Presidential power

[idhawkman]

ASF you are confusing my position. Do I think that some if not most of Congresses current investigations are "fishing expeditions?" Absolutely they are. But that's not the point I'm arguing. What I am arguing is that Congress has a right, indeed, a responsibility, to investigate if it has reason to believe that any member of the Executive Branch has committed a crime.

But that is just it, they aren't stating what crime they believe he committed. That changes the whole idea of oversight and makes it over-reach turning their actions into abuse of power.

I'm arguing about the principle of checks and balances. Trump is simply stonewalling, refusing to cooperate with Congresses constitutional responsibility, holding important legislation hostage in demanding that they drop any and all investigations before he'll negotiate on other matters.

That's why he gave unfettered access to his personal advisors that he could have exerted executive privilege over during the Mueller investigation.

As far as obstruction of justice goes, it doesn't matter if a crime was or wasn't committed. If a person seeks to influence a witness, causes harm or threatens them with some form of retribution, prevents them from testifying, etc, that's obstruction of justice. Nixon himself was never charged with or even accused of a crime, nor was the crime that was committed a serious one (a 3rd rate burglary), but by orchestrating a cover up, by firing the special prosecutor, by refusing to surrender evidence, by paying off witnesses, he obstructed justice and would have been impeached for it had he not resigned.

As the saying goes, the cover-up is worse than the crime.

Again, you are trumpeting the false allegation that there is a cover up. 1.4Million documents, 500 witnesses, hundreds of hours of unfettered interviews and you say he's doing a cover up. Got it! I'm not sure how ridiculous this sounds to 68% of the American people.

[Hawktawk]

Trump refused to sit down for an interview, period. He was given a take home test for his lawyers to fill in the answers for him and they said "I don't recall" on 37 separate instances regarding collusion, such as whether her had prior knowledge of the trump tower meeting with Russian operatives, discussions about the trump tower Moscow etc.

HE REFUSED TO ANSWER EVEN IN WRITING QUESTIONS ABOUT OBSTRUCTION. Clinton by contrast did testify under oath and was found guilty by a republican prosecutor of mainly lying about a consensual BJ.

You're truly laughable to say this President was transparent in the slightest. His refusal now to allow congressional oversight by interviewing principal witness to his clear obstruction of justice just shows how bad Trump and his handlers know it would go for them in open hearings.

Its really sad how the Trumpies have dumbed down the definition of whats normal lawful conduct by the president of the united states when not being charged with a crime as one who basically cant be charged with a crime is some sort of victory.

How you look yourself in the mirror as the rule of law withers on the vine is beyond me.

[RiverDog]

Trump refused to sit down for an interview, period. He was given a take home test for his lawyers to fill in the answers for him and they said "I don't recall" on 37 separate instances regarding collusion, such as whether her had prior knowledge of the trump tower meeting with Russian operatives, discussions about the trump tower Moscow etc.

HE REFUSED TO ANSWER EVEN IN WRITING QUESTIONS ABOUT OBSTRUCTION. Clinton by contrast did testify under oath and was found guilty by a republican prosecutor of mainly lying about a consensual BJ.

You're truly laughable to say this President was transparent in the slightest. His refusal now to allow congressional oversight by interviewing principal witness to his clear obstruction of justice just shows how bad Trump and his handlers know it would go for them in open hearings.

Its really sad how the Trumpies have dumbed down the definition of whats normal lawful conduct by the president of the united states when not being charged with a crime as one who basically cant be charged with a crime is some sort of victory.

How you look yourself in the mirror as the rule of law withers on the vine is beyond me.

Just one point regarding Clinton. He did not testify willingly. He took his case all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that a sitting POTUS should not have to be subjected to a civil lawsuit and that the trial should be delayed until he was out of office. The high court ruled unanimously against Clinton. Three of those justices (Thomas, Breyer, and Ginsburg) are still on the court.

