Mueller Report Imminent

#6,501
#6,501
37L1 said:
Your problem is with the word "legal."

Your only recourse is to win the next election, quit with all this other made up Russian collusion/obstruction BS. Your party needs to learn how to lose gracefully when they lose. But that would require class and good manners.

What was I thinking?
Click to expand...
It is really dangerous to our form of government when people don't accept the results of an election. This is how civil wars start. Democrats couldn't accept Bush/Gore and they don't accept Trump/Clinton or Kemp/Abrams in Georgia.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, SpaceCoastVol, Orangeburst and 3 others
#6,502
#6,502
RockyTop85 said:
The report isn’t even needed to know that the president knew he was under investigation, and Trump’s behavior provides “substantial evidence” (Mueller’s words) of his intent to disrupt the special counsel’s investigation. There were at least two attempted and one successful obstructive acts that also meet the other two elements.

Maybe Mueller will eventually offer a contradictory analysis, but nothing in there makes me think I’m clinging to anything, and I’ve seen nothing, other than an admittedly unsupported opinion, to suggest equivalence to 9/11 truthers.

On the other hand, one person here has tried to disagree with my assessment by saying “you’re wrong because the facts don’t support the elements” or “this is not a prosecutable case,” and, as I have predicted each time I’ve refused to get into specifics, that person completely ignored evidence, or explained it away with poorly supported inferences or assumed facts, some of which were directly contradicted by facts within the report. None of the rest of you is even saying “here are facts that constitute a defense,” and I haven’t seen very many saying “the facts in the report aren’t true.”

If the best argument against my conclusion is based on Mueller’s failure to reach an ultimate conclusion, even though the decision to not reach a conclusion was cogently articulated in Volume II, and the “hidden” conclusion this supposedly evinces was explicitly reached in Volume I, that seems pretty desperate, to me.
Click to expand...
The one case of obstruction being the firing of Comey, which Comey said Trumo could fire him for whatever reason?

The truthers have their own support for their beliefs. As with anything in the government its impossible to know every detail. Which in both cases is used to continue the argument.

Do we defend someone from non-proseuctions? Seems like putting the cart before the horse. Yeah stuff went down, but if it doesnt rise to a high enough level to bring a case against it is let go. And that's a general statement in our justice system, not Trump specific. It will be interesting to see if the higher standard is indeed what got him not charged. But until he is proven guilty, he is innocent. Sorry our justice system doesnt fit your argument.
 
#6,510
#6,510
luthervol said:
Trump's ability to control the narrative received by the redhatted has had a constipation effect; but as we all know, sh!t cannot be contained indefinitely.
Click to expand...
Your posts have that containment problem with the same subject matter.
 
#6,511
#6,511
LouderVol said:
The one case of obstruction being the firing of Comey, which Comey said Trumo could fire him for whatever reason?

The truthers have their own support for their beliefs. As with anything in the government its impossible to know every detail. Which in both cases is used to continue the argument.

Do we defend someone from non-proseuctions? Seems like putting the cart before the horse. Yeah stuff went down, but if it doesnt rise to a high enough level to bring a case against it is let go. And that's a general statement in our justice system, not Trump specific. It will be interesting to see if the higher standard is indeed what got him not charged. But until he is proven guilty, he is innocent. Sorry our justice system doesnt fit your argument.
Click to expand...

No. His efforts to fire Mueller, his efforts to have Sessions direct Mueller not to investigate the president after Sessions recused, and his conduct related to Manafort.

A reasonable inference can be made that Trump’s conduct influenced Manafort’s calculus when determining whether to lie about his interactions with Kilimnik, which just happens to be the most suspicious behavior covered in Volume I.

All of the above instances meet the elements of obstruction, IMO. (The success or failure of an obstructive act does not appear to be an element under the federal statutes. This is based on the analysis performed by Mueller and the discussion of obstruction statutes in, I think, Section A of Volume II. I’ll concede that the reasonableness of this inference is a fair point of disagreement, but IMO, its not material to whether the facts meet the elements of the crime. I mention it only because it does go to the severity of the offense.)

