WWTBAM Bored

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: what the fuck was the 2 years and umpteen millions of dollars about?

What the two years was about was seeing about (1) who might have conspired along with Trump (if you'll recall, Nixon never went to jail on Watergate but a lot of his buddies did) and (2) laying out the evidence so that Congress would do its job and impeach the President. That may well prove to be futile as long as the Republican Senate is willing to give Trump a blank check, but you can't fault Mueller for laying out the evidence of obstruction of justice.

LOL

What did Trump do that was more obstructive than destroying an email server and phones that were subjects of an "investigation {wink} {wink}"?

Also, where in the Mueller report did he discuss the dossier that was used to obtain the FISA warrants? Any investigation of alleged misdeeds should certainly include the evidence that led up to the need for an investigation.

Read the report.

Mueller discussed the warrants in Volume 1, and clearly laid out the process resulting in the warrants. The Steele dossier merely corroborated information already in the FBI's possession regarding Russian efforts to interfere with our election.

Donny obstructed justice by firing the FBI Director because he was investigating Donny's campaign and wouldn't pledge personal loyalty.

Donny obstructed justice by trying to get Attorney General Sessions to reverse his recusal decision so he could rein in Mueller.

Donny obstructed justice by trying to get the White House Counsel to fire Mueller.

Donny obstructed justice by trying to get witnesses to lie to Mueller or to refuse to cooperate with Mueller.

And he did all this deliberately, a point I emphasize only because Secretary Clinton did not deliberately destroy a damn thing in order to evade an investigation (which was obviously undertaken for partisan purposes anyway). --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
What the two years was about was seeing about (1) who might have conspired along with Trump (if you'll recall, Nixon never went to jail on Watergate but a lot of his buddies did) and (2) laying out the evidence so that Congress would do its job and impeach the President. That may well prove to be futile as long as the Republican Senate is willing to give Trump a blank check, but you can't fault Mueller for laying out the evidence of obstruction of justice.

LOL

What did Trump do that was more obstructive than destroying an email server and phones that were subjects of an "investigation {wink} {wink}"?

Also, where in the Mueller report did he discuss the dossier that was used to obtain the FISA warrants? Any investigation of alleged misdeeds should certainly include the evidence that led up to the need for an investigation.

Read the report.

Mueller discussed the warrants in Volume 1, and clearly laid out the process resulting in the warrants. The Steele dossier merely corroborated information already in the FBI's possession regarding Russian efforts to interfere with our election.

Donny obstructed justice by firing the FBI Director because he was investigating Donny's campaign and wouldn't pledge personal loyalty.

Donny obstructed justice by trying to get Attorney General Sessions to reverse his recusal decision so he could rein in Mueller.

Donny obstructed justice by trying to get the White House Counsel to fire Mueller.

Donny obstructed justice by trying to get witnesses to lie to Mueller or to refuse to cooperate with Mueller.

And he did all this deliberately, a point I emphasize only because Secretary Clinton did not deliberately destroy a damn thing in order to evade an investigation (which was obviously undertaken for partisan purposes anyway). --Bob

You are utterly laughable.

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
What the two years was about was seeing about (1) who might have conspired along with Trump (if you'll recall, Nixon never went to jail on Watergate but a lot of his buddies did) and (2) laying out the evidence so that Congress would do its job and impeach the President. That may well prove to be futile as long as the Republican Senate is willing to give Trump a blank check, but you can't fault Mueller for laying out the evidence of obstruction of justice.

LOL

What did Trump do that was more obstructive than destroying an email server and phones that were subjects of an "investigation {wink} {wink}"?

Also, where in the Mueller report did he discuss the dossier that was used to obtain the FISA warrants? Any investigation of alleged misdeeds should certainly include the evidence that led up to the need for an investigation.

Read the report.

Mueller discussed the warrants in Volume 1, and clearly laid out the process resulting in the warrants. The Steele dossier merely corroborated information already in the FBI's possession regarding Russian efforts to interfere with our election.

Donny obstructed justice by firing the FBI Director because he was investigating Donny's campaign and wouldn't pledge personal loyalty.

Donny obstructed justice by trying to get Attorney General Sessions to reverse his recusal decision so he could rein in Mueller.

Donny obstructed justice by trying to get the White House Counsel to fire Mueller.

Donny obstructed justice by trying to get witnesses to lie to Mueller or to refuse to cooperate with Mueller.