[Hawktawk]

Many people question why mueller didn’t demand live testimony from
Trump and see it as a great victory for Trumps legal team. It’s been theorized that mueller didn’t want to drag it out another year jumping through the hoops even though he would likely have prevailed . In that case trump would have been guilty of perjury as he is such a remorseless pathalogical liar he lies when the truth doesn’t matter. As for the current squabble with the congress he lost 3 rulings last week . Eventually this will all wind up in the SCOTUS and it will
Likely come down to Roberts whether we are a nation of laws or a banana republic.

[RiverDog]

Many people question why mueller didn’t demand live testimony from
Trump and see it as a great victory for Trumps legal team. It’s been theorized that mueller didn’t want to drag it out another year jumping through the hoops even though he would likely have prevailed . In that case trump would have been guilty of perjury as he is such a remorseless pathalogical liar he lies when the truth doesn’t matter. As for the current squabble with the congress he lost 3 rulings last week . Eventually this will all wind up in the SCOTUS and it will
Likely come down to Roberts whether we are a nation of laws or a banana republic.

Regarding why Mueller didn't interview Trump, despite Trump saying he would do it, there's no way in hell a competent attorney is going to let a client like Trump testify. As we all know, DJT has this tendency to just wing it or make up stuff, so any interview would turn into a perjury trap for him, so like you said, a subpoena for him to testify would have gone to court and added more time to Mueller completing his report. But it's a question that deserves to be asked if Mueller is called to testify before Congress.

I agree with your remarks about SCOTUS, which is why I posted my observation about Clinton's case. Both Kavanaugh and Roberts have been siding with the liberal wing quite a bit since Kavanaugh took his seat. Roberts himself has expressed concern that SCOTUS be viewed as just another political branch of the government, and Trump rankled him in one of his asinine tweets about Obama judges. SCOTUS may not be the refuge that Trump thinks it's going to be for him.

[idhawkman]

Many people question why mueller didn’t demand live testimony from
Trump and see it as a great victory for Trumps legal team. It’s been theorized that mueller didn’t want to drag it out another year jumping through the hoops even though he would likely have prevailed . In that case trump would have been guilty of perjury as he is such a remorseless pathalogical liar he lies when the truth doesn’t matter. As for the current squabble with the congress he lost 3 rulings last week . Eventually this will all wind up in the SCOTUS and it will
Likely come down to Roberts whether we are a nation of laws or a banana republic.

OR.... Mueller had already concluded that there was no underlying crime and all they were trying to entrap Trump on was obstruction which I've already posted the definition of it and without the underlying crime, is really not chargeable. Instead he was hoping to entrap the president.

Additionally, Trump stated on numerous occasions that he was willing to testify since he did nothing wrong. It was his legal team that refused to let him get sucked into a perjury trap because of the traps they had already sprung on Flynn and Poppadopolous. Even his legal team was willing to let him testify on the collusion charge but wanted the obstruction ruled out for the meeting but Mueller refused to have any agreements and therefore the Trump team went into full legal mode, too.

Maybe, "IF" Mueller hadn't picked all democrats as his band of angry lawyers, you might have had a different result with the President testifying.

Regarding your other post about why Mueller didn't want to drag this out another year, he really couldn't. With the IG's report coming out about the FISA abuses he would have been disbanded and broken up long before he could have had the ruling on Trump testifying because of the fruit of a poisonous tree standard. We all know the FBI and CIA ran a full blown OP at Poppadopolous, Page and Flynn without a predicate to do so. This will come out in the Barr investigation more fully when Huber and Durham's investigations finally get resolved. The IG report though will show that the whole thing was a hoax with no underlying predicate and squash the whole Mueller investigation anyways.

To be more clear:

1. IG report about Fisa abuse will show that the counter-intelligence probe against the Trump campaign was illegitimate in the first place.

2. Huber and Durham will show the crimes that went into framing and launching the counter-intelligence investigation.

[I-5]

It seems that common sense is out the window here. Do you really think that congress can or will do a better job than your boy Mueller with all the resources he had and used?

Regardless of your (or my) option, that’s literally congress’ job to do, not the special counsel’s. Don’t like the constitution? Make a new one.

