tbutkovich

I have to congratulate Trump on his patience after the attempted “c**pe de tat!” by every Democrat, the MSM journalists, and the “weaponized government investigative agencies” appointed by Democrat Loyalists Under Barack Obama “marshaled up to direct all their energy to influence the outcome of the e******n in favor of Hillary Clinton and, in the event of a loss, attempt to undermine his ability to serve the American people by constantly attacking his leadership, his character, and his integrity. Now that the Mueller Report is out, they will “scrutinize the report” in a “concerted effort to find a way to wage war against Trump,” find something, find anything, in an attempt to ruin the man, obstruct his policies, divide the country, and limit progress. This is sinful and the Democrats should be ashamed, but they don’t even know the definition of the word. I am surprised Trump did not use executive privilege to stop this charade of an Investigation once it became clear that the “premise of the investigation” was a totally false Dossier and unjustified and illegal FISA warrants which were cleared by the courts giving them the authorization to spy on our president. I doubt that, knowing of this ruse, I would allowed the investigation to continue. “The Democrats and their surrogates are d********g, have no principals, no morals, no integrity. They are bad for the country! I will do everything in my power to expose, discredit and destroy them!”

tommsteyer

I think there was an unclosed open quote mark and missing end quote on page 134 and an open parentheses mark left widowed on page 341.

Obstruction! Obstruction! Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of Congress!.

geez ppl just pour oil on troubled (Maxine) Waters and move on.

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

The objection itself doesn't lead to obstruction but some of he's decisions can be considered as attempt to obstruct. The following elements are ;
There was a pending federal judicial proceeding;
The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.
Since some decsions were made with reasons for making the decision, some of them could be interpreted with reasonable doubt ,that he was attempting to obstruct.
The actual codes are as follows;
Obstruction of justice is defined by federal statute as any "interference with the orderly administration of law and justice" and governed by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1521. Federal code identifies more than 20 specific types of obstruction, including "Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees" (18 U.S.C. § 1505), the specific code section cited in the Nixon and Clinton articles of impeachment.

Other incidents are;
Influencing or injuring an officer or juror generally (18 U.S.C. § 1503)
Obstruction of criminal investigations (18 U.S.C. § 1510)
Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant (18 U.S.C. § 1512)
Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant (18 U.S.C. § 1513)
Destruction of corporate audit records (18 U.S.C. § 1520).

Now as with everthing that can be done you interpret the infomation as you want, which both conservatives and liberals have done.
This info came from the Findlaw.com so yes it was possible that he did obstruct, it is not on the investigator to make the decision he just provides the
facts or some may call them non facts.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

So name an instance in which Trump actually did any of that. And by the way, if the investigation is investigating something which isn't a crime, is it an actual investigation, or a political tool? At any rate, no obstruction occurred. The closest thing to it is the firing of Comey, but that was based upon a recommendation by Rozenstein, was it not? Perhaps Trump's wanting to fire Comey is obstruction. I think not. Is wanting the investigation to end obstruction? I don't see how. No person would want to be investigated; no person would be happy with how it went.

So now, the basis of the investigation will be revealed. Remember Strzok, "We will stop him." Oh yes, this will prove to be very interesting indeed!!!!

tbutkovich

The Democrats tell more lies to cover up their original lies.

What happened to the days when a findings and ultimate decision of the DOJ was accepted and respected. Now they are challenging the outcome of the decisions reached by the Attorney General at the DOJ.

Barack Obama influenced and meddled in the affairs of the DOJ and influenced and weaponized the heads of those agencies, appointed by Obama and the friends of the Democrats, to mount and attack on Trump and destroy his presidency. He politicized these agencies and ruined the public trust in them.

The Democrats and MSM are t*****rs! They need to go to jail. Anyone who is in lockstep with these “Democrat Sickos” need to be removed by the American v**ers. Remove all Democrats including state legislators. We need to take them all out in the upcoming e******n. They are crass brazen arrogant slime balls who have no place in our elected government!

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

The law statement was made to show what has to be proven for an obstruction charge. And how it can be used to allow the charge to continue.
In the last statement I mentioned that the entire case was based on how the actions are interpreted. That is why the court and those who are appointed are required to follow a set procedure. It is a two fold reasoning coverage one you are trying to prove that someone has acted in an unlawful manner. Second you have to have your facts and proof solid. Yes the whole thing may have been setup because of the h**e. When Trump made that statement that Russia should find the lost emails. Any statement made while running for any office can haunt you. It doesn't matter if it was made in jest or not. It would always be enough for some to start. If Mueller did find enough infomation to consider that obstruction is a good possibilty, then the possibility is there.
Since the released report was redacted , the results have to wait and have Mueller explain what he found.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

What Mueller said was that he hadn't found evidence Trump had not obstructed. That, is a moronic statement.

I personally think Trump should get an award for not obstructing directly.

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

Sorry you must have missed the qoute on the summary, it says the report doesn't clear Trump from obstruction. Mueller gave the final say to both Barr and Rosenstein they are the ones who said he didn't commit obstruction.
The requirements for proof of obstruction are pretty clear. It may have been to close for Mueller to call. Ether way Mueller being the the investigator it's not on him to prove yes or no,he just gathers infomation and presents it and make suggestions on how and why the infomation was collected.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

You missed my point. And yes, I saw that as well.

