myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Mueller Report
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17050
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 3:06 pm    Post subject: Mueller Report Reply with quote

For those willing to accept Trump's and Barr's statement, despite their not having read the report either, there is probably no hope. But here are what I believe is clear evidence of crimes sufficient to warrant impeachment.

The last portion quoted is the Executive Summary for Volume II which summarizes the various activities by Trump that arguably constitute obstruction of justice.

Quote:
The special counsel concluded that the Trump campaign was probably accepting something of value when it welcomed a meeting with a Russian lawyer offering dirt on Hillary Clinton, a key hurdle to determining whether Trump’s son, his campaign chairman and others present had violated the law.

But investigators ultimately decided against prosecuting those involved in the episode, largely because of concerns it would be too difficult to cross another legal barrier: proving those participants’ intent.


Quote:
4. False Statements and Obstruction of the Investigation

The Office determined that certain individuals associated with the Campaign lied to
investigators about Campaign contacts with Russia and have taken other actions to interfere with
the investigation. As explained below, the Office therefore charged some U.S. persons connected
to the Campaign with false statements and obstruction offenses.
iii. Michael Flynn
Michael Flynn agreed to be interviewed by the FBI on January 24, 2017, four days after he
had officially assumed his duties as National Security Advisor to the President. During the
interview, Flynn made several false statements pertaining to his communications with the Russian
ambassador.
First, Flynn made two false statements about his conversations with Russian Ambassador
Kislyak in late December 2016, at a time when the United States had imposed sanctions on Russia
for interfering with the 2016 presidential election and Russia was considering its response. See
Flynn Statement of Offense. Flynn told the agents that he did not ask Kislyak to refrain from
escalating the situation in response to the United States's imposition of sanctions. That statement
was false. On December 29, 2016, Flynn called Kislyak to request Russian restraint. Flynn made
the call immediately after speaking to a senior Transition Team official (K.T. McFarland) about
what to communicate to Kislyak. Flynn then spoke with McFarland again after the Kislyak call to
report on the substance of that conversation. Flynn also falsely told the FBI that he did not
remember a follow-up conversation in which Kislyak stated that Russia had chosen to moderate
its response to the U.S. sanctions as a result of Flynn's request. On December 31, 2016, Flynn in
fact had such a conversation with Kislyak, and he again spoke with McFarland within hours of the
call to relay the substance of his conversation with Kislyak. See Flynn Statement of Offense ,r 3.
194
U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney 1Nork Prodttet II :May Contain Ma:teria:l Preteeted Under Fed. R. Criffl. P. 6(e)
Second, Flynn made false statements about calls he had previously made to representatives
of Russia and other countries regarding a resolution submitted by Egypt to the United Nations
Security Council on December 21, 2016. Specifically, Flynn stated that he only asked the
countries' positions on how they would vote on the resolution and that he did not request that any
of the countries take any particular action on the resolution. That statement was false. On
December 22, 2016, Flynn called Kislyak, informed him of the incoming Trump Administration's
opposition to the resolution, and requested that Russia vote against or delay the resolution. Flynn
also falsely stated that Kislyak never described Russia's response to his December 22 request
regarding the resolution. Kislyak in fact told Flynn in a conversation on December 23, 2016, that
Russia would not vote against the resolution if it came to a vote. See Flynn Statement of Offense
,r 4.
Flynn made these false statements to the FBI at a time when he was serving as National
Security Advisor and when the FBI had an open investigation into Russian interference in the 2016
presidential election, including the nature of any links between the Trump Campaign and Russia.
Flynn's false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on that
ongoing investigation. Flynn Statement of Offense ,r,r 1-2. They also came shortly before Flynn
made separate submissions to the Depa1tment of Justice, pursuant to FARA, that also contained
materially false statements and omissions. Id. ,r 5. Based on the totality of that conduct, the Office
decided to charge Flynn with making false statements to the FBI, in violation of 18 U .S.C.
§ l00l(a). On December 1, 2017, and pursuant to a plea agreement, Flynn pleaded guilty to that
charge and also admitted his false statements to the Department in his FARA filing. See id.; Plea
Agreement, United States v. Michael T Flynn, No. l:17-cr-232 (D.D.C. Dec. 1, 2017), Doc. 3.
Flynn is awaiting sentencing.


