..

Dershowitz says: No Obstruction


[media width=425]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doo193ngU8c[/media]



Rudy Giuliani: No Reason To Dispute Mueller's Report



[media width=425]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSufkNS08V0[/media]


No Obstruction.....No Collusion.......................Nothing Illegal/Criminal  ;)

I can't wait to see the Leftists go into apoplectic meltdown when President Trump is given the keys to the White House 'till 2024!!  ;D ;D ;D

Rudy Giuliani


https://media.giphy.com/media/isP4TLqhjm3zq/giphy.gif

Dershowitz is a blatant Trump stooge.

Dershowitz is also a player in the Jeffrey Epstein sex slavery crimes.

Laugh till you cry wrote on May 1^st, 2019 at 2:10pm:

Dershowitz is a blatant Trump stooge. Dershowitz is also a player in the Jeffrey Epstein sex slavery crimes.

He is a scholar of United States Constitutional & Criminal Law......Dershowitz also voted for Hillary Clinton, he represented Mike Tyson & Patty Hearst, & he got OJ Simpson acquitted too.........He successful appealed Claus von Bülow's murder conviction......He's is a Civil Libertarian, & took on many, many controversial cases, because as an American Law Professor, & one of America's most highly regarded Legal minds, he believes all Americans deserve the best legal representation, regardless of perceived guilt. ;)

Prove him wrong on the legal issues.......I don't subscribe to his political positions, but legally, Professor Dershowitz is virtually faultless.......  ;)

READ THE REPORT!

Seriously Panther, it's all there.

Panther wrote on May 1^st, 2019 at 2:37pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on May 1st, 2019 at 2:10pm: Dershowitz is a blatant Trump stooge. Dershowitz is also a player in the Jeffrey Epstein sex slavery crimes. Dershowitz also voted for Hillary Clinton, he represented Mike Tyson & Patty Hearst, & he got OJ Simpson acquitted too.........he's is a Civil Libertarian, & took on many controversial cases, because as an American Law Professor, & one of the most highly regarded American Lawyers, he believes all Americans deserve the best legal representation, regardless of perceived guilt. ;) Prove him wrong on the legal issues.......I don't subscribe to his political positions, but legally, Professor Dershowitz is virtually faultless.......  ;)

Dershowitz is connected to Donald Trump through Jeffrey Epstein, the sex slaver, and is a blatant Trump stooge.

Dershowitz was Jeffrey Epstein's guest on many occasions.

Laugh till you cry wrote on May 1^st, 2019 at 2:43pm:

Panther wrote on May 1st, 2019 at 2:37pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on May 1st, 2019 at 2:10pm: Dershowitz is a blatant Trump stooge. Dershowitz is also a player in the Jeffrey Epstein sex slavery crimes. He is a scholar of United States Constitutional & Criminal Law......Dershowitz also voted for Hillary Clinton, he represented Mike Tyson & Patty Hearst, & he got OJ Simpson acquitted too.........He successful appealed Claus von Bülow's murder conviction......He's is a Civil Libertarian, & took on many, many controversial cases, because as an American Law Professor, & one of America's most highly regarded Legal minds, he believes all Americans deserve the best legal representation, regardless of perceived guilt.  ;) Prove him wrong on the legal issues.......I don't subscribe to his political positions, but legally, Professor Dershowitz is virtually faultless.......  ;) Dershowitz is connected to Donald Trump through Jeffrey Epstein, the sex slaver, and is a blatant Trump stooge. Dershowitz was Jeffrey Epstein's guest on many occasions.

So, the illegality in that? Your insinuation(s) have nothing whatsoever to do with his positions on the law, or whether Trump  committed obstruction or not.......it's the law that matters most to Professor Dershowitz, not the guilt or innocence of the accused. So far, all his legal predictions regarding President Trump have been correct......  ;)

Dershowitz is dismissed as a blatant stooge by reputable media.

