Christianity Today Op Ed

[JimL]

No he didn't. He described ten instances that were maybe possibly but not actually obstruction and then punted it to the Department of Justice who found that evidence was insufficient to support an obstruction charge. In fact, when Mueller was asked directly during his testimony if his investigation was ever "curtailed, stopped, or hindered at any time", he said no.

Mueller didn't charge Trump with anything, he simply turned the report over to Congress to adjudicate wherein Trumps new toadie stepped in and did the exonerating. That Trump obstructed Mueller is as evident as his obstruction in the corrupt Ukrainian scheme, corruption and obstruction is what he does.

[oxmixmudd]

You are wasting your time. It is like trying to convince a flat earther. They just continue proclaiming that if you read the report in the proper manner^[1] it clearly shows that Trump colluded with Putin.




1. I guess it involves squinting just so while setting your jaw a certain way and has something to do with secret decoder rings

No proper manner required. All that is required is to not grant Trump a totally undemonstrated diversion from human nature coupled with the benefit of the doubt worthy only of a Billy Graham or other nearly spotless moral figure.

You are banking on the idea that ALL of these interactions with the russians are somehow coincidental, and that they do not add up to cooperation with the Russians in spite of documented attempts to get dirt from them, like the Trump tower meeting, or the pre election attempt to establish a back channel to Putin.

There is no rational explanation for the evidence we have other that nefarious activities that fly in the face of the integrity of our election systems integrity, even though to this point Trump has managed to avoid being prosecuted for it.

It is the same with Ukraine. In spite of all the clear evidence that adds up to one and only one conclusion, you and yours put up impossible by the normal laws of probability and human nature 'alternate' explanations for those same conditions.

It just isn't possible for a person with the lawless. Narcissistic bent of Donald Trump to leave a trail like we saw exposed in the impeachment hearings and not have done what he is accused of.

[Mountain Man]

Mueller didn't charge Trump with anything, he simply turned the report over to Congress to adjudicate wherein Trumps new toadie stepped in and did the exonerating. That Trump obstructed Mueller is as evident as his obstruction in the corrupt Ukrainian scheme, corruption and obstruction is what he does.

Then why did the dirty cop testify under oath that his investigation was never impeded?

[oxmixmudd]

Then why did the dirty cop testify under oath that his investigation was never impeded?

Because attempted obstruction, while a crime, is not necessarily always successful.

[Mountain Man]

Because attempted obstruction, while a crime, is not necessarily always successful.

There is no such thing as "attempted obstruction".

[oxmixmudd]

There is no such thing as "attempted obstruction".

So let's see, I am not using legal terms here but your argument is such a legal term does not exist?

So a person can try to get in the way of an investigation. That is obstruction. But that attempt can fail to have its intended effect, meaning that even though the person engaged in obstruction, the investigation was not itself impeded.

For example, trump tried to get comey to swear loyalty to him, in effect to do what trump wanted in regards to the investigation. That was obstruction, he was actively trying g to get in the way of it through an appeal to comey. But comey did not play ball, obstruction failed. So then he fired comey. Obstruction attempt number 2. But hey, that didnt work out either. So there you have two counts of obstruction, but they failed. The investigation was not impeded

[Mountain Man]

So let's see, I am not using legal terms here but your argument is such a legal term does not exist?

So a person can try to get in the way of an investigation. That is obstruction. But that attempt can fail to have its intended effect, meaning that even though the person engaged in obstruction, the investigation was not itself impeded.

For example, trump tried to get comey to swear loyalty to him, in effect to do what trump wanted in regards to the investigation. That was obstruction, he was actively trying g to get in the way of it through an appeal to comey. But comey did not play ball, obstruction failed. So then he fired comey. Obstruction attempt number 2. But hey, that didnt work out either. So there you have two counts of obstruction, but they failed. The investigation was not impeded

I'll let the Depart of Justice answer this one:

"Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."

[oxmixmudd]

I'll let the Depart of Justice answer this one:

"Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."

DOJ has been compromised far to much by Barr to be trustworthy on this issue. I believe the 1000 signatures of former prosecutors that claim the opposite.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.new...439716%3famp=1

[Mountain Man]

DOJ has been compromised far to much by Barr to be trustworthy on this issue.

Barr didn't reach this decision on his own. Even Rod Rosenstein, who is no friend of Trump, signed off on the conclusion. Again, I'll let the Department of Justice answer:

"After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

And let's look at a curious statement that Mueller made during his press conference: "As I set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

This would suggest, then, that if they had confidence that the Trump clearly did commit a crime, then they would have said so, but they didn't. Instead, they say quite plainly that "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime".

To summarize the summary, there's no "there" there.

[JimL]

Then why did the dirty cop testify under oath that his investigation was never impeded?

Because there is a distinction to be made between impeding and obstructing. Trump definitely obstructed the investigation, but the investigation went on regardless.

[JimL]

I'll let the Depart of Justice answer this one:

"Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."

That sounds like it came from the mouth of the corrupt Atty Gen. Barr himself. Is that correct? If so that question was not for the Trump toadie to answer, it was for Congress to answer. For instance, to say that the Trump letter/lie concerning the purpose of the Trump tower meeting was not done with corrupt intent, was not an attempted obstruction, it"s simply Barrs' corrupt attempt to protect the President. The same applies to Trumps attempt to have the Special prosecutor fired, or to coerce McGahn to make false statements concerning that attempt etc etc. You can't use a corrupt and biased Atty General to answer the question as to what obstruction is or is not.

[Mountain Man]

That sounds like it came from the mouth of the corrupt Atty Gen. Barr himself. Is that correct?

No, that is not correct. It came from the honorable Attorney General William Barr, the honorable Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and other Department of Justice officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel.

[JimL]

No, that is not correct. It came from the honorable Attorney General William Barr, the honorable Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and other Department of Justice officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel.

No, it came from the top dog in the DOJ, the Atty. Gen, who has proven himself to be anything but honorable, who simply had his underlings sign on to it.

[Mountain Man]

No, it came from the top dog in the DOJ, the Atty. Gen, who has proven himself to be anything but honorable, who simply had his underlings sign on to it.

Nope.

"After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

It was a team effort, kiddo.

[oxmixmudd]

Barr didn't reach this decision on his own. Even Rod Rosenstein, who is no friend of Trump, signed off on the conclusion. Again, I'll let the Department of Justice answer:

"After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

And let's look at a curious statement that Mueller made during his press conference: "As I set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

This would suggest, then, that if they had confidence that the Trump clearly did commit a crime, then they would have said so, but they didn't. Instead, they say quite plainly that "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime".

To summarize the summary, there's no "there" there.

Sorry, the statement is not a bijection. Having said if they were confident he did not commit a crime they would have said so simply does not justify saying if they were confident he did commit a crime they also would have said so. The second does not logically follow from the first