Mueller Summary Released

[Lewdog]

No obstruction of justice.

No he said he didn't decide one way or another if he did or not.

Mueller didn't decide, so AG Barr did. And he decided there was not sufficient evidence to charge the President with obstruction of justice.
Here are the excerpts from his summary, and a link to the whole thing.

After making a "thorough factual investigation" into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion -- one way or the other – as to whether the examined conducted constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated , the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The AG goes on to explain that since Mueller did not come to any legal conclusions on this, it is up to Barr himself to determine whether there was a crime. He determined there was not.

AG Barr quotes Mueller as saying "the evidence does not establish that the President wa involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference."

Read: Justice Department summary of Mueller report - CNNPolitics

No such determinations would EVER need to be given to the Obama administration, who wiretapped their political enemies for political gain.

If liberals have even half a brain left--which is doubtful--they will quit while they are ahead. But being liberals, I give that about a 10% chance. Good luck with winners like Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell and Maxine Waters in your court.

From what I've seen so far, I would rather see everyone put this on the shelf and focus on a positive election campaign instead. I said I'd accept the Mueller report findings, and if that summary is accurate, I'm going to hold myself to that promise. Of course, that is a conditional decision, based on what the whole report says. If Barr is cherry picking Mueller's findings, hopefully we will find that out, too.

That's exactly how I feel and what I've said. The problem is, Mueller made a mess by saying he was not deciding obstruction of justice and left it up to a brand new AG appointed by Trump who had said he was totally against Mueller's investigation.

 

[theHawk]

No obstruction of justice.

No he said he didn't decide one way or another if he did or not.

He has no evidence of any obstruction, and there was no underlying crime committed in the first place.

Now go pound sand.

Not true at all. Mueller said he could not come up with a decision one way or another, and that his results do not exonerate Trump.

Investigators do not “exonerate”, they search for evidence of crimes.

He found zero evidence for collusion, period.

You lost. Have fun spinning it otherwise.

This is down right dense. Mueller's investigation had the ability to go in front of a grand jury and get indictments. Mueller clearly stated his results do not exonerate Trump when it comes to obstruction of justice. It's clear as day.

Mueller said his investigation was not obstructed. There is no evidence of any obstruction which means he is exonerated.

 

[Lewdog]

No he said he didn't decide one way or another if he did or not.

He has no evidence of any obstruction, and there was no underlying crime committed in the first place.

Now go pound sand.

Not true at all. Mueller said he could not come up with a decision one way or another, and that his results do not exonerate Trump.

Investigators do not “exonerate”, they search for evidence of crimes.

He found zero evidence for collusion, period.

You lost. Have fun spinning it otherwise.

This is down right dense. Mueller's investigation had the ability to go in front of a grand jury and get indictments. Mueller clearly stated his results do not exonerate Trump when it comes to obstruction of justice. It's clear as day.

Mueller said his investigation was not obstructed. There is no evidence of any obstruction which means he is exonerated.

He did not say that. He said he couldn't decide either way and Trump was not exonerated from it. There is no mincing words, he flat out, clearly, said it.

 

[depotoo]

18 U.S. Code § 1510.Obstruction of criminal investigation


(a)
Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by anyperson to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.



There was no violation of any criminal statute.

No obstruction of justice.

No he said he didn't decide one way or another if he did or not.

He has no evidence of any obstruction, and there was no underlying crime committed in the first place.

Now go pound sand.

Not true at all. Mueller said he could not come up with a decision one way or another, and that his results do not exonerate Trump.

 

[deanrd]

How is no further indictments the same as no indictments?
Republicans don’t seem to be terribly bright

It's over dude YOU LOST

In my time here Dizzy Dean of Chi-town has never won anything I can remember but the railroading of Stone-Manafort he loves so much. Forgot: he won getting rid of Roy Moore.

Getting rid of a pedophile is winning? Yeah I guess it is.

 

[theHawk]

He has no evidence of any obstruction, and there was no underlying crime committed in the first place.

Now go pound sand.

Not true at all. Mueller said he could not come up with a decision one way or another, and that his results do not exonerate Trump.

Investigators do not “exonerate”, they search for evidence of crimes.

He found zero evidence for collusion, period.

