Mueller's List Of 10 Acts That Infer Obstruction Of Justice,

Jump to Last Post 1-1 of 1 discussions (115 posts)
  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
    Sharlee01posted 7 weeks 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 done so.

    Let's have a look at one of the discrete acts. Let's have a look at the true legalities of the  "Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn". Let's not deflect off this discrete act, just consider this act.  Did President Trump's conduct in regard to the Comey and Flynn conversation come to the level of being an indictable crime?

    "Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn"
    The first instance of possible obstruction involves Mr. Trump's first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who left the administration just weeks into Mr. Trump's presidency after he misled FBI agents and top administration officials — including Vice President Mike Pence — about his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Flynn had said he had not discussed sanctions on Russia with Kislyak, a lie that Pence and others then repeated.

    The day that Mr. Trump found out Flynn had lied to Pence and the FBI, he had dinner with Comey, whom he asked for "loyalty." Mr. Trump then secured Flynn's resignation on Feb. 13, 2017. "Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over," he told an outside adviser, who disagreed with the president's assessment.

    That same day, Mr. Trump had another meeting with Comey and encouraged him to stop investigating Flynn. "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go,
    " Mr. Trump said.

    The president then asked Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to draft an internal memo "stating that the president had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. McFarland declined because she did not know whether that was true, and a White House Counsel's Office attorney thought that the request would look like a quid pro quo for an ambassadorship she had been offered."

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Don McGann also refused to write a false statement ordered by Trump when Trump ordered him to fire Sessions. Another OJ breach by the POTUS among others.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        I thought we could start with one of the 10 listed points and then work our way through the other 9.  It would just be easier o look at the legalities of one verses 10.

    2. crankalicious profile image91
      crankaliciousposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Wrong. Mueller explicitly stated that if Trump were a private citizen, he would be indicted for obstruction of justice.

      The problem is not whether or not he obstructed (he did). The problem is that Mueller does not have the authority to say whether or not he's guilty of that because the only mechanism that exists to bring Trump to justice is impeachment and that is the responsibility of Congress.

      Mueller could not have made that more clear - he can't say, he won't say, it's not within his responsibility to say. His job was to lay out the evidence and let Congress decide.

      Quite frankly, the fact that the Democrats dragged him out to explain to them what their responsibilities are didn't help them very much.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image91
        Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yeah, yeah, yeah... he didn't exonerate him either.

        Oh, wait, that's not his job. 

        Obstruction, of what, and who cares...

        Oh, wait, his political opponents care... they don't care about his innocence about what the investigation was about, they only care that someone says (rightly or wrongly) there is something else they can go after him for.

        Hey, I can see how an admitted communist being Obama's head of the CIA, and sweeping under the rug all of Clinton's crimes that Comey gave her a pass on, is no big deal... but some obscure obstruction charge is worth ranting on endlessly about.

        What a sad pathetic group we have leading our nation, this is the leadership emanating from Congress, specifically the House, if this is the alternative people have to look to... its almost a certainty Trump will be re-elected.

        1. crankalicious profile image91
          crankaliciousposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          I am amazed that anyone doesn't see the instruction to fire Mueller as obstruction, not to mention all the lying about Trump's meetings with Russians and plans to build in Moscow. Nope. Nothing to see here. The laundry list is a mile long.

          But I presume you're just tossing in Brennan's vote for Gus Hall? This tin foil hat stuff is just ridiculous.

          However, I do agree that somebody should have been prosecuted for the destruction of those emails. However, the reason I think Clinton wasn't prosecuted is that because then George W. Bush would have been prosecuted and Dick Cheney and a host of others.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Trump was within his rights legally to fire Mueller. No one ever asks the question, if Trump would have fired him, would of he asked to have someone else takes his place?

            There was lying about the meeting and discovered by media. But is lying a crime? No, it is not unless it is to in this case the FBI or Congress. Trump Jr did not lie to the FBI or congress nor did President Trump. Lying, in this case, is not a crime...

