Bill Barr

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
Apparently there are 2 Mueller Reports. One that says the campaign colluded and one that says it didn't. I've only seen the one from this dimension that says no collusion.

The one and only Mueller Report says Trump didn't collude, but did not exonerate him from obstruction. So, the conversation is about obstruction, not collusion.

Is that understandable? Can we proceed from there?
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
The one and only Mueller Report says Trump didn't collude, but did not exonerate him from obstruction. So, the conversation is about obstruction, not collusion.

Is that understandable? Can we proceed from there?
Actually no, In American the presumption of innocence is the starting line, Trump was 100% clean under that standard, period
No, if you would like to proceed we'll need to see a criminal complaint that lists precisely what they intend to prove pertaining obstruction.
That is exactly how the criminal process works in The United States currently.
 

JL 0513

Well-Known Member
The one and only Mueller Report says Trump didn't collude, but did not exonerate him from obstruction. So, the conversation is about obstruction, not collusion.

Is that understandable? Can we proceed from there?

It's not Mueller's place to exonerate Trump of obstruction. His scope already went far beyond what he was appointed to do. Remember when Mueller was appointed specifically to investigate Russian interference and Trump was told he wasn't being investigated? Somehow it morphed into investigating everything including what campaign people did many years before the campaign (Manafort).

Do you really think a special counsel can charge the President of obstruction? Especially when he didn't interfere with the investigation?

Obstruction by a president is destroying evidence, ordering people to interfere with the investigation including destroying evidence, ordering them to lie, and things of that nature. What people are saying is obstruction is Trump's continuing proclamation that he didn't collude or calling the whole thing a hoax or whatever. That's no where near obstruction. They can try all they want, an obstruction charge will never be made.
 
Last edited:

JL 0513

Well-Known Member
Actually no, In American the presumption of innocence is the starting line, Trump was 100% clean under that standard, period
No, if you would like to proceed we'll need to see a criminal complaint that lists precisely what they intend to prove pertaining obstruction.
That is exactly how the criminal process works in The United States currently.

They hate Trump so much that they believe he needs to be the first American in history that needs to prove his innocence. I wonder what the formula is for proving a negative. I missed that one in school.
 

JL 0513

Well-Known Member
So looking into what these former US attorney's are whining about, among the main "obstuctions" as we've discussed before is that Trump wanted to fire Mueller. It's hilarious.

As far as I know, there's a Mueller Report. Perhaps the US attorneys missed that part. Or they're making desires illegal.

It's like me losing my license because I wanted to see how fast my car could go even though I didn't follow through on that desire.

Minority Report, Mueller Report, same thing?
 

BrownFlush

Woke Racist Reigning Ban King
59413601_10218559426687748_8186368598600581120_n.jpg
 

brownmonster

Man of Great Wisdom
They hate Trump so much that they believe he needs to be the first American in history that needs to prove his innocence. I wonder what the formula is for proving a negative. I missed that one in school.
This is a UPS site after all. We're all used to being guilty until proven innocent.
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
The one and only Mueller Report says Trump didn't collude, but did not exonerate him from obstruction. So, the conversation is about obstruction, not collusion.

Is that understandable? Can we proceed from there?


mueller says I aint got enough to charge him. get used to it.
 
Top