You lost. Have fun spinning it otherwise.

This is down right dense. Mueller's investigation had the ability to go in front of a grand jury and get indictments. Mueller clearly stated his results do not exonerate Trump when it comes to obstruction of justice. It's clear as day.

Mueller said his investigation was not obstructed. There is no evidence of any obstruction which means he is exonerated.

He did not say that. He said he couldn't decide either way and Trump was not exonerated from it. There is no mincing words, he flat out, clearly, said it.

It’s not his job to “exonerate” anyone from crimes, it’s his job to find evidence of crimes. He has none.

Whine about it all you want. There is zero evidence of “obstruction”.
You need evidence to charge someone with a crime. There will be no charges based on this report.

 

[deanrd]

2800 subpoenas

500 search warrants

50 pin registers

40 FBI agents

19 Attorneys

Two years of investigation

And in 48 hours, Attorney General Barr can create a summary about that.

No one believes this. It’s got a long way to go.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

2800 subpoenas

500 search warrants

50 pin registers

40 FBI agents

19 Attorneys

Two years of investigation

And in 48 hours, Attorney General Barr can create a summary about that.

No one believes this. It’s got a long way to go.

He read a report? Are you a slow reader? LOL. Keep living in denial

 

[theHawk]

2800 subpoenas

500 search warrants

50 pin registers

40 FBI agents

19 Attorneys

Two years of investigation

And in 48 hours, Attorney General Barr can create a summary about that.

No one believes this. It’s got a long way to go.

Mueller said no more indictments.

You LOST. Get used it.

 

[Lewdog]

18 U.S. Code § 1510.Obstruction of criminal investigation


(a)
Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by anyperson to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.



There was no violation of any criminal statute.

No obstruction of justice.

No he said he didn't decide one way or another if he did or not.

He has no evidence of any obstruction, and there was no underlying crime committed in the first place.

Now go pound sand.

Not true at all. Mueller said he could not come up with a decision one way or another, and that his results do not exonerate Trump.

If it was that clear, the Mueller would have said there was no obstruction. I think he may know a little bit more about the investigation and law than you do.

 

[OldLady]

No obstruction of justice.

No he said he didn't decide one way or another if he did or not.

Mueller didn't decide, so AG Barr did. And he decided there was not sufficient evidence to charge the President with obstruction of justice.
Here are the excerpts from his summary, and a link to the whole thing.

After making a "thorough factual investigation" into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion -- one way or the other – as to whether the examined conducted constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated , the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The AG goes on to explain that since Mueller did not come to any legal conclusions on this, it is up to Barr himself to determine whether there was a crime. He determined there was not.

AG Barr quotes Mueller as saying "the evidence does not establish that the President wa involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference."

Read: Justice Department summary of Mueller report - CNNPolitics

But just like I said, it is quite odd that Barr could make this decision in JUST 48 hours, after a 2 year long investigation and all the evidence. The man who wrote the rules for a special counsel is now on tv saying the exact same thing as I have. Barr rushed his decision, and wonders if he was doing something wrong.

I'm not stupid, Lewdog. I am aware of what could have happened here, with Trump so openly declaring that he wanted an AG "protecting" him. So he fired Sessions, hired Barr and who knows what discussions took place, what agreements were made. I know all that.

I hope that we will have the opportunity to read Mueller's points on this matter, pro and con, in detail. I predict that the Democrats will all decide that Trump was guilty and the Republicans will decide that Trump is innocent. It will accomplish nothing and get us no further. The Special Counsel did what he could. A decision has been lawfully made. I don't support another year and a half of this ripping and tearing.

We have more important things to do.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Someone on this forum, I don't remember who said it, but, he was very correct when he stated "Democrats are going to overreach on this and it's going to backfire". Based on Trumps comments just now that "nobody has looked at the other side, someone should do that" regarding the source and basis of this investigation.

The DNC will be damaged without repair for years if it was proven that Obama admin, was working to ensure Clinton won, and the Russia hoax was designed to prevent this from being known, among other issues.

 

[Lewdog]

Not true at all. Mueller said he could not come up with a decision one way or another, and that his results do not exonerate Trump.

Investigators do not “exonerate”, they search for evidence of crimes.

He found zero evidence for collusion, period.

