We need Mueller to say what he actually THINKS

[GreenAndBlue]

mueller has proven totally corrupt and now hiding like a rat

A big lie about his investigation being private

His whole investigation was set up front and center to scare trump to cover up the deep states serious crimes

Private BS!!


He let it leak all prosecutors were Hilary supporters

He sent out the Whoie army of swat teams to raid trump connections and let CNN broadcast it

Private investigation BS !!

An investigation to totally scare trump and any friends he may have. Mueller brought that scare job VERY PUBLIC !!

Mueller must be tried for high treason for trying to cover up the deep states serious crimes by scaring trump

 

[ColonelAngus]

Mueller is corrupt as shit.

When Comey and Mueller Bungled the Anthrax Case | RealClearPolitics!

Such certitude seems to be Comey’s default position in his professional life. Mueller didn’t exactly distinguish himself with contrition, either. In 2008, after Ivins committed suicide as he was about to be apprehended for his crimes, and the Justice Department had formally exonerated Hatfill – and paid him $5.82 million in a legal settlement – Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case’s resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. “I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation,” he said, adding that it would be erroneous “to say there were mistakes.”

 

[georgephillip]

It seems to me Barr and Mueller belong to the same tribe: lifelong Republicans. Both have been accused of demonstrating blatant partisanship in the past, particularly with regard to the Iran-Contra investigation; although, I have to admit I had no idea ****** Bulger and Mueller had a connection before today:

You weren't aware of that connection because none exists, and now you are uncritically swallowing and regurgitating Dershowitz's shit, who in turn is peddling Hannity's and Limbaugh's shit. So says Nancy Gertner, the judge presiding over the case of those wrongfully imprisoned, and a friend of Dershowitz's:

In an April 8 interview with John Catsimatidis on his New York radio show, Mr. Dershowitz asserted that Mr. Mueller was “the guy who kept four innocent people in prison for many years in order to protect the cover of ****** Bulger as an F.B.I. informer.” Mr. Mueller, he said, was “right at the center of it.” Mr. Bulger was a notorious crime boss in Boston, the head of the Winter Hill Gang, and also a secret source for the F.B.I.

There is no evidence that the assertion is true. I was the federal judge who presided over a successful lawsuit brought against the government by two of those men and the families of the other two, who had died in prison. Based on the voluminous evidence submitted in the trial, and having written a 105-page decision awarding them $101.8 million, I can say without equivocation that Mr. Mueller, who worked in the United States attorney’s office in Boston from 1982 to 1988, including a brief stint as the acting head of the office, had no involvement in that case. He was never even mentioned.​

For pity's sake.

You weren't aware of that connection because none exists, and now you are uncritically swallowing and regurgitating Dershowitz's shit, who in turn is peddling Hannity's and Limbaugh's shit. So says Nancy Gertner, the judge presiding over the case of those wrongfully imprisoned, and a friend of Dershowitz's

Your link:

"As I explained in my decision, because of the gravity of the accusations made by the imprisoned men, I analyzed the evidence 'with special care in order that the public, and especially the parties, could be fully confident of my conclusions.'

"That said, I was unsparing in my criticism of the F.B.I. and Justice Department officials who were responsible for this wrongful imprisonment. I named names where the record supported it. I resoundingly condemned the government in an unusual court session in which I read my conclusions.

"Mr. Mueller is mentioned nowhere in my opinion; nor in the submissions of the plaintiffs’ lead trial counsel, Juliane Balliro; nor in 'Black Mass,' the book about Mr. Bulger and the F.B.I. written by former reporters for The Boston Globe."

 

[Rambunctious]

2 1/2 years....40 million dollars.....and 400 pages are not enough?....

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Mueller did things quitely??

What a joke

He used all of the public ways to scare trump and to stop trumps friends from supporting him

He scared them all with a broadcast of his army of swat teams to raid any trump supporter

He then let CNN film the big raids

He put people in solidary confinement and let that leak to scare some more
Mueller must be tried with High Treason

 

[georgephillip]

2 1/2 years....40 million dollars.....and 400 pages are not enough?....

Ask Manafort...

Paul Manafort's five homes he agreed to forfeit as part of his plea deal with Mueller | Daily Mail Online

"REVEALED: The five lavish homes worth a combined $22million that Paul Manafort has agreed to forfeit as part of his plea deal with Mueller

• Manafort pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy against the US on Friday
• Under his plea deal he will give up his Hamptons estate, Brooklyn brownstone and three apartments in Manhattan along with some $30million in other assets
• In exchange, the former Trump campaign manager will be sentenced to no more than 10 years in prison"

 

[Rambunctious]

2 1/2 years....40 million dollars.....and 400 pages are not enough?....

Ask Manafort...