I’m not even considering Comey. I don’t think the authority to fire Comey is a viable defense, I just think there’s too much contradicting evidence of intent, with respect to the Comey firing. I’m not sure it’s even in my second tier of offenses. It might be obstruction, but it’s too much of a close call in light of other, better charges.

The firing of Comey is factually significant because it’s the genesis of the obstruction investigation. Shortly thereafter, Trump became aware that he was being personally investigated, McGahn told him he may have exposure, and that’s when his efforts to assert control over the investigation became more frenetic. IMO, these events are material to a shift in intent.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#6,513
#6,513
RockyTop85 said:
No. His efforts to fire Mueller, his efforts to have Sessions direct Mueller not to investigate the president after Sessions recused, and his conduct related to Manafort.

A reasonable inference can be made that Trump’s conduct influenced Manafort’s calculus when determining whether to lie about his interactions with Kilimnik, which just happens to be the most suspicious behavior covered in Volume I.

All of the above instances meet the elements of obstruction, IMO. (The success or failure of an obstructive act does not appear to be an element under the federal statutes. This is based on the analysis performed by Mueller and the discussion of obstruction statutes in, I think, Section A of Volume II. I’ll concede that the reasonableness of this inference is a fair point of disagreement, but IMO, its not material to whether the facts meet the elements of the crime. I mention it only because it does go to the severity of the offense.)

I’m not even considering Comey. I don’t think the authority to fire Comey is a viable defense, I just think there’s too much contradicting evidence of intent, with respect to the Comey firing. I’m not sure it’s even in my second tier of offenses. It might be obstruction, but it’s too much of a close call in light of other, better charges.

The firing of Comey is factually significant because it’s the genesis of the obstruction investigation. Shortly thereafter, Trump became aware that he was being personally investigated, McGahn told him he may have exposure, and that’s when his efforts to assert control over the investigation became more frenetic. IMO, these events are material to a shift in intent.
Click to expand...

I believe you . So when is the impeachment trial starting ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, hjeagle1vol, hog88 and 2 others
#6,514
#6,514
luthervol said:
Trump's ability to control the narrative received by the redhatted has had a constipation effect; but as we all know, sh!t cannot be contained indefinitely.
Click to expand...

Control what narrative? The dims fabricated bs because they lost an election and couldn’t even seal the deal on their investigation that was loaded with biased investigators. Now the dims don’t want to accept the results and continue to kick, scream, and cry. How the hell do you obstruct an investigation that should’ve never happened? And it’s not that he obstructed but “almost did” or “wanted to”. Lol. Hang on to whatever tiny straw you can that gives you comfort, it’ll be over in 6 years.
 
#6,515
#6,515
RockyTop85 said:
No. His efforts to fire Mueller, his efforts to have Sessions direct Mueller not to investigate the president after Sessions recused, and his conduct related to Manafort.

A reasonable inference can be made that Trump’s conduct influenced Manafort’s calculus when determining whether to lie about his interactions with Kilimnik, which just happens to be the most suspicious behavior covered in Volume I.

All of the above instances meet the elements of obstruction, IMO. (The success or failure of an obstructive act does not appear to be an element under the federal statutes. This is based on the analysis performed by Mueller and the discussion of obstruction statutes in, I think, Section A of Volume II. I’ll concede that the reasonableness of this inference is a fair point of disagreement, but IMO, its not material to whether the facts meet the elements of the crime. I mention it only because it does go to the severity of the offense.)

I’m not even considering Comey. I don’t think the authority to fire Comey is a viable defense, I just think there’s too much contradicting evidence of intent, with respect to the Comey firing. I’m not sure it’s even in my second tier of offenses. It might be obstruction, but it’s too much of a close call in light of other, better charges.