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

As I mentioned before the obstruction is interpeted , as per Politico
Mueller did conclude that Congress has the authority to remove Trump from office the one thing holding them is the belief of the Justice Department policy against the indictment of a sitting president. Which I have to agree with it could cause chaos. Anyway if the case continued there would be plenty to look into. The report paints the picture of a President who took extraordinary steps to undermine the lawful investigation. Fired the FBI director, tried to fire Mueller, asked the new FBI director stop the investigation on Flynn, tried to have Sessions reverse his recusal and tank the investigation,
tried to influence testimony of witnesses. Mueller properly rejected all of the defenses to obstruction of justice put forward by Trump's lawyers. Now if this list was presented to a criminal court I don't see how the defense attorney can have the jury accept reasonoble doubt. The case has a lawfully beginning due to the first statement made by Trump about the emails. He is on record requesting help from a foreign country about an matter that doesn't concern other countries. It dosen't matter if it was made in jest or not it is recorded.

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

You're point being that Meuller made a statement first hand or did it come from the one Barr made? If statement was made by Mueller directly I will admit I am on the wrong track. If the statement was second hand it is an interpreted statement and I have mentioned before anything can be interpeted in anyway to prove a point.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Firing Comey hindered nothing about the investigation and it was recommended by Rozenstein. Trump suggested the firing of Mueller but did not follow this impulse through as he could easily and legally fired Mueller if he had chose to do so. And asking for them to leave Flynn alone did not hinder anything, either. We did want Sessions to un-recuse himself but again, did that hinder anything at wall?? And what testimoney did Trump try to influence. Cohen admitted Trump didn't actually do that and it says so in the Mueller report.

If obstruction is as nebulous as this then we are all guilty of it in any investigation of us.

Try again!

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

I'm not trying to sway anyone I'm just making sure that everthing is on the table, you are going to believe want you want to believe others are doing the same. The items are there and are being discussed , it will go in the direction it will go ,you or I have no say in the final direction this will go. The thing is there is a lot of infomation and infomation can be good or bad. It will lead you to tomorrow or root into you the past. I have responded to the questions made that is one reason people have conversations.

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

To answer you're question the report has 11 points that do fall under the definition of obstruction all points are written in volume 2 .

About the termination of Comey as per the report
Point 2 Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn. Explains Comey was asked to drop the case against Flynn,by asking this of Comey he made Comey into an important part of the investigation .

Firing Comey

In accordance to point 4 May 3 2017 Comey testified in a congressional hearing, declined to answer questions dealing with the president , if president was personally under investigation or not. Within days president decided to terminate Comey. The white house insisted that it was on the suggestions from The AG and DAG. Before hearing from the Department of Justice he already decided to fire Comey. President told a Russian officials he had "faced a great amount of pressure because of Russia" which had been "taken off" After the firing of Comey. The next day on a Television interview he acknowledged he was going to fire Comey regardless of what the Department of Justice recommendation.

Firing Mueller, to fire there is a need for cause .

In accordance to point 5 May 17 2017 the acting attorney general for the Russian investigation appointed a special counsel to conduct the investigation and related matters. The president reacted with the statement "the end of his presidency " demanded that Sessions resigns. The president told his advisors that the special counsel had conflicts of interest he could not serve . The asserted conflicts were merit less had already been considered by the Department of Justice.

Requesting for Flynn to be left alone.

In accordance to point 10 Conduct towards Flynn and Manafort
After Flynn withdrew from joint defense agreement with the president he began cooperating with the government, the president's personal counsel left a message for Flynn's attorney reminding them of the president's warm feelings towards Flynn, he said "still remains" and then asking for a " heads up" if Flynn knew "infomation that implicates the president ". Flynn could no longer share infomation in pursuant to the joint defense agreement. President's counsel said he will let the president know Flynn actions reflected "hostility" toward the president.

Requesting Sessions to unrecuse. Depends on the reason why.

In accordance to point 8 Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation .
Sessions met with the president three times in 2017 . The summer of 2017 he was asked to reverse his recusal Sessions said no. October 2017 Met with the president a second time in the Oval office was asked to look into a investigation of Clinton. The third time in December 2017 met in the Oval Office after Flynn pleaded gulity according to notes taken by a senior advisor if Sessions unrecused and took control of the investigation he would be considered a " hero" . Then the president commented that "I'm not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly" .Sessions replied with he never seen anything "improper " on the campaign and told the president there was a "whole new leadership team" in place. He didn't unrecuse.

In accordance to point 11 Conduct involving Michael Cohen

The president 's conduct towards Michael Cohen, a former Trump Organization executive , changed from praise for Cohen when he falsely minimized the president involvement in the Trump Tower Moscow project ,to castigation of Cohen when he became a cooperating witness. From September 2015 to June 2016, Cohen pursued the Trump Tower Moscow project on the behalf of the Trump Organization and had briefed the candidate Trump on the project numerous times including the trip to Russia. In 2017 . Cohen provided false testimony to Congress about the project that he only briefed Trump three times and nothing about the trip to Russia. Which was a attempt to adhere "to party line" that was developed too minimize the president's connections to Russia. While preparing for his congressional testimony Cohen had extensive discussions with the president's personal counsel according to Cohen said that Cohen "stay on message" and not contradict the president. When the FBI searched Cohen's home and office in April 2018 , the president publicly asserted that Cohen will not "flip" contacted him directly to tell him to "stay strong" and privately passed messages of support you him. Cohen also discussed pardons with the president's personal counsel and believed if he stayed on message he would be taken care of. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, the president publicly criticized him, and called "rat" and suggested that family members had committed crimes.
These few point answer the questions in your request. If you look at what type of picture this represents it should cause a moment for thought. Ether way not all conditions have to be met on each , for a consideration of obstruction.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON