OneHungLo

^^ this pretty much sums it up. Every libs knows it. They don't care about the truth

Nitzer Ebb

As person who doesn't give a shit, its amazing to watch republicans make every excuse there is for Trump, after chasing previous president for 8 years with all kinds of accusations from what kind of pin he wore on his jacket to where he was not born. I can not think of anything else more hypocritical than that. Maybe seeing Hitler in synagogue would beat it.

__________________

Rochard

It's disgusting. Everything about this entire administration is disgusting.

Kelly Ann Conway, "special adviser to the President", stated today she doesn't give a damn if she just violated the Hatch Act. This administration just does whatever it wants and doesn't think it will be held accountable. It can violate the law at will and the Republican party will just look the other way.

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

huey

Definitely getting one of those liberal tears mugs.

__________________
opinions are like assholes.................


"They aren't after me, they are AFTER YOU! Im just in their way"
-D.J. Trump

Hawkeye

Here's the report:

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf




Summary:

No collusion, No obstruction, No crimes.

VRPdommy

The day donald leaves office, is the day he can be prosecuted.
Been saying that since the beginning.
Congress has the only power to prosecute him.
But there must be a separate investigative trail to follow.
That is in the congressional investigation that continues.
When they find evidence on their own, independently, they can impeach.
Mueller can not testify for as long as he works on a active investigation which is not yet complete. Only part of it is.
There are at least 3 cases to be prosecuted and one of them 'could' be donald when he leaves office, provided congress does not get him first.

King Mark

Hes gotta be the most frustrated man on the planet right now.

BaldBastard

Kind of right but its goes like this

Because of obstruction by team Trump, Mueller was unable to get the evidence of collusion. However because of department policy Mueller was unable to stop the obstruction and lay charges for it.

Your president seems to think he's above the law.

What's alarming now is it's obvious that the Attorney General straight up lied to the American people to protect the president... ie: Obstruction continues to hide the evidence of collusion.

Rochard

Let's not kid ourselves.... There was collusion at every fucking level. Trump's campaign manager was actually handing over polling data on a weekly basis. There are dozens of other examples too.

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

GAMEFINEST

this is getting childish now

__________________
Compound interest.

BaldBastard

I agree! but for even those that don't it should now be clear Mueller was not able to complete his job because he was being obstructed at the presidents order from obtaining the information he required and requested. Americans will never be sure if there was collusion or not until Congress uses it's powers to extract that information... which is still being meet with obstruction, and of course the 21 ongoing investigations spun from this case.

All Americans, either side should be alarmed your Attorney General was caught out red handed assisting in the obstruction, by lying for the president.

Big smiles though, either way.. Russia's now in for an ass fucking.

Acepimp

Mueller: "We did NOT make a determination that the president committed a crime."

That means he is innocent, people. Innocent until proven guilty, and there's nothing.

Y'all got lied to by the MSM for 2 years

__________________

thommy

I don't think you understood what mueller said.

1. the election result was influenced by the russians. so the result of the election is one that was influenced by an enemy of the usa. so the acting president was determined by russia.

2. there have been crimes for which trump can be prosecuted but a president cannot be prosecuted by law enforcement. american law protects the president from prosecution - even if he is a felon.

trump is not innocent but merely immune against prosecution. america could not only have voted for hitler and had to let him rule - it HAS voted for hitler and now has to watch him (just like in germany in the 1930s) first split the country and then dictate.

__________________
Open for handpicked publishers and advertisers:
www.trafficfabrik.com

Acepimp

^^ None of this is accurate. Mueller said today they didn't find any crimes. Also Russia didn't affect the outcome in any way.

__________________

thommy

from the outside, it's more than childish. it's satire. a country that's so proud of its constitution because it supposedly protects its citizens from a criminal government is watching as this constitution protects the criminals who sit in that government.

maybe you can still fold a nice carnival hat out of the american constitution.

__________________
Open for handpicked publishers and advertisers:
www.trafficfabrik.com

thommy

show me the part where he said that.

but he said exactly this:

"the president can not be charged for a federal crime as long as he in in office...that is unconstitutional"

and this should make you worry. you live in a country where a president can do whatever crime he wants and can not be touched by the law.

I don´t know if there is any other banana republic on this planet where this is OFFICIALLY possible.

it makes me really sad that i have to explain you your own system.

an investigator is not authorized to determine whether an act is a crime. not even a murder investigator at the police is allowed to do that. what do you think there are prosecutors and judges for if the verdict can already be pronounced by the investigator?

throughout the civilized world, investigators can present ONLY facts to prosecutors. a prosecutor is allowed to SUPPORT that an act is a crime and ultimately the judge will decide it.

but only the fact that mueller points out that he would have said it clearly if he hadn't found any clues shows already how dissatisfied he is with the interpretation barr´s .

