Obstruction is relevant to your statement that the report somehow established that collusion claims are baseless. It did no such thing. The obstruction means potential pertinent information to establish one way or the other the extent of the Trump/Russia relationship was hidden from the investigation.
wall of text? it was 5 sentences. Sorry i couldnt keep to IG post size for you. But again, noone is arguing if it proves it. But to call it baseless, (your word), when the investigator said trump was generally lying and impeding the investigation and he specifically said he is not exonerated. and collusion is not a legal term. Mueller also said that the Justice Department policy that prohibits the indictment of a sitting president meant that he “did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.” None of that means it is baseless. Heres another "wall" of text Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn acknowledged that his false statements and omissions in FBI interviews a few days after Trump was sworn in "impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election,"
Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn’t. You don’t know that to be the case. After Muellers investigation was anyone charged with crimes associated with colluding with Russia to subvert the 2016 election yes or no?
After Muellers investigation was anyone charged with any crimes concerning collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia regarding the 2016 election yes or no?
you dont get to change the goalpost cause you dont like the answers. You said baseless. It is not baseless.
So substitute a different word. Don’t be pedantic. The point was Democrats called President Trump an illegitimate president and claimed or insinuated Russia and Trump colluded to deliver the 2016 election to Trump. A thorough investigation resulted in no charges predicated on that theory.
I am not being pedantic. Its an extremely wide gape between baseless and proving. And it wasn't a thorough investigation. That's the whole point. Mueller literally said trump was generally not telling the truth and him and others were impeding and obstructing the investigation but since he was a sitting president and collusion is not a legal term, he chose to not go further. In what world is a investigation considered "thorough" if an alleged criminal can just lie and impede the investigation and the investigator is like oh well. Mueller didnt even have an in person interview with trump.
Personally interviewing Donald Trump was the only avenue to discover or prove if collusion had occurred between the Trump campaign and Russia to subvert the 2016 election? Mueller didn’t charge or recommend charges based on such a collusion for a single person did he?
So mentally ill nut case gets gun and aims at Trump - turns out to be registered Republican. Now all the "Blame the left" folks are quiet.
In what world, does a person being investigating for wrong doing, who consistently lies to the investigator and impedes the investigation get the benefit of doubt that you are suggesting? He was never going to charge a sitting president. "Under a long-standing Department of Justice policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office, that is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that, too, is prohibited.The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and, by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider" Its also the justice department opinion that Constitution requires a process other than the criminal-justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing. Which is what impeachment was for.
Nobody else from the Trump campaign had any charges brought against them for acts associated with conspiring with Russia to subvert the 2016 election did they?
I was never arguing about charges and you rewriting the goalpost in different way doesn't change that. You said baseless so again in what world, does a person being investigating for wrong doing, who consistently lies to the investigator and impedes the investigation get the benefit of doubt that you are suggesting? And again Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn acknowledged that his false statements and omissions in FBI interviews a few days after Trump was sworn in "impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election,"
So all this to complain about the use of the word baseless instead of a different word. Good grief. There was an investigation, plenty of resources were put into it and nobody was charged with any crimes related to any alleged conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. Democrats for years claimed or insinuated such a conspiracy, Hillary Clinton even called Donald Trump an illegitimate President on such a basis. Talk about subverting the integrity of our electoral process.
I feel bad for the innocent people that were shot, not the buffoon who got a little glass cut from his teleprompter. DD
debating the misuse of words is kind of what a forum is. Its good you self corrected tho. "Lock her up" and "rigged elections" are words too. We can work on that next.