Laugh till you cry wrote on May 1^st, 2019 at 2:55pm:

Dershowitz is dismissed as a blatant stooge by reputable media.

http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/laughing024.gif

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 1^st, 2019 at 2:41pm:

READ THE REPORT! Seriously Panther, it's all there.

Seeings as though you read the report

Why dont you go right ahead and site the specific entry

That says Trump is guilty of ANY crime ..

Aaaaaaaaaaand we know you cant so sit back down ..

Blah blah blah

it_is_the_light wrote on May 1^st, 2019 at 3:04pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 1st, 2019 at 2:41pm: READ THE REPORT! Seriously Panther, it's all there. Seeings as though you read the report Why dont you go right ahead and site the specific entry That says Trump is guilty of ANY crime .. Aaaaaaaaaaand we know you cant so sit back down .. Blah blah blah

Spot on!!!     http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/bullseye75x56.gif


Yer good Light.....ya beat me to the punch.....I was gunna let it simmer a bit before I broadsided him myself.....

Well Sad......yer specific Mueller Report quotes/citations....???    http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/Wait003.gif

this is how it works.
Mueller says he is not in position to make claim if Trumped committed obstruction of justice, that is up to the congress to decide.  But he has 40 pages to report what Trump personally did to make sure the investigation was stopped or difficult to proceed.  One or two details may not seems much, but accumulation of many actions in 40 pages made it seems big.
One argue that Mueller should have made the call.
Another argue AG Barr purposely left this out from his summary, claimed that Trump is cleared based on his summary, and he is in trouble for it.  Also note that this is not his first time to hide the full report and release only summary.  Lets say he is the Republican's go-to man to hide incriminating report.

so we are still far from decision if Trump will be indicted.  The drama now is around the report itself.  People go on tv making judgement left and right, obviously without reading the reports.

Lets just say even if Trump guilty, there are so many cases where most people ended up with no charges laid, he may as well ended up serving his full term.

Robert Mueller was hired by the DOJ by its Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, as Special Counsel/Special Prosecutor for the DOJ.

Mueller therefore worked for the DOJ.....specifically the Attorney General, who at the time was represented by the AG's Deputy, Rod Rosenstein, because Jeff Sessions, the then AG, had recused himself. When William Barr was sworn in as the US Attorney General, Robert Mueller reported to, & answered to him.

Now, if Mueller found criminal activity, he would indict & prosecute, at the direction of the Attorney General. Naturally, if he found none, he doesn't/wouldn't prosecute.

A prosecutor does not establish innocence. That is never the special prosecutors/special counsel's function. The sole function of a prosecutor is to indict based on alleged criminal activity through the findings of a Grand Jury.

His charge, the premise he was to investigate, is black or white, yes or no, true or false.....he doesn't deal in gray areas.

Under American Law, & most Law for that matter, all prosecutors start with the premise that any & all subjects of an investigation are innocent.

If the prosecutor does not prosecute, then that is in itself a clear indication that his investigation found no criminal activity.

Finding no illegal activity,  activity to cause a prosecutor to charge a subject with a crime, & closing the investigation, can mean but one thing.......the subject(s) that were not charged by the prosecutor are innocent of any & all wrongdoings that were the center of the investigation.

The Prosecutor makes no declaration as such, it goes without saying. ;)

Panther wrote on May 1^st, 2019 at 3:19pm:

it_is_the_light wrote on May 1st, 2019 at 3:04pm: ProudKangaroo wrote on May 1st, 2019 at 2:41pm: READ THE REPORT! Seriously Panther, it's all there. Seeings as though you read the report Why dont you go right ahead and site the specific entry That says Trump is guilty of ANY crime .. Aaaaaaaaaaand we know you cant so sit back down .. Blah blah blah Spot on!!!     http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/bullseye75x56.gif Yer good Light.....ya beat me to the punch.....I was gunna let it simmer a bit before I broadsided him myself..... Well Sad......yer specific Mueller Report quotes/citations....???    http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/Wait003.gif

Of course I do.  Unlike many on here, I don't simply make things up.  Most of this is taken from the Executive Summary to Volume II of the report (pages 215+).