__________________
Open for handpicked publishers and advertisers:
www.trafficfabrik.com

MFCT

OK to clarify my reply to this post, I need rewrite it and put it in simple terms.

Let's say Trump can be impeached, even if he can't be technically proven guilty of anything. OK, fine. I don't agree with him politically, so IDGAF in the slightest. Good riddance, I say.

BUT if you are ever taken to court over anything, you cannot possibly expect the legal standard of "innocent until proven guilty" to apply to you. If it does not even apply to the President of the United States, then how in the hell can you possibly expect it to ever apply to any of you?

__________________
Keeping you abreast of the teens that get undressed.
Girls By Location - Couples By Location - Guys By Location - Trans By Location

NoWhErE

Ironically, none of what you just said is accurate.

RedFred

The lengths the cultists will go to defend a traitor is astonishing.

The biggest thing to take away from all this is neither Trump or any of his supporters could give 2 shits about Russia fucking with our country. Asspimp I understand since he's a Russian pretending to be American, he's simply doing his job. But the rest of you should be booted out of the damn country.

OneHungLo

The good news is this will disappear soon. They can only drag this hoax on and deny reality for so long. They will be onto the next fake outrage shortly

2MuchMark

Wrong. Mueller laid out exactly what has to be done. He said it in his report and again in his speech. Soon congress will act. Why do you love and protect (suspected) criminals? Are you a criminal yourself?

OneHungLo

“If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so.” Mueller.

That’s not how it works in America. Investigators are supposed to look for evidence that a crime was committed, and, if they don’t find enough to contend that a crime was a committed, they are supposed to say “We didn’t find enough to contend that a crime was committed.” They are not supposed to look for evidence that a crime was not committed and then say, “We couldn’t find evidence of innocence.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...should-accept/

RedFred

That dumb argument would hold water if they were able to charge Trump but their hands were tied. Quit trying to compare this to some prosecutor deciding whether to charge someone over a pound of weed.

You're being desperate and are grasping at straws.

Hawkeye

There was no obstruction. Mueller admitted it himself in his report. Have you even read it?

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf



No collusion, No obstruction, No crimes.

VRPdommy

The house investigation will continue and as evidence is brought to headline, fewer and fewer senators will be able to support his actions.

It's just not going to happen overnight.

And then you have donalds stupid reactions that will pile on to a poor public opinion and also sway the senate, adding additional pressure.
More to come.

VRPdommy

Analysis
In analyzing the President's reaction to Sessions' s recusal and the requests he made to Coats, Pompeo, Rogers, and Corney, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice:

