You just can't make this stuff up.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton-anyone-other-than-trump-would-have-been-indicted-for-obstruction
From the link:
Hillary Clinton said Tuesday she believes Donald Trump would have been indicted in Special Counsel Robert Mueller?s probe if he weren't president, though stopped short of calling for his impeachment.
Some times it is much better to just keep your fool mouth shut. :roll:
From the link:
Hillary Clinton said Tuesday she believes Donald Trump would have been indicted in Special Counsel Robert Mueller?s probe if he weren't president, though stopped short of calling for his impeachment.
Some times it is much better to just keep your fool mouth shut. :roll:
0
-
She is an Idiot.
Talk about someone needing to be investigated/indicted?
I/We can only hope that her turn is coming at some point.0 -
way past due for her turn 0 -
If'n I was Trump 
, I'd say F the economy, F the border, F the Middle East, F the re-election.......we're coming after you and your friends big time "Bitch", full speed ahead...........just sit back and watch the show 0 -
spasmcreek wrote:way past due for her turn
Oh, she has had her turn.
Now it is time for her Burn.0 -
Considering Mitt Romney is talking about running against Trump in a primary none of this surprises me. The enemies of liberty are walking in lock step together. 0 -
plus a frikkin millionKenK/84Bravo wrote:Talk about someone needing to be investigated/indicted?0 -
shilowar wrote:Considering Mitt Romney is talking about running against Trump in a primary none of this surprises me.
Which one, Colorado ?...............0 -
The woman has mental issues. She really is nuts. 0 -
Junkballer wrote:If'n I was Trump , I'd say F the economy, F the border, F the Middle East, F the re-election.......we're coming after you and your friends big time "Bitch", full speed ahead...........just sit back and watch the show
I've thought this many times. If I were Trump I'd be sick of all the bullsiht. I'd say screw reelection and just have at it. Just don't do anything illegal and say screw it...
He doesn't need the money. He's already going to be protected for life. He's going to get speaking engagements out the ying yang.
Start an investigation into the Dems. Fook them.0 -
Don McManus wrote:https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton-anyone-other-than-trump-would-have-been-indicted-for-obstruction
From the link:
Hillary Clinton said Tuesday she believes Donald Trump would have been indicted in Special Counsel Robert Mueller?s probe if he weren't president, though stopped short of calling for his impeachment.
Some times it is much better to just keep your fool mouth shut. :roll:
So does this mean she's cool with them investigating her? Now?0 -
Trump has let me down 1st with his never screw with the 2nd and then he declares war on bump stocks
then I will build the wall and its been a nightmare too bad we just can not let the National Guard or police for that matter just the pissed off USA citizens just open fire take no prisoners .. or at least no one is allowed infor any reason with out going the legal route . get sent back to mexico 1 hour after being caught just in long enough to fingerprinted and told next time there caught its 10 years hard labor no exceptions
and most of all his lock her up promise cam pain rally cry
I would love to see him ( Trump ) do a speech and add Hildibeast I am coming for you and hell is coming with me
and throw every thing possible at her from not having a dog licenses to screwing over America
and yes I am glad of all the good things he has done and trying to do and wish him well in the 20202 election0 -
and ketchup kerry has been running around the world running his mouth (as a private citizen) .....better watch his agenda, he's a hero ya kno 0 -
Didn't read any of the 448 pages of the linked report but I'd wager it does not say: Anything about Donald Trump being indicted no matter whether or not he is President. Almost any Democrat, except you maybe, is saying: WE DON'T HAVE TIME FOR IMPEACHMENT. Even good ol' Harry Reid.Barzillia wrote:Don McManus wrote:https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton-anyone-other-than-trump-would-have-been-indicted-for-obstruction
From the link:
Hillary Clinton said Tuesday she believes Donald Trump would have been indicted in Special Counsel Robert Mueller?s probe if he weren't president, though stopped short of calling for his impeachment.
Some times it is much better to just keep your fool mouth shut. :roll:
Whether you like her, or not, is immaterial to the accuracy of her statement.
What did she say that was inconsistent with Mueller's report ?
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
In other words: We have a short time to get there and a long way to go.Reid said, ?Impeachment is a difficult decision, some say Mueller?s report was an invitation for impeachment, but we have just a short time until the next election, and if impeachment proceedings go forward, and they might go forward, I think this country would be spending an inordinate amount of time on impeachment and nothing else, and I don?t think we can afford that.?