[idhawkman]

Regardless of your (or my) option, that’s literally congress’ job to do, not the special counsel’s. Don’t like the constitution? Make a new one.

Please understand my position. Congress' job is oversight, not endless fishing expeditions of unknown and undeclared crimes or abuse of power. Not only does this president deserve to be treated equally but so do the future ones.

[I-5]

OK understood - oversight. If you're a congressman, and you believe the president is acting in a harmful way to the country, what are the steps you take?

[burrrton]

OK understood - oversight. If you're a congressman, and you believe the president is acting in a harmful way to the country, what are the steps you take?

Have the DOJ hire a Special Counsel??

[I-5]

Except Congress didn’t have anything to do with appointing the special counsel, right? The president’s hand-picked Deputy Attorney General did that. Maybe next you’d say ‘read the report’ except no Democrats have been allowed to see an unredacted version. Now what would you if you are charged with oversight and the AG won’t let you access the full report?

[Hawktawk]

The congressional inquiries are legitimate oversight as judge after judge during various administrations have shown. And its not a zero sum game as far as report released and dems just want to rehash it, a" redo" as Trump feeds to his trumpard lackeys and they lap it up.

McGanns testimony to Mueller was that Trump called him up after hours and ordered him to call Rosenstein and order him to fire Mueller, over which he testified he threatened to resign, actually started cleaning out his office( just shows what a chickenS#!t pussy trump really is but i digress) Then Trump ordered McGann to make a public statement denying that Trump had asked him to order the firing of Mueller after the news was leaked to the press. McGann again refused. Then Trump asked McGann to write a statement saying that he had not been asked to publicly deny what he had been asked to do. He again refused and told Raince Preibus that the president was asking him to do "crazy Sh!t."

After the release of the report Trump called McGanns account "bullshit" and derided lawyers who take notes.


Follow along Trumptards. Clear obstruction shown in report even though Mueller decides not to make a "traditional prosecutorial decision" and punts it to the congress. President challenges the veracity of the report publicly. Congress subpoenas McGann , his secretary and other key witnesses for a hearing to clear up the discrepancy and Trump declares executive privilege over the investigation of himself....

Meanwhile his stooge Barr the walrus announces an investigation of the investigators who were looking at clear election interference by our greatest geopolitical foe and all to clearly benefit a candidate who showed a curious fascination with Putin, his praise of him was well outside the norm. Totally legit necessary X 10 investigation obviously but the POTUS daily rambling disjointed misspelled tweets prove he has a predetermined outcome in mind as he accuses the FBI etc of "treason" proving what a brain dead cretin he truly is. Hes the one who has committed and continues to commit treason. If everything he says about the FBI is true its not remotely treason.

Yeah presidents have too much power and getting a complete loser mentally ill colluding criminal like this in the WH is proving how dangerous it really is.

[idhawkman]

OK understood - oversight. If you're a congressman, and you believe the president is acting in a harmful way to the country, what are the steps you take?

Have the DOJ hire a Special Counsel??

BOOM!!! What, give him free reign to hire as many attorneys, investigators and spend as much as he'd like and take his report as the final word? Hmmm.....

To answer I-5's question more specifically, how about identify the crime (or harmful way) he is doing. That would go a huge way toward understanding if this is a another witch hunt by a different witch hunter or a legitimate inquiry.

[idhawkman]

Except Congress didn’t have anything to do with appointing the special counsel, right?

Oh give me a break. Even HawkTalk the most ardent anti-Trumper out there was on Mueller's band wagon calling him the most independent guy, upstanding Marine, career FBI guy and to be trusted. Congress threatened the president to let him do his investigation unfettered and had Republican support to let him do his investigation unfettered. Trying to now paint Mueller as partisan or biased is simply laughable.

The president’s hand-picked Deputy Attorney General did that. Maybe next you’d say ‘read the report’ except no Democrats have been allowed to see an unredacted version.

You may not know it but the gang of 8 does have access to read the full report - they just can't take notes, pictures or photocopy it. Interestingly enough, none of those dems have gone to read it though. However, those same dems wanting the whole thing unredacted and released to the public are now saying that AG Barr's new power to declassify what went into the opening of the "Crossfire Hurricane" operation say it will jeopardize national security. Isn't that interesting how they want that double standard?

