Libs let’s play a game. Pilt drop the Sanka
- Thread starter HighStickHarry
- Start date
So Trump was so masterful that he obstructed Mueller and Mueller didn't know it,m
Why would there be an investigation to obstruct if there was no underlying crime being investigated? Does law enforcement do investigations like the IRS does audits?
Aware of what obstruction? You've read Mueller's report? The summary offered by Barr AND Rosenstein doesn't support a criminal charge of obstruction.
Yes, and Barr and Rosenstein didn't find the evidence presented in favor of obstruction to be sufficient to establish that Trump committed an obstruction offense. If Mueller had strong evidence, he wouldn't have left the conclusion to be drawn by Barr.
Based on “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,"
Actually it was...
"In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."
Actually leaving off the rest materially changes what was actually stated in the memo.
He's just a lowly pseudo-economist lobbyist, or someone without basic sense. In the case of the former, best to get a legally trained left of center trial lawyer from Indian territory and having sold his soul long ago in here to interpret such difficult to interpret Emgrish. @Syskatine to Aisle 5; your boy has made a mess.
It's true. About on par with your ability to craft a defensible position on this.
Your wordsmithery, however, is off the charts.
I visited the world trade center in the winter of 2000 and nothing seemed amiss