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/04/23/reid-i-dont-think-we-can-afford-the-time-impeachment-proceedings-would-take-up/
Any excuse to get out of line of fire.0 -
Barzillia wrote:Don McManus wrote:https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton-anyone-other-than-trump-would-have-been-indicted-for-obstruction
From the link:
Hillary Clinton said Tuesday she believes Donald Trump would have been indicted in Special Counsel Robert Mueller?s probe if he weren't president, though stopped short of calling for his impeachment.
Some times it is much better to just keep your fool mouth shut. :roll:
Whether you like her, or not, is immaterial to the accuracy of her statement.
What did she say that was inconsistent with Mueller's report ?
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
Trump talked to people and explored things that might have been obstruction had he done them. I do not see an action by Trump that materially impeded the Special Counsel investigation. Perhaps you have greater insight.
He could have forced through any of the things he discussed. He is the President. He chose not to do so, however.
Therefore he chose to not obstruct after consulting with his people. Is that indictable? Seems a difficult case to make, which one would think is why Mueller chose to not make it.
Also, it is not a matter of liking or disliking Clinton. It is about a person who engaged in well documented destruction of evidence commenting about obstruction of justice.0 -
Barzillia wrote:Don McManus wrote:Barzillia wrote:
Whether you like her, or not, is immaterial to the accuracy of her statement.
What did she say that was inconsistent with Mueller's report ?
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
Trump talked to people and explored things that might have been obstruction had he done them. I do not see an action by Trump that materially impeded the Special Counsel investigation. Perhaps you have greater insight.
He could have forced through any of the things he discussed. He is the President. He chose not to do so, however.
Therefore he chose to not obstruct after consulting with his people. Is that indictable? Seems a difficult case to make, which one would think is why Mueller chose to not make it.
Also, it is not a matter of liking or disliking Clinton. It is about a person who engaged in well documented destruction of evidence commenting about obstruction of justice.
Incorrect.
If you had read the report, you would have had it explained to you why that is wrong.
Today, even Judge Napolitano agreed that there were multiple counts of obvious obstruction.
And so you couldn't cite any areas where Clinton was inconsistent with the OSC report ?
She helped write the articles of impeachment for Nixon, you know........
You and I obstructed the investigation too. You never turned over the photos you took of Trump peeing on the bed, and I never turned you in. :ugeek:
Not enough evidence to indict you and I, but since the investigation lasted 2 years, there must be some truth to it.0 -
Barzillia wrote:Don McManus wrote:Barzillia wrote:
Whether you like her, or not, is immaterial to the accuracy of her statement.
What did she say that was inconsistent with Mueller's report ?
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
Trump talked to people and explored things that might have been obstruction had he done them. I do not see an action by Trump that materially impeded the Special Counsel investigation. Perhaps you have greater insight.
He could have forced through any of the things he discussed. He is the President. He chose not to do so, however.
Therefore he chose to not obstruct after consulting with his people. Is that indictable? Seems a difficult case to make, which one would think is why Mueller chose to not make it.
Also, it is not a matter of liking or disliking Clinton. It is about a person who engaged in well documented destruction of evidence commenting about obstruction of justice.
Incorrect.
If you had read the report, you would have had it explained to you why that is wrong.
Today, even Judge Napolitano agreed that there were multiple counts of obvious obstruction.
And so you couldn't cite any areas where Clinton was inconsistent with the OSC report ?
She helped write the articles of impeachment for Nixon, you know........
What the Hell is a Bishop of Hippo!0 -
Barzillia wrote:Don McManus wrote:Barzillia wrote:
Whether you like her, or not, is immaterial to the accuracy of her statement.
What did she say that was inconsistent with Mueller's report ?
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
Trump talked to people and explored things that might have been obstruction had he done them. I do not see an action by Trump that materially impeded the Special Counsel investigation. Perhaps you have greater insight.
He could have forced through any of the things he discussed. He is the President. He chose not to do so, however.
Therefore he chose to not obstruct after consulting with his people. Is that indictable? Seems a difficult case to make, which one would think is why Mueller chose to not make it.
Also, it is not a matter of liking or disliking Clinton. It is about a person who engaged in well documented destruction of evidence commenting about obstruction of justice.
