Obstruction: Muellers report

There is a Chinese saying that it is hard to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if it's not there.

shmogie said:

There was no evidence of collusion, none, and that was why the entire thing started in the first place. No evidence means that the FISA warrants were obtained by false evidence.

Obstruction of justice is a high bar to reach, and is complicated. We know that Trump never invoked executive privilege which the previous three presidents did. We know that Mueller never complained about not receiving documents he wanted, and many hundreds of thousands of pages were shared by the White House.

Obstruction of Justice is based upon criminal intent. Knowing that what you are doing is clearly understood as a criminal act.

The Justice Department has reviewed the entire Mueller report, and has determined that there is insufficient to make a case.

Insufficient most likely means means that the element of criminal intent is not present.

Democrat hitters like Schiff and Knadler have, for two years, insisted that there was a plethora of evidence to prove collusion by Trump and his campaign with the Russians.

They are sewer dwelling bald faced liars. 2 years, 25 million dollars, 17 full time lawyers, a large number of investigators. 500 witnesses interviewed, hundreds of search warrants served all make their lies hugely apparent.

Click to expand...

I think you read me wrong. I was not advocating for the view. I was pointing the distortion required to hold the view and the cause which is an ideological bias. IE "not sufficient" means there is evidence due to the bias. The bias rules out any other possibility.

averageJOE said:

Please. Just stop with Russiagate. Mainstream media and democrats are just grasping at straws at this point.

Click to expand...

Invisible straws

metis said:

I have a great deal of faith in Mueller but much less so with Barr, especially since the latter wrote a 19 page summary while the investigation was still in progress that said there was no evidence of collusion or obstruction.

The report must be put forth or the "cloud of doubt" will still remain over this administration and Barr. Plus, I do believe Mueller needs to report to the House because all we really have at this point is Barr's four-page summary.

Also, we do not know exactly why Mueller concluded that Trump has not been exonerated on the issue of obstruction, which is contrary to what Trump has claimed.

IOW, this is not over yet, although I truly wish it was.

Click to expand...

Some parts of the report will never be released. As an example, you cannot rummage around in a persons life, find no evidence of a crime, but drag up what you have found not related to any crime. The democrats want this type of material desperately, that they think they can weaponize as mud to throw.

Anything related to classified material or procedures cannot be released.

Mueller got off the political hot seat by his non commital response to obstruction.

What is obstruction ? The democrats will say that bad mouthing Mueller and his team is obstruction, or threatening to fire Rosenstein or Mueller. The legal term is a "chilling effect"

Obviously, if there had been direct interference Mueller would have noted it, and it could not be kept secret.

So, knowing it to be a [political football, he punted to the DOJ, whose lawyers, including Barr and Rosenstein concluded there was not sufficient evidence to rise to the level of obstruction.

What "evidence" there was is most likely of the type I noted.

This will never be over, the democrats will continuing accusing, bith that they don't know when Trump had a colonoscopy, and flat out lie as they have en masse on this issue.,

Democrat allies in the FBI used a bogus bit of nonsense paid for by the Clinton campaign to begin this BS in the first place,

They never told the FISA court that the Steel dossier was the foundation of their request for secret warrants.

There was no other evidence, and this wasn't evidence, Mueller says there was zip, none, nada, 0, no evidence of collusion, the democrats favorite word for two years,

Shad said:

It is distorting not sufficient part to mean there is evidence but not good enough evidence. It is speculation drive by a bias.

Click to expand...

Revoltingest said:

"Not sufficient" could mean anything from nothing to insufficient.
So while it offers hope to anti-Trumpettes that the presumed
evidence is in the direction away from nothing, they really don't
know. They're just elevating their hopes to the level of facts.

Click to expand...

I would surmise that if it was “nothing” after two years of investigation Mueller would have had no problem reaching a conclusion on the matter. The fact that Mueller did not reach a conclusion is suggestive.

You can accuse me of speculation if you wish, but this is why we need to see the complete Mueller report (with minimal redactions)

fantome profane said:

I would surmise that if it was “nothing” after two years of investigation Mueller would have had no problem reaching a conclusion on the matter.

Click to expand...

