Mueller Report Imminent

#5,255
#5,255
RockyTop85 said:


At 1:32:59
“The President could not be charged while he was still in office.”
Click to expand...


That is Barr's interpretation. That's not what Meuller told Barr 3 times in their meeting. Give me a minute and I'll find you a link to what I'm talking about. I didn't have time last night.
 
#5,257
#5,257
nuclearjunky said:
That is Barr's interpretation. That's not what Meuller told Barr 3 times in their meeting. Give me a minute and I'll find you a link to what I'm talking about. I didn't have time last night.
Click to expand...

nuclearjunky said:
That is Barr's interpretation. That's not what Meuller told Barr 3 times in their meeting. Give me a minute and I'll find you a link to what I'm talking about. I didn't have time last night.
Click to expand...

I heard what he said Mueller told him in their meetings and I posted it earlier.

Mueller said he “was not saying he would have indicted the president but for the OLC opinion.”
 
#5,258
#5,258
RockyTop85 said:
I heard what he said Mueller told him in their meetings and I posted it earlier.

Mueller said he “was not saying he would have indicted the president but for the OLC opinion.”
Click to expand...

Yes that's it. Meuller would not have indicted regardless of the OLC opinion.



Starts at 36:30
 
#5,260
#5,260
davethevol said:
There can’t be obstruction if there wasn’t collusion. It’s like when police arrest someone for resisting arrest.
Click to expand...
This is a theory. It’s not based on anything.

The fact that Barr relied on an untested affirmative defense is one of the things that frankly makes his impartiality seem suspect.

Another thing: Trump was told in June that he was being personally investigated for obstruction. McGahn told him that he had exposure. McGahn also told him to stop contacting the principle witnesses and officials, including McGahn himself (he felt he was a witness at that point), directly, and to send complaints through his personal counsel. McGahn then told him that he had some exposure for firing Comey, for asking for his loyalty, and for asking him to drop the Flynn case.

It was at this point that Trump went off the rails, meeting with Lewandowski and making calls to McGahn at home.

Now, to be clear I would absolutely use the no collusion/no obstruction thing as a defense, but in terms of my personal opinion about what the law should be, if you think you’re about to get caught and you try to interfere with official efforts to catch you, that’s criminal.

This is also where the significance of the distinction between guilty, innocent, and not-guilty come into play in the collusion investigation. IMO what you’re saying would carry more weight if they had found that no conspiracy was formed, rather than finding that there was insufficient proof of a conspiracy.

Also, don’t try this in Tennessee. In Tennessee, resisting an illegal arrest/search/frisk is still illegal.
 
Last edited:
#5,263
#5,263
davethevol said:
There can’t be obstruction if there wasn’t collusion. It’s like when police arrest someone for resisting arrest.
Click to expand...
Sure there can. It's like when a person who is wrongly suspected of having drugs resists a search in order to hide the fact that he has a human ear in his back pocket. He is innocent of what initially prompted the desire to search, but his resistance is to cover up an even worse crime.
 
#5,265
#5,265
RockyTop85 said:
This is a theory. It’s not based on anything.

The fact that Barr relied on an untested affirmative defense is one of the things that frankly makes his impartiality seem suspect.

Another thing: Trump was told in June that he was being personally investigated for obstruction. McGahn told him that he had exposure. McGahn also told him to stop contacting the principle witnesses and officials, including McGahn himself (he felt he was a witness at that point), directly, and to send complaints through his personal counsel. McGahn then told him that he had some exposure for firing Comey, for asking for his loyalty, and for asking him to drop the Flynn case.

It was at this point that Trump went off the rails, meeting with Lewandowski and making calls to McGahn at home.

Now, to be clear I would absolutely use the no collusion/no obstruction thing as a defense, but in terms of my personal opinion about what the law should be, if you think you’re about to get caught and you try to interfere with official efforts to catch you, that’s criminal.

This is also where the significance of the distinction between guilty, innocent, and not-guilty come into play in the collusion investigation. IMO what you’re saying would carry more weight if they had found that no conspiracy was formed, rather than finding that there was insufficient proof of a conspiracy.

Also, don’t try this in Tennessee. In Tennessee, resisting an illegal arrest/search/frisk is still illegal.
Click to expand...

I’m not a lawyer or a politician, but I continue to wonder if the reason the statement is “insufficient proof” rather than “no conspiracy” is because these contacts happen. I wonder if the investigators know that every politician or campaign at that level has some contact with foreign governments prior to winning an election. I wonder if they know that if they spent the same time and resources investigating all of the other campaigns they would find similar contacts. So, in that light, they would either have to say everyone conspires, or that in this case, there was insufficient evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#5,267
#5,267
RockyTop85 said:
This is a theory. It’s not based on anything.

