This Won't end Well for Germany

[Mike Ault]

Your reply had nothing to do with my post. So you're saying Trump did get impeached as a result of the Mueller investigation? Nope.

True enough, you were just spreading so much misinformation around in service of a Russian colluding gasbag I thought had better get that contention nailed down. You said Mueller proved nothing, I think you are mistaken. Back to the time-wasting impeachments. The mere fact Trump didn't need any other form of cooperation from Ukraine other than "the announcement of an investigation into Joe Biden" tells you enough about Republicans. Getting "Joe Biden" and "investigation" in the same headline for political purposes was his goal and you are not allowed to withhold military aid from allies to accomplish such things. As for the second time-wasting impeachment, I believe that Trump needs to spend time behind bars for January 6. That will help with my TDS and if we are able to incarcerate everybody who enabled his extralegal and unconstitutional assault on political system as well I might finally be cured!

 

[Mike Ault]

So you are saying Mueller had proof but intentionally left it out of his report?

During his congressional testimony on Wednesday, former special counsel Robert Mueller noted that part of his decision to refrain from considering an indictment of President Donald Trump was attributed to a long-standing Justice Department policy: According to the agency’s Office of Legal Counsel, a sitting president cannot be charged with a federal crime.

“We, at the outset, determined that, when it came to the president’s culpability, we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a sitting president cannot be indicted,” he said.

Instead of prosecuting the president, Mueller laid out a path for Congress to take action​

Mueller’s report may have abstained from charging the president, but it offered a blueprint for Congress to follow if lawmakers wanted to pursue further investigation.

As Vox’s Ella Nilsen writes, Mueller emphasizes that Congress has the ability to determine if the president obstructed justice. One key line of the report lays this out, noting, “The conclusion that Congress may apply obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

Congressional action is the most direct means of addressing any potential criminal activity by President Donald Trump, some legal experts say.

“Even if, to use Trump’s own example, he shot someone on Fifth Avenue, the only remedy would be for the president to be impeached by the House, convicted and removed from office by the Senate, and only then prosecuted in criminal court,” Georgetown University Law Professor Paul Butler has said. “If there is no impeachment, that’s a political crisis, not a constitutional one.”

Why Mueller said he couldn’t indict Trump, explained

The Justice Department has a long-standing policy that prevents federal prosecutors from charging the president with a crime.

www.vox.com

 

[Dublin ohio]

obstructed justice

That is a long way from Russian collusion. But I have always had a problem with "obstruction of justice". When the whole investigation was based on a bs dossier and circular confirmation of information. If their was any obstruction of justice. It was by people like Adam Schiff and the MSM

 

[Mike Ault]

That is a long way from Russian collusion. But I have always had a problem with "obstruction of justice". When the whole investigation was based on a bs dossier and circular confirmation of information. If their was any obstruction of justice. It was by people like Adam Schiff and the MSM

Here's what the report said about Trumps "obstruction of justice" then –

In the hours after the public release of the redacted report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller, President Donald Trump took to Twitter with a message that reads, in part, “NO OBSTRUCTION!”

That’s not at all what the Mueller report says, though.

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”

Mueller, however, refrained from recommending prosecution, saying that there were “difficult [legal] issues that would need to be resolved,” in order to reach a conclusion that the crime of obstruction of justice was committed by Trump.

Factoring into his decision not to weigh in on prosecution, Mueller wrote, was an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”

“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct,” Mueller wrote.

Mueller emphasized, however, that his analysis of the evidence did not clear the president of obstruction. Said Mueller: “f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

That is a long way from Russian collusion. But I have always had a problem with "obstruction of justice". When the whole investigation was based on a bs dossier and circular confirmation of information. If their was any obstruction of justice. It was by people like Adam Schiff and the MSM

Quite a bit of Mueller's evidence was quoting news articles. It is just circular fake news. You tell the news to report something, and then you claim the reporting is truth and fact as your evidence. Because there was no there there they tried to pivot to him obstructing their fake investigation by calling it out as a witch hunt. Prosecutors do not look to clear people, they charge people. The whole unable to reach the judgement of innocence is just more political pandering, they are not there to prove innocence, nor did they care to do that.