There was a conclusion in Barr's summary.
Unless he's lying, Trump appears to have won.
Dang.....
First Hillary was vanquished.
And so they pinned their hopes upon impeachment.
And now that dream was crushed too.
Where will they go now?
Perhaps they'll focus on 2020.
Nah....his tax returns are next.

shmogie said:

Some parts of the report will never be released. As an example, you cannot rummage around in a persons life, find no evidence of a crime, but drag up what you have found not related to any crime. The democrats want this type of material desperately, that they think they can weaponize as mud to throw.

Anything related to classified material or procedures cannot be released.

Mueller got off the political hot seat by his non commital response to obstruction.

What is obstruction ? The democrats will say that bad mouthing Mueller and his team is obstruction, or threatening to fire Rosenstein or Mueller. The legal term is a "chilling effect"

Obviously, if there had been direct interference Mueller would have noted it, and it could not be kept secret.

So, knowing it to be a [political football, he punted to the DOJ, whose lawyers, including Barr and Rosenstein concluded there was not sufficient evidence to rise to the level of obstruction.

What "evidence" there was is most likely of the type I noted.

This will never be over, the democrats will continuing accusing, bith that they don't know when Trump had a colonoscopy, and flat out lie as they have en masse on this issue.,

Democrat allies in the FBI used a bogus bit of nonsense paid for by the Clinton campaign to begin this BS in the first place,

They never told the FISA court that the Steel dossier was the foundation of their request for secret warrants.

There was no other evidence, and this wasn't evidence, Mueller says there was zip, none, nada, 0, no evidence of collusion, the democrats favorite word for two years,

Click to expand...

Mueller explicitly said he was NOT saying "there was zip, none, nada, 0, no evidence of collusion", no matter how much you wish it were so.

Just some quick responses.

shmogie said:

As an example, you cannot rummage around in a persons life, find no evidence of a crime, but drag up what you have found not related to any crime.

Click to expand...

It's done all the time when there's an investigation as not all investigations are successful.

shmogie said:

Mueller got off the political hot seat by his non commital response to obstruction.

Click to expand...

It seems that he came to a conclusion that this was basically something that Congress would have to deal with, which is exactly what happened with the Watergate scandal. IOW, not everything that may be classified as "collusion" is criminal, which is why Congress needs to see exactly what Mueller came up with.

shmogie said:

What "evidence" there was is most likely of the type I noted.

Click to expand...

We have five plea deals with Trump associates, plus an indictment with Stone. We know with certainty that there was contact with some on Trump's team with the Russians, and yet every single one of them denied it. And then there was Trump's fabricated story that these contacts dealt with adoption. So, something definitely was going on, but it may not have reached the level or criminality.

shmogie said:

This will never be over, the democrats will continuing accusing, bith that they don't know when Trump had a colonoscopy, and flat out lie as they have en masse on this issue.,

Click to expand...

Oh, like Trump's birther charges that he spewed out for seven straight years? Oh, and like Trump's constant barrage of lies? Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

shmogie said:

They never told the FISA court that the Steel dossier was the foundation of their request for secret warrants.

Click to expand...

The Steele Dossier was only part of what led up to the four FISA warrants. which are very hard to get because they demand significant levels of "probably cause". On top of that, all four judges were Republicans.

Of course if one only watched Fox, listened to Limbaugh, or read Breitbart, they would not likely understand this.

shmogie said:

There was no other evidence, and this wasn't evidence, Mueller says there was zip, none, nada, 0, no evidence of collusion, the democrats favorite word for two years

Click to expand...

You seem not to be aware of the fact that the issue of "collusion" legally is not always clear. At which point does "discussion" or "sharing of information" become "collusion", and there simply is no definitive line.

Either way, why in the world would the Trump camp want anything to do with the Russians during the election process? Such Russian contacts, which we know happened, were not only not reported by the Trump camp, they were even denied through lie after lie. Doesn't that get you in the least somewhat suspicious, or is it that you really don't care?

Anyhow, I do feel that we definitely need most of that redacted report released to Congress and to the public as a whole, and Trump and all of Congress said they also want that, but then Trump changed his mind and said he'd leave it all up to Barr.