I've said that the report outlines Trump's wrongdoing.  I stand by that because it's true.  But many are demanding I show "Trump's Crimes".  I said wrongdoing, let's be clear.  I know putting words in my mouth is a clear attempt to say "but there was no conviction, therefore there is no crime" but I said wrongdoing, not a crime.  Your attempt to dismiss the facts by playing word games will not work.

From page 215+ of the report:


Quote:

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 expresses skepticism that Russia was responsible for the hacks at the same time that he and other Campaign officials privately sought information [Harm to Ongoing Matter] 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 advisers that reports of Russia’s election interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election

Trump lied about his ties with Russia not only throughout the election campaign but during investigations into the Russian involvement.


Quote:

Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn. In mid-January 2017, incoming National Security Adviser 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 Comey to a private dinner at the White House and told Comey that he needed loyalty. On February 14, the day after the President requested Flynn’s resignation, the President told an outside adviser, “Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over.” The adviser disagreed and said the investigations would continue. Later that afternoon, the President clear the Oval Office to have a one-on-one meeting with Comey. 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. I hope you can let this go,” Shortly after requesting Flynn’s resignation and speaking privately to Comey, the President sought to have Deputy National Security Adviser 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.

So we have another example of Trump trying to stop the investigation but those around him refusing to follow his orders.  This also helps build the case for his intent when it comes to the investigation.

Quote:

The President’s reaction to the continuing Russia investigation. In February 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions began to assess whether he had to recuse himself from campaign-related investigations because of his role in the Trump Campaign. In 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 advisers 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, Comey publicly 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 Comey directly, notwithstanding guidance from McGahn to avoid direct contacts with the Department of Justice. Comey had previously assured the President that the FBI was not investigating him personally, and the President asked Comey to “lift the cloud” of the Russia investigation by saying that publicly.

Again the Trump is taking actions to interfere with the investigation and public opinion, again showing his clear intent.


Quote:

The President’s termination of Comey. On May 3, 2017, Comey testified in a congressional hearing, but declined to answer questions about whether the President was personally under investigation. Within days, the President decide to terminate Comey. The President insisted that the termination letter, which was written for public release, state that Comey had informed the President that he was not under investigation. The day of the firing, the White House maintained that Comey’s termination resulted from independent recommendations from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General that Comey should be discharged from mishandling the Hillary Clinton email investigation. But the President had decided to fire Comey before hearing form the Department of Justice. The day after firing Comey, the President told Russian officials that he had “faced great pressure because of Russia,” which had been “taken off” by Comey’s firing. The next day, the President acknowledged in a television interview that he was going to fire Comey 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 Comey 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 Comey “might even lengthen out the investigation.”

So again, we have Trump firing people who won't break the rules and do what he wants.  What he wants is to prevent the investigation from continuing, "obstructing it" if you will, again showing his clear intent towards this matter.


Quote:

The appointment of Special Counsel and efforts to remove him. On May 17, 22017, 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 Special Counsel had been appointed by telling advisers 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 Special Counsel therefore could not serve. The President’ advisers told him the asserted conflicts were meritless and had already been considered by the Department of Justice.

Trump continues to make the claim publicly and via Twitter of the conflicts of interest with the Special Council, again showing that even though he'd been told the facts, he still wanted to discredit and try to halt, or obstruct, the investigation.


Quote:

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 Comey had told the President he was not under investigation, following Comey’s firing, the President now was under investigation. The President reacted to his news with a series of tweets criticizing the Department of Justice and the special Counsel’s investigation. On June 17, 2107, 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 about the direction, however, deciding that the would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre.

That whole section could be highlighted, no comment needed.

As we continue...

Quote:

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 email 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 from 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.