The fact that Barr relied on an untested affirmative defense is one of the things that frankly makes his impartiality seem suspect.

Another thing: Trump was told in June that he was being personally investigated for obstruction. McGahn told him that he had exposure. McGahn also told him to stop contacting the principle witnesses and officials, including McGahn himself (he felt he was a witness at that point), directly, and to send complaints through his personal counsel. McGahn then told him that he had some exposure for firing Comey, for asking for his loyalty, and for asking him to drop the Flynn case.

It was at this point that Trump went off the rails, meeting with Lewandowski and making calls to McGahn at home.

Now, to be clear I would absolutely use the no collusion/no obstruction thing as a defense, but in terms of my personal opinion about what the law should be, if you think you’re about to get caught and you try to interfere with official efforts to catch you, that’s criminal.

This is also where the significance of the distinction between guilty, innocent, and not-guilty come into play in the collusion investigation. IMO what you’re saying would carry more weight if they had found that no conspiracy was formed, rather than finding that there was insufficient proof of a conspiracy.

Also, don’t try this in Tennessee. In Tennessee, resisting an illegal arrest/search/frisk is still illegal.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the US Supreme Court not rule a while back that citizens are under no legal obligation to put up with an arrest/detainment that they know to be illegal, and can in fact resist in that situation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and FLVOL_79
#5,268
#5,268
luthervol said:
Sure there can. It's like when a person who is wrongly suspected of having drugs resists a search in order to hide the fact that he has a human ear in his back pocket. He is innocent of what initially prompted the desire to search, but his resistance is to cover up an even worse crime.
Click to expand...

You are assuming the ear is there in his back pocket . Do away with the ear and try that .
 
#5,269
#5,269
AM64 said:
No, I think hog might have been implying special prosecutor as in special ed ... the ones who ride the short bus. See, most of us here don't generally hold lawyers in high esteem ... actually see them more as a plague of blood sucking vampires.
Click to expand...
Or syphilis infected shemales in the seedier areas of Bangkok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#5,270
#5,270
newyorkvol said:
I’m not a lawyer or a politician, but I continue to wonder if the reason the statement is “insufficient proof” rather than “no conspiracy” is because these contacts happen. I wonder if the investigators know that every politician or campaign at that level has some contact with foreign governments prior to winning an election. I wonder if they know that if they spent the same time and resources investigating all of the other campaigns they would find similar contacts. So, in that light, they would either have to say everyone conspires, or that in this case, there was insufficient evidence.
Click to expand...

Potentially. That’s probably a true statement, and something I hadn’t considered, as it wasn’t stated that way in the report. However I think the reality is much simpler:

Manafort provided polling data and briefings to Kilimnik, a suspected Russian agent, while Russia was in the middle of trying to interfere with the election. That looks really suspicious, but they couldn’t find any evidence to corroborate his explanation, nor could they find anything to suggest his intent.

The Trump tower meeting showed that they were willing and even eager to accept assistance, even if they thought it might be from a government agent of Russia. There was some evidence to corroborate their stories, but some evidence had been destroyed.

It could be that Jared Kushner met with a Russian bank, VEB, and both parties provided statements about what they discussed, but the statements did not match. There was no other evidence.

This is an oversimplification of the facts, and there is other evidence that cuts in favor of the Trump team, but IMO the proof was very clearly enough evidence to raise suspicions but not enough to make a case worth trying to prosecute.
 
#5,272
#5,272
davethevol said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the US Supreme Court not rule a while back that citizens are under no legal obligation to put up with an arrest/detainment that they know to be illegal, and can in fact resist in that situation?
Click to expand...
We’ve had similar discussions in the other thread. I’m not sure about there being such a case, I’ll look for it. The Tennessee law has been on the books for a while and has not been overturned.
 
#5,273
#5,273
0nelilreb said:
You are assuming the ear is there in his back pocket . Do away with the ear and try that .
Click to expand...
The ear in the back pocket is the key. If you have no drugs and no ear, you would be an idiot to resist (obstruct). Obstruction is really just proof of something to hide.
Same with his tax returns and everything else he is resisting.
 
#5,274
#5,274
luthervol said:
Sure there can. It's like when a person who is wrongly suspected of having drugs resists a search in order to hide the fact that he has a human ear in his back pocket. He is innocent of what initially prompted the desire to search, but his resistance is to cover up an even worse crime.
Click to expand...
Are you really as stupid as you seem or are you just trolling?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Obsessed and volfanjustin
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top