So, what's next..?? 😟

Oh ya, obstruction.. it even kinda ryhms... I guess he was just careless with his obstruction instead of Negligent... 🤔

We’re gonna get bitching about steps....

Voot shepts..?? 😕

I heard he may have pulled his mattress tag off sometime in the past.

That Bassard..!! 😠

Good for us all that there was no collusion with Russia.

But we were told so... Many times over a very long period of time... 😟

you underestimate la resistance

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

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.

BTW, I am a Neo- Classicist if you don't mind.

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

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"...........

those are rarer than hens' teeth

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.

If Trump might have "obstructed" by any stretch of the imagination, then Hillary absolutely obstructed.

---

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. 😣

---