And he did all this deliberately, a point I emphasize only because Secretary Clinton did not deliberately destroy a damn thing in order to evade an investigation (which was obviously undertaken for partisan purposes anyway). --Bob

"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try"

What alternate universe do you ass clowns live in? Are we all going to be in jail now for things we try but don't do? I guess only if we're not democrats.

What did he say? Something like if we were sure he didn't commit a crime we would have said so? What the fuck is that, Mr above average ethical lawyer? Justice 101 for complete idiots? You people are insane. The only reason you have any support is that the mass media is equally insane and they push the democrat narrative like they are selling dishwashing detergent.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

LOL

What did Trump do that was more obstructive than destroying an email server and phones that were subjects of an "investigation {wink} {wink}"?

Also, where in the Mueller report did he discuss the dossier that was used to obtain the FISA warrants? Any investigation of alleged misdeeds should certainly include the evidence that led up to the need for an investigation.

Read the report.

Mueller discussed the warrants in Volume 1, and clearly laid out the process resulting in the warrants. The Steele dossier merely corroborated information already in the FBI's possession regarding Russian efforts to interfere with our election.

Donny obstructed justice by firing the FBI Director because he was investigating Donny's campaign and wouldn't pledge personal loyalty.

Donny obstructed justice by trying to get Attorney General Sessions to reverse his recusal decision so he could rein in Mueller.

Donny obstructed justice by trying to get the White House Counsel to fire Mueller.

Donny obstructed justice by trying to get witnesses to lie to Mueller or to refuse to cooperate with Mueller.

And he did all this deliberately, a point I emphasize only because Secretary Clinton did not deliberately destroy a damn thing in order to evade an investigation (which was obviously undertaken for partisan purposes anyway). --Bob

"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try"

What alternate universe do you ass clowns live in? Are we all going to be in jail now for things we try but don't do? I guess only if we're not democrats.

What did he say? Something like if we were sure he didn't commit a crime we would have said so? What the fuck is that, Mr above average ethical lawyer? Justice 101 for complete idiots? You people are insane. The only reason you have any support is that the mass media is equally insane and they push the democrat narrative like they are selling dishwashing detergent.

So if I deliberately shoot at someone and miss, I'm not guilty of attempted murder? Let's just say that's a unique view of the law.

Yes, attempting to obstruct justice is a crime, even if you don't succeed. You don't have to take my word for it. You can believe more than 650 former federal prosecutors. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Read the report.

Mueller discussed the warrants in Volume 1, and clearly laid out the process resulting in the warrants. The Steele dossier merely corroborated information already in the FBI's possession regarding Russian efforts to interfere with our election.

Donny obstructed justice by firing the FBI Director because he was investigating Donny's campaign and wouldn't pledge personal loyalty.

Donny obstructed justice by trying to get Attorney General Sessions to reverse his recusal decision so he could rein in Mueller.

Donny obstructed justice by trying to get the White House Counsel to fire Mueller.

Donny obstructed justice by trying to get witnesses to lie to Mueller or to refuse to cooperate with Mueller.

And he did all this deliberately, a point I emphasize only because Secretary Clinton did not deliberately destroy a damn thing in order to evade an investigation (which was obviously undertaken for partisan purposes anyway). --Bob

"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try"

What alternate universe do you ass clowns live in? Are we all going to be in jail now for things we try but don't do? I guess only if we're not democrats.

What did he say? Something like if we were sure he didn't commit a crime we would have said so? What the fuck is that, Mr above average ethical lawyer? Justice 101 for complete idiots? You people are insane. The only reason you have any support is that the mass media is equally insane and they push the democrat narrative like they are selling dishwashing detergent.

So if I deliberately shoot at someone and miss, I'm not guilty of attempted murder? Let's just say that's a unique view of the law.

Yes, attempting to obstruct justice is a crime, even if you don't succeed. You don't have to take my word for it. You can believe more than 650 former federal prosecutors. --Bob

More like somebody said you said you wanted to shoot somebody. And there are many more former federsl prosecuters that would disagree but aren't interested in spreading propaganda.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: "Try not. Do or do not. There is no try"

What alternate universe do you ass clowns live in? Are we all going to be in jail now for things we try but don't do? I guess only if we're not democrats.

What did he say? Something like if we were sure he didn't commit a crime we would have said so? What the fuck is that, Mr above average ethical lawyer? Justice 101 for complete idiots? You people are insane. The only reason you have any support is that the mass media is equally insane and they push the democrat narrative like they are selling dishwashing detergent.

So if I deliberately shoot at someone and miss, I'm not guilty of attempted murder? Let's just say that's a unique view of the law.

Yes, attempting to obstruct justice is a crime, even if you don't succeed. You don't have to take my word for it. You can believe more than 650 former federal prosecutors. --Bob

More like somebody said you said you wanted to shoot somebody. And there are many more former federsl prosecuters that would disagree but aren't interested in spreading propaganda.

Donny didn't just say he wanted to fire Mueller. He gave orders to do so. His orders were refused. And he did fire Comey. Read the fucking report.

I must say it's very convenient for you that all of the federal prosecutors who agree with you have simultaneously decided to remain silent. I guess that's understandable. We all know that federal prosecutors all hate publicity and aren't at all interested in further runs for public office. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:So if I deliberately shoot at someone and miss, I'm not guilty of attempted murder? Let's just say that's a unique view of the law.

Yes, attempting to obstruct justice is a crime, even if you don't succeed. You don't have to take my word for it. You can believe more than 650 former federal prosecutors. --Bob

More like somebody said you said you wanted to shoot somebody. And there are many more former federsl prosecuters that would disagree but aren't interested in spreading propaganda.

Donny didn't just say he wanted to fire Mueller. He gave orders to do so. His orders were refused. And he did fire Comey. Read the fucking report.

I must say it's very convenient for you that all of the federal prosecutors who agree with you have simultaneously decided to remain silent. I guess that's understandable. We all know that federal prosecutors all hate publicity and aren't at all interested in further runs for public office. --Bob

I've read the fucking report bob-tel. And I agree with your synopsis. I just think your interpretation is total partisan bullshit. You and your echo chamber comrades have been playing this resistance game since before the guy was inaugurated. Its beyond pathetic.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: More like somebody said you said you wanted to shoot somebody. And there are many more former federsl prosecuters that would disagree but aren't interested in spreading propaganda.

Donny didn't just say he wanted to fire Mueller. He gave orders to do so. His orders were refused. And he did fire Comey. Read the fucking report.

I must say it's very convenient for you that all of the federal prosecutors who agree with you have simultaneously decided to remain silent. I guess that's understandable. We all know that federal prosecutors all hate publicity and aren't at all interested in further runs for public office. --Bob

I've read the fucking report bob-tel. And I agree with your synopsis. I just think your interpretation is total partisan bullshit. You and your echo chamber comrades have been playing this resistance game since before the guy was inaugurated. Its beyond pathetic.

What's total partisan bullshit is the insistence of every Republican in Congress other than Justin Amash on ignoring or excusing conduct that was much worse than the conduct that led to Nixon's forced resignation.

Donny abused the powers of his office in an effort to prevent an investigation that was directed at his campaign. So I don't ever want to hear you complain again about meetings on the tarmac, conversations about grandchildren, or anything any future President ever does to quash an investigation. You're forfeiting that right. You'll have to leave it to Democrats to hold Democratic Presidents accountable. Which we would do if it were ever required because there are still men and women of principle in the Party. --Bob

Compare what Barr said with what Mueller said today:

Bob78164 wrote:Donny abused the powers of his office in an effort to prevent an investigation that was directed at his campaign. So I don't ever want to hear you complain again about meetings on the tarmac, conversations about grandchildren, or anything any future President ever does to quash an investigation. You're forfeiting that right. You'll have to leave it to Democrats to hold Democratic Presidents accountable. Which we would do if it were ever required because there are still men and women of principle in the Party.

Talk about your abuse of power...

Who do you think you are?

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Donny didn't just say he wanted to fire Mueller. He gave orders to do so. His orders were refused. And he did fire Comey. Read the fucking report.

I must say it's very convenient for you that all of the federal prosecutors who agree with you have simultaneously decided to remain silent. I guess that's understandable. We all know that federal prosecutors all hate publicity and aren't at all interested in further runs for public office. --Bob

I've read the fucking report bob-tel. And I agree with your synopsis. I just think your interpretation is total partisan bullshit. You and your echo chamber comrades have been playing this resistance game since before the guy was inaugurated. Its beyond pathetic.

What's total partisan bullshit is the insistence of every Republican in Congress other than Justin Amash on ignoring or excusing conduct that was much worse than the conduct that led to Nixon's forced resignation.