Incorrect.
If you had read the report, you would have had it explained to you why that is wrong.
Today, even Judge Napolitano agreed that there were multiple counts of obvious obstruction.
And so you couldn't cite any areas where Clinton was inconsistent with the OSC report ?
She helped write the articles of impeachment for Nixon, you know........
Mueller report: "While it may be more difficult to establish that public-facing acts were motivated by a corrupt intent, the President?s power to influence actions, persons, and events is enhanced by his unique ability to attract attention through use of mass communications. And no principle of law excludes public acts from the scope of obstruction statutes. If the likely effect of the acts is to intimidate witnesses or alter their testimony, the justice system?s integrity is equally threatened.
Mueller noted that it was only the refusal of Trump?s underlings to go along with his efforts to tamper that kept Trump from being able to successfully impede the investigation."
Mueller report: "The President?s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests. [Former FBI Director James] Comey did not end the investigation of [Retired Lt. Gen. Michael] Flynn, which ultimately resulted in Flynn?s prosecution and conviction for lying to the FBI. [White House counsel Don] McGahn did not tell the Acting Attorney General that the Special Counsel must be removed, but was instead prepared to resign over the President?s order. [Former campaign manager Corey] Lewandowski and [Trump campaign official Rick] Dearborn did not deliver the President?s message to Sessions that he should confine the Russia investigation to future election meddling only. And McGahn refused to recede from his recollections about events surrounding the President?s direction to have the Special Counsel removed, despite the President?s multiple demands that he do so. Consistent with that pattern, the evidence we obtained would not support potential obstruction charges against the President?s aides and associates beyond those already filed."
You can believe Judge Nap, or you can believe Mueller himself.
Your choice.
The fact of the matter is that absent a specific incident where the actions of the President can be cited to have adveserly affected Mueller's efforts to investigate, obstruction cannot be proven, and thus it was not charged. Mueller's suggestion that it was only the underling's refusal to cooperate falls flat, as the President held the power to follow through (as Nixon did) until he got the result he wanted. Trump chose to not go through with those things that may have been actual obstruction.
It does seem that Trump wanted to find a way to stop the Special Counsel probe. Mueller did not (most likely because he could not) provide a direct connection between actual actions by Trump that materially hinder his ability to investigate.
If you can point to such a specific action and result, please do. Obficsatory statements regarding what someone has read and how one should intepret what was read serve no purpose. Direct cause and effect relationships are what should be necessary when one is considering indictment. I do not see where Mr. Mueller provided such, therefore Ms. Clinton's statement does not seem to be consistant with the Special Counsel report.0 -
You just can't make this stuff up.
Hillery did.0 -
chollagardens wrote:You just can't make this stuff up.
Hillery did.
Not really.
You see, when you look at an item, and you say it's "blue", you believe it to be blue.
You didn't make it up. YOU believe it's blue.
Hillery and others of her ink, BELIEVE what they say.
And that's the scary part, they believe the garbage they say and do.0 -
Barzillia wrote:Introduction to Volume II?
We first describe the considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation, and then provide an overview of this Volume:?..
"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers.?..
Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a cr iminal investigation during the President's term is permissible??
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes?..
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
?In sum, in light of the breadth of Section 1512( c )(2) and the other obstruction statutes, an argument that the conduct at issue in this investigation falls outside the scope of the obstruction laws lacks merit.?
?Under OLC's analysis, Congress can permissibly criminalize ce1tain obstructive conduct by the President, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence, because those prohibitions raise no separation-of-powers questions. See Application of 28 U.S.C. ? 458 to Presidential Appointments of Federal Judges, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 357 n.11. The Constitution does not authorize the President to engage in such conduct, and those actions would transgress the President's duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." U.S. CONST. ART IT, ?? 3. In view of those clearly permissible applications of the obstruction statutes to the President, Franklin's holding that the President is entirely excluded from a statute absent a clear statement would not apply in this context.?
