• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

First Charges Filed in Mueller Investigation

Wrangor said:
Wait... you are serious? Can’t wait for the next time a cop shows up at your house without a warrant and says they are coming to investigate to see if you are committing any crimes. Should go over real well.

Quick note: tax audits = legal
The above = not legal
Click to expand...

No one showed up without a warrant. Thus, your premise has zero validity.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
He said he wasn't going to make a determination of whether criminal obstruction occurred because of the outstanding question as to whether a sitting president can be indicted.

For instance Mueller provided the following:

"Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the President’s conduct toward the investigation."

That's the definition of obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

This.
 
tintinisahottie said:
Says the people ignoring the results of both an election and an investigation because it didn’t go over well for their party
Click to expand...

The investigation showed TEN cases of obstruction of justice. The only reason Trump hasn't been arrested is the moronic DOJ rule that POTUS is above the law.

It showed over 100 contacts between the Trump Campaign and Russians.

It showed Trump's Campaign manager giving data to a Russian agent to help them target Americans in the 2016 election.

And much more.

tintin and his buddies like Russia owning POTUS.
 
tintinisahottie said:
Says the people ignoring the results of both an election and an investigation because it didn’t go over well for their party
Click to expand...

Yes, the 2018 midterms and the Mueller investigation did not go well for Republicans. No amount of spin from Trump and Barr can change that.
 
Wrangor said:
With Mueller? Of course not. Muellers investigation is over. Impeachment is the option now for democrats but I don’t think they really want to go that route because it won’t pass the senate even if they could get it through the house.

The quote earlier? That is exactly what that is asking for. An investigation to unearth an unidentified crime or to reveal damaging personal and political information. That is exactly what the quote states.

Why does every dissenting opinion have to mean someone is broken? That’s extremely condescending and pretty awful behavior to be honest. I am remembering now why it’s better to lurk. Conversation is not desired. Dissent and be destroyed. .

You guys are right. Trump should be in jail despite a 25 million investigation. That concluded no evidence of collusion and not enough evidence of obstruction to make a determination. How is it that logic is lining up with Trump ? Get a hold of yourself Tunnels.
Click to expand...

qft
 
Wrangor said:
Haha. I barely even post here anymore because the left has collective Trump derangement. So much so though it is the left that is suggesting we start investigating people to find out if they did something. That’s crazy.

Ya’ll have lost it. I just lurk for the occasional laugh.
Click to expand...



Umm...yea?

That’s the purpose of a good investigation.


Weird.
 
It seems Trump has won the linguistic battle.


The Mueller team absolutely did not determine there was no “collusion” between Trump, his campaign, and Russia.

Only they did not find evidence of criminal conspiracy with respect to the known instances of illegal Russian interference/activity.
 
Last edited:
It’s not worth having a conversation with someone who is entirely convinced that black is white and up is down.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
He said he wasn't going to make a determination of whether criminal obstruction occurred because of the outstanding question as to whether a sitting president can be indicted.

For instance Mueller provided the following:

"Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the President’s conduct toward the investigation."

That's the definition of obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

This is what board conservatives keep ignoring. And sailor.

Wrangor, I wish you’d post more, you’re a good conservative voice on here. But the victimhood of “this is why I don’t post here” tone whenever you do post is lame man. The victim mentality is already pervasive in conservative ideology, no need for more. Just argue your opinion and merits, no big deal. More people appreciate your opinions than don’t!
 
DDA said:
This is what board conservatives keep ignoring. And sailor.

Wrangor, I wish you’d post more, you’re a good conservative voice on here. But the victimhood of “this is why I don’t post here” tone whenever you do post is lame man. The victim mentality is already pervasive in conservative ideology, no need for more. Just argue your opinion and merits, no big deal. More people appreciate your opinions than don’t!
Click to expand...


It is pretty frustrating that every time a conservative post is levied you are responded with a bevy or 'he's broken' or 'hes brainwashed'...that is why I don't post. It is impossible to have a rational conversation without people on this board attempting to silence a voice using whatever personal, intellectual, or religious insult they can muster. I have more to do in my life than to defend myself on an anonymous message board, and when pressed I am compulsed to respond and end up wasting much more of my day than I should parrying blows. :cool:

I agree that the OLC's opinion played a factor, but Barr also testified under oath that Mueller three times stated that regardless of the OLC ruling, if the evidence and facts of the case warranted a charge of obstruction, Mueller would have levied the charge. Instead the evidence was very hazy, and therefore it wasn't worth trying to jump the first (possibly large) OLC hurdle in order to try and prove a case that was most likely not winnable (even if/when the OLC decision could be sidestepped).

I feel as though the OLC decision is all that the Democrats are hearing, when in fact, according to testimony under oath (that Mueller has not refuted as far as I have seen), the charge would have been levied by Mueller if the facts warranted it.

It is really difficult to prove criminal obstruction is what I am learning from the reading I have done, PARTICULARLY when the investigation that you are being accused of obstruction returns a verdict that is absent of prosecuted guilt. Trump is by no means innocent, but if Mueller had the evidence to charge Trump with something he would have. I don't believe that Mueller is a stoog, and feel as though he conducted an exhaustive and thorough investigation.
 