So, I am willing to wait and see what comes out of this, but we paid for that investigation so I do believe we have a right to read it minus redactions. The parts that are to be redacted then need to be submitted to the House Intelligence Committee at the least so as to make sure nothing is going to be hidden.

I'm extremely far from a fan of Hillary, but as usual, my biggest problem is with hypocrisy.
Thus;

Kangaroo Feathers said:

I'm extremely far from a fan of Hillary, but as usual, my biggest problem is with hypocrisy.
Thus;
View attachment 27790

Click to expand...

This seems sour grapes over having accusations evaporate.
First decrying a stolen election.
Then pronouncing Trump as a Russian agent.
And as the next Hitler too.
Then their multi-year multi-agency investigations catch minions, but not Trump or family.
They just can't seem to make anything stick.

The opposition fails time after time.
Their problems are manyfold.....
- Believing they can anoint any candidate (Hillary), & foist'm upon us.
- Believing conviction will result before having any evidence.
- Letting anger rule over reason.
- Placing faith that investigations will yield desired results.

metis said:

Just some quick responses.

It's done all the time when there's an investigation as not all investigations are successful.

It seems that he came to a conclusion that this was basically something that Congress would have to deal with, which is exactly what happened with the Watergate scandal. IOW, not everything that may be classified as "collusion" is criminal, which is why Congress needs to see exactly what Mueller came up with.

We have five plea deals with Trump associates, plus an indictment with Stone. We know with certainty that there was contact with some on Trump's team with the Russians, and yet every single one of them denied it. And then there was Trump's fabricated story that these contacts dealt with adoption. So, something definitely was going on, but it may not have reached the level or criminality.

Oh, like Trump's birther charges that he spewed out for seven straight years? Oh, and like Trump's constant barrage of lies? Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

The Steele Dossier was only part of what led up to the four FISA warrants. which are very hard to get because they demand significant levels of "probably cause". On top of that, all four judges were Republicans.

Of course if one only watched Fox, listened to Limbaugh, or read Breitbart, they would not likely understand this.

You seem not to be aware of the fact that the issue of "collusion" legally is not always clear. At which point does "discussion" or "sharing of information" become "collusion", and there simply is no definitive line.

Either way, why in the world would the Trump camp want anything to do with the Russians during the election process? Such Russian contacts, which we know happened, were not only not reported by the Trump camp, they were even denied through lie after lie. Doesn't that get you in the least somewhat suspicious, or is it that you really don't care?

Anyhow, I do feel that we definitely need most of that redacted report released to Congress and to the public as a whole, and Trump and all of Congress said they also want that, but then Trump changed his mind and said he'd leave it all up to Barr.

So, I am willing to wait and see what comes out of this, but we paid for that investigation so I do believe we have a right to read it minus redactions. The parts that are to be redacted then need to be submitted to the House Intelligence Committee at the least so as to make sure nothing is going to be hidden.

Click to expand...

Collusion is not a crime, unless it includes the element of espionage, but no matter there was none whatsoever in any way shape or form.

You are surprised that politicians lie ?, really ? They all do. Look at the democrat paragons of Brennan, Clapper, Schiff et.al. They all assured their followers that they had damaging evidence of collusion and obstruction over and over and over again, Oops !

You haven´t seen the FISA warrants, and probable cause is based on some evidence, but there was absolutely none. So the PC that was presented, Hillaryś dossier and whatever else were pure lies.

I have no problem with the report, with appropriate and required material redacted, coming out. You are wrong about information in a criminal investigation coming out if there is no indictment or criminal filing. I was a criminal Investigator, and it was illegal for me to release any information from a report of this type.

I am pleased that Hillary is going to be held accountable for her egregious actions as Secretary of State, Lindssay Graham is going to redo a totally corrupt investigation conducted by the Obama DOJ, she will be held accountable for her crimes.

Kangaroo Feathers said:

Mueller explicitly said he was NOT saying "there was zip, none, nada, 0, no evidence of collusion", no matter how much you wish it were so.

Click to expand...

He said there is no evidence of collusion.

What part of NO do you not understand ?

shmogie said:

You haven´t seen the FISA warrants, and probable cause is based on some evidence, but there was absolutely none.

Click to expand...