Quote:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO VOLUME II
Our obstruction-of-justice inquiry focused on a series of actions by the President that
related to the Russian-interference investigations, including the President's conduct towards the
law enforcement officials overseeing the investigations and the witnesses to relevant events.
FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION
The key issues and events we examined include the following:
The Campaign's response to reports about Russian support for Trump. During the 2016
presidential campaign, questions arose about the Russian government's apparent support for
candidate Trump. After WikiLeaks released politically damaging Democratic Party emails that
were reported to have been hacked by Russia, Trump publicly expressed skepticism that Russia
was responsible for the hacks at the same time that he and other Campaign officials privately
sought information about any further planned WikiLeaks
releases. Trump also denied having any business in or connections to Russia, even though as late
as June 2016 the Trump Organization had been pursuing a licensing deal for a skyscraper to be
built in Russia called Trump Tower Moscow. After the election, the President expressed concerns
to advisors that reports of Russia's election interference might lead the public to question the
legitimacy of his election.
Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn. In mid-January 2017,
incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn falsely denied to the Vice President, other
administration officials, and FBI agents that he had talked to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak
about Russia's response to U.S. sanctions on Russia for its election interference. On January 27,
the day after the President was told that Flynn had lied to the Vice President and had made similar
statements to the FBI, the President invited FBI Director Corney to a private dinner at the White
House and told Corney that he needed loyalty. On February 14, the day after the President
requested Flynn's resignation, the President told an outside advisor, "Now that we fired Flynn, the
Russia thing is over." The advisor disagreed and said the investigations would continue.
Later that afternoon, the President cleared the Oval Office to have a one-on-one meeting
with Corney. Referring to the FBI's investigation of Flynn, the President said, "I hope you can
see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. T hope you can let this
go." Shortly after requesting Flynn's resignation and speaking privately to Corney, the President
sought to have Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland draft an internal letter stating
that the President had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. McFarland declined
because she did not know whether that was true, and a White House Counsel's Office attorney
thought that the request would look like a quid pro quo for an ambassadorship she had been offered.
The President's reaction to the continuing Russia investigation. Tn February 2017,
Attorney General Jeff Sessions began to assess whether he had to recuse himself from campaignrelated investigations because of his role in the Trump Campaign. Tn early March, the President
told White House Counsel Donald McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing. And after Sessions
announced his recusal on March 2, the President expressed anger at the decision and told advisors
that he should have an Attorney General who would protect him. That weekend, the President
took Sessions aside at an event and urged him to "unrecuse." Later in March, Corney publicly
3
U.S. Department of Justice
Aftefl'1e~· Werk Preettet // May Cetttaitt Material Preteetea Uttder Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
disclosed at a congressional hearing that the FBI was investigating "the Russian government's
efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election," including any links or coordination between
the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. In the following days, the President reached
out to the Director of National Intelligence and the leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) to ask them what they could do to publicly dispel
the suggestion that the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort.
The President also twice called Corney directly, notwithstanding guidance from McGahn to avoid
direct contacts with the Department of Justice. Corney had previously assured the President that
the FBI was not investigating him personally, and the President asked Corney to " lift the cloud"
of the Russia investigation by saying that publicly.
The President's termination of Comey. On May 3, 2017, Corney testified in a
congressional hearing, but declined to answer questions about whether the President was
personally under investigation. Within days, the President decided to terminate Corney. The
President insisted that the termination letter, which was written for public release, state that Corney
had informed the President that he was not under investigation. The day of the firing, the White
House maintained that Corney's termination resulted from independent recommendations from the
Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General that Corney should be discharged for mishandling
the Hillary Clinton email investigation. But the President had decided to fire Corney before
hearing from the Department of Justice. The day after firing Corney, the President told Russian
officials that he had "faced great pressure because of Russia," which had been "taken off' by
Corney's firing. The next day, the President acknowledged in a television interview that he was
going to fire Corney regardless of the Department of Justice's recommendation and that when he