You lost. Have fun spinning it otherwise.

This is down right dense. Mueller's investigation had the ability to go in front of a grand jury and get indictments. Mueller clearly stated his results do not exonerate Trump when it comes to obstruction of justice. It's clear as day.

Mueller said his investigation was not obstructed. There is no evidence of any obstruction which means he is exonerated.

He did not say that. He said he couldn't decide either way and Trump was not exonerated from it. There is no mincing words, he flat out, clearly, said it.

It’s not his job to “exonerate” anyone from crimes, it’s his job to find evidence of crimes. He has none.

Whine about it all you want. There is zero evidence of “obstruction”.
You need evidence to charge someone with a crime. There will be no charges based on this report.

Do you know what exonerate means? If there were ZERO evidence of obstruction of justice Mueller would have said so.

 

[theHawk]

Investigators do not “exonerate”, they search for evidence of crimes.

He found zero evidence for collusion, period.

You lost. Have fun spinning it otherwise.

This is down right dense. Mueller's investigation had the ability to go in front of a grand jury and get indictments. Mueller clearly stated his results do not exonerate Trump when it comes to obstruction of justice. It's clear as day.

Mueller said his investigation was not obstructed. There is no evidence of any obstruction which means he is exonerated.

He did not say that. He said he couldn't decide either way and Trump was not exonerated from it. There is no mincing words, he flat out, clearly, said it.

It’s not his job to “exonerate” anyone from crimes, it’s his job to find evidence of crimes. He has none.

Whine about it all you want. There is zero evidence of “obstruction”.
You need evidence to charge someone with a crime. There will be no charges based on this report.

Do you know what exonerate means? If there were ZERO evidence of obstruction of justice Mueller would have said so.

Mueller should be able to tell us if his own investigation was obstructed or not. Try to think about it.

 

[boedicca]

Someone on this forum was very correct when he stated "Democrats are going to overreach on this and it's going to backfire". Based on Trumps comments just now that "nobody has looked at the other side, someone should do that" regarding the source and basis of this investigation.

The DNC will be damaged without repair for years if it was proven that Obama admin, was working to ensure Clinton won, and the Russia hoax was designed to prevent this from being known, among other issues.

Indeed. Barr should amp up an investigation into the collusion between hiLIARy, the DNC and the Obabble admin in 2016.

 

[Lewdog]

No obstruction of justice.

No he said he didn't decide one way or another if he did or not.

Mueller didn't decide, so AG Barr did. And he decided there was not sufficient evidence to charge the President with obstruction of justice.
Here are the excerpts from his summary, and a link to the whole thing.

After making a "thorough factual investigation" into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion -- one way or the other – as to whether the examined conducted constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated , the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The AG goes on to explain that since Mueller did not come to any legal conclusions on this, it is up to Barr himself to determine whether there was a crime. He determined there was not.

AG Barr quotes Mueller as saying "the evidence does not establish that the President wa involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference."

Read: Justice Department summary of Mueller report - CNNPolitics

But just like I said, it is quite odd that Barr could make this decision in JUST 48 hours, after a 2 year long investigation and all the evidence. The man who wrote the rules for a special counsel is now on tv saying the exact same thing as I have. Barr rushed his decision, and wonders if he was doing something wrong.

I'm not stupid, Lewdog. I am aware of what could have happened here, with Trump so openly declaring that he wanted an AG "protecting" him. So he fired Sessions, hired Barr and who knows what discussions took place, what agreements were made. I know all that.

I hope that we will have the opportunity to read Mueller's points on this matter, pro and con, in detail. I predict that the Democrats will all decide that Trump was guilty and the Republicans will decide that Trump is innocent. It will accomplish nothing and get us no further. The Special Counsel did what he could. A decision has been lawfully made. I don't support another year and a half of this ripping and tearing.

We have more important things to do.

I never called you stupid, and in fact my post pretty much agrees with you. Trump's next biggest hurdle to overcome is the emoluments cases where it seems he and his family have completed several quid pro quo deals.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So Mueller made no decision on obstruction, but suddenly Barr is making the decision there is no obstruction. How odd.

Tough day??

Nope. Trump doesn't have much longer to serve as President. Regardless of Mueller's findings, we learned quite clearly that Russians have interfered with our election process, and now we can work on ways to prevent that in the future. That is the most important outcome from this.