            1. crankalicious profile image91
              crankaliciousposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              Yes, it's a crime. It's obstruction of justice.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                No actually lying is not a lie... It would have been if the lies were to the FBI or the Mueller team. I think you need to back your statement up with a resource showing law, in regards to lying to media?

        2. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          So go ahead and admit you don't care if Trump broke the law, Ken.  Are you one of the 1% of black voters who watch Fox News?  Sounds like it...

        3. Valeant profile image95
          Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          https://hubstatic.com/14622414.jpg

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            I hope you will take a shot at answering my question in regards to Mueller's concern over the legality of obstruction. I chose the first act Mueller listed on his list of 10. I would appreciate your comment on that specific concern.

            The Question
            Did President Trump's conduct in regard to the Comey and Flynn conversation come to the level of being an indictable crime?

            1. Valeant profile image95
              Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              When someone asks you to not investigate a crime, then when you fail to follow that order, he fires you, one could make a case for obstruction.

      2. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        "Wrong. Mueller explicitly stated that if Trump were a private citizen, he would be indicted for obstruction of justice."

        Don, could you add a resource where you found this info?

        "The problem is not whether or not he obstructed (he did). The problem is that Mueller does not have the authority to say whether or not he's guilty of that because the only mechanism that exists to bring Trump to justice is impeachment and that is the responsibility of Congress."

        We can move on from this point. It has been well established Mueller did not have the authority to indict the president.  Yes, part of his job was to lay out the evidence.
        Congress has no authority to indict Trump either. Congress has the ability to impeach a sitting president for crimes and misdemeanors.

        I agree the Dems should have just worked with the written report to prove their theory that the president committed crimes of obstruction.  Mueller was not helpful. I would hope that Congress would do there job. But unfortunately, there is a great controversy over the 10 acts that Mueller listed. Do any of them really stand up to being a crime? That's why I possed the questions here. And felt it would be wise to look at one crime at a time.

        1. crankalicious profile image91
          crankaliciousposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          When you're President and you prevent law enforcement from doing its job or try to prevent it, you're obstructing justice.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Please read links on actual laws in regards to obstruction. Allan Dershowitz gives his knowledge of the law.

            https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/book-ex … d=62781399

            https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w- … eral-crime

            https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-ju … r-is-wrong

          2. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Trump firing Comey was his choice. He or any president as our laws stand can hire and fire the head of the FBI. And many have.

            Trump was in his right to fire Mueller. As mentioned it would have been interesting to see if he would have had his AG hire someone else to take Mueller's place. We just will never know if he would have replaced Mueller.

            1. Valeant profile image95
              Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              In a normal circumstance, he does.  But when the head of the FBI is looking into possible violations of the law pertaining to Trump's campaign, do you not think that moves into the area of Obstruction of Justice.  If that overlap did not exist, I wholeheartedly agree that Trump has every right to remove Comey.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                You make a logical point. However, I am just defending he broke on laws by firing Comey. The president can't be charged with a crime for firing Comey. This was part of Mueller's list of 10. It just does not prove obstruction. I think if we dissect each of Mueller's' list of possible obstruction we will find none would hold up a crime.

                1. Valeant profile image95
                  Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  And I have 1,000 specialists in prosecuting the law that believe at least three or four of the instances fulfill all the elements of an obstruction charge.  So, are you alright with allowing Trump to impede an investigation into a hostile foreign government that attacked our elections?  If so, why?

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    He did not impede the investigation. No, I would not have been alright with it if he had. But the fact is he did not. I consider the facts, not it comes. Even if all of the lists of ten obstructions Mueller listed were crimes of obstruction ( and don't believe anyone of them were) Trump did not stop or inhibit the Mueller investigation. Which Mueller admitted in his testimony. he was provided the staff he chose and was provided the funds he needed along with the time he required... 

