The Trump investigation by Mueller is sign of a much bigger problem with our justice system.
If someone like Hillary Clinton who has committed numerous crimes... can be “exonerated” by Comey and the FBI and DOJ, and a Trump who has been investigated for two years and no crime found and no evidence sufficient to warrant indictment, according to Mueller, is being considered for impeachment by the Democratic controlled Congress, with the cheering on by the media - then we have a problem big time...
It is something that needs to be fixed.
Someone needs to go to jail or else we are doomed.
Hi jackclee, good to see you back, but ...
Vol.2 of the report, (relevant to obstruction), and Mueller's recent public statement do not support your claim that no evidence of a crime was found.
But what crime of obstruction if there is no crime to obstruct?
I hope you see the problem here.
Suppose you are the President or any future president.
And you are accused of some trumped up wrong doing which you know you did not commit.
Suppose they start an investigation...and start to fish for all kinds of crime unrelated to the original charge...
What would you do? Just sit back and let it happen?
If you try and do anything, you would be accused of obstruction...
Hence the dilemma...
Where does one start and where dies one end?
You can say Trump did something wrong but then where do you stop?
Where did it originate?
No I didn’t and I have no need to do so. I rely on AG Barr’s summary. He is a reputable person who has years of experience as a prosecutor...
At some point, we need to leave the details to those who know the law and how to conduct investigations and apply the law. We are not lawyers or presecutors.
I was going to say that explains a lot, but I have a feeling even if you read it you would find some way to state that Trump did not obstruct justice and that the Trump campaign did not willingly accept help from the Russians. Mueller cleared him and his campaign of the crime of conspiracy. He specifically stated he did not clear him of obstruction and explained why he did not indict.
I heard what he said. And you don’t have any problem with that? Consider how Hillary was treated by the same FBI under Comey....
Do you see any fairness or justice?
Funny how many times on here we have said what Mueller said:
1. He did not clear Trump of obstruction.
2. He could not indict.
But some people keep ignoring those obvious facts. They keep changing the subject to Hillary.
Yes, would you be comfortable if the same was said about Hillary or any other public officials?
What are we to conclude?
Here is a guy who suppose to have spent 30 million dollars and 18 lawyers, investigating Trump and came up with less than sufficient evidence....
Unless there is hard evidence for a crime, I have no confidence in our justice department.
This is just toxic. Can you survive such scrutiny by our government?
Why not discuss Hillary in this context?
It is absolutely relevant.
If you don’t see it, than too bad. This goes to the whole concept of blind justice.
How two people are treated differently by one justice system.
That is why this whole affair is insidious.
My original post is clear.
Something is wrong here and our country needs to fix it.
The Republican White House, Republican Congress and Republican Attorney General did not investigate, indict or jail Hillary when they had 2 full years to do so.
Rush Limbaugh and people like you keep claiming she committed crimes, but the Republican leadership knows better.
Not a claim. Her crime was outlined by Comey in his infamous news conference. Yet, he determined there was no intent and therefore not indictable. Both are outside of his jurisdiction as the head of the FBI.
All this is very unusual...and Loretta Lynch is hiding under her desk...
Um, you just contradicted yourself. If it's not indictable, it's not a crime.
And likewise, you didn't read my post. If it was a crime, the Republicans would have happily put her in jail.
No, you are wrong on both count. Republicans have no stomach to indict Hillary. She is part of the swamp.
Comey was a partisan hack and exonerated Hillary when it was not his job.His job is to investigate and it is the job of the DOJ and attorney General to make the decision whether to indict.
That is why this case was so unusual...
Ah, so you are right and Trump, Congress, the Attorney General and I are all wrong.
Thank you for putting me in the same company as them.
Congress is partisan by design. The attorney general is appointed by the President but some have acted with honor and duty to up hold the Constitution. Under Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch has not lived up to that ideal.
I am not wrong here.
You can believe what you will.
The truth will be known as some point.
We will see who is right.
Promisem, can you tell me what does Mueller want to happen?
What was his point in making the news conference?
Does he believe Trump committed an impeachable offense?
If so, what is that offense?
This is so bizarre...
No time in our history has a sitting president been thru what Trump experienced...
This guy is full of himself.
He spent 2 years, came up with nothing. If he did, why doesn’t he own it?
It makes little sense of what he claim his report said.
You can’t have it both ways.
Either Trump has done wrong or he has not?
He can’t even give a straight answer.
Saying he can’t claim Trump is innocent is not the same as he thinks he is guilty of some obstruction crime.
Our country is screwed up because of people like Mueller.
On another point about what Mueller did. He basically told us he could not find anything...relating to Russian collusion.
But Trump acted guilty and try to obstruct which again he could not find sufficient evidence to move forward.
Therefore, he is letting it hang out and let Congress pick up the ball to proceed with impeachment...since that is the only legal way to remove a sitting president.
This is not justice by my book.