More actions from the President in trying to cover op the truth.  Again this goes to his intent.


Quote:

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 adviser, that if Sessions unrecused and took back supervision fo 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.

More to Trump's intent.  These are not the actions of someone who is being transparent, fully cooperative and has nothing to hide.


Quote:

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 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 directed 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 efforts 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.

Trump now asking members of his team to fabricate records to hide his intention to have Mueller removed.  Intent, etc etc.


Quote:

Conduct towards Flynn, Manafort, [HOM]. 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 refusing to "break" and said that "flipping" "almost ought to be outlawed. [Harm to Ongoing Matter].

If there were no Trump wrongdoings, why would he be concerned about being implicated?  He's also attempting to tamper with witness testimony.

Quote:

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.

Witness tampering, direction to give false testimony, we know all of this already.


Quote:

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-of-justice 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 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 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 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 Comey through the President’s firing of Comey. During that time, the President had been repeatedly told he was not personally under investigation. Soon after the firing of Comey 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 investigation, 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.

And then there is the conclusion,


Quote:

CONCLUSION Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Given the framework and terms the report and investigation set, because of the possible constitutional issues with the power that has given the President, but his exercising that power could constitute obstruction of justice, the only the conclusion the investigation could reach was that Trump was innocent of that claim.

The report clearly states, as highlighted above, that the evidence did not support such an exoneration.  This is, in terms of the framework of the report, the closed conclusion Mueller could reach that would claim that Trump Obstructed Justice.

But since I dare say everyone insisting there were no crimes, no collusion, no obstruction and complete exoneration and vindication, at least in this and a few other popular threads have not bothered to read the report but simply got their talking points from the usual suspects, saying what they wanted to hear, I fully expect the usual response to information that doesn't suit them, so here we go...

I already know I've been wasting my time putting this together for you all in black and white as you demanded and I do, and I know that such a request would never, ever be reciprocated in return.

But the truth and the facts matter, so I've done it anyway, and I'll do it again if needed.

READ THE REPORT.

thank you for your great effort to summarise the report.  I very doubt people here would read it all.  They are taking the stance that, just like AG Barr, as long as there is no charge, Trump is presumed innocent by default.
Nothing wrong with that perspective, but it is ignorant of the reasons why Mueller not laying charge and the matter is long from being settled.

From what i read and heard, basically there is no hard evidence or illegal activity on Trump's involvement in collusion, but he did everything to stop the investigations, which made him either stupid or suspicious.

kreepy wrote on May 4^th, 2019 at 12:26pm:

thank you for your great effort to summarise the report.  I very doubt people here would read it all.  They are taking the stance that, just like AG Barr, as long as there is no charge, Trump is presumed innocent by default. Nothing wrong with that perspective, but it is ignorant of the reasons why Mueller not laying charge and the matter is long from being settled. From what i read and heard, basically there is no hard evidence or illegal activity on Trump's involvement in collusion, but he did everything to stop the investigations, which made him either stupid or suspicious.

That he did, but his saving grace, at least so far, is the protection against prosecution he has thanks to the DOJ, the members of his staff who refused to follow through with his orders that and the recommendation that those who did, such as Don Jr, it's questionable on what their intent was because they're not considered smart enough to have known the illegalities of what they were doing, in his case, meeting with the Russians in contravention to the emoluments clause of the constitution.

It's interesting that ignorance of the law seems to be a valid protection in this case...

I wonder if Clinton were to claim she didn't know that deleting her emails was wrong if the right would forgive her as they expect everyone else to do of Trump?

All I'll say is this, in the hopes of perhaps enlighting even one of the people on here who is still defending Trump, you've gone after Hillary countless times when there was ZERO evidence, so imagine that everything in the report was about her, how would you react?

Ask yourself why you'd be so hard on her, yet given the same evidence, you're still protecting Trump.

Ask yourself where your loyalties are, is it to the truth and the facts you keep going on about, or Trump.