The firing of Comey is factually significant because it’s the genesis of the obstruction investigation. Shortly thereafter, Trump became aware that he was being personally investigated, McGahn told him he may have exposure, and that’s when his efforts to assert control over the investigation became more frenetic. IMO, these events are material to a shift in intent.
Click to expand...

Lol
 
#6,516
#6,516
RockyTop85 said:
No. His efforts to fire Mueller, his efforts to have Sessions direct Mueller not to investigate the president after Sessions recused, and his conduct related to Manafort.

A reasonable inference can be made that Trump’s conduct influenced Manafort’s calculus when determining whether to lie about his interactions with Kilimnik, which just happens to be the most suspicious behavior covered in Volume I.

All of the above instances meet the elements of obstruction, IMO. (The success or failure of an obstructive act does not appear to be an element under the federal statutes. This is based on the analysis performed by Mueller and the discussion of obstruction statutes in, I think, Section A of Volume II. I’ll concede that the reasonableness of this inference is a fair point of disagreement, but IMO, its not material to whether the facts meet the elements of the crime. I mention it only because it does go to the severity of the offense.)

I’m not even considering Comey. I don’t think the authority to fire Comey is a viable defense, I just think there’s too much contradicting evidence of intent, with respect to the Comey firing. I’m not sure it’s even in my second tier of offenses. It might be obstruction, but it’s too much of a close call in light of other, better charges.

The firing of Comey is factually significant because it’s the genesis of the obstruction investigation. Shortly thereafter, Trump became aware that he was being personally investigated, McGahn told him he may have exposure, and that’s when his efforts to assert control over the investigation became more frenetic. IMO, these events are material to a shift in intent.
Click to expand...
Okay, he wanted to stop a bullsh!t investigation that never should have started. So, impeach him for that or get off the pot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, hog88 and C-south
#6,517
#6,517
1972 Grad said:
Okay, he wanted to stop a bullsh!t investigation that never should have started. So, impeach him for that or get off the pot.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if impeachment hearing start next summer. You know after a thorough house investigation.
 
#6,518
#6,518
1972 Grad said:
Okay, he wanted to stop a bullsh!t investigation that never should have started. So, impeach him for that or get off the pot.
Click to expand...

It’s funny they view Trumps supposed attempt at obstruction on a bs investigation as something other than a person fighting against people trying to frame him. Then they turn a blind eye to actual obstruction with Comey, Lynch, Clinton, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1972 Grad, tennvols77 and Orangeburst
#6,520
#6,520
C-south said:
Control what narrative? The dims fabricated bs because they lost an election and couldn’t even seal the deal on their investigation that was loaded with biased investigators. Now the dims don’t want to accept the results and continue to kick, scream, and cry. How the hell do you obstruct an investigation that should’ve never happened? And it’s not that he obstructed but “almost did” or “wanted to”. Lol. Hang on to whatever tiny straw you can that gives you comfort, it’ll be over in 6 years.
Click to expand...

They knew they couldn't build a case for collusion, but it was a VERY useful narrative to smear Trump and politically handcuff his administration. That doesn't mean they expected to end the investigation without charges against Trump. They were convinced that, during the course of the investigation, Trump would try to obstruct justice and give them something to hang him on.

Oddly enough, Trump was too smart for them. He didn't even exercise his legal right to executive privilege. He never obstructed anything, thus robbing Mueller of any evidence to put in the report. Without evidence, Mueller couldn't recommend indictment. They have nothing.

Nothing.

So, now all they have is an empty report, no recommendation for indictment, and they're relegated to this circus of innuendo and narrative building. And they will milk that for all they are worth, out of vitriol and self defense because Trump isn't politically handcuffed anymore. He has the goods on the black hats and he'll be releasing said goods.

Every alligator, snapping turtle and tadpole in the swamp is in a death roll because they know the water level is about to plummet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, RavinDave, tennvols77 and 2 others
#6,524
#6,524
afb050719dAPR20190507124509.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, NorthDallas40 and hjeagle1vol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top