Now what would you if you are charged with oversight and the AG won’t let you access the full report?

I'd go read the full report.

[idhawkman]

The congressional inquiries are legitimate oversight as judge after judge during various administrations have shown. And its not a zero sum game as far as report released and dems just want to rehash it, a" redo" as Trump feeds to his trumpard lackeys and they lap it up.

McGanns testimony to Mueller was that Trump called him up after hours and ordered him to call Rosenstein and order him to fire Mueller, over which he testified he threatened to resign, actually started cleaning out his office( just shows what a chickenS#!t pussy trump really is but i digress) Then Trump ordered McGann to make a public statement denying that Trump had asked him to order the firing of Mueller after the news was leaked to the press. McGann again refused. Then Trump asked McGann to write a statement saying that he had not been asked to publicly deny what he had been asked to do. He again refused and told Raince Preibus that the president was asking him to do "crazy Sh!t."

Words mean things. Read the previous paragraph that you wrote and see if you can tell where the inconsistency is. "IF" you actually read it (which is in your own words) you'll see that Trump was very consistent and truthful.

After the release of the report Trump called McGanns account "bullshit" and derided lawyers who take notes.


Follow along Trumptards. Clear obstruction shown in report even though Mueller decides not to make a "traditional prosecutorial decision" and punts it to the congress.

No, he punted the decision on that to the AG. Congress is trying to infer that it was punted to them but the fact of indicting or not was up to the AG after Mueller refused to do it.

President challenges the veracity of the report publicly. Congress subpoenas McGann , his secretary and other key witnesses for a hearing to clear up the discrepancy and Trump declares executive privilege over the investigation of himself....

Yep, because he's already been through it. No need to go over it again. Mueller and his band of 18 angry democrats had 30 hours of McGann testimony already. That's enough.

Meanwhile his stooge Barr the walrus

Great, now an ad hominum attack - doesn't help your cause you know, it just shows your bias.

announces an investigation of the investigators who were looking at clear election interference by our greatest geopolitical foe and all to clearly benefit a candidate who showed a curious fascination with Putin, his praise of him was well outside the norm. Totally legit necessary X 10 investigation obviously but the POTUS daily rambling disjointed misspelled tweets prove he has a predetermined outcome in mind as he accuses the FBI etc of "treason" proving what a brain dead cretin he truly is.

Wow, you must be going for a record of how many times you can be wrong in one post. What this indicated was that the campaign should have been given a defensive briefing alerting the campaign of nefarious activities instead of running a full blown op against an opposing campaign.

Hes the one who has committed and continues to commit treason. If everything he says about the FBI is true its not remotely treason.

Give it time, we are going to find out who actually committed treason trying to prevent one party from gaining a victory in our presidential election and then trying to overturn the result of that election and disinfranchising 65 million Americans.

Yeah presidents have too much power and getting a complete loser mentally ill colluding criminal like this in the WH is proving how dangerous it really is.

Again with the Ad hominem attacks. its weak on your part and you're better than that. That said, what exactly is the danger. Please spell it out here because everywhere I look, we are stronger in every way since 2016 and getting stronger.

[idhawkman]

I guess Mueller is going to make a statement in about an hour about the Russian influence in the last election. He is not taking any questions. How brave of him. I think I'm losing some respect for this vaunted Marine.

[idhawkman]

Interesting. Mueller just threw red meat to the Dems in his presser and all but dared them to start impeachment proceedings. Let's see if they take him up on it.

[c_hawkbob]

And in that statement:

A redacted version of Mueller’s 448-page report, released last month, found no conspiracy between Russia and Trump’s campaign. But it chronicled at least 10 episodes of efforts by Trump to obstruct the federal probe.

But,

Mueller said they could not charge the president with a crime because they considered it unconstitutional.

And he resigned saying he wouldn't testify before congress, that his report was his testimony.