?The final step in the constitutional balancing process is to assess whether the separation-of-powers doctrine permits Congress to take action within its constitutional authority notwithstanding the potential impact on Article II functions. See Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. at 443; see also Morrison, 487 U.S. at 691-693, 695-696; United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 711-712. In the case of the obstruction-of-justice statutes, our assessment of the weighing of interests leads us to conclude that Congress has the authority to impose the limited restrictions contained in those statutes on the President's official conduct to protect the integrity of important functions of other branches of government. A general ban on corrupt action does not unduly intrude on the President's responsibility to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." U.S. CONST. ART IT, ?? 3. 1090 To the contrary, the concept of "faithful execution" connotes the use of power in the interest of the public, not in the office holder's personal interests. See 1 Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language 763 (1755) ("faithfully" def. 3: " [w]ith strict adherence to duty and allegiance"). And immunizing the President from the generally applicable criminal prohibition against corrupt obstruction of official proceedings would seriously impair Congress's power to enact laws "to promote objectives within [its] constitutional authority," Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. at 425-i.e., protecting the integrity of its own proceedings and the proceedings of Article TTI courts and grand juries.
Accordingly, based on the analysis above, we were not persuaded by the argument that the President has blanket constitutional immunity to engage in acts that would corruptly obstruct justice through the exercise of otherwise-valid Article TI powers.?
?In sum, contrary to the position taken by the President' s counsel, we concluded that, in light of the Supreme Court precedent governing separation-of-powers issues, we had a valid basis for investigating the conduct at issue in this report. In our view, the application of the obstruction statutes would not impermissibly burden the President's performance of his Article II function to supervise prosecutorial conduct or to remove inferior law-enforcement officers. And the protection of the criminal justice system from corrupt acts by any person-including the President-accords with the fundamental principle of our government that "[n]o [person] in this country is so high that he is above the law." United States v. Lee, I 06 U.S. 196, 220 (1882); see also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. at 697; United States v. Nixon, supra.?
?IV. CONCLUSION Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President' s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.?
APPENDIX C
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
The President provided written responses through his personal counsel to questions submitted to him by the Special Counsel' s Office. We first explain the process that led to the submission of written questions and then attach the President' s responses. Beginning in December 2017, this Office sought for more than a year to interview the President on topics relevant to both Russian-election interference and obstruction-of-justice. We advised counsel that the President was a " subject" of the investigation under the definition of the Justice Manual-"a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation." Justice Manual ? 9-11.151 (2018). We also advised counsel that"[ a]n interview with the President is vital to our investigation" and that this Office had " carefully considered the const itutional and other arguments raised by . .. counsel, and they d[id] not provide us with reason to forgo seeking an interview." 1 We additionally stated that "it is in the interest of the Presidency and the public for an interview to take place" and offered "numerous accommodations to aid the President's preparation and avoid surprise."2 After extensive discussions with the Department of Justice about the Special Counsel's objective of securing the President's testimony, these accommodations included the submissions of written questions to the President on certain Russia-related topics. 3 We received the President's written responses in late November 2018.4 In December 2018, we informed counsel of the insufficiency of those responses in several respects.5 We noted, among other things, that the President stated on more than 30 occasions that he "does not 'recall' or ' remember' or have an ' independent recollection"' of information called for by the questions.6 Other answers were "incomplete or imprecise."7 The written responses, we informed counsel, "demonstrate the inadequacy of the written format, as we have had no opportunity to ask follow-up questions that would ensure complete answers and potentially refresh your client' s recollect ion or clarify the extent or nature of his lack of recollection."8 We again requested an in-person interview, limited to certain topics, advising the President' s counsel that " [t]his is the President' s opportunity to voluntarily provide us with information for us to evaluate in the context of all of the evidence we have gathered."9 The President declined.
REDACTED GRAND JURY
Recognizing that the President would not be interviewed voluntarily, we considered whether to issue a subpoena for his testimony. We viewed the written answers to be inadequate. But at that point, our investigation had made significant progress and had produced substantial evidence for our report. We thus weighed the costs of potentially lengthy constitutional litigation, with resulting delay in finishing our investigation, against the anticipated benefits for our investigation and report. As explained in Volume II, Section H.B., we determined that the substantial quantity of information we had obtained from other sources allowed us to draw relevant factual conclusions on intent and credibility, which are often inferred from circumstantial evidence and assessed without direct testimony from the subject of the investigation.
* * * ?
Heh heh heh ?..?allowed us to draw relevant factual conclusions on intent and credibility?.?
I figure that is accurate enough.
Still wondering... What the Hell is a Bishop of Hippo?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
20 comments