                    When you ask the question, "are you alright with allowing Trump to impede an investigation into a hostile foreign government that attacked our elections?"   We did an investigation that lasted over two years, and as far as I can see Trump did nothing to stop it. And he legally could have.  I am fine if Congress wants to continue the investigation. Not sure why they feel they can do better than Mueller?    Mueller found plenty of evidence that Russia interfered with our election. So, he did his job. And for Trump, he did not impede the investigation. I hope I have answered your question.

          3. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            In reality president, Trump did not stop any law enforcement agency from completing their job. He fully cooperated with the Mueller team. Yes, he did not do a sit down with Mueller but submitted written testimony. His words lead to no problems for the investigation. He did not obstruct Mueller from doing his job. In regards to my questions. He was well within his rights by law to fire Comey, His statements to Comey in regards to Fylnn and loyalty could be defended as a simple conversation.

            1. Valeant profile image95
              Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              I disagree emphatically.  When you fire the leader of an investigation, the next person will be hesitant to make the hard choices to pursue the truth.
              And Mueller testified Trump's answers were not truthful.

              https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/us/p … eller.html

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Or they will stay on track rather than go gallivanting off on tangents that have nothing to do with your investigation.

                You are presuming that the fired leader did nothing wrong; that he was fired because he uncovered truth.  This is not always the case; there could be dozens of reasons to fire someone, all related to non-performance.

                1. Valeant profile image95
                  Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  And you are ignoring that this administration admitted in testimony to Mueller that they openly lied about the reasons they fired Comey.

                  https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/ … ey-1282275

                  At what point do you distrust people when they lie to you, Dan?  If the Kool-Aid is strong enough, apparently never.

            2. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              A lot of the written answers were "I can't recall," or "I have no memory of that." Plus, many went unanswered. How is this total cooperation, Shar?


              Who said, "One of the great memories of all time"?  lol

            3. Don W profile image84
              Don Wposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              "[Trump] fully cooperated with the Mueller team"

              "Did Donald Trump ‘fully’ cooperate with Mueller investigation? No"
              https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … gation-no/

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Any non-lawyer can easily see the attempts Trump made to fire Mueller and obstruct the investigation, Don. The fact some are confused by this tells lots about their ability to see right from wrong where Trump is concerned.

                Of course, some of this "confusion" is merely willful ignorance on their part.

                1. DoubleScorpion profile image77
                  DoubleScorpionposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Randy

                  Your comment here fits easily to both sides...the pro and con of Trump.

                  Those who love can see no wrong...and those who hate can see no right...

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    It doesn't require love or hate to see the truth, DS. I wish it were that simple.

                2. Don W profile image84
                  Don Wposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Sadly the HubPages forum may be a microcosm of the country. There are swathes of people who genuinely believe Donald Trump is the best president the country has ever had. If someone is that far "gone", is trying to reason with them even worth the effort?

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Yes, there are some of that ilk I no longer converse with for the very reason. One such otherwise intelligent person claimed Trump never lies. Seriously!

              2. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Ye, as I mentioned ". Yes, he did not do a sit down with Mueller but submitted written testimony". And I actually don't consider the list of 10 any form of true obstruction. All of the points Mueller listed did not impede the investigation. Mueller actually gave testimony to that fact at the congressional hearing.  he gave testimony that he had the funds, the time, and the staff to do his investigation. he admitted to never being fired. I will make an atemp to relocate the link to that testamony.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                  Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Does it make a difference to you if Trump TRIED to fire Muller, Shar?

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    No, it does not.  He could have fired him himself.  It does make me wonder why he asked another to fire Mueller. I would like to know what Trump thought he would accomplish by asking McGahn to fire Mueller.

                2. Valeant profile image95
                  Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  You don't think an attempt to limit the scope of the investigation obstructing it?  Threatening witnesses is not obstruction?  Attempting to fire the man running the investigation (for a second time) is not obstruction?

                  Clearly you do not understand obstruction.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    She did admit she had no legal education, but damn...

                  2. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I can assure you after all the reading I have done the past couple weeks on the subject of obstruction I am becoming acquainted with what is and what isn't obstruction.  Trump did not have anything to do with laying out the scope of what Mueller could investigate.  Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that defined Mueller’s investigative mandate. I am not sure what witnesses you speak of? And yet again Trump could have fired Mueller at any time.