Wrangor said:
It is pretty frustrating that every time a conservative post is levied you are responded with a bevy or 'he's broken' or 'hes brainwashed'...that is why I don't post. It is impossible to have a rational conversation without people on this board attempting to silence a voice using whatever personal, intellectual, or religious insult they can muster. I have more to do in my life than to defend myself on an anonymous message board, and when pressed I am compulsed to respond and end up wasting much more of my day than I should parrying blows. :cool:

I agree that the OLC's opinion played a factor, but Barr also testified under oath that Mueller three times stated that regardless of the OLC ruling, if the evidence and facts of the case warranted a charge of obstruction, Mueller would have levied the charge. Instead the evidence was very hazy, and therefore it wasn't worth trying to jump the first (possibly large) OLC hurdle in order to try and prove a case that was most likely not winnable (even if/when the OLC decision could be sidestepped).

I feel as though the OLC decision is all that the Democrats are hearing, when in fact, according to testimony under oath (that Mueller has not refuted as far as I have seen), the charge would have been levied by Mueller if the facts warranted it.

It is really difficult to prove criminal obstruction is what I am learning from the reading I have done, PARTICULARLY when the investigation that you are being accused of obstruction returns a verdict that is absent of prosecuted guilt. Trump is by no means innocent, but if Mueller had the evidence to charge Trump with something he would have. I don't believe that Mueller is a stoog, and feel as though he conducted an exhaustive and thorough investigation.
Click to expand...

One person posted “he is broken.” That’s it. Plenty of people engaged you honestly — ph, numbers, etc. Just ignore the Shoo’s of your world and keep posting man.
 
Wrangor said:
It is pretty frustrating that every time a conservative post is levied you are responded with a bevy or 'he's broken' or 'hes brainwashed'...that is why I don't post. It is impossible to have a rational conversation without people on this board attempting to silence a voice using whatever personal, intellectual, or religious insult they can muster. I have more to do in my life than to defend myself on an anonymous message board, and when pressed I am compulsed to respond and end up wasting much more of my day than I should parrying blows. :cool:

I agree that the OLC's opinion played a factor, but Barr also testified under oath that Mueller three times stated that regardless of the OLC ruling, if the evidence and facts of the case warranted a charge of obstruction, Mueller would have levied the charge. Instead the evidence was very hazy, and therefore it wasn't worth trying to jump the first (possibly large) OLC hurdle in order to try and prove a case that was most likely not winnable (even if/when the OLC decision could be sidestepped).

I feel as though the OLC decision is all that the Democrats are hearing, when in fact, according to testimony under oath (that Mueller has not refuted as far as I have seen), the charge would have been levied by Mueller if the facts warranted it.

It is really difficult to prove criminal obstruction is what I am learning from the reading I have done, PARTICULARLY when the investigation that you are being accused of obstruction returns a verdict that is absent of prosecuted guilt. Trump is by no means innocent, but if Mueller had the evidence to charge Trump with something he would have. I don't believe that Mueller is a stoog, and feel as though he conducted an exhaustive and thorough investigation.
Click to expand...

Barr LIED multiple times in his House and Senate appearances. Why would you believe ANYTHING he says?

Barr testified under oath he didn't even LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE in the Mueller Report. This you saying this "Instead the evidence was very hazy" is without any basis in reality.

PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION- Given that Barr testified he didn't look at the evidence in the Mueller report, how can he make any of these statements?
 
Another question for Wrangor - How can you believe Barr would be believable when he stated in a nineteen page job interview piece that ANY POTUS cannot be charged with obstruction of justice?

PLEASE answer that...
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
"Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the President’s conduct toward the investigation."

That's the definition of obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

I disagree that Mueller would have brought charges if he believed it was warranted - again based on the above. This quote directly implicates all three elements of obstruction of justice including the “substantial evidence” threshold. This single sentence from the Mueller report shows a conclusion that on at least one of the interactions Mueller examined, he believes Donald committed obstruction of justice.

Again, Mueller directly stated that he did not reach a conclusion regarding bringing criminal charges because of the open question of whether a sitting president could be indicted. If this were any other individual in America, it’s pretty clear Mueller would have concluded that there should have - at the least - been an indictment for obstruction of justice.
 
Wrangor, you keep talking about Barr being under oath but you treat something that is technically an opinion (thus not subject to a perjury charge) as the absolute truth even though it contradicts Mueller himself.

Trump installed an AG willing to obfuscate the situation on his behalf and it worked on you.
 
ConnorEl said:
It seems Trump has won the linguistic battle.


The Mueller team absolutely did not determine there was no “collusion” between Trump, his campaign, and Russia.

Only they did not find evidence of criminal conspiracy with respect to the known instances of illegal Russian interference/activity.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that part of the reason he could not find evidence was the defending party obstructed justice by lying, being uncooperative, and DELETING EMAILS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top