So basically the only reason Trump has not been indicted is because Mueller felt it unconstitutional to indict a sitting president.

[burrrton]

Now what would you if you are charged with oversight and the AG won’t let you access the full report?

I'd read the damn thing and quit whining they won't let me see things I'm not allowed to see.

Now go tell them to do the same.

[burrrton]

Again with the Ad hominem attacks. its weak on your part and you're better than that.

No, he's not. He can't even level an ad-hom that doesn't make him sound clinically insane- it has to be five or six bizarre words strung together at random.

[burrrton]

So basically the only reason Trump has not been indicted is because Mueller felt it unconstitutional to indict a sitting president.

I don't know how true this is, but didn't he conclude Trump *tried* to obstruct, but was unsuccessful (because staff didn't comply, etc)?

[c_hawkbob]

I don't know how true this is, but didn't he conclude Trump *tried* to obstruct, but was unsuccessful (because staff didn't comply, etc)?

Is not "efforts by Trump to obstruct the federal probe" the same as "Trump *tried* to obstruct"?

[I-5]

Looks like the special counsel and the AG are not as aligned as we were led to think by Barr.

[burrrton]

Is not "efforts by Trump to obstruct the federal probe" the same as "Trump *tried* to obstruct"?

Yes, hence my question. Trying unsuccessfully, if that's all that ultimately took place (the answer to which I truly don't know), would not be obstruction.

[RiverDog]

“As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

Pretty much discredits a certain somebody who was running around saying that the report was a "complete exoneration." And some of you wonder why I don't trust this POTUS to be truthful.

“So that was the Justice Department policy (of not indicting a sitting POTUS) and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination - one way or the other - about whether the president committed a crime.

That's why Congress must resolve the question as to whether or not DJT obstructed the investigation, because the DOJ is prohibited from doing so and will not make such a determination.

FYI Here's a full text of Mueller's statement:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1SZ23Q

[RiverDog]

So basically the only reason Trump has not been indicted is because Mueller felt it unconstitutional to indict a sitting president.

I don't know how true this is, but didn't he conclude Trump *tried* to obstruct, but was unsuccessful (because staff didn't comply, etc)?

We can't conclude that the only reason Trump was not indicted was because Mueller felt it was unconstitutional. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

I don't see the significance of the *tried* connotation. It doesn't matter if he was successful or not. If it is revealed that Trump was attempting to alter witness testimony, either by the carrot or the stick, he would be guilty of obstruction of justice.

A unique feature of this particular offense is that it covers attempts to obstruct justice; not just successful obstructions.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/c ... stice.aspx

[c_hawkbob]

Maybe you can't but I sure can.

[I-5]

“Those comments by Bob Mueller about the other processes — obviously impeachment being the only constitutional way to accuse the president of wrongdoing — definitely contradicts what the attorney general said when he summarized Mueller’s report and said that he then had to draw the conclusion on that. Mueller clearly contradicts that today in a very concise way. On the obstruction issue, this was never going to be a Department of Justice or special counsel call. In the end, on a sitting president, this is the call of the Congress playing their role as a coequal branch of government and they’re now going to have to decide what it is they want to do.”

This coming from a Trump defender, former gov and prosecutor Chris Christie

[burrrton]

Good information, RD- that appears to be discussing Canadian law, though.

Again, though, I don't know- was just relaying what I'd been reading (when I can stand to spend the time doing so!).

[idhawkman]

A redacted version of Mueller’s 448-page report, released last month, found no conspiracy between Russia and Trump’s campaign. But it chronicled at least 10 episodes of efforts by Trump to obstruct the federal probe.

Well then, I guess its too bad for you and the dems that there isn't a "trying to obstruct a federal probe" law.

Mueller said they could not charge the president with a crime because they considered it unconstitutional.

Yep, but he told the AG a totally different story and isn't that convenient that he doesn't want to testify now. I have been saying for quite a while in here that Mueller wouldn't want to answer questions by the republicans about when he knew there was no collusion and other questions.

And he resigned saying he wouldn't testify before congress, that his report was his testimony.