                3. Don W profile image84
                  Don Wposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  You said: "[Trump] fully cooperated with the Mueller team".

                  In addition to the Politifact article which rates that claim as "false"(1), the Special Counsel's own testimony under oath also contradicts that assertion:

                  "Demings: Director Mueller, isn't it fair to say that the president's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete because he didn't answer many of your questions, but where he did his answers show that he wasn't always being truthful.

                  Mueller: There (ph) -- I would say generally.
                  "(2)

                  Do inadequate, incomplete and untruthful answers demonstrate that Trump "fully cooperated" with the investigation? Or does it demonstrate that he, in fact, did not?

                  Nadler: Did the president refuse a request to be interviewed by you and your team?
                  Mueller: Yes.
                  Nadler: And is it true that you tried for more than a year to secure an interview with the president?
                  Mueller: Yes.
                  Nadler: And is it true that you and your team advised the president's lawyer that, quote, "an interview with the president is vital to our investigation," close quote?
                  Mueller: Yes. Yes.
                  Nadler: And is it true that you also, quote, "stated that it is in the interest of the presidency and the public for an interview to take place," close quote?
                  Mueller: Yes.
                  Nadler: But the president still refused to sit for an interview by you or your team?
                  Mueller: True. True.
                  "

                  Does a refusal to be interviewed demonstrate that Trump "fully cooperated" with the investigation? Or does it demonstrate that he, in fact, did not?

                  (1) https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … gation-no/
                  (2) https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre … y-n1033216

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I have agreed the president was not fully cooperative?  I must make mention Demings question. If you watch the footage you might see Mueller did not appear to understand the question. His answer seemed inappropriate to the question.  But, that is just my take.

      3. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Did Trump's statements in regards to Fylnn constitute a crime or were they just comment meant to offer his opinion on how he hoped the Fylnn investigation would go? Is asking Comey for loyalty a crime?   

        https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/book-ex … d=62781399

        https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w- … eral-crime

        https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-ju … r-is-wrong

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          If it isn't a crime, it should be. The FBI isn't controlled by Trump and it isn't his job to tell them what to do about a criminal investigation.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            You know what Randy, I sort of agree with you on this one. But the law as it stands gives Trump the authority to fire and hire the head of the FBI.  This is something the Congress should look into, and change the law if appropriate.

            1. Don W profile image84
              Don Wposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              It's not about authority. The Special Counsel outlined three elements required for an action to be considered obstruction of justice: 

              1. "an obstructive act"
              2. "some form of nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding"
              3. ". . . criminal (i.e., corrupt) intent"
              https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf (page 192)

              So an action can be within someone's authority but still be obstruction of justice. A simple example:

              A detective is close to finding evidence about a corrupt police captain. The police captain replaces the detective on the case with someone loyal who will cover up the evidence.

              Does the captain have the authority to assign a different detective to the case? Yes. Does that action also meet the requirements for obstruction of justice? Yes, because: 1) the action could obstruct a case against the captain; 2) the action was related to an official proceeding, i.e. a criminal investigation; and 3) the action was done to prevent incriminating evidence being discovered. 

              So the captain acted within his authority, but also, according to the criteria in Mueller's report, committed obstruction of justice.

              Likewise, Trump may have acted within his authority, but he also, according to the criteria in Mueller's report, committed obstruction of justice.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                The way I understand it, at least 5 of 10 events met all 3 of the criteria to be considered Obstruction of Justice.

              2. DoubleScorpion profile image77
                DoubleScorpionposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Not the best example,
                As it would be IA doing the investigating, not a detective that worked for the Corrupt CO...

                But, firing someone and replacing them as you have outlined...would be considered criminal intent...

                In the case of the president, that didn't actually happen to Mueller who was conducting the investigation, so that would be next to impossible to prove criminal intent...