 

[Mike Ault]

That is a long way from Russian collusion. But I have always had a problem with "obstruction of justice". When the whole investigation was based on a bs dossier and circular confirmation of information. If their was any obstruction of justice. It was by people like Adam Schiff and the MSM

Here is what initiated the Mueller Investigation and it had absolutely nothing to do with the "Steel Dossier". Why do you people keep repeating that? And my apologies to "all you people" that don't…

On May 9, 2017, President Donald Trump dismissed former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey, who had been leading an ongoing Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation into links between Trump associates and Russian officials.[51][52] This investigation, code named Crossfire Hurricane, began in July 2016 after the Australian government advised US authorities that George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor in the Trump campaign, had met with one of their diplomats in May 2016 and "suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia" that Russia could release information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.[53][54] Papadopolous had received this suggestion in April 2016, well before it was publicly reported that Russia had damaging information about Clinton (the Democratic National Committee had in June 2016 announced that a Russian hack occurred).[55][56] Papadopoulos later testified that this "damaging information" was in the form of hacked emails that were stolen from the Democratic Party.[57]

Over 130 Democratic lawmakers of the United States Congress called for a special counsel to be appointed in reaction to Comey's firing.[58] CNN reported that within eight days of Comey's dismissal, an FBI investigation on Trump for obstruction of justice was opened by the acting FBI Director at the time, Andrew McCabe, who cited multiple reasons including Comey's firing.[59] After McCabe was later fired from the FBI, he confirmed that he had opened the obstruction investigation, and gave additional reasons for its launch.[60]

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

Hypothetical: Mike Ault is accused of colluding with the Russians to kill my dog. My dog is still alive. Mike Ault protests the witch hunt and wants it shut down, now investigate him for obstruction of justice and claim you can't determine if he is innocent.

 

[Mike Ault]

Hypothetical: Mike Ault is accused of colluding with the Russians to kill my dog. My dog is still alive. Mike Ault protests the witch hunt and wants it shut down, now investigate him for obstruction of justice and claim you can't determine if he is innocent.

Bravo for your "moral relativism" sir! An observation almost worthy of myself. However, If I was a known consumer of dogs, associated with people who enjoyed torturing and killing dogs with chemical weapons and said great things about them in public while urging greater cooperation with them and their goals, and your dog wound up deathly ill after I came to pay you a visit would you simply shake your head and say "I have no idea who could have done it"? I think not. If you have ever served as a juror during a criminal trial you would have been informed that you don't have to be presented with actual physical evidence of guilt to reach your decision, just enough circumstantial evidence that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the accused is guilty of the crime is sufficient.

 

[Mike Ault]

“What Trump and some news outlets are saying is wrong,” attorneys Jody Westby and Mark Rasch told the Times. “The cybersecurity researchers were investigating malware in the White House, not spying on the Trump campaign, and to our knowledge all of the data they used was nonprivate DNS data from before Trump took office.”

In other words, Trump and company got the whole thing hilariously, mortifyingly incorrect. But fear not: We’re sure they’ll issue a lengthy correction and heartfelt apology to the people whose reputations they impugned—and the ones Trump suggested should be put to death—in no time.

You’ll Never Believe It but Hillary Clinton Did Not, in Fact, Spy On Trump’s White House

In less breaking news, Donald Trump remains a moron.

www.vanityfair.com

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Mueller proved nothing, I think you are mistaken.

Even Rachael Madcow was pretty quiet after the report was released. Funny that CNN has lost some 90% of their readers from a year ago. Mueller said he couldn't prove that Trump committed a crime, then said the thing you expect a Democrat operative would say. You cannot prove a negative so he could not prove Trump didn't commit a crime despite not finding a shred of evidence that he did. Of course, I can't prove Epstein didn't kill himself either...