There is no wrong answer, but it may help you live a little more grounded in reality if you at least know the answers to these questions.

We don't need to know them.

Quote:

Dershowitz: Mueller blew it on obstruction

That was his opinion but didn't seem very well founded.

In fact he agreed with what Mueller said. They both say that you cannot charge the President with obstruction.

Then Dersh says that he should have made the call. How could he make the call when the evidence is clearly saying that Trump obstructed justice when they both agree that he cannot be charged even if guilty.

What Muller has done is to record and lay out all the evidence that may be used by the government in a well deserved impeachment case or to be used legally when Trump leaves office and is no longer beyond the law.

Bottom line, the President can never be held guilty of a criminal act for merely discharging powers given him expressly by the US Constitution.

The US Constitution expressly gives the President the power to nominate & fire subordinates. Comey was a subordinate, & so was Mueller.........furthermore, Constitutionally the President of the United States isn't required to give any reason for doing so, be they fired for on a whim or not is immaterial. Comey might have worn brown sox, & the President hates brown sox......he screams yer fired......Constitutionally, the President would be completely within the rights granted by the powers assigned him in the US Constitution.

Panther wrote on May 4^th, 2019 at 9:15pm:

Bottom line, the President can never be held guilty of a criminal act for merely discharging powers given him expressly by the US Constitution. The US Constitution expressly gives the President the power to nominate & fire subordinates. Comey was a subordinate, & so was Mueller.........furthermore, Constitutionally the President of the United States isn't required to give any reason for doing so, be they fired for on a whim or not is immaterial. Comey might have worn brown sox, & the President hates brown sox......he screams yer fired......Constitutionally, the President would be completely within the rights granted by the powers assigned him in the US Constitution.

So you agree with myself, Dersh and Mueller.

He can not be charged, he however can be impeached which is what would happen if the republicans were honest or he could be charged when he leaves office if anyone can be bothered.

Hence the constitutional crisis that would have resulted should Mueller have ruled given the evidence he uncovered.

That is why in that context the line below has so much meaning,


ProudKangaroo wrote on May 4^th, 2019 at 10:38am:

Quote: CONCLUSION Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

The idea of "no further indictments" and "total exoneration" clearing Trump of wrongdoing as a result of the Mueller report is just factually incorrect.

Mueller laid out the evidence and it's up to Congress and the Republicans to decide if they care about the rule of law and if they think what Trump has done is worthy of impeachment so he can face charges.

The Mueller report was devastating to Trump and now he's facing more scrutiny than ever.

Every refusal to answer questions, refusal to release his tax returns or lie about anything from the important to the mundane, it's all going towards the case of impeachment.

There is a redline that he'll cross that not even the Republicans can ignore.

If anything, that's the storm that's coming.

But will it ever come?

Trump can only be impeached based on treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours

NO proof of Treason
NO proof of Bribery
NO proof of High Crimes
NO proof of misdemeanour

Maqqa wrote on May 7^th, 2019 at 7:59pm:

Trump can only be impeached based on treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours NO proof of Treason NO proof of Bribery NO proof of High Crimes NO proof of misdemeanour

There is more to it than that.  A large majority of scholars agree that impeachable offences are not limited by the criminal code. 

The best definition of impeachable offense comes from the legal scholar Charles Black, who argued in 1974 that a president may be impeached for "offences (1) which are extremely serious, (2) which in some way corrupt or subvert the political and governmental process, and (3) which are plainly wrong in themselves to a person of honor, or to a good citizen, regardless of words on the statute books."

