What stopped them from getting the full story in relation to obstructionism? Deleted communications, pleading the fifth, submitting written questions... Per the report, the people he ordered to obstruct wouldn’t...
No the freaking out has been going on since the election and this was yet another big waste of time when are they going to get to work?
If you are going to correct someone on a legal matter, then please have some level of knowledge of the subject. By definition, “attempted obstruction”, is obstruction of justice. There need not be any level of success.
It is so funny that both democrats and republicans want him to go beyond the facts and conclusions in his report when it is in their best interest. He was instructed by the Secretary of State not to deviate from the facts and conclusions in his report and he didn’t.
Did you read his report? He made it very clear in his report that the President could face criminal charges after leaving office and that the position of the Secretary of State against a criminal indictment of the President would not extend to a former President. At the end of the day, the decision as to whether the President committed a crime worthy of impeachment and after Trump leaves office federal authorities can determine whether to bring criminal charges.
He obstructed, Mueller had no option to charge a sitting President. Let the trolls with no hope of ever being an achiever in life continue to celebrate their love of a lying con man. DD
WSJ Editorial Board: The Mueller Show Is a Bust The special counsel hearings refute the case for impeachment. By The Editorial Board Updated July 24, 2019 6:15 pm ET The only person in Washington happier than Donald Trump about Robert Mueller’s Wednesday appearance before Congress is Nancy Pelosi. The House Speaker’s impeachment caucus had hoped the hearing would mobilize new public support despite her opposition, but it was more likely their last gasp. Mr. Mueller provided little news during his many hours before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. Democrats strained to place their obstruction of justice and Russia collusion theories in his mouth, but Mr. Mueller stuck to the script of his 448-page report. He even refused to read aloud from that document—denying Democrats an audio version for their TV ads. Democrat Ted Lieu (California) sought to lure Mr. Mueller into saying he would have indicted Mr. Trump for obstruction if he weren’t a sitting President. “That is not the correct way to say it,” Mr. Mueller said. “As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.” Mr. Mueller also refused to answer Republican queries about why he didn’t fully explore the origins of the Russia-Trump conspiracy story, including the Steele dossier that was used to gain a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign adviser. Mr. Mueller said those issues were “beyond” his “purview,” though Russia’s election interference was central to his mandate. Mr. Mueller probably didn’t want to question the performance of the FBI he led for more than a decade. As ever, the lowest moment came from the reliable Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, who revved up the demagoguery to accuse Mr. Trump of “something worse” than “criminal” behavior: “disloyalty to country.” If you don’t have the facts, obfuscate with a general, content-less smear. The show was such a bust that we wonder why Democrats were willing to put Mr. Mueller on the public spot. They know he is slowing down, as his halting and sometimes confused performance demonstrated. Democrats gambled that they could outsource an impeachment probe to Mr. Mueller, who would give them the public drama they needed to proceed. Instead they embarrassed Mr. Mueller and dashed their own impeachment dreams. But at least Mrs. Pelosi is pleased. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mueller-show-goes-bust-11564003715?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
Mueller disagrees. he says his investigation was not interfered with in any way. You are trying to claim that the president, who could end the 2 yr investigation any time he wanted, attempted to obstruct by telling an employee to call Rosenstien and make the case that Rosenstien should fire Mueller because he has a conflict of interest (which he did). This is not nearly as compelling as you think it is, especially after you were embarrassingly wrong for 2 yrs about your last accusation (Russian collusion). No. What stopped Trump from colluding with Russia? Thats not a barrier for the president who runs the executive branch. He could of ended the investigation whenever he wanted to. 'exonerate' is not a legal term the FBI uses. The FBI does not 'exonerate' . They either charge them or they don't.
Whether he was successful or not doesn't change the fact that attempting to obstruct is still obstruction of justice and is against the law. You keep mentioning Mueller's quote as if it somehow matters. Attempting to obstruct is still illegal and qualifies as obstruction of justice. Trump's campaign sought help from Russia, gave information to Russia, and the lied about and tried to cover it up. It doesn't matter that he could have technically ended it himself. I gave you my guesses on why he didn't do it. But the reasons why aren't as important as the fact that he committed obstruction of justice. The evidence meets all three points of the requirement.
Mueller found that Trump didn't have a criminal conspiracy with Russian linked associates within the scope of his investigation. Mueller confirmed Trump engaged in unethical behavior by having "lawful" communications with Russian linked associates which included sharing information during a presidential campaign. This occurred with the backdrop of a coordinated Russian attack on elections... Obviously, having contacts with a hostile foreign government (lawful or not) would look bad. Trump lied and tried to cover up these interactions from his campaign with the power of the executive branch which he knew would look very bad...... Unless you are telling me that Trump's campaign had no communication with Russian linked associates.... Which would look very bad. The FBI doesn't usually investigate and have to make a decision on a sitting president.
That doesn't answer the question. Also who gives a **** what mueller finds 'ethical'? If mueller was 'ethical', he would realize its immoral for an investigator to say such a thing. Can you imagine the police investigating you, not charging you but then holding a press conference calling you 'unethical' . wtf. The fact it's the president is irrelevant. Investigators either charge or dont charge. That's it. And actually they recommend a charge.
Which of the three criteria do you believe was not met for Obstruction of justice? Let me know, and I will show you the evidence from the report that proves it was obstruction.
If I had done what Trump has done, and that was all that happened to me, I would be having a party and celebrating. Of course, if anyone who isn't the President had done those things would be facing far worse than being called unethical.