But I know what it takes to get them, so you might want to even use Wikipedia to look up what that process involves.

shmogie said:

I am pleased that Hillary is going to be held accountable for her egregious actions as Secretary of State, Lindssay Graham is going to redo a totally corrupt investigation conducted by the Obama DOJ, she will be held accountable for her crimes.

Click to expand...

Now you're showing your true colors as you're playing judge and jury with both Hillary and the intent of the investigation that even Republicans wanted. It's people like you and those who yell out "Lock her up!" that simply do not want the legal process to work out of judicial objectivity because of a highly-partisan bias.

Personally, I believe in "innocent until proven guilty", and it's truly unfortunate that you and so many others don't. I felt that Bill Clinton and Al Franken should have resigned, and the latter did. So, the bottom line is that you and I will never agree on this as we have different expectations dealing with the "rule of law".

metis said:

Now you're showing your true colors as you're playing judge and jury with both Hillary and the intent of the investigation that even Republicans wanted.

Click to expand...

Oh, this is just unacceptable....I must weigh in.
You misread his post.
He never said she's guilty of anything criminal, only that the committed "egregious actions".
Whether they rise to the level of criminality....that would be determined only after an
investigation, trial & verdict.

It's people like you and those who yell out "Lock her up!"

Click to expand...

Since he hasn't said that, it's a dishonest claim that he is of that ilk.
The only way you can win this argument is to falsely impugn him?

metis said:

But I know what it takes to get them, so you might want to even use Wikipedia to look up what that process involves.
Now you're showing your true colors as you're playing judge and jury with both Hillary and the intent of the investigation that even Republicans wanted. It's people like you and those who yell out "Lock her up!" that simply do not want the legal process to work out of judicial objectivity because of a highly-partisan bias.

Personally, I believe in "innocent until proven guilty", and it's truly unfortunate that you and so many others don't. I felt that Bill Clinton and Al Franken should have resigned, and the latter did. So, the bottom line is that you and I will never agree on this as we have different expectations dealing with the "rule of law".

Click to expand...

I believe in innocent till proven guilty as well, but I also watched Comeys show where he outlined every element of criminal neglect while in office, further, there IS evidence that the Obama administration ensured that her activity was not prosecuted by the DOJ.

A thorough investigation and trial will determine her culpability.

I know what is required for a FISA warrant, and PC is at the heart of it. If there is NO evidence of collusion, there could have been no evidence to establish PC. Therefore all of it had to be manufactured.

Why must you always personalize an exchange when someone doesn´t agree with you ?

I said nothing about you, yet your you statements, based solely on personal animus and innuendo, are predominant in your post.

Itś too bad that you can´t leave it in the arena of ideaś and concepts, and must attack personally instead.

shmogie said:

I believe in innocent till proven guilty as well,...

Click to expand...

No, you do not as anyone can see in your last post.

shmogie said:

I know what is required for a FISA warrant, and PC is at the heart of it.

Click to expand...

Obviously you did not read the citation I mentioned.

shmogie said:

Why must you always personalize an exchange when someone doesn´t agree with you ?

Click to expand...

When someone "bears false witness" as you have done, while at the same time strongly supporting a president who commits adultery, seeks out porn stars and prostitutes, brags how he can grope women, lies constantly, demeans innocent people through bearing false witness which he has done to many people, etc., etc., etc., these acts are simply not moral on any humanistic or religious basis, including the gospel of Jesus.

One can disagree with me, and the vast majority of the time I don't get upset, but when one lies and bears false witness as you have done even on this thread today, I'm not going to just ignore it.

IOW, ethics matter, imo.

metis said:

No, you do not as anyone can see in your last post.

Obviously you did not read the citation I mentioned.

When someone "bears false witness" as you have done, while at the same time strongly supporting a president who commits adultery, seeks out porn stars and prostitutes, brags how he can grope women, lies constantly, demeans innocent people through bearing false witness which he has done to many people, etc., etc., etc., these acts are simply not moral on any humanistic or religious basis, including the gospel of Jesus.

One can disagree with me, and the vast majority of the time I don't get upset, but when one lies and bears false witness as you have done even on this thread today, I'm not going to just ignore it.

IOW, ethics matter, imo.

Click to expand...

