JediKnight

The majority who posts on this site will never concede the truth you just posted -never! In their minds, Trump can do "no wrong." period. But it is refreshing to come here and see at least one person who understands what is really going on!

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

In many nations, if a crime can not be proven (or if it is simply imaginary) an individual is considered innocent of said crime..

As for obstruction... I seem to remember many on both sides of the aisle calling for Corey's removal prior to the elections...

Did McGhan fire Mueller? I missed that...

I fail to remember how Jr's meeting was illegal in any way...Clarify?

The totally awesome Cyber Warfare Unit that totally protected the US from Russian interference in 2016?

JediKnight

// Look at your original post for my responses...……... No, the one Obama constructed to prevent Russia from further interference, which the CIA and FBI state Russia is still doing.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Hillary would have been a danger to world peace.

4430 Loc: Little Egypt ** Southern Illinory

Spot on and hopefully they will have the backbone and stick to it drive and get to the bottom of it all !

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I do not have selective hearing. This is exactly what Mueller said: Robert Mueller: 03:16 "First, our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Second, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with a Russian government in its election interference activities. We did not address collusion, which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy and it was not." I think that is clear.

Now for the interference, I think it is only illegal if successful. President Trump and his associates may be guilty of attempting obstruction.... which is a broad crime that may include acts such as perjury, making false statements to officials, witness tampering, jury tampering, destruction of evidence, and many others. In federal law, crimes constituting obstruction of justice are defined primarily in Chapter 73 of Title 18 of the United States Code. This chapter contains provisions covering various specific crimes such as witness tampering and retaliation, jury tampering, destruction of evidence, assault on a process server, and theft of court records. It also includes more general sections covering obstruction of proceedings in federal courts, Congress, and federal executive agencies. One of the broadest provisions in the chapter, known as the Omnibus Clause, states that anyone who "corruptly... endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice" in connection with a pending court proceeding is subject to punishment.

Now, if you read the letter mandating the investigation it directs provides specific course, the investigation's scope included allegations of "links and/or coordination" between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. Mueller was also mandated to pursue "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." So, without further guidance Muller ran with the "pursue any matters" to include obstruction and then adopted common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of perverting the course of justice. Even with the broader definition, he was still unable or unwilling to charge the President with Obstruction.

Keep in mind, the Starr investigation into Clinton, was clear that the then President was GUILTY. The introduction of the Starr report: "This Referral presents substantial and credible information that President Clinton criminally obstructed the judicial process, first in a sexual harassment lawsuit in which he was the defendant and then in a grand jury investigation." So, as you can see there is nothing that prevented Mueller or his team from jumping off the fence and saying the President committed a crime. The precedent was already established. One can only assume his reasoning, perhaps there really was no creditable witness or speculation was used and would not hold up in a court.

Now the challenge for the Democrats... find anything in this report that can remotely justify impeachment. The Constitution, Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. So... can they say attempting to end an investigation fit under "High Crimes and Misdemeanors?" I bet not, for this would open up a large can of worms and subject many officials in DC to being impeached.

hdjimv Loc: South Dakota

I agree completely. This was just blind mudslinging hoping that some of it will hit someone and stick. But it won't.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

You guys are wrapped up in the idea of a "thought" crime, where by you say Trump is doing something illegal if he actually hopes Russia does something to help him get elected. That's just plain ignorant. Would it be illegal if Trump hoped Putin would come out on national radio and tell all US citizens with Russian connections in the US to vote for Trump? No! Even getting a call from a Russian saying they have the nasty's on an opposition candidate and agreeing to meet with them is not illegal, although I think it would have been prudent to have informed the FBI AFTER the meeting to let them know what was provided, if anything. With what we know of the state of the FBI now, had they informed them of the proposed meeting then the FBI would have met with them gotten the information and worked to hide it, even if it showed that Hillary and the DNC had committed illegal acts.

Basically, you can't get nailed for thinking or hoping something. Funny though, you should get nailed for paying foreign nationals to get dirt on an opposition candidate, don't you think??

amadjuster Loc: Texas Panhandle

That one person, I would guess, is you. Please explain how thinking something is a crime.

gaconservative74

Every dime spent on our current Congress is a complete and utter waste of money!!!!!!!! They are completely irrelevant now!!!!!!

JediKnight

Trump threatened Little Kim of NK, Trump is currently threatening Iran. If dems decide to go forward with impeachment inquiries it is almost a given that Trump will start a war -most likely with Iran (he's scared of Kim) will you then say "Trump is a danger to world peace." No doubt you won't so here.....

TRUMP IS A DANGER TO WORLD PEACE and unfit to lead a dog race. There, now you have it -and that's the way it is!

JediKnight

I didn't write that sentence....but here you go: "thinking" a crime goes to intent, so if the crime is done, or even attempted -you saying "I thought about doing that" could land you in the pokey. That's probably why if you say "I thought it was a bomb" in an airport you could be charged with a crime of breaking the peace.

JediKnight

Have you ever been diagnosed with "paranoid delusions?" You should see a medical doctor that has a specialty in psychiatry - your post definitely fits the description.

JediKnight

Have you ever been diagnosed with "paranoid delusions?" You should see a medical doctor with a specialty in psychiatry. Your posts definitely fit the description. sad.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Radically altered citizens as yourself, will side with anyone or any terrorist nation or organization when the President is negotiating.

Look how you weaker and fundamentally changed Obama minions side with """Illegal Aliens""" without even acknowledging that there are horrible criminals in the mix.

You people of the Obama, are sick citizens.