a. Obstructive act. The evidence shows that, after Corney's March 20, 2017 testimony, the President repeatedly reached out to intelligence agency leaders to discuss the FBT's investigation. But witnesses had different recollections of the precise content of those outreaches. Some ODNI officials recalled that Coats told them immediately after the March 22 Oval Office meeting that the President asked Coats to intervene with Corney and "stop" the investigation. But the first-hand witnesses to the encounter remember the conversation differently. Pompeo had no memory of the specific meeting, but generally recalled the President urging officials to get the word out that the President had not done anything wrong related to Russia. Coats recalled that the President asked that Coats state publicly that no link existed between the President and Russia, but did not ask him to speak with Corney or to help end the investigation. The other outreaches by the President during this period were similar in nature: The President asked Rogers if he could do anything to refute the stories linking the President to Russia, and the President asked Corney to make a public statement that would " lift the cloud" of the ongoing investigation by making clear that the President was not personally under investigation. These requests, while significant enough that Rogers thought it important to document the encounter in a written memorandum, were not interpreted by the officials who received them as directives to improperly interfere with the investigation. b. Nexus to a proceeding. At the time of the President' s outreaches to leaders of the intelligence agencies in late March and early April 2017, the FBI's Russia investigation did not yet involve grand jury proceedings. The outreaches, however, came after and were in response to Corney's March 20, 2017 announcement that the FBI, as a part of its counterintelligence mission, was conducting an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Corney testified that the investigation included any links or coordination with Trump campaign officials and would " include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed." c. Intent. As described above, the evidence does not establish that the President asked or directed inte lligence agency leaders to stop or interfere with the FBI' s Russia investigationhaand the President affirmatively told Corney that if "some satellite" was inv olved in Russian election interference "it would be good to find that out." But the President's intent in trying to prevent Sessions' s recusal, and in reaching out to Coats, Pompeo, Rogers, and Corney following 380 McGahn 12/12/ 17302, at9-10. 381 Boente 1 /31/18 302, at 7; McGahn 12/12/17 302, at 9. 382 Boente 1/31/18 302, at 7. 60
U.S. Department of Justice At:torRe)' Work Pfot:ittet // Mtt)' CoRtttifl Material Proteetet:i Uflt:ier Fet:i. R. Crim. P. 6(e) Corney's public announcement of the FBT's Russia investigation, is nevertheless relevant to understanding what motivated the President' s other actions towards the investigation. The evidence shows that the President was focused on the Russia investigation's implications for his presidency-and, specifically, on dispelling any suggestion that he was under investigation or had links to Russia. In early March, the President attempted to prevent Sessions's recusal, even after being told that Sessions was following DOJ conflict-of-interest rules. After Sessions recused, the White House Counsel's Office tried to cut off further contact with Sessions about the matter, although it is not clear whether that direction was conveyed to the President. The President continued to raise the issue of Sessions's recusal and, when he had the opportunity, he pulled Sessions aside and urged him to unrecuse. The President also told advisors that he wanted an Attorney General who would protect him, the way he perceived Robert Kennedy and Eric Holder to have protected their presidents. The Pr.esident made statements about being able to direct the course of criminal investigations, saying words to the effect of, "You're telling me that Bobby and Jack didn't talk about investigations? Or Obama didn't tell Eric Holder who to investigate?" After Corney publicly confirmed the existence of the FBT's Russia investigation on March 20, 2017, the President was "beside himself' and expressed anger that Corney did not issue a statement correcting any misperception that the President himself was under investigation. The President sought to speak with Acting Attorney General Boente directly and told McGahn to contact Boente to request that Corney make a clarifying statement. The President then asked other intelligence community leaders to make public statements to refute the suggestion that the President had links to Russia, but the leaders told him they could not publicly comment on the investigation. On March 30 and April I I, against the advice of White House advisors who had informed him that any direct contact with the FBI could be perceived as improper interference in an ongoing investigation, the President made personal outreaches to Corney asking him to "lift the cloud" of the Russia investigation by making public the fact that the President was not personally under investigation. Evidence indicates that the President was angered by both the existence of the Russia investigation and the public reporting that he was under investigation, which he knew was not true based on Corney's representations. The President complained to advisors that if people thought Russia helped him with the election, it would detract from what he had accomplished. Other evidence indicates that the President was concerned about the impact of the Russia investigation on his ability to govern. The President complained that the perception that he was under investigation was hurting his ability to conduct foreign relations, particularly with Russia. The President told Coats he "can't do anything with Russia," he told Rogers that " the thing with the Russians" was interfering with his ability to conduct foreign affairs, and he told Corney that "he was trying to run the country and the cloud of this Russia business was making that difficult."

VRPdommy

Of course that is just a sliver of it.

There are about 6 others....
Just for obstruction

Rochard

This needs to change. NO ONE is above the law.

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

Rochard

This is the plan by the Democrats. Keep investigating until it becomes painfully obvious that crimes were committed.

This is similar to what the Republicans did to Hillary Clinton. They made out to be guilty and had investigation after investigation. Every investigation was handled properly, and every investigation came back as no crimes being committed. But the damage was done.

Now we have a serious crisis and very, very serious crimes being committed and... The Republicans are just going to stand by. This is not going to end with Trump being removed from office and and potentially going to prison. This will continue when we start investigating members of Congress who supported Trump. What did Nunes know, and did he take part in a cover up? And so on....

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

Acepimp

Sorry but you're mistaken.

Mueller: "We did NOT make a determination that the president committed a crime."

Never been to Russia, dipshit. My location is listed on my profile.

ONCE AGAIN:

Mueller: "We did NOT make a determination that the president committed a crime."

__________________

crockett

His statement he made said his investigation is complete and he is retiring.

crockett

Its already painfully obvious he is a criminal and a traitor.

__________________
In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

VRPdommy

I wonder if they would believe Fox ?

Mueller's statement on Russia probe is not 'no collusion, no obstruction:' Bret Baier

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mue...arr-bret-baier

Probably not.

VRPdommy

Yes, it is and he is. He turned over remaining issues to the feds for prosecution and would be needed, possibly, until the remaining issues conclude.