You can read more about it here,

https://www.lawfareblog.com/impeachable-offense

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 7^th, 2019 at 8:52pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 7th, 2019 at 7:59pm: Trump can only be impeached based on treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours NO proof of Treason NO proof of Bribery NO proof of High Crimes NO proof of misdemeanour There is more to it than that.  A large majority of scholars agree that impeachable offences are not limited by the criminal code.  The best definition of impeachable offense comes from the legal scholar Charles Black, who argued in 1974 that a president may be impeached for "offences (1) which are extremely serious, (2) which in some way corrupt or subvert the political and governmental process, and (3) which are plainly wrong in themselves to a person of honor, or to a good citizen, regardless of words on the statute books." You can read more about it here, https://www.lawfareblog.com/impeachable-offense

The key word is he "ARGUED"

He can argue until he's blue in the face but this has not be tested.

The law is clear - TREASON, BRIBERY, HIGH CRIMES or MISDEMEANOUR

At this stage they are trying to tie him to a misdemeanour with very tenuous threads at best

Maqqa wrote on May 7^th, 2019 at 9:45pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 7th, 2019 at 8:52pm: Maqqa wrote on May 7th, 2019 at 7:59pm: Trump can only be impeached based on treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours NO proof of Treason NO proof of Bribery NO proof of High Crimes NO proof of misdemeanour There is more to it than that.  A large majority of scholars agree that impeachable offences are not limited by the criminal code.  The best definition of impeachable offense comes from the legal scholar Charles Black, who argued in 1974 that a president may be impeached for "offences (1) which are extremely serious, (2) which in some way corrupt or subvert the political and governmental process, and (3) which are plainly wrong in themselves to a person of honor, or to a good citizen, regardless of words on the statute books." You can read more about it here, https://www.lawfareblog.com/impeachable-offense The key word is he "ARGUED" He can argue until he's blue in the face but this has not be tested. The law is clear - TREASON, BRIBERY, HIGH CRIMES or MISDEMEANOUR At this stage they are trying to tie him to a misdemeanour with very tenuous threads at best

The point is that he wasn't charged for Obstruction or Conspiracy not because he's innocent, but because he's the President.

It's up to Congress now to stand up and let everyone know where they stand on the "Rule of Law".  If they only apply it to their opposition is says everything we need to know.

Impeachment is a political not a criminal action and at the moment and for the foreseeable it’s not  politically possible.

Secret Wars wrote on May 8^th, 2019 at 10:09am:

Impeachment is a political not a criminal action and at the moment and for the foreseeable it’s not  politically possible.

Not unless the Republics stand up for what they, apparently, believe in.

The question is now, will lawmakers attempt to change the laws so Trump can't run out the clock in office and rely on the statute of limitations to keep him from facing prosecution?

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 8^th, 2019 at 10:14am:

Secret Wars wrote on May 8th, 2019 at 10:09am: Impeachment is a political not a criminal action and at the moment and for the foreseeable it’s not  politically possible. Not unless the Republics stand up for what they, apparently, believe in. The question is now, will lawmakers attempt to change the laws so Trump can't run out the clock in office and rely on the statute of limitations to keep him from facing prosecution?

“apparently believe in”, see there’s ya problem. Democrats or republicans, once up the slippery pole none will give it up. Do you really believe that any major western party that has attained power, is so pure that it will willingly throw it away for principle or belief?

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 8^th, 2019 at 10:06am:

The point is that he wasn't charged for Obstruction or Conspiracy not because he's innocent, but because he's the President.

The Mueller Report clearly stated that it's recommendations are not influenced by this practice

There's not enough evidence to recommend prosecution

Maqqa wrote on May 9^th, 2019 at 1:50pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 8th, 2019 at 10:06am: The point is that he wasn't charged for Obstruction or Conspiracy not because he's innocent, but because he's the President. The Mueller Report clearly stated that it's recommendations are not influenced by this practice There's not enough evidence to recommend prosecution

That is a lie. Report to the White House immediately Mr. Liar. Your credentials are outstanding.