Donny abused the powers of his office in an effort to prevent an investigation that was directed at his campaign. So I don't ever want to hear you complain again about meetings on the tarmac, conversations about grandchildren, or anything any future President ever does to quash an investigation. You're forfeiting that right. You'll have to leave it to Democrats to hold Democratic Presidents accountable. Which we would do if it were ever required because there are still men and women of principle in the Party. --Bob

Why don't you ever respond to the FACT that every member of your beloved corrupt party wanted Comey fired months before trump did it, and it had NO effect on the investigation. Contrary to your delusions, trump provided every piece of paper and did not obstruct any witness from talking with the investigators.
He did not like the investigation. He knew, and I know, that it was a total fabrication by the democrats because they lost an election they thought they won. If I were in his position, I would consider doing all the things he 'tried' to do, but IN ACTUAL FACT, none of it was ever done. And we are apparently going to soon get a report on how this ongoing fiasco actually started. I am interested in that.
I forfeit nothing. You forfeited your credibility long ago by declaring your vow to oppose trump in every way you could even before he started his term. You are a partisan hack, not a lawyer. Lawyers champion truth and justice. You do neither.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: I forfeit nothing.

You can't forfeit something you never had Flock. Common sense -- no. Reasoning ability -- no. Good judgment -- no. Credibility -- no. Integrity -- no. Intellectual honesty -- no.

You've got nothing to forfeit Flock except possibly for your membership in the Donald Trump Fan Club.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: I forfeit nothing.

You can't forfeit something you never had Flock. Common sense -- no. Reasoning ability -- no. Good judgment -- no. Credibility -- no. Integrity -- no. Intellectual honesty -- no.

You've got nothing to forfeit Flock except possibly for your membership in the Donald Trump Fan Club.

Wow, what an intellectual giant you are. What an incontrovertible argument you make. I am swayed to your side. You must be right about everything. Bless your heart.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: I forfeit nothing.

You can't forfeit something you never had Flock. Common sense -- no. Reasoning ability -- no. Good judgment -- no. Credibility -- no. Integrity -- no. Intellectual honesty -- no.

You've got nothing to forfeit Flock except possibly for your membership in the Donald Trump Fan Club.

Nice reasoning, except that none of the things you've listed were what Bob### claimed flock had forfeited. Try to follow along...

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Donny abused the powers of his office in an effort to prevent an investigation that was directed at his campaign. So I don't ever want to hear you complain again about meetings on the tarmac, conversations about grandchildren, or anything any future President ever does to quash an investigation. You're forfeiting that right. You'll have to leave it to Democrats to hold Democratic Presidents accountable. Which we would do if it were ever required because there are still men and women of principle in the Party.

Talk about your abuse of power...

Who do you think you are?

Someone who's seen flock demand that too damn many people shut up. In so many words. Do you want to defend Donny's conduct, as described in the Mueller Report, on its merits?

From now on, when flock starts complaining about Democratic abuses of power, we'll keep replaying this particular conversation until he wears it as a tattoo.

Flock is willing to see Donny use the powers of his office to fire someone who was investigating him because he was investigating him. He had Rosenstein make up a story about why he fired Comey. He ordered subordinates to fire people in order to obstruct the investigation, and flock's fine with that to because the subordinates rebelled instead of following orders. He also ordered the subordinates to lie about the reasons for firing people.

You don't get to condone that conduct and have anyone ever again take you seriously when you complain about abuse of power. Just like you don't get to handle the Supreme Court the way McConnell has promised to handle a vacancy if one occurs in 2020 and ever again have anyone believe you're doing anything but pure power politics, without a principled bone in your body.

So if flock ever again tries to complain about supposed Democratic abuses of power, I'll treat the claim as the flocking joke his conduct has proved it to be. And that also goes for every Republican in Congress except for Justin Amash. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: And that also goes for every Republican in Congress except for Justin Amash. --Bob

I find it hard to believe that Trump's antics would have skated past men and women like Barry Goldwater, Margaret Chase Smith, and Everett Dirksen had they been in the Senate today. But these were people of character and principle, unlike the craven sellouts that now occupy the Republican seats in Congress, for whom power is the only thing that matters. Try reading Margaret Chase Smith's speech about Joe McCarthy and imagine Lindsay Graham saying something similar today.

And then people like Flock have the nerve to talk about the Batcave and Democratic mindset. Democrats fight and squabble and disagree, as opposed to the Republicans who at best quibble slightly about Trump's style and then run back into the fold when chastised. Otherwise, it's the Trump party line 100%.

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Donny abused the powers of his office in an effort to prevent an investigation that was directed at his campaign. So I don't ever want to hear you complain again about meetings on the tarmac, conversations about grandchildren, or anything any future President ever does to quash an investigation. You're forfeiting that right. You'll have to leave it to Democrats to hold Democratic Presidents accountable. Which we would do if it were ever required because there are still men and women of principle in the Party.

Talk about your abuse of power...

Who do you think you are?

Someone who's seen flock demand that too damn many people shut up. In so many words. Do you want to defend Donny's conduct, as described in the Mueller Report, on its merits?

From now on, when flock starts complaining about Democratic abuses of power, we'll keep replaying this particular conversation until he wears it as a tattoo.

Flock is willing to see Donny use the powers of his office to fire someone who was investigating him because he was investigating him. He had Rosenstein make up a story about why he fired Comey. He ordered subordinates to fire people in order to obstruct the investigation, and flock's fine with that to because the subordinates rebelled instead of following orders. He also ordered the subordinates to lie about the reasons for firing people.

You don't get to condone that conduct and have anyone ever again take you seriously when you complain about abuse of power. Just like you don't get to handle the Supreme Court the way McConnell has promised to handle a vacancy if one occurs in 2020 and ever again have anyone believe you're doing anything but pure power politics, without a principled bone in your body.

So if flock ever again tries to complain about supposed Democratic abuses of power, I'll treat the claim as the flocking joke his conduct has proved it to be. And that also goes for every Republican in Congress except for Justin Amash. --Bob

bob-tel, you are the joke. The only one fired was comey, and he deserved it as it was called for by your echo chamber comrades months before. Who else was fired to obstruct the investigation? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Anything else is just hearsay. Remember that word from the Acme Law School? How about innocent until proven guilty? Did they mention that one at Acme? Or was it 'guilty because we couldn't exonerate you'?

As for what McConnell said, it will be what it will be. If you want to talk about principles, let's add Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh to the conversation. You want ethical principles? I wouldn't look anywhere in the federal government or Washington DC, on either side of the aisle. Except maybe your kind of ethics. That is why I have always been against giving any power to Washington not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Which was, by the way, written to protect US from government, not government from us.

Your passion is overwhelming. It must seem very persuasive to your mass audience here, but to the rest of us it seems like insanity has set in.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: How about innocent until proven guilty?

Here's the problem with your as-usual 99% incorrect argument. Mueller knows that he can't pronounce Trump guilty. He also said that he couldn't, under the law as he interprets it, bring criminal charges against a sitting president. That's why he wants impeachment proceedings which will establish Trump's guilt. You don't seem to want that, and understandably so, since these proceedings will probably topple your little house of innocence cards. But what your argument boils down to is: The prosecutor can't convict him without a trial so let's not hold a trial.

You and your fellow grads from the Sean Hannity school of law need a refresher course in criminal law and the rules of evidence.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: but to the rest of us it seems like insanity has set in.

I assume by "rest of us," you mean the 30% or so of the public who have taken up permanent residence in the Trump ministry of misinformation.

What is the matter with you? I'm still going with insanity, but stupidity isn't far behind. What is it with you and hannity? And I spent a good deal of time explaining the trump thing to you a while back. And he widens his lead based on your side's absolute shit-headedness. Don't you read and comprehend anything?

he wants impeachment proceedings which will establish Trump's guilt

Now there you go. At least you can admit it.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

he wants impeachment proceedings which will establish Trump's guilt

Now there you go. At least you can admit it.

What is so astonishing about the fact that Mueller conducted a thorough investigation and concluded that Trump obstructed justice? That's not a case of Mueller or the Democrats being out to get him, any more than if they investigated a mob boss and concluded that he was guilty of various crime.

The only difference is that under the Constitution, the only vehicle that Mueller thinks the people possess to remove a corrupt president is the impeachment process. You seem to be under the deluded assumption that this is some sort of palace coup perpetrated by Mueller and the Democrats to overturn the election. If you reviewed the Mueller Report instead of fixating on the Bill Barr three-page whitewash "synopsis," it lays out page after page of acts that Trump committed, as revealed by eyewitnesses under oath (which is not hearsay), that constituted obstruction of justice.

But you prefer being handed pre-digested bits and pieces of information spoon fed to you by the right wing press. You may not read or listen to Hannity, but you are clearly getting your thought processes and opinions handed to you by some similar right wing "news" organization.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

he wants impeachment proceedings which will establish Trump's guilt

Now there you go. At least you can admit it.

What is so astonishing about the fact that Mueller conducted a thorough investigation and concluded that Trump obstructed justice? That's not a case of Mueller or the Democrats being out to get him, any more than if they investigated a mob boss and concluded that he was guilty of various crime.

The only difference is that under the Constitution, the only vehicle that Mueller thinks the people possess to remove a corrupt president is the impeachment process. You seem to be under the deluded assumption that this is some sort of palace coup perpetrated by Mueller and the Democrats to overturn the election. If you reviewed the Mueller Report instead of fixating on the Bill Barr three-page whitewash "synopsis," it lays out page after page of acts that Trump committed, as revealed by eyewitnesses under oath (which is not hearsay), that constituted obstruction of justice.

But you prefer being handed pre-digested bits and pieces of information spoon fed to you by the right wing press. You may not read or listen to Hannity, but you are clearly getting your thought processes and opinions handed to you by some similar right wing "news" organization.

I'm just curious why Mueller didn't use the same phrasing for the collusuon, conspiracy and obstruction issues.

Beebs52 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Now there you go. At least you can admit it.

What is so astonishing about the fact that Mueller conducted a thorough investigation and concluded that Trump obstructed justice? That's not a case of Mueller or the Democrats being out to get him, any more than if they investigated a mob boss and concluded that he was guilty of various crime.

The only difference is that under the Constitution, the only vehicle that Mueller thinks the people possess to remove a corrupt president is the impeachment process. You seem to be under the deluded assumption that this is some sort of palace coup perpetrated by Mueller and the Democrats to overturn the election. If you reviewed the Mueller Report instead of fixating on the Bill Barr three-page whitewash "synopsis," it lays out page after page of acts that Trump committed, as revealed by eyewitnesses under oath (which is not hearsay), that constituted obstruction of justice.

But you prefer being handed pre-digested bits and pieces of information spoon fed to you by the right wing press. You may not read or listen to Hannity, but you are clearly getting your thought processes and opinions handed to you by some similar right wing "news" organization.

I'm just curious why Mueller didn't use the same phrasing for the collusuon, conspiracy and obstruction issues.

Because the word "collusion" has no legal meaning, as Mueller explained in his report. As for conspiracy, he quite clearly expressed his opinion that the evidence did not permit proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all of the elements necessary for a criminal case of conspiracy with Russian agents. That's because (as Mueller explained) it's not enough to obtain a conspiracy conviction if the campaign merely knew what Russia was doing and was happy to accept the benefits. There had to be active cooperation with an illegal act and Mueller didn't believe he had sufficient evidence to prove such cooperation beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this light, Mueller's refusal to express a similar conclusion with respect to obstruction of justice is quite clear. Justice Department regulations precluded him from saying so, but I think it's clear that Mueller privately agrees with the conclusions of hundreds of former federal prosecutors that the only reason Donny wasn't indicted for obstruction of justice was because Justice Department regulations preclude such an indictment while Donny is in office. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
What is so astonishing about the fact that Mueller conducted a thorough investigation and concluded that Trump obstructed justice? That's not a case of Mueller or the Democrats being out to get him, any more than if they investigated a mob boss and concluded that he was guilty of various crime.

The only difference is that under the Constitution, the only vehicle that Mueller thinks the people possess to remove a corrupt president is the impeachment process. You seem to be under the deluded assumption that this is some sort of palace coup perpetrated by Mueller and the Democrats to overturn the election. If you reviewed the Mueller Report instead of fixating on the Bill Barr three-page whitewash "synopsis," it lays out page after page of acts that Trump committed, as revealed by eyewitnesses under oath (which is not hearsay), that constituted obstruction of justice.

But you prefer being handed pre-digested bits and pieces of information spoon fed to you by the right wing press. You may not read or listen to Hannity, but you are clearly getting your thought processes and opinions handed to you by some similar right wing "news" organization.

I'm just curious why Mueller didn't use the same phrasing for the collusuon, conspiracy and obstruction issues.

Because the word "collusion" has no legal meaning, as Mueller explained in his report. As for conspiracy, he quite clearly expressed his opinion that the evidence did not permit proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all of the elements necessary for a criminal case of conspiracy with Russian agents. That's because (as Mueller explained) it's not enough to obtain a conspiracy conviction if the campaign merely knew what Russia was doing and was happy to accept the benefits. There had to be active cooperation with an illegal act and Mueller didn't believe he had sufficient evidence to prove such cooperation beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this light, Mueller's refusal to express a similar conclusion with respect to obstruction of justice is quite clear. Justice Department regulations precluded him from saying so, but I think it's clear that Mueller privately agrees with the conclusions of hundreds of former federal prosecutors that the only reason Donny wasn't indicted for obstruction of justice was because Justice Department regulations preclude such an indictment while Donny is in office. --Bob

Very well put, bob. Rec!