America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 weeks ago by DrafterX. 38 replies replies.
Collusion is Dead...
DrafterX Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
So, what's next..?? Mellow
DrafterX Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
Oh ya, obstruction.. it even kinda ryhms... I guess he was just careless with his obstruction instead of Negligent... Think
ZRX1200 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 48,931
We’re gonna get bitching about steps....
DrafterX Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
Voot shepts..?? Huh
deadeyedick Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 03-13-2003
Posts: 9,955
I heard he may have pulled his mattress tag off sometime in the past.
DrafterX Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
That Bassard..!! Mad
Speyside Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,634
Good for us all that there was no collusion with Russia.
DrafterX Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
But we were told so... Many times over a very long period of time... Mellow
gummy jones Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 6,792
you underestimate la resistance
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,012
Obstruction is hard to convict on. First, how do you commit obstruction when there is no crime? Second, you have to prove intent. If Trump fired Comey because he was afraid that he would uncover actual evidence, then that is obstruction. If he fired Comey because he hated the man, was angry over how he handled Hillary, or didn't like the color of his tie, then that is not obstruction. If he had fired Mueller because he knew he was guilty and wanted to shut down the investigation, then that is obstruction. If he had decided to fire Mueller because he knew the whole thing was a waste of time and money, or that he had committed no crime and the investigation was damaging his ability to perform his job as POTUS, or dividing the country, then that is not obstruction. It all depends on if Trump was trying to hide guilt. Since the Mueller report found no crime, then obstruction would be next to impossible to prove.

But you have to hand it to the Neo-Marxists. The MSM and Dems have lied to them over and over and over again, but they're still holding on to that tiny spec of hope called collusion, in their fantasy land of unicorns and rainbows.

David
Speyside Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,634
Mueller did not clear Trump on obstruction. He did not issue an indictment because it would never be prosecuted and as such Trump would never be able to clear his name. That was in the report, my wording is close but not exact. Mueller did not do the job he was supposed to do. He kicked the can to others on the obstruction issue. Though I agree with Dave, obstruction is not a crime. The report should have said since obstruction was not a crime there was no obstruction investigation.
Speyside Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,634
BTW, I am a Neo- Classicist if you don't mind.
RMAN4443 Online
#13 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 5,230
The "crime" Mueller was investigating was COLLUSION...how can you "obstruct justice" when the underlying "crime" never took place??....No "crime", no obstruction. Was Trump trying to "obstruct justice" so the world WOULD NOT find out that HE DIDN'T COLLUDE WITH THE RUSSIANS?????
dstieger Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 9,870
RMAN4443 wrote:
The "crime" Mueller was investigating was COLLUSION...how can you "obstruct justice" when the underlying "crime" never took place??....No "crime", no obstruction. Was Trump trying to "obstruct justice" so the world WOULD NOT find out that HE DIDN'T COLLUDE WITH THE RUSSIANS?????


yeah....I don't think 'fruit of the poisonous tree' works both ways. Otherwise, comprehensive obstruction could always, legally prevent successful investigation
delta1 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 16,681
if you read the report, Mueller clarifies and tries to correct the erroneous public perception of the investigation as looking into "collusion". His report said that is not true, since there is no crime of collusion. This is where the cons stop reading...

Mueller further says that they investigated the crime of "conspiracy" as defined in federal law, and whether any members of the Trump Campaign "coordinated" with Russians interfering with the 2016 elections...he reported multiple links between the Trump campaign and the Russians messing with our elections, but did not find substantial evidence of criminal coordination.

Interesting reading...it's gonna be awhile...I've just gotten through the first section of Volume I, regarding Russian interference and how the Trump campaign was involved...I'm gonna withhold further opinions until I finish...


watching Fox and CNN last night...we live in two worlds and it seems that the "truth" gets lost in the noise...it'll take objective, non-partisans to describe this period in our history...throughout the spectacle, I wondered what cons would be thinking if they redact Trump's name from the report and insert "Hillary Clinton"...........
gummy jones Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 6,792
delta1 wrote:
...it'll take objective, non-partisans to describe this period in our history...throughout the spectacle



those are rarer than hens' teeth
frankj1 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 26,940
no charge, but no exoneration.