Maqqa wrote on May 7^th, 2019 at 9:45pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 7th, 2019 at 8:52pm: Maqqa wrote on May 7th, 2019 at 7:59pm: Trump can only be impeached based on treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours NO proof of Treason NO proof of Bribery NO proof of High Crimes NO proof of misdemeanour There is more to it than that.  A large majority of scholars agree that impeachable offences are not limited by the criminal code.  The best definition of impeachable offense comes from the legal scholar Charles Black, who argued in 1974 that a president may be impeached for "offences (1) which are extremely serious, (2) which in some way corrupt or subvert the political and governmental process, and (3) which are plainly wrong in themselves to a person of honor, or to a good citizen, regardless of words on the statute books." You can read more about it here, https://www.lawfareblog.com/impeachable-offense The key word is he "ARGUED" He can argue until he's blue in the face but this has not be tested. The law is clear - TREASON, BRIBERY, HIGH CRIMES or MISDEMEANOUR At this stage they are trying to tie him to a misdemeanour with very tenuous threads at best

Bribing Stormy and the National Enquirer's a jailable offence, dear. Cohen just started a 3 year stretch for obeying orders.

Karnal wrote on May 9^th, 2019 at 5:09pm:

Bribing Stormy and the National Enquirer's a jailable offence, dear. Cohen just started a 3 year stretch for obeying orders.

According to the indictment - these were not the reasons Cohen is going to jail  :-/

Maqqa wrote on May 9^th, 2019 at 9:57pm:

Karnal wrote on May 9th, 2019 at 5:09pm: Bribing Stormy and the National Enquirer's a jailable offence, dear. Cohen just started a 3 year stretch for obeying orders. According to the indictment - these were not the reasons Cohen is going to jail  :-/

According to the sentence, they were. Cohen received a sentence of 38 months for electoral crime, to be served concurrently with his sentence for fraud, tax evasion and lying to the FBI.

Cohen protected Mr Trump. We wish him all the best in federal prison.

Karnal wrote on May 9^th, 2019 at 10:04pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 9th, 2019 at 9:57pm: Karnal wrote on May 9th, 2019 at 5:09pm: Bribing Stormy and the National Enquirer's a jailable offence, dear. Cohen just started a 3 year stretch for obeying orders. According to the indictment - these were not the reasons Cohen is going to jail  :-/ According to the sentence, they were. Cohen received a sentence of 38 months for electoral crime, to be served concurrently with his sentence for fraud, tax evasion and lying to the FBI. Cohen protected Mr Trump. We wish him all the best in federal prison.

Read the 22 pages again dear!

Maqqa wrote on May 9^th, 2019 at 10:29pm:

Karnal wrote on May 9th, 2019 at 10:04pm: Maqqa wrote on May 9th, 2019 at 9:57pm: Karnal wrote on May 9th, 2019 at 5:09pm: Bribing Stormy and the National Enquirer's a jailable offence, dear. Cohen just started a 3 year stretch for obeying orders. According to the indictment - these were not the reasons Cohen is going to jail  :-/ According to the sentence, they were. Cohen received a sentence of 38 months for electoral crime, to be served concurrently with his sentence for fraud, tax evasion and lying to the FBI. Cohen protected Mr Trump. We wish him all the best in federal prison. Read the 22 pages again dear!

Why?

Karnal wrote on May 9^th, 2019 at 10:47pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 9th, 2019 at 10:29pm: Karnal wrote on May 9th, 2019 at 10:04pm: Maqqa wrote on May 9th, 2019 at 9:57pm: Karnal wrote on May 9th, 2019 at 5:09pm: Bribing Stormy and the National Enquirer's a jailable offence, dear. Cohen just started a 3 year stretch for obeying orders. According to the indictment - these were not the reasons Cohen is going to jail  :-/ According to the sentence, they were. Cohen received a sentence of 38 months for electoral crime, to be served concurrently with his sentence for fraud, tax evasion and lying to the FBI. Cohen protected Mr Trump. We wish him all the best in federal prison. Read the 22 pages again dear! Why?

because your assessment is inconsistent with the 22 page court document