You are a real card. Personal attack after personal attack, your response to being bested in an area of ideaś, you cannot help yourself, like an injured dog lashing out, when your ideaś fail, and you feel defeated, like a school kid, this is where you go.

What is sad is that you think this kind of behavior is appropriate as long as you are the one employing it.

You are pitiful, and I feel sorry for you

metis said:

IOW, ethics matter, imo.

Click to expand...

Ethics should be practiced when posting too.
This means not using the ad hom attack, &
falsely attributing beliefs to others.

Kangaroo Feathers said:

I'm extremely far from a fan of Hillary, but as usual, my biggest problem is with hypocrisy.
Thus;
View attachment 27790

Click to expand...

Do you know what the word elements mean when related to a crime ? they are the parts that come together to make a crime. Comey, in his TV appearance, listed every element that makes Clintons behavior criminal, with her being guilty of every one. He proceeded to then say HE decided that no prosecutor would file charges or go to a Grand jury on this crime, so he was not going to proceed with prosecution. Some of the best legal minds in the country said this was nonsense, and a strong case for prosecution was outlined by Comey.

Comey further stated that there was no intent on Clintons part to be criminally neglectful.

There are crimes where intent must be proven, specific intent crimes, and those where intent is irrelevant, general intent crimes.

A general intent crime is one that the act of committing it makes it a crime, intent is not an element.

Clintons crime was a general intent crime. Comey let her go unprosecuted, based on something that wasn´t required to be proven.

Finally, Comey had no legal responsibility to do anything regarding prosecution, other than submit a report to the DOJ where the responsibility lies. He was given that responsibility by the AG, Lynch, so she and the Obama admin. would not look so obvious in the case.

Comey admitted that he was strongly pressured to come to the decision he did, by Lynch.

There is no hypocrisy, this is equivalent to Mueller reporting that Trump did collude with the Russians, but he wasn´t going to prosecute him for it.

If one looks at the entire Clinton case, wiped servers, unauthorized and unknown server not being serviced by security cleared government personnel. Terrible protection on the server with classified material being sent on it. on and on it goes, it is obvious that another investigation at the least should be done, perhaps by a special counsel.

If Mueller had identified a serious crime viz a viz Trump or his campaign colluding with the Russians in a criminal conspiracy, I would be the first to say let the chips fall where they should, in court, or in impeachment.

Clinton got extremely special treatment that no one deserves when they break the law, she shouldn´t have.

shmogie said:

Do you know what the word elements mean when related to a crime ? they are the parts that come together to make a crime. Comey, in his TV appearance, listed every element that makes Clintons behavior criminal, with her being guilty of every one. He proceeded to then say HE decided that no prosecutor would file charges or go to a Grand jury on this crime, so he was not going to proceed with prosecution. Some of the best legal minds in the country said this was nonsense, and a strong case for prosecution was outlined by Comey.

Comey further stated that there was no intent on Clintons part to be criminally neglectful.

There are crimes where intent must be proven, specific intent crimes, and those where intent is irrelevant, general intent crimes.

A general intent crime is one that the act of committing it makes it a crime, intent is not an element.

Clintons crime was a general intent crime. Comey let her go unprosecuted, based on something that wasn´t required to be proven.

Finally, Comey had no legal responsibility to do anything regarding prosecution, other than submit a report to the DOJ where the responsibility lies. He was given that responsibility by the AG, Lynch, so she and the Obama admin. would not look so obvious in the case.

Comey admitted that he was strongly pressured to come to the decision he did, by Lynch.

There is no hypocrisy, this is equivalent to Mueller reporting that Trump did collude with the Russians, but he wasn´t going to prosecute him for it.

If one looks at the entire Clinton case, wiped servers, unauthorized and unknown server not being serviced by security cleared government personnel. Terrible protection on the server with classified material being sent on it. on and on it goes, it is obvious that another investigation at the least should be done, perhaps by a special counsel.

If Mueller had identified a serious crime viz a viz Trump or his campaign colluding with the Russians in a criminal conspiracy, I would be the first to say let the chips fall where they should, in court, or in impeachment.

Clinton got extremely special treatment that no one deserves when they break the law, she shouldn´t have.

Click to expand...

I couldn´t care less about what you think on any issue, including this one.