"decided to just do it," he was thinking that "this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story."
In response to a question about whether he was angry with Corney about the Russia investigation,
the President said, "As far as I'm concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly,"
adding that firing Corney "might even lengthen out the investigation."
The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him. On May 17, 2017, the
Acting Attorney General for the Russia investigation appointed a Special Counsel to conduct the
investigation and related matters. The President reacted to news that a Special Counsel had been
appointed by telling advisors that it was "the end of his presidency" and demanding that Sessions
resign. Sessions submitted his resignation, but the President ultimately did not accept it. The
President told aides that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and suggested that the Special
Counsel therefore could not serve. The President's advisors told him the asserted conflicts were
meritless and had already been considered by the Department of Justice.
On June 14, 2017, the media reported that the Special Counsel's Office was investigating
whether the President had obstructed justice. Press reports called this "a major turning point" in
the investigation: while Corney had told the President he was not under investigation, following
Corney's firing, the President now was under investigation. The President reacted to this news
with a series of tweets criticizing the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel's
investigation. On June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call
the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be
removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather
than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre.
4
U.S. Department of Justice
AtterHe:) Werle Preattet // May CeHtaiH Mitteria:1 Preteetea UHder Fee. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's investigation. Two days after directing McGahn
to have the Special Counsel removed, the President made another attempt to affect the course of
the Russia investigation. On June 19, 2017, the President met one-on-one in the Oval Office with
his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, a trusted advisor outside the government, and
dictated a message for Lewandowski to deliver to Sessions. The message said that Sessions should
publicly announce that, notwithstanding his recusal from the Russia investigation, the investigation
was "very unfair" to the President, the President had done nothing wrong, and Sessions planned to
meet with the Special Counsel and "let [him] move forward with investigating election meddling
for future elections." Lewandowski said he understood what the President wanted Sessions to do.
One month later, in another private meeting with Lewandowski on July 19, 2017, the
President asked about the status of his message for Sessions to limit the Special Counsel
investigation to future election interference. Lewandowski told the President that the message
would be delivered soon. Hours after that meeting, the President publicly criticized Sessions in an
interview with the New York Times, and then issued a series of tweets making it clear that
Sessions's job was in jeopardy. Lewandowski did not want to deliver the President's message
personally, so he asked senior White House official Rick Dearborn to deliver it to Sessions.
Dearborn was uncomfortable with the task and did not follow through.
Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence. In the summer of 2017, the President
learned that media outlets were asking questions about the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower
between senior campaign officials, including Donald Trump Jr., and a Russian lawyer who was
said to be offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton as "part of Russia and its
government's support for Mr. Trump." On several occasions, the President directed aides not to
publicly disclose the emails setting up the June 9 meeting, suggesting that the emails would not
leak and that the number of lawyers with access to them should be limited. Before the emails
became public, the President edited a press statement for Trump Jr. by deleting a line that
acknowledged that the meeting was with "an individual who [Trump Jr.] was told might have
information helpful to the campaign" and instead said only that the meeting was about adoptions
of Russian children. When the press asked questions about the President's involvement in Trump
Jr.' s statement, the President's personal lawyer repeatedly denied the President had played any
role.
Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation. In early
summer 2017, the President called Sessions at home and again asked him to reverse his recusal
from the Russia investigation. Sessions did not reverse his recusal. In October 2017, the President
met privately with Sessions in the Oval Office and asked him to "take [a] look" at investigating
Clinton. In December 2017, shortly after Flynn pleaded guilty pursuant to a cooperation
agreement, the President met with Sessions in the Oval Office and suggested, according to notes
taken by a senior advisor, that if Sessions unrecused and took back supervision of the Russia
investigation, he would be a "hero." The President told Sessions, "I'm not going to do anything
or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly." In response, Sessions volunteered
that he had never seen anything " improper" on the campaign and told the President there was a
"whole new leadership team" in place. He did not unrecuse.
Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special
Counsel removed. In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to
5
U.S. Department of Justice