If Mueller had any sense of decency, he should have stopped 1.5 years ago and said we found no collusion and there is the end of it. Instead, he allowed speculation to build and two years later said we found nothing but here is where Trump may have done something wrong...go figure it out. I wash my hand.
The "bigger fundamental problem" is the current constitutional crisis.
The White House is systematically subverting the Constitution by preventing Congress from carrying out its constitutional duty.
Congress is the eyes, ears and voice of the American people in Washington. It has a duty to find out what crimes the president has committed in or out of office, if any, on behalf of the millions of people who want to know if the current president is a criminal. It must be allowed to do so.
When the administration imposes what is effectively a blanket ban on officials testifying to Congress, it is not just sticking it to the Democrats. It's preventing Congress from representing its constituents, and directly contradicting its authority. That is nothing less than an attack on the Constitution and the democratic framework of the country.
If the president has committed crimes, and the administration is using presidential powers to conceal them from Congress, and therefore the public, then the people are being defrauded. Conversely, if there are no such crimes, then it's in everyone's interest to know that. Either way, the Congress must be allowed to represent its constituents. The Constitution demands nothing less.
Preventing that is in no one's interest. The only way it would be in Trump's interest, is if he has in fact committed the crimes he is accused of.
Just because Trump is president, does not mean he is without the protection everyone of us enjoy and that is presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
The way Congress is acting, it is looking for a crime that may or may not exist.
It is called a fishing expedition and our Constitution does not allow it...
"Just because Trump is president, does not mean he is without the protection everyone of us enjoy and that is presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Are you seriously suggesting that presumption of innocence means criminal allegations can't be investigated? How sensible do you think that is?
And how does your opening comment that Hillary Clinton ". . . has committed numerous crimes", reflect the presumption of innocence Jack? Was there a conviction I don't know about? I thought presumption of innocence is a "protection everyone of us enjoy". Did you mean everyone one of us except Hillary Clinton? Does that seem consistent to you?
As for "fishing", serious allegations of criminal activity have been made against a sitting president by multiple sources (outside of Congress). I, and millions of others, want to know if those allegations are true. It's absolutely the constitutional duty of Congress to investigate and tell the public what it finds.
Unfortunately Congress is being systematically prevented from doing that by the current administration. Again that's an attack on the Constitution, from which Congress' derives both its duty and its authority. Meanwhile a DoJ Special Counsel has uncovered, what appears to be, evidence of criminal obstruction by the president. That's a bit more than just fishing Jack.
No, what is unfortunate is that we have a biased media and a biased Corrupt FBI which put their thumbs on the scale to favor Democrats like Hillary while going fishing after Republican like Trump.
That is the reason our country is so screwed up...after Obama having corrupted the IRS, the FBI, and the DOJ and the NSA...
Simple questions Jack. Do you believe the presumption of innocence means criminal allegations cannot be investigated?
And are you suggesting that Congress has no right to act on behalf of all the people who want to know if the criminal allegations against the current president are true?
Second, many obstruction cases involve the attempted or actual cover-up of an underlying crime. Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had an improper obstructive purpose, see, e.g. , United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 1988), or that he contemplated an effect on an official proceeding, see, e.g., United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558, 591 (2d Cir. 2015). But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating, in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that "obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime"). Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.
In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the President's conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events-such as advance notice of WikiLeaks's release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family.
No, you are stretching what was implied...
At no point did Mueller find any Russian influence to affect the outcome of the last election.
The Russians have been meddling in all our elections...
It was the Obama Administration’s watch that this supposedly happened. Why didn’t they do more?
You want to venture a guess.
That's a copy/paste of the Mueller report.
If you think there is wrong doing by Trump, I invite you and the Democrats to proceed with impeachment. Bring it on.
There is no other way to settle this quagmire.
Here is my prediction.
Just like Clinton, Trump will be acquitted of any impeachment proceedings and in fact will be more popular than ever. Just like Bill Clinton...
Why didn’t Mueller make a recommendation for impeachment?
Let me answer that in case you are still clueless.
He did not find “sufficient evidence” after 2 years...
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. But that's nothing new.
To quote your idol...
So it begins...
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4458 … for-trumps
Let it be...
You probably miss read my posting.
I have no allegiance to Trump or any politician.
My view point is based on my understanding of our Constitution and our laws.
No one is above the law...including our FBI and DOJ officials...
Wait a minute Jack, when did you decide you had no allegiance for Trump or any politician? You've been making excuses and bragging on his so-called accomplishments since he became elected. I'm gonna have call BS on that, Jack!
I call it as I see it. If Trump has done well to help our economy, I gave him credit. Is that being a partisan hack?
If you think so, fine. When he spend more than we take in, I criticized him for it. What does that make me?
So you on the other hand are partisan. You refuse to give Trump credit when credit is due and you insist he committed a crime when there was no proof.
So you be the judge.