So basically the only reason Trump has not been indicted is because Mueller felt it unconstitutional to indict a sitting president.

Again, he told the AG and deputy AG and a band of other DOJ people that it wasn't because of that. Hmmm... now he has changed his story. Another question he won't want to answer. That said, his entire statement today had NOTHING NEW in it from his report.

Here's the fun part though, after Nadler's and the band of 25 candidates comments today, they have no choice but to put him up for impeachment. So in that regard, thank you Mueller for handing the president another term.

[idhawkman]

“As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

Because we all know that DOJ investigations always say someone is innocent of a crime.... Oh wait, we are all innocent until proven guilty so....??????

“So that was the Justice Department policy (of not indicting a sitting POTUS) and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination - one way or the other - about whether the president committed a crime.

Yep, seems like Mueller's story is changing from what he told a room full of DOJ officials 3 times.

That's why Congress must resolve the question as to whether or not DJT obstructed the investigation, because the DOJ is prohibited from doing so and will not make such a determination.

Most republicans are hoping that congress tries it. They almost have to now after Mueller's statement and Nadler's reactions. So let the circus begin and when the swing "moderate" dems go back to their districts and show that they were totally partisan and got NOTHING done, we'll not only have the house and senate but Trump for another 4 years.

[idhawkman]

By the way, anyone thinking that Mueller won't be called in front of congress in an impeachment hearing is deluding themselves.

[idhawkman]

We can't conclude that the only reason Trump was not indicted was because Mueller felt it was unconstitutional. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

I don't see the significance of the *tried* connotation. It doesn't matter if he was successful or not. If it is revealed that Trump was attempting to alter witness testimony, either by the carrot or the stick, he would be guilty of obstruction of justice.

Wrong. "IF" a steer tries to impregnate a cow did he actually do the job? According to your logic the answer is yes, but we all know the steer has no tools to actually do it.

A unique feature of this particular offense is that it covers attempts to obstruct justice; not just successful obstructions.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/c ... stice.aspx

So according to you "JUSTICE" was involved in a crime that wasn't committed. Hmmm....

[idhawkman]

“Those comments by Bob Mueller about the other processes — obviously impeachment being the only constitutional way to accuse the president of wrongdoing — definitely contradicts what the attorney general said when he summarized Mueller’s report and said that he then had to draw the conclusion on that. Mueller clearly contradicts that today in a very concise way. On the obstruction issue, this was never going to be a Department of Justice or special counsel call. In the end, on a sitting president, this is the call of the Congress playing their role as a coequal branch of government and they’re now going to have to decide what it is they want to do.”

This coming from a Trump defender, former gov and prosecutor Chris Christie

Do you think he's goading the dems to do it because he knows what that means for the upcoming election?

[I-5]

Do you think he's goading the dems to do it?

Dunno, but I’m on record saying no impeachment necessary. Much much better and clearer to simply vote him out. If that happens, we already know Trump is going to say it’s fixed. Remember when he kept repeating that claim over and over, then suddenly changed his tune after he won? I do. Can’t believe his supporters actually believed him, but he’ll try to do it again.

[Hawktawk]

Mueller slaps Barr in his fat lying mouth with this statement . He makes it plain that the only reason he did not indict trump for obstructing an investigation into unprecedented cooperation and meddling with our greatest geopolitical foe was because he felt he couldn’t due to justice department guidelines . This flies in direct contrast to Barr’s perjurous lies to Congress and false original statement .

It’s time to impeach now. Let the chips fall where they may. So sick of both parties making a political calculation. If Dems weren’t worried about losing the house in 2020 they would impeach this criminal. If republicans followed their conscience assuming the still had one instead of worrying about being primaried by the trumptard base it would be a unanimous yes vote .


But it’s time now. Impeach this sob or say goodbye to the rule of law and hello banana republic.

[idhawkman]

Dunno, but I’m on record saying no impeachment necessary. Much much better and clearer to simply vote him out.