Attot1Aey Wot1k Protittet // Muy CoHtuiA Muteriul Proteeteti UAtiet' Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
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 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 conversations with the President. McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered
happening and perceived the President to be testing his mettle.
Conduct towards Flynn, Manafort,~. After Flynn withdrew from a joint defense
agreement with the President and began cooperating with the government, the President's personal
counsel left a message for Flynn's attorneys reminding them of the President's warm feelings
towards Flynn, which he said "still remains," and asking for a "heads up" if Flynn knew
"information that implicates the President." When Flynn's counsel reiterated that Flynn could no
longer share information pursuant to a joint defense agreement, the President's personal counsel
said he would make sure that the President knew that Flynn's actions reflected "hostility" towards
the President. During Manafort's prosecution and when the jury in his criminal. trial was
deliberating, the President praised Manafort in public, said that Manafort was being treated
unfairly, and declined to rule out a pardon. After Manafort was convicted, the President called
Manafort "a brave man" for refusin to "break" and said that "fli in " "almost ou ht to be
Conduct involving Michael Cohen. The President' s conduct towards Michael Cohen, a
former Trump Organization executive, changed from praise for Cohen when he falsely minimized
the President's involvement in the Trump Tower Moscow project, to castigation of Cohen when
he became a cooperating witness. From September 2015 to June 2016, Cohen had pursued the
Trump Tower Moscow project on behalf of the Trump Organization and had briefed candidate
Trump on the project numerous times, including discussing whether Trump should travel to Russia
to advance the deal. In 2017, Cohen provided false testimony to Congress about the project,
including stating that he had only briefed Trump on the project three times and never discussed
travel to Russia with him, in an effort to adhere to a "party line" that Cohen said was developed to
minimize the President's connections to Russia. While preparing for his congressional testimony,
Cohen had extensive discussions with the President's personal counsel, who, according to Cohen,
said that Cohen should "stay on message" and not contradict the President. After the FBI searched
Cohen's home and office in April 2018, the President publicly asserted that Cohen would not
"flip," contacted him directly to tell him to "stay strong," and privately passed messages of support
to him. Cohen also discussed pardons with the President's personal counsel and believed that if
he stayed on message he would be taken care of. But after Cohen began cooperating with the
government in the summer of 2018, the President publicly criticized him, called him a "rat," and
suggested that his family members had committed crimes.
6
U.S. Department of Justice
Attein1ey Werk Pre,1foet // Mtt)' Cm,taiH Material Preiteetea Ut1aer Fee. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
Overarching factual issues. We did not make a traditional prosecution decision about
these facts, but the evidence we obtained supports several general statements about the President' s
conduct.
Several features of the conduct we investigated distinguish it from typical obstruction-ofjustice cases. First, the investigation concerned the President, and some of his actions, such as
firing the FBI director, involved facially lawful acts within his Article II authority, which raises
constitutional issues discussed below. At the same time, the President's position as the head of
the Executive Branch provided him with unique and powerful means of influencing official
proceedings, subordinate officers, and potential witnesses-all of which is relevant to a potential
obstruction-of-justice analysis. Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of
justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was
involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction
statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of
the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct. Third,
many of the President's acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with
the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, took place in public view. That
circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the
obstruction laws. If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony,
the harm to the justice system's integrity is the same.
Although the series of events we investigated involved discrete acts, the overall pattern of
the President's conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President's
acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent. In particular, the actions we investigated
can be divided into two phases, reflecting a possible shift in the President's motives. The first
phase covered the period from the President's first interactions with Corney through the President's
firing of Corney. During that time, the President had been repeatedly told he was not personally
under investigation. Soon after the firing of Corney and the appointment of the Special Counsel,
however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an
obstruction-of-justice inquiry. At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct,
involving public attacks on the inve~tigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both
public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation. Judgments about
the nature of the President's motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the
evidence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 7843

PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac with zero respect...YOU"RE A FUCKING MORON

Scientist, lawyer, constitutional expert, environmental expert and complete blowhard.

Mueller found nothing on collusion and then spent a year trying to entrap Trump on OofJ for a crime he never committed in the first place.....does any of that register in your sick mind..

Here, read an opinion from someone(a democrat ) that actually knows what the fuck he is talking about..

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/444382-democrats-are-running-out-of-stunts-to-pull-from-impeachment-playbook
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17050
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why does it not surprise me that Matty 1) didn't bother to read even the small part of the Mueller report I posted, or 2) isn't upset by the level of criminality that it exposes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 7843

PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Why does it not surprise me that Matty 1) didn't bother to read even the small part of the Mueller report I posted, or 2) isn't upset by the level of criminality that it exposes.


Because I trust the best legal minds in the country....not some loser windsurfer..

Maybe you should call the Mueller team with your tremendous insight, they obviously missed something after two years, 30million, 19 lawyers, million documents , and five hundred interviews...........it's over you stupid old retard.

Find a candidate from the clown bus and beat him at the polls..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17050
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I suggest that folks read page 85 on of volume 2 of the Mueller report. It is clear that Trump ordered McGahn to interfere with the investigation and try to fire or disqualify Mueller—and then lie about it. McGahn told him no—and then ignored him. It is clear to me that Trump was only not indicted because DOJ guidance is that you cannot indict a sitting president. The cure for such behavior is impeachment, not indictment. I believe that the longer we go and more people read the actual report—not including those who would absolve trump if they watched him shoot Mueller on Fifth Avenue—the clearer it is that it is time for an impeachment inquiry.

When that happens, McGahn will actually testify—and people will watch.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4050

PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 7:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac said:
Quote:
It is clear that Trump ordered McGahn to interfere with the investigation and try to fire or disqualify Mueller—and then lie about it.

Let's assume that this is true and Trump wanted Mueller fired and McGahn didn't follow orders. Why didn't Trump then fire him? And if Mueller had been fired by either McGahn or Trump, then what? Certainly another special prosecutor would have been appointed and the investigation would have continued. It would have slowed the progress of the investigation briefly, but how would that have been obstruction in any meaningful way?

And since nothing happened other than the desire/effort to get rid of Mueller, was the investigation obstructed in any way?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17050
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And you’re ok with that? Your argument is that crimes committed to obstruct an investigation that didn’t find a collusion crime were not actually a crime? It was obstruction of justice. A crime. McGahn just avoided joining the criminals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 13340
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
mac said:
Quote:
It is clear that Trump ordered McGahn to interfere with the investigation and try to fire or disqualify Mueller—and then lie about it.

Let's assume that this is true and Trump wanted Mueller fired and McGahn didn't follow orders. Why didn't Trump then fire him? And if Mueller had been fired by either McGahn or Trump, then what? Certainly another special prosecutor would have been appointed and the investigation would have continued. It would have slowed the progress of the investigation briefly, but how would that have been obstruction in any meaningful way?

And since nothing happened other than the desire/effort to get rid of Mueller, was the investigation obstructed in any way?


yes in many examples , as we know the evidence in mafia collusions are the boss who does not put it in writing daaa. So he makes you aware that you do not ratt him out.

so as we know they did this with Cohen, they re-wrote his testimony to congress to lie and said pardons are available.

Flynn has also co-operated to tell the same thing with evidence backing his claim of one of trumps lawyers warning him not to testify to the truth or he will lose his pardon.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4050

PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac said:
Quote:
And you’re ok with that? Your argument is that crimes committed to obstruct an investigation that didn’t find a collusion crime were not actually a crime? It was obstruction of justice. A crime. McGahn just avoided joining the criminals.

The fact is - nothing was obstructed = no crime there. However, I see that "attempting to obstruct" can be a crime, so if that is proven, then there could be an issue. So get off your fake news line that Trump obstructed justice because he did not. Attempt to obstruct?? We will see.

What I also found is that the only person who had the authority to fire Mueller was the Attorney General. So no one else had the authority like McGahn. So is asking someone without the authority to fire Mueller attempted obstruction when he would not have been able to fire him? It's not all that clear cut as the left would have us believe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 7843

PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
mac said:
Quote:
And you’re ok with that? Your argument is that crimes committed to obstruct an investigation that didn’t find a collusion crime were not actually a crime? It was obstruction of justice. A crime. McGahn just avoided joining the criminals.

The fact is - nothing was obstructed = no crime there. However, I see that "attempting to obstruct" can be a crime, so if that is proven, then there could be an issue. So get off your fake news line that Trump obstructed justice because he did not. Attempt to obstruct?? We will see.

What I also found is that the only person who had the authority to fire Mueller was the Attorney General. So no one else had the authority like McGahn. So is asking someone without the authority to fire Mueller attempted obstruction when he would not have been able to fire him? It's not all that clear cut as the left would have us believe.



And that's why Mueller couldn't pull the trigger and Barr and Rosenstein did not see a request from a very frustrated(rightfully so) President rising to the level of obstruction of justice.

To add insult to injury the Trump team could not have been more cooperative when they in fact had many tools at their disposal to be FAR less transparent.

Mac and his kind need to grow up and move on...America has..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group