict a sitting president so he was never going to bring charges regardless of what was found.  

Yeah but he could recommend charges given the evidence.  Except as he stated he had none.

Which is why he specifically did not recommend charges..  He actually played the dirtiest trick he could by the way he worded his statement.  He did his best to dirty up someone he dislikes because of politics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, sandiegopete said:

Until the full, unredacted, report is made available for all of us to read every word uttered about the report can only be considered to be political hogwash. 

Right. But if the same report was highly problematic for Trump the shitlibs would regard it as the Gospel truth.

 

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I disagree.  Mueller clearly stated he’s taking the position you can’t indict a sitting president so he was never going to bring charges regardless of what was found.  

Mueller doesn't indict.  He reported his work and findings, and includes his recommendations.  He could have, and I assume would have, recommended indictments after Trump leaves the white house if he thought it appropriate..  Mueller didn't recommend an obstruction charge.  He made that clear.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, pokebball said:

Not guilty, right?

I know you and others are trying to make this about Trump.  it isn't.

This, my friend, is all about the Dems.  I felt otherwise until the Kav hearings.  It was there that it became very clear to me that they weren't any better than the embarrassment we have in the white house.  .

I honestly appreciate your attempts at objectivity. That's considerably different than the FoxNews-inspired BS that a number of others here have accepted hook, line and sinker.

That said, "the report" = what Mueller said; not what Barr said.

BARR may have opined there isn't enough evidence to indict Trump on obstruction charges but MUELLER never said any such thing. Indeed, as I pointed out at the top of p. 15 of the other thread, Trump now realizes Mueller not only didn't "exonerate" him of anything except "collusion" (as Barr called it half a dozen times yesterday in parroting Trump's non-legal term), Mueller said that but for McGahn and others in the White House refusing to implement many improper orders from Trump, added to the 10 acts Mueller cited in saying some evidence of obstruction in fact exists would have been other evidence which could have tipped the scales for Mueller to have made a finding of the requisite intent for obstruction.

You may have decided you dislike all Democrats. If so, I think that's sad. I agree a number of them are slimeballs but certainly not all are nor even a majority. I also don't think all Republicans on Capitol Hill are scum and as I've said, I've now gained huge respect for McGahn and I had already gained respect for Sessions. I may disagree with the two on half of their policy positions but both have shown they care about the rule of law. I'm now convinced the opposite is true of Barr who communicated to Trump via that position paper of a year and a half ago that if the prez would appoint him to replace Sessions, unlike Sessions, he would do Trump's bidding and in mischaracterizing the Mueller report, he has done exactly that.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Yeah but he could recommend charges given the evidence.  Except as he stated he had none.

Which is why he specifically did not recommend charges..  He actually played the dirtiest trick he could by the way he worded his statement.  He did his best to dirty up someone he dislikes because of politics.

 

Trump should have kept his mouth shut. Instead he dragged Mueller’s name through the mud and impugned his reputation, all for political expedience. Can’t fault Mueller for playing politics back at him. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Yeah but he could recommend charges given the evidence.  Except as he stated he had none.

Sorry but that's just plain wrong.

What Mueller said was he didn't have sufficient evidence to meet the criminal standard. That's yugely different than saying he had none.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, pokebball said:

Mueller doesn't indict.  He reported his work and findings, and includes his recommendations.  He could have, and I assume would have, recommended indictments after Trump leaves the white house if he thought it appropriate..  Mueller didn't recommend an obstruction charge.  He made that clear.

I don't think you understood mugtang's point. I think his point was - and mine would be - that Mueller was disinclined to find obstruction because the weight of the evidence would not have allowed for an indictment.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Trump should have kept his mouth shut. Instead he dragged Mueller’s name through the mud and impugned his reputation, all for political expedience. Can’t fault Mueller for playing politics back at him. 

Yep, I have never said Trump was anything but a moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Sorry but that's just plain wrong.

What Mueller said was he didn't have sufficient evidence to meet the criminal standard. That's yugely different than saying he had none.

He had no evidence other than Trumps actions as executive which even Mueller said was not evidence.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Trump should have kept his mouth shut. Instead he dragged Mueller’s name through the mud and impugned his reputation, all for political expedience. Can’t fault Mueller for playing politics back at him. 

Trump will never keep his mouth shut. :) 

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Trump should have kept his mouth shut. Instead he dragged Mueller’s name through the mud and impugned his reputation, all for political expedience. Can’t fault Mueller for playing politics back at him. 

Agreed.

You Republicans should feel vindicated by Mueller's report insofar as it shows that although the resident of the White House is a foul, low IQ, ignorant buffoon, and although that person has fired dozens of other Republicans, unlike Trump, most of those Republicans genuinely care more about our country than they do about self-aggrandizement.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

I don't think you understood mugtang's point. I think his point was - and mine would be - that Mueller was disinclined to find obstruction because the weight of the evidence would not have allowed for an indictment.

I thought Mug's point is that he didn't because a current president can't be indicted, perhaps inferring that otherwise he would have.  Mueller should have recommended an indictment if he felt that appropriate.  He didn't.

Mueller is brilliant in my opinion.  He knew he was dealing with both the legal and the political shyt in this investigation.  He concluded on the legal and saved himself from the politics by punting that to congress.  Let the Dems shitshow begin continue

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mugtang said:

I don’t think the report clears him completely on obstruction.  He clearly ordered people to attempt to interfere with the process, they just didn’t do it.  So, in the end, there was no obstruction because McGahn refused but he definitely wanted Mueller to be fired and the investigation terminated and gave orders to make that happen.  If McGahn had fired Mueller or made it happen somehow, Trump would be facing impeachment right now.  He may still (although I think that’s a bad idea at this point).  

 

1 hour ago, mugtang said:

I disagree.  Mueller clearly stated he’s taking the position you can’t indict a sitting president so he was never going to bring charges regardless of what was found.  

Well that is because you are the last of your kind, my friend, on this board.  You just have to stick around because you own it.  The other semi sane right leaning folks exited a while ago with their tales between their legs and the Trump cultists took over.  The folks defending him against the face of all evidence are dead enders...most of them have shown up on this thread to defend the porn star messiah. 

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

It said no such thing.

Mueller punted the ball to Barr to make the ruling on obstruction. And Barr found no obstruction per my post above. The infamous list of 10 that left wingers are having such a hard on for and identify as obstruction are fools. No obstruction silly people, interference?..... yes. If Trump had been guilty of collusion, Barr almost certainly would’ve gone with obstruction. 

Things could’ve gotten really dicey for Trump had his lawyer gotten the process going and Mueller fired. Trump didn’t have an acquittal on collusion back then, so that behavior could’ve been considered obstruction. However, had Mueller first ruled no collusion and then went back to determine what to do about obstruction, Trump could’ve fired him then and still skated on obstruction charges. Mueller didn’t end up ruling about it anyway.

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing about Trump’s cooperation with Mueller, there actually was a lot of cooperation. Every single document that Mueller requested from the White House,  they got it. They had full access to interview staff, and Trump waived his right to redact certain parts of the report. He let it go as-is. That’s not someone desperately hiding something. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...