                The firing of Comey was for a number of reasons, one of which, the president just didn't like him. And the president was "acting" on the recommendation of the AG and DAG...I think it was mostly because the president didn't like him.

                1. Don W profile image84
                  Don Wposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  You can refine the example however you want (maybe it's a homicide investigation, but could lead to a corruption case if left unobstructed). The point is that someone can act within their authority, but also commit obstruction of justice.

                  Criminal intent is notoriously hard to prove directly. That is why there is a well established principle that criminal intent can be determined by circumstantial evidence. That has to be the case given the difficulty, as the Special Counsel's report notes:

                  "The principle that intent can be inferred from circumstantial evidence is a necessity in criminal cases, given the right of a subject to assert his privilege against compelled self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and therefore decline to testify. Accordingly, determinations on intent are frequently reached without the opportunity to interview an investigatory subject."
                  https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf (page 13)

                  Also in the report, Mueller outlines all of Trump's actions in terms of how they relate to the three elements of obstruction of justice, in the "analysis" section for each action. For example:

                  "Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the President's effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President' s and his campaign's conduct."
                  https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf (page 97) (emphasis added)

                  Another example:

                  "Intent. In analyzing the President's intent in his actions towards Cohen as a potential witness, there is evidence that could support the inference that the President intended to discourage Cohen from cooperating with the government because Cohen's information would shed adverse light on the President's campaign-period conduct and statements."
                  (page 155)

                  Based on all the information in the report related to criminal intent (there is much more than I have quoted here), and the principle outlined above, I don't think a prosecutor would have any difficulty establishing criminal intent.

                  1. DoubleScorpion profile image77
                    DoubleScorpionposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Intended to prevent, but didn't.

                    Intended to discourage, but didn't.

                    vs

                    Accomplished, with the intention of preventing.

                    Accomplished, with the intention of discouraging.


                    Much of what is written in that report is people making the claim that it was what they were told to do or inferred to do, but didn't do...

                    If what everyone said is true (let's say it is)….

                    At best, he made the attempt (kinda feeble attempt) to get people to try to obstruct parts of the investigation. He could have taken steps to actually and literally obstruct part or all of the investigation. There is more than a few things he could have done within his authority, but he didn't.
                    I am not a Judge, but I think if I was a member of a jury and this evidence was presented, minus the parties involved, but just this evidence against your average citizen, I would be hard pressed to say guilty...and if added to the "collusion" and that was found to be seriously lacking in evidence...it would be even more so difficult to make a guilty call.

                    And I am making this determination based on just what is provided and taking out the parties involved...The Guilty beyond a shadow of doubt is just not there....at best there is a maybe guilty of something...

        2. crankalicious profile image91
          crankaliciousposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          This outlines a variety of obstruction issues:

          https://time.com/5573521/donald-trump-o … n-justice/

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            I read the entire Mueller report. It took weeks and is very boring. I am well aware of the "list Od Ten". This is why I listed just one of the 10. I had hoped to show how ridiculous these allegations are. But your resource was appreciated.

            1. crankalicious profile image91
              crankaliciousposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              Serious kudos to you for reading that report and wanting to know what exactly was in it. It amazes me that, after reading it, you think the allegations are ridiculous given the lies that were told. Not telling the truth, as we have seen with past presidents, is enough for an impeachment.

              1. promisem profile image97
                promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Yes, kudos for reading the report.

                To your other point, it's funny how hundreds of federal prosecutors -- including Republicans -- read the Mueller report and said Trump would be indicted if he weren't President.

                But Trump supporters who get their legal expertise from Fox News are sure he is innocent.

                https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec … bstruction

                https://www.newsweek.com/ex-gop-federal … eo-1441394

                1. crankalicious profile image91
                  crankaliciousposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I was listening to Mueller's testimony and what I thought I heard him say in response to the question: "Would Trump be indicted if he were a private citizen" was "yes". But as noted below, another person heard the word "Could".