Mueller didn't say whether Trump obstructed Justice and the AG suddenly decided in two days that Trump didn't obstruct justice. That is quite odd. You are talking about a quite serious issue, and he didn't take very long to finish things. Mueller himself said that his findings did not exonerate Trump.

Damn but you people are stupid. He doesn't have to be exonerated. We have presumption of innocence in this country, and the burden of proof is on the accuser. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, innocence is sustained. No exoneration is necessary.

 

[Lewdog]

This is down right dense. Mueller's investigation had the ability to go in front of a grand jury and get indictments. Mueller clearly stated his results do not exonerate Trump when it comes to obstruction of justice. It's clear as day.

Mueller said his investigation was not obstructed. There is no evidence of any obstruction which means he is exonerated.

He did not say that. He said he couldn't decide either way and Trump was not exonerated from it. There is no mincing words, he flat out, clearly, said it.

It’s not his job to “exonerate” anyone from crimes, it’s his job to find evidence of crimes. He has none.

Whine about it all you want. There is zero evidence of “obstruction”.
You need evidence to charge someone with a crime. There will be no charges based on this report.

Do you know what exonerate means? If there were ZERO evidence of obstruction of justice Mueller would have said so.

Mueller should be able to tell us if his own investigation was obstructed or not. Try to think about it.

If his investigation was not obstructed, then why wouldn't he have said, "Trump and his staff did not obstruct."

It's not difficult. Not sure why this is so difficult for many of you to understand.

 

[Lewdog]

So Mueller made no decision on obstruction, but suddenly Barr is making the decision there is no obstruction. How odd.

Tough day??

Nope. Trump doesn't have much longer to serve as President. Regardless of Mueller's findings, we learned quite clearly that Russians have interfered with our election process, and now we can work on ways to prevent that in the future. That is the most important outcome from this.

Mueller didn't say whether Trump obstructed Justice and the AG suddenly decided in two days that Trump didn't obstruct justice. That is quite odd. You are talking about a quite serious issue, and he didn't take very long to finish things. Mueller himself said that his findings did not exonerate Trump.

Damn but you people are stupid. He doesn't have to be exonerated. We have presumption of innocence in this country, and the burden of proof is on the accuser. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, innocence is sustained. No exoneration is necessary.

The key point is that after two years, that if Mueller can not say Trump DID NOT obstruct justice, then there is an issue.

 

[boedicca]

No obstruction of justice.

No he said he didn't decide one way or another if he did or not.

Mueller didn't decide, so AG Barr did. And he decided there was not sufficient evidence to charge the President with obstruction of justice.
Here are the excerpts from his summary, and a link to the whole thing.

After making a "thorough factual investigation" into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion -- one way or the other – as to whether the examined conducted constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated , the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The AG goes on to explain that since Mueller did not come to any legal conclusions on this, it is up to Barr himself to determine whether there was a crime. He determined there was not.

AG Barr quotes Mueller as saying "the evidence does not establish that the President wa involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference."

Read: Justice Department summary of Mueller report - CNNPolitics

But just like I said, it is quite odd that Barr could make this decision in JUST 48 hours, after a 2 year long investigation and all the evidence. The man who wrote the rules for a special counsel is now on tv saying the exact same thing as I have. Barr rushed his decision, and wonders if he was doing something wrong.

I'm not stupid, Lewdog. I am aware of what could have happened here, with Trump so openly declaring that he wanted an AG "protecting" him. So he fired Sessions, hired Barr and who knows what discussions took place, what agreements were made. I know all that.

I hope that we will have the opportunity to read Mueller's points on this matter, pro and con, in detail. I predict that the Democrats will all decide that Trump was guilty and the Republicans will decide that Trump is innocent. It will accomplish nothing and get us no further. The Special Counsel did what he could. A decision has been lawfully made. I don't support another year and a half of this ripping and tearing.

We have more important things to do.

I never called you stupid, and in fact my post pretty much agrees with you. Trump's next biggest hurdle to overcome is the emoluments cases where it seems he and his family have complete several quid pro quo deals.

What a sad retread. What's next? The LOGAN ACT?

*snicker*