From the report (not from Barr):
"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."

Think about the second half of that statement. It says Trump attempted to interfere with the investigation but could not enlist anyone to do his bidding, some simply ignored him, some resigned...

As I've said before, an impeachment proceeding would be horrible for the country, so that is a win for America due to the Patriotism and bravery of aides with morals and understanding of the law and it's restrictions on Presidential power...Lewandowski, McGahn, Sessions, Dearborn, Rogers, Ledgett. These are some of the names I am reading today. I have not read word one indicating there was never anything to investigate...other than what I read here...no real cause for jublilation or pride in the Office.

There's not much to be proud of there, now that Trump's intentions are on the record. And it does supply a lot for information for ongoing and future legal processes not initiated or recommended by Mueller. Hopefully all of that is on hold until after Trump finishes his term(s) in office.

America, not just Trump, dodged a bullet. I guess Mueller wasn't the determined-to-kill assassin many thought the life long Republican would be.

Gene363 Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 23,989
If Trump might have "obstructed" by any stretch of the imagination, then Hillary absolutely obstructed.
tailgater Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,096
No obstruction because, wait for it, you can't prove a negative.

I've read 3 different MSM versions of the "facts" and they all concluded the same thing: Trump might be innocent of collusion, but Mueller can't prove that he didn't obstruct.

Can't prove that he didn't.

Say it one more time.


These f*ck-wads would be humorous if so many from the left and center-left didn't agree with them.


Gene363 Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 23,989
tailgater wrote:
No obstruction because, wait for it, you can't prove a negative.

I've read 3 different MSM versions of the "facts" and they all concluded the same thing: Trump might be innocent of collusion, but Mueller can't prove that he didn't obstruct.

Can't prove that he didn't.

Say it one more time.


These f*ck-wads would be humorous if so many from the left and center-left didn't agree with them.




At some point the "f*ck-wads" become traitors, lucky them they live in a free country, though they are the first to say it is not. Brick wall
delta1 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 16,681
I guess the cons are not interested in reading the Mueller Report...they seem to all be saying the same wrong things...things that Trump and Trump media keeps repeating...


Drafter is right: say something often enough and some people think it's the truth...
DrafterX Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
That's what I heard... Mellow
frankj1 Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 26,940
tailgater wrote:
No obstruction because, wait for it, you can't prove a negative.

I've read 3 different MSM versions of the "facts" and they all concluded the same thing: Trump might be innocent of collusion, but Mueller can't prove that he didn't obstruct.

Can't prove that he didn't.

Say it one more time.


These f*ck-wads would be humorous if so many from the left and center-left didn't agree with them.



it's in Mueller's report. Trump clearly tried to get it done and failed...which saved him.
DrafterX Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
He was discussing options after being falsely accused... He coulda just called us... Mellow
ZRX1200 Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 48,931
^ yup.

When all you have is a process crime what are you investigating
tailgater Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,096
delta1 wrote:
I guess the cons are not interested in reading the Mueller Report...they seem to all be saying the same wrong things...things that Trump and Trump media keeps repeating...


Drafter is right: say something often enough and some people think it's the truth...


Three words:
Russia
Russia
Russia


Until it's not Russia, of course.


tailgater Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,096
frankj1 wrote:
it's in Mueller's report. Trump clearly tried to get it done and failed...which saved him.


Obstruction.

Trump is guilty of wanting to stop a bogus investigation. An investigation that is PROVEN to be bogus.

Hillary is not guilty of destroying classified emails on an illegal private server in violation of espionage protocols.