I am being the judge, Jack. I know a criminal when |I see one. Unlike you, I don't care if he's making the country richer at the cost of credibility. He's making himself richer at the same time destroying our alliance with our former allies.
I'm sorry you don't see him for what he is....
You have no understanding of the rule of law or the Constitution.
If our country was ruled by your standards, we would be in deep shit.
Did you realize what you just said... you are the “judge” and because you determined Trump is guilty, good enough...what hole did you crawl out of?
It is this kind of statements that justified the TDS label.
You take the cake my friend.
Now I am confused...
What was the difference between what Barr said in his summary and what Mueller said today in his news conference?
https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec … eller-barr
Barr has already lied before congress, Jack. Today we found out he and Mueller disagreed on obstruction of justice, despite Barr's monologue the day the report was released.
But we all knew Barr was hired to do just that because Barr's auditioning 18 page memo saying a president could not commit obstruction. Duh!
Apparently, it is Mueller that lied in his news conference.
He made numerous statements contrary to what he said in the news conference.
What were these, Jack? It was Barr who lied about what was in the report and when he said before congress Mueller didn't disagree with Barr's pre-report conference. Barr lied as Mueller was in contact about just such at least two times.
I know this is picky Randy, but shouldn't the accuracy of wording bear on your determination that Barr lied?
Barr was asked by Rep. Crist if he knew why some members of the Special counsel's team were frustrated with the limited information in his, (Barr's), March 24 letter.
The pre-March 24th Mueller contacts, (two letters?), that expressed disagreement with Barr's letter presentation, that are being used as proof that Bar lied, were Mueller's words, not those of "some member's of the Special Counsel's team."
Do you know that the statements in Mueller's letters were the same sentiments of those team members Rep. Crisp asked about? Was that an assumption that you think Barr should have made?
Like that old concept of plausible deniability, it appears that Barr did not technically lie. Does that make a difference, or should Barr have volunteered an adjunct to Mr. Crist's question?
Here is Barr in his own words...
"I can’t even follow that down the road. I mean, boy, that’s some masterful hairsplitting." - Sen. Whitehouse
Gus, why did Barr dance around the question if he already knew Mueller's team was frustrated about his version of Mueller's report? What was his purpose in doing so? Transparency?
Why did he refuse to appear before the House committee if he was so honest?
That first one was a rhetorical question wasn't it? Surely you don't need me to tell you what we both already know ... That's politics.
Your second question is a whole 'nuther story.
Gus, Barr has already shown his credibility when he was AG for Walker Bush. He lied about an investigation but wasn't caught until a couple of years later.
Barr's 18 page audition memo to Trump made it clear he didn't believe a POTUS could commit obstruction of justice. Surely you don't believe it was simply a coincidence he was hired for the job or do you?
My observation is that in the current political climate no one will ever be held accountable. Each side will scream, money will be wasted investigating, and nothing will ever come of anything.
To your point, we saw no indictments of the gang of Wall Streeters who helped trigger the 2008 financial crisis and destroy their own firms, like Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual.
But they walked away with a huge amount of money in their pockets.
I would like to point our under the judicial system of the United States a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is one more concept the left struggles to comprehend.
If no guilt can be proven, guess what?
Who said no guilt could be proven, Mike? Wait for the impeachment to prove Trump's guilt, I've been getting a kick out of listening to Limbaugh and Hannity melting down over Mueller's speech today. They're now saying Mueller lied and Barr told the truth. No kidding! Laughable as heck, but their fans will eat it up as usual.
by Randy Godwin 4 years ago
With Trump being officially investigated for Obstruction of Justice, will he survive the ordeal?Today the Washington Post revealed--through 5 separate sources--Bob Mueller is officially investigating Trump for Obstruction of Justice. The last two Senate interviews with Trumps's cabinet members had...
by Sharlee 2 years ago
Although the special counsel' Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference does not come to any concrete conclusion as to whether President Trump sought to obstructed justice, Robert Mueller's team did find and examine 10 "discrete acts" in which Mueller infers President Trump may have...
by KC McGee 3 weeks ago
It is sad to me to see those who took the oath to Uphold, Protect and Defend our Constitution failing the oath they took. Many from mayors of cities up to the current president are failing the oath they took. Even inside the military to the DOJ, CIA, FBI and even the SCOTUS itself has an agend to...
by Scott Belford 19 hours ago
All of the available evidence seems to say so.Here is a workable definition of a coups d'état as an "organized effort to effect sudden and irregular (e.g., illegal or extra-legal) removal of the incumbent executive authority of a national government, or to displace the authority of the highest...
by IslandBites 2 years ago
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is set to make a statement about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.The Justice Department announced Mueller's would make a statement on Wednesday morning--his first in more than two years since he was appointed as special counsel. ...
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
President Trump can't fire Mueller directly. Instead he needs to get the person, Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him (or his replacement) to fire him. If he refuses, Trump can fire him and keep appointing people until he finds one who will. (Nixon did this)While hiring and firing by...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|