I totally agree with this, but you know that the dem supporters want blood and will never settle for anything less than impeachment. The media also want impeachment probably because it will feed into their news rooms that have suffered support ever since the Mueller report. I don't think the dems will be able to avoid impeachment. That said, if they don't impeach, they will demoralize a big segment of their base. I don't think the dems and their supporters realize how much jeopardy Mueller put them in yesterday. Its worse than what Comey did to Hilliary.

If that happens, we already know Trump is going to say it’s fixed. Remember when he kept repeating that claim over and over, then suddenly changed his tune after he won? I do. Can’t believe his supporters actually believed him, but he’ll try to do it again.

Well, if what you say is true (and we don't know that yet), then at least he is open and transparent about it unlike the dems who said they would abide by the voter's wishes and yet have refused to accept the election results even 2.5 years later.

[RiverDog]

Good information, RD- that appears to be discussing Canadian law, though.

Again, though, I don't know- was just relaying what I'd been reading (when I can stand to spend the time doing so!).

Yes, I saw that, too, but I think you'll find that there are very few discrepancies between legal terms used in the US vs. Canada. The point is that you do not necessarily have to alter the outcome of a legal proceeding in order to be guilty of obstruction, and I can give plenty of examples...Jimmy Hoffa's attempt to tamper with a jury is one that comes to mind. They caught on to it and changed the jury in the middle of his trial then was subsequently tried and convicted of jury tampering.

[idhawkman]

Mueller slaps Barr in his fat lying mouth with this statement . He makes it plain that the only reason he did not indict trump for obstructing an investigation into unprecedented cooperation and meddling with our greatest geopolitical foe was because he felt he couldn’t due to justice department guidelines .

You may not know this but that has been debunked already since 2 months after that OLC policy was passed, the president of the United States was indicted. Uh-oh, there goes that argument.

This flies in direct contrast to Barr’s perjurous lies to Congress and false original statement .

Well Barr has two witnesses that refute Mueller's claim from yesterday. Not only once, or twice but three times Mueller told those three his not charging was in no way impacted by the OLC policy.

It’s time to impeach now. Let the chips fall where they may. So sick of both parties making a political calculation. If Dems weren’t worried about losing the house in 2020 they would impeach this criminal.

You do realize that even Nancy Pelosi says only 10% of her caucus wants impeachment at this time, right?

If republicans followed their conscience assuming the still had one instead of worrying about being primaried by the trumptard base it would be a unanimous yes vote .

So you are thinking that congress who is sent to capitol hill to represent their constituents is suppose to vote 100% (sounds like Strzok's tweet - you aren't Strzok are you?) for impeachment when the population says 63% don't want impeachment? Got it.

But it’s time now. Impeach this sob or say goodbye to the rule of law and hello banana republic.

This is the exact reaction that I predicted would happen after that Mueller briefing (it was not a press conference since the press didn't get to ask questions). The dems are not going to impeach unless the media and their radical base push them into it. But as we've seen, there are no High Crimes or Misdemeanors that have been committed so they are going to be terribly embarrassed when Trump is cleared of all charges.

[RiverDog]

Mueller slaps Barr in his fat lying mouth with this statement . He makes it plain that the only reason he did not indict trump for obstructing an investigation into unprecedented cooperation and meddling with our greatest geopolitical foe was because he felt he couldn’t due to justice department guidelines . This flies in direct contrast to Barr’s perjurous lies to Congress and false original statement .

It’s time to impeach now. Let the chips fall where they may. So sick of both parties making a political calculation. If Dems weren’t worried about losing the house in 2020 they would impeach this criminal. If republicans followed their conscience assuming the still had one instead of worrying about being primaried by the trumptard base it would be a unanimous yes vote .


But it’s time now. Impeach this sob or say goodbye to the rule of law and hello banana republic.

Like I said above, Mueller did not say or imply that the only reason he didn't indict Trump was due to department policy. You're trying to read between the lines.

As far as impeachment goes, the Dems would be extremely foolish to push it, and I'm surprised that Pelosi is entertaining the idea. With just 18 months until the next election, all Trump has to do is go into a 4 corner offense (old CBK term) and run out the clock by forcing everything to go to court.