                  What's perhaps even more funny and sad is we're going to have a Democratic president at some point who's going to be the Left's version of Trump and is going to pull all this same stuff and the Right will be apoplectic with rage (as will I). Not having standards that remain consistent no matter the politician or the political stripe is essential if America is going to avoid turning into a dictatorship.

                  1. promisem profile image97
                    promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    You are correct. The question had the word "could" in it. Mueller answered yes.

                    "Would" doesn't make sense. It's like asking Mueller to predict with certainty that Trump will be indicted after he leaves. There's no way for Mueller to know what prosecutors and a grand jury in the future will do.

                    https://www.vox.com/2019/7/24/20708535/ … ict-office

                    In response to your second paragraph, if Biden won the elction, I don't think based on his past behavior that he will act in any way like Trump.

                  2. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    " "Would Trump be indicted if he were a private citizen" was "yes". But as noted below, another person heard the word "Could"."

                    No, he actually did not, and Mueller was asked a general question by Rep Buck on law... Trump was not referred to.

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7FQwToqIT8

              2. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Here is a link that is on the subject. It gets right to the heart of the matter in regard to Fylnn and Comey. That
                s the subject. I hope to systematically point out Mueller list of 10 obstructions hold no water legally. If one reads the report they will see this is list holds no water.
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7FQwToqIT8

                1. promisem profile image97
                  promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  "I hope to systematically point out Mueller list of 10 obstructions hold no water legally."

                  I'm sorry, and I don't say this with mean intention, but Mueller has far more legal expertise than you.

                  If you want to defend Trump, that is your right, but you will have more credibility with defending his policies than taking on more than 1,000 federal prosecutors and a wide variety of other legal experts.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I take no offense. However, I must point out, I made no mention of Trump. My main question on this thread refers to only one of  Mueller's acts that were listed in the report in Vol 2 referring to possible obstruction.  I never made any claim to being an expert in the law. I should have reworded my statement to indicate if one reads the report they might come to the conclusion Mueller's list holds no water.

      4. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        "Wrong. Mueller explicitly stated that if Trump were a private citizen, he would be indicted for obstruction of justice."

        Where did he say this Crankilicious?

        GA

        1. DoubleScorpion profile image77
          DoubleScorpionposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          This was an interestingly phrased question...the word "COULD" was used...

          and the answer was...Yes, as a private citizen, he COULD be....not "SHOULD or WOULD"

          Of course, any private citizen COULD be charged with a crime...but just being charged, doesn't mean you are guilty...

          I think many people seem to forget, that this report wasn't required to ever leave the AG's office...

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Please add a resource. I have viewed the youtube of Mueller's testimony, and have not located such a statement? The testimony is at youtube.

      5. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        "Wrong. Mueller explicitly stated that if Trump were a private citizen, he would be indicted for obstruction of justice."

        I must ask you to provide a resource for this accusation.  I watched the Mueller testimony, and I did not hear Mueller mak such a statement. Youtube has Mueller's complete testimony. Could you pinpoint the statement and provide the resource.  I realize several media outlets did make that very statement. I need proof...

        1. DoubleScorpion profile image77
          DoubleScorpionposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          The word "could" was use...

          Could he be...

          not would or should

        2. promisem profile image97
          promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          There are plenty of sources including Mueller's own testimony.

          https://www.usnews.com/news/national-ne … ing-office

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Yes, Mueller did make this statement.

            "Asked by Buck, "Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?" and "You could charge the President of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?" Mueller responded simply, "Yes," both times.

            The question was a general question asked By Rep. Buck in regards to the law. You need to listen to the testimony where this statement was made. You need to put it into the context of the testimony that leads up to that statement. I think if you listen to Rep Bucks questioning you will see the US News although did not misquote Buck but did not put his statement into its proper context. Mueller was simply answering a question on the law.  Mueller was not referring to any given president. Just answering a question o law. I have added a link to youtube with the entire Buck questioning of Mueller. I think this testimony is also helpful in Fylnn. and Comey matter. Very interesting testimony that just never made to the light of day.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7FQwToqIT8

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)