I gotta tell you, it's difficult to keep up with the left's narrative.



frankj1 Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 26,940
#27
that is not close to what was "proven".

interpretations, slants, twists by either and all partisan sides aren't needed to get the points of the report. It is clear reading, straight forward writing. better off to stay away from opinions of those with dogs in the fight, actually, as they cloud the clarity...in my opinion.

So, it was proven there were countless contacts between his crowd and Russia (which has also been proven to have meddled on his behalf) before, during and after the campaign, and that should be alarming enough for any American to want it investigated to the point of deciding for prosecution or not. But without the investigation, that could not be determined.

I looked up bogus, this case does not apply.

Mueller declined to definitively state Trump should be charged (leaving that to Congress) but clearly stated the "facts" do not exonerate him as he was definitely involved (ending the bogus claims)...that should, by definition, end the quotes floating around of made up baseless charges and lies..to be "involved" meant something existed, something happened, and tons of that stuff is delineated in the report.

He also was definitely involved in attempts to thwart the investigation, threats that failed due to the non-compliance of people that, for the most part, he had appointed.

"if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President DID NOT COMMIT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, WE WOULD SO STATE"...from the report. Capitals are mine.
No twists needed. Nothing ambiguous. The investigators did not find that the facts cleared Trump.

and the Hillary mentions belie the fake confidence.

You really should read what's available...without emotion. If you were to read this as if it were about another country, you'd never come to the same conclusions
DrafterX Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
I did not have 'sexual relations with that woman... Mellow
RMAN4443 Online
#30 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 5,230
me neither....Anxious
frankj1 Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 26,940
DrafterX wrote:
I did not have 'sexual relations with that Russian woman...Donald J. Trump Mellow


this one might be true.
frankj1 Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 26,940
RMAN4443 wrote:
me neither....Anxious

I woulda if I was drunk enough
delta1 Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 16,681
frank is correct...the truth is plain to see, if one chooses to read the report...our laws authorize law enforcement to conduct an investigation if there is probable cause to do so...probable cause exists here, in the conspiracy to coordinate with a foreign government to interfere in the elections of 2016...the Mueller report specifies numerous links between Russians, some of whom were involved in meddling activities, and members of the Trump campaign...NOT A BOGUS investigation...the fact that there was not enough evidence to meet the "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" standard to bring charges does not mean there was no suspicious or criminal conduct...

dstieger asked the appropriate question in another post...if we allow people to obstruct any investigation, no investigation will result in truthful findings of criminal conduct or innocence (excuse my paraphrase)


cons were outraged, and still are, when the same DOJ/FBI investigated Hillary and concluded that there was not enough evidence to prosecute, and yet they are exulting in the "findings" that there was "no collusion", so there can't be obstruction...this is very flawed, partisan thinking...

I am positive that all the cons who give Trump a pass after the Mueller Report was issued would be singing a different tune if we just excise the name of the focus of the report: "Trump" and substitute "Hillary"........................lock her up...


edit: if you need a sleep aid, read the report...I've dozed off several times, and I've only read about 55 pp...clinical law enforcement "just the facts ma'am" prose...we need Robert Ludlum to turn this into a page-turner...
DrafterX Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
What happened to Schiff's concrete evidence of collusion..?? What about the conspiracy to start the investigation..??

It's not over.. as much as most of the nation would hope.. there will still be fishing investigations instead of investigating an actual crime... Ya, Trump said some stuff but he's said lots of stuff.. there is no crime... Mellow
frankj1 Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 26,940
DrafterX wrote:
What happened to Schiff's concrete evidence of collusion..?? What about the conspiracy to start the investigation..??

It's not over.. as much as most of the nation would hope.. there will still be fishing investigations instead of investigating an actual crime... Ya, Trump said some stuff but he's said lots of stuff.. there is no crime... Mellow

I've been talking only about Mueller.
There have been on-going investigations and stuff for a while too.
DrafterX Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
True.. true.. but I'm just stirring da pot... Mellow
frankj1 Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 26,940
dang it x!
you always get me.
DrafterX Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
Laugh
Users browsing this topic
Guest