Congress will have to take up obstruction charges on their own. They could use in evidence testimony obtained by Mueller.
But, he can not be the accuser or the prosecutor. He can only be used as a finder of fact by congress. And all of that is in the report.

Congress is free to pursue and lead in this as they so desire and branch out to other facts they find along the way. They have little restriction.

They only have to worry about public opinion, if they choose to. And is why the great effort to set public opinion on the issue early on by all donalds men.

crockett

Go ahead try your theory if cops show up to your house to arrest you for a crime you "claim" you didn't do. I'm sure they will go home peacefully because you said No criminal, no criminal over and over while resisting arrest..


Moron...

RedFred

Yea sure Vodka Boy.

You claim in America it is required to show ID to buy anything with a credit card (which is actually the case in Russia), you constantly quote Russian news services, you spew the exact same talking points as the Kremlin, and you constantly lie about the most obvious shit. If you're not Russian the sky isn't blue.

OneHungLo

Well if the police investigate me and do not have enough evidence that I committed a crime they wouldn't arrest me.

VRPdommy

donald can not 'be arrested'. Protected by the office he holds.

RedFred

FACT: Trump would be in a jail cell right now if he were not President.

BaldBastard

Its not the case, the police did have the evidence, ten times according to the report. But when presented to the boss.. the boss said you can't charge because he's the president.

"A total of 251 contacts between Trump’s team and Russia-linked operatives have been identified, including at least 37 meetings. And we know that at least 33 high-ranking campaign officials and Trump advisers were aware of contacts with Russia-linked operatives during the campaign and transition, including Trump himself. None of these contacts were ever reported to the proper authorities. Instead, the Trump team tried to cover up every single one of them.

Beyond the many lies the Trump team told to the American people, Mueller himself repeatedly remarked on how far the Trump team was willing to go to hide their Russian contacts, stating, “the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference."

"Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference" many would call that.. Obstruction.

Now while you and other Murdoch and Ruski clucks firmly believe the president is above the law, I believe many other Americans don't, the reason you have congress right? Checks and balances and all that..

^^

thommy

funny how few you know about your own legal system.

even when the policeman stand beside you and watched how you killed someone he is not allowed to call you a murder.
a policeman is an investigator - same muller is.

the prosecuting attorney is allowed to call you suspect of murder and finally a judge have to decide if you are or not.

so you guys with no knowledge about nothing want to control a country ?

__________________
Open for handpicked publishers and advertisers:
www.trafficfabrik.com

VRPdommy

a. Obstructive act.
As with the President's firing of Corney, the attempt to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the 592 McGahn 2/28/ 19 302, at 3-4; Donaldson 4/2/18 302, at 4-5. Donaldson said she believed McGahn consciously did not share details with her because he did not want to drag her into the investigation. Donaldson 4/2/18 302, at 5; see McGahn 2/28/ 19 302, at 3 . 593 Donaldson 4/2/18 302, at 5. 594 McGahn 12/ 14/17 302, at IO; Call Records of Don McGahn; McGahn 2/28/19 302, at 3-4; Priebus 4/3/ 18 302, at 6-7. 595 McGahn 2/28/19 302, at 4. Priebus and Bannon confirmed that McGahn did not tell them the specific details of the President's request. Priebus 4/3/18 302, at 7; Bannon 2/14/18 302, at 10. 596 Priebus 4/3/ 18 3 02, at 7. 597 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 3; McGahn 2/28/19 302, at 3-4. 598 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 3. 599 Christie 2/13/ I 9 302, at 7. Christie did not recall the precise date of this call, but believed it was after Christopher Wray was announced as the nominee to be the new FBI director, which was on June 7, 2017. Christie 2/13/19 302, at 7. Telephone records show that the President called Christie twice after that time period, on July 4, 2017, and July 14, 2017. Call Records of Chris Christie. 60° Christie 2/13/19 302, at 7. 87
U.S. Department of Justice AtterAey Wark Pret:ittet // Ma)'' CeAtaifl Material Pl'ateetet:i UAt:ier Fee. R. Criffl. P. 6(e) investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry. Even if the removal of the lead prosecutor would not prevent the investigation from continuing under a new appo intee, a factfinder would need to consider whether the act had the potential to delay further action in the investigation, chill the actions of any replacement Special Counsel, or otherwise impede the investigation. A threshold question is whetherthe President in fact directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed. After news organizations reported that in June 2017 the President had ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President publicly disputed these accounts, and privately told McGahn that he had simply wanted McGahn to bring conflicts of interest to the Department of Justice' s attention. See Volume II, Section II.I, infra. Some of the President's specific language that McGahn recalled from the calls is consistent with that explanation. Substantial evidence, however, supports the conclusion that the President went further and in fact directed McGahn to call Rosenstein to have the Special Counsel removed. First, McGahn's clear recollection was that the President directed him to tell Rosenstein not only that conflicts existed but also that "Mueller has to go." McGahn is a credible witness with no motive to lie or exaggerate given the position he held in the White House.601 McGahn spoke with the President twice and understood the directive the same way both times, making it unlikely that he misheard or misinterpreted the President's request. In response to that request, McGahn decided to quit because he did not want to participate in events that he described as akin to the Saturday Night Massacre. He called his lawyer, drove to the White House, packed up his office, prepared to submit a resignation letter with his chief of staff, told Priebus that the President had asked him to " do crazy shit," and informed Priebus and Bannon that he was leaving. Those acts would be a highly unusual reaction to a request to convey information to the Department of Justice. Second, in the days before the calls to McGahn, the President, through his counsel, had already brought the asserted conflicts to the attention of the Department of Justice. Accordingly, the President had no reason to have McGahn call Rosenstein that weekend to raise conflicts issues that already had been raised. Third, the President's sense ofurgency and repeated requests to McGahn to take immediate action on a weekend-" You gotta do this. You gotta call Rod."-supp0ti McGahn's recollection that the President wanted the Department of Justice to take action to remove the Special Counsel. Had the President instead sought only to have the Department of Justice re-examine asserted conflicts to evaluate whether they posed an ethical bar, it w ould have been unnecessary to set the process in motion on a Saturday and to make repeated calls to McGahn. Finally, the President had discussed "knocking out Mueller" and raised conflicts of interest in a May 23, 2017 call with McGahn, reflecting that the President connected the conflicts to a plan to remove the Special Counsel. And in the days leading up to June 17, 2017, the President made clear to Priebus and Bannon, who then told Ruddy, that the President was considering terminating 60 1 When this Office first interviewed McGahn about this topic, he was reluctant to share detailed information about what had occurred and only did so after continued questioning. See McGahn 12/14/17 302 (agent notes). 88

the Special Counsel. Also during this time period, the President reached out to Christie to get his thoughts on firing the Special Counsel. This evidence shows that the President was not just seeking an examination of whether conflicts existed but instead was looking to use asserted conflicts as a way to terminate the Special Counsel. b. Nexus to an official proceeding. To satisfy the proceeding requirement, it would be necessary to establish a nexus between the President's act of seeking to terminate the Special Counsel and a pending or foreseeable grand jury proceeding. Substantial evidence indicates that by June 17, 2017, the President knew his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury. On May 23, 2017, McGahn explicitly warned the President that his "biggest exposure" was not his act of firing Corney but his "other contacts" and "calls," and his "ask re: Flynn." By early June, it was widely reported in t}:ie media that federal prosecutors had issued grand jury subpoenas in the Flynn inquiry and that the Special Counsel had taken over the Flynn investigation.602 On June 9, 2017, the Special Counsel's Office informed the White House that investigators would be interviewing intelligence agency officials who allegedly had been asked by the President to push back against the Russia investigation. On June 14, 2017, news outlets began reporting that the President was himself being investigated for obstruction of justice. Based on widespread reporting, the President knew that such an investigation could include his request for Corney's loyalty; his request that Corney "let[] Flynn go"; his outreach to Coats and Rogers; and his termination of Corney and statement to the Russian Foreign Minister that the termination had relieved "great pressure" related to Russia. And on June 16, 2017, the day before he directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President publicly acknowledged that his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor, tweeting, "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!" c . Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the President's attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel's oversight of investigations that involved the President's conduct-and, most immediately, to reports that the President was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice. Before the President terminated Corney, the President considered it critically important that he was not under investigation and that the public not erroneously think he was being investigated. As described in Volume TI, Section TI.D, supra, advisors perceived the President, while he was drafting the Corney termination letter, to be concerned more than anything else about getting out that he was not personally under investigation. When the President learned of the appointment of the Special Counsel on May 17, 2017, he expressed further concern about the investigation, saying "[t]his is the end of my Presidency." The President also faulted Sessions for recusing, saying "you were supposed to protect me." On June 14, 20 I 7, when the Washington Post reported that the Special Counsel was investigating the President for obstruction of justice, the President was facing what he had wanted 602 See, e.g., Evan Perez et al., CNN exclusive-: Grand jury subpoenas issued in FBJ's Russia investigation, CNN (May 9, 2017); Matt Ford, Why Mueller Is Taking Over the Michael Flynn Grand Jury, The Atlantic (June 2, 2017). 89

VRPdommy

U.S. Department of Justice AtterHe'.'," 1Nork Proettet // May CoHtttifl Material Preteetee UHeer Fee. R. Criffl. P. 6(e) to avoid: a criminal investigation into his own conduct that was the subject of widespread media attention. The evidence indicates that news of the obstruction investigation prompted the President to call McGahn and seek to have the Special Counsel removed. By mid-June, the Department of Justice had already cleared the Special Counsel's service and the President's advisors had told him that the claimed conflicts of interest were "silly" and did not provide a basis to remove the Special Counsel. On June 13, 2017, the Acting Attorney General testified before Congress that no good cause for removing the Special Counsel existed, and the President dictated a press statement to Sanders saying he had no intention of firing the Special Counsel. But the next day, the media reported that the President was under investigation for obstruction of justice and the Special Counsel was interviewing witnesses about events related to possible obstruction-spurring the President to write critical tweets about the Special Counsel's investigation. The President called McGahn at home that night and then called him on Saturday from Camp David. The evidence accordingly indicates that news that an obstruction investigation had been opened is what led the President to call McGahn to have the Special Counsel terminated. There also is evidence that the President knew that he should not have made those calls to McGahn. The President made the calls to McGahn after McGahn had specifically told the President that the White House Counsel's Office-and McGahn himself-could not be involved in pressing conflicts claims and that the President should consult with his personal counsel if he wished to raise conflicts. Instead of relying on his personal counsel to submit the conflicts claims, the President sought to use his official powers to remove the Special Counsel. And after the media reported on the President's actions, he denied that he ever ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel terminated and made repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story, as discussed in Volume II, Section II.I, infra. Those denials are contrary to the evidence and suggest the President's awareness that the direction to McGahn could be seen as improper.

MFCT

Let's say you're a renter, and your landlord takes you to court for not paying rent for the past 6 months. You provide cancelled checks for those 6 months in question, all having been filled out clearly and properly to your landlord, and all paid in full.

The judge states that while there appears to be no evidence that you have not paid rent to your landlord for those 6 months in question, it does not prove that a crime hasn't been committed. Therefore, you're sentenced to eviction, 6 months in jail, a $5000 fine, and ordered to pay 6 months in back rent to your landlord.

If "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to the president, it does not apply to any of us. You don't have to support the president, but you should not support this "precedent."

__________________
Keeping you abreast of the teens that get undressed.
Girls By Location - Couples By Location - Guys By Location - Trans By Location

VRPdommy

Nobody has 'charged' POTUS with anything. They can not.

The President is the only person in America that can not be charged with a crime.
Special counsel can not charge him, but he was a finder of facts that Congress can use in their investigations. He found 'obstruction' on multiple counts.
The Congress is the only body that can take action against him for personal behavior.
They do not have to PROVE anything (a opinion will do) , but to keep public support in their favor, they had better run a chain of evidence that shows that bad behavior. But it is in the report.
They are constitutionally charged and bound to do that.

Anyone not liking the rules, ...change them. but you better be sure of what you are changing. Many implications are not seen.

kane

This has zero to do with obstruction. First, this is civil case not a criminal. Second, there is clear evidence that no crime was committed because they provided the cancelled checks as proof.

There would be no fine or jail time even if the renter was found in the wrong.

Let's discuss a more accurate scenario:

One night you are at a party with some people. The next day you are visited by the police who tell you that someone at that party was attacked, beaten, and robbed so they are investigating it. They talk to you and tell you they may need a statement later from you.

You then set out to stop the investigation. You call the people you knew that were there that night and tell them to not talk to the cops. You go back to the house where the party was and make sure there is nothing there that could point to a crime being committed even destroying a few things you think might be evidence and you lie to the police about some things to throw them off the trail. In short, you obstruct their investigation.

When it is all said and done, the police determine that nobody was actually attacked or robbed and it was all a big misunderstanding. So, no crime was committed at the party, but you committed a crime trying to impede the investigation.

VRPdommy

Well Stated !
Edit: It should also be noted that the person doing the obstructing and the person who MAY have committed a crime do not have to be the same person. Some other government officials should take note of that.

VRPdommy

Doesn't this now look petty ?