Paul Manafort's five homes he agreed to forfeit as part of his plea deal with Mueller | Daily Mail Online

"REVEALED: The five lavish homes worth a combined $22million that Paul Manafort has agreed to forfeit as part of his plea deal with Mueller

• 
  
  
  • Manafort pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy against the US on Friday
  • Under his plea deal he will give up his Hamptons estate, Brooklyn brownstone and three apartments in Manhattan along with some $30million in other assets
  • In exchange, the former Trump campaign manager will be sentenced to no more than 10 years in prison"

Manaforte's crimes had nothing to do with Trump and by the way are practiced by the members of the house and senate retired and serving on a daily basis.... how do you think Pelosi got so wealthy?....

 

[georgephillip]

2 1/2 years....40 million dollars.....and 400 pages are not enough?....

Ask Manafort...

Paul Manafort's five homes he agreed to forfeit as part of his plea deal with Mueller | Daily Mail Online

"REVEALED: The five lavish homes worth a combined $22million that Paul Manafort has agreed to forfeit as part of his plea deal with Mueller

• 
  
  
  • Manafort pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy against the US on Friday
  • Under his plea deal he will give up his Hamptons estate, Brooklyn brownstone and three apartments in Manhattan along with some $30million in other assets
  • In exchange, the former Trump campaign manager will be sentenced to no more than 10 years in prison"

Manaforte's crimes had nothing to do with Trump and by the way are practiced by the members of the house and senate retired and serving on a daily basis.... how do you think Pelosi got so wealthy?....

Manaforte's crimes had nothing to do with Trump and by the way are practiced by the members of the house and senate retired and serving on a daily basis.... how do you think Pelosi got so wealthy?....

Manafort's crimes paid for the Mueller Report with interest.
Maybe his crimes had nothing to do with Trump or not, but we won't know for sure until Donny's taxes and other financial documents are investigated.

Deutsche Bank begins process of providing Trump financial records to New York's attorney general - CNNPolitics

 

[Mac1958]

What blows my mind here is that the questions I'm asking are perfectly reasonable, and yet, so many are just automatically reverting to their standard tribal talking points.

If Trump is accused of trying to get people to obstruct, don't we want to know HOW? Did he back down when he was told it wouldn't be legal, or did he keep pressing? Did he threaten people if they wouldn't obstruct, or did he stop and play it by the law? That's the fundamental question here.

Holy crap.

I've always said that adherence to a partisan ideology robs a person of their curiosity, but seriously, does it rob people of ALL of it? Is no one even SLIGHTLY curious about the details, or is just sticking with the standard partisan script all that people care about at this point?
.

 

[candycorn]

He can't tell the truth, because he knows there was never any collusion. It was a plot to get Trumps approval rating low enough to impeach him. Well it failed,and now a real investigation needs to get started and people need to go to jail.

The collusion angle is over. History. The question now, and what the Democrats are going after, is obstruction.
.

Not so sure about that. The conclusion was that there was no finding of evidence. That the evidence was not uncovered…doesn’t mean it is not out there. Like somewhere…OJ’s bloody knife is in a landfill. Do I think it will be found? No. But it’s out there. Evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians…is it on a cell phone of some Russian Intelligence officer? Who knows. I do know that if it is, it’s a great bargaining chip for Putin to have in his pocket. It would explain his light touch when it comes to the thrice-confirmed Russian meddling in our elections, the zero-record of his conversations with Putin while President, etc…

Mueller was invited by President Putin to come to Moscow to interview the Russians he indicted. Why didn't Mueller and his teams go to land fills in the Russian Steppe to examine and do DNA testing of ruined mattresses?

Comparing the DNA found on the mattresses with that of known Russian prostitutes- reputedly the finest prostitutes in the world- could have broken the case.

DNA…mattresses? Wow.

As for the invitation to Moscow…that is a good question. I would love to hear his explanation. Which is again, a good reason for the House to subpoena Mr. Mueller.

You didn't hear about how President Trump was supposed to have hired prostitutes to ruin mattresses in a 5 star hotel?

A classy joint like the Ritz Carlton would have just had the mattresses removed and replaced, billing President Trump for them.

Examining and DNA testing of the mattresses on the landfill could verify the story told in the dossier.

Ok.

 

[easyt65]

It's not Mueller's responsibility to prove Trump committed crimes; that responsibility lies with Congress which should require Mueller's public testimony under oath.

Ummm....MUELLER was appointed Special Counsel to investigate, to prove a crime was committed or not.

Congress in not part if the JUDICIAL Branch of the govt...

Ummm....MUELLER was appointed Special Counsel to investigate, to prove a crime was committed or not.

Congress in not part if the JUDICIAL Branch of the govt...

Rightly or wrongly, Mueller believed he did not have the power to indict a sitting president; therefore, he preserved evidence and passed the ball to Congress, the only branch of government with the power of Impeachment.

Actually, as I just mentioned, Mueller was tasked to decide if a crime was committed or not and give a report. He did both.

His decision was no collusion and no call on obstruction. With that, his investigation was / is over.

He said he left the final final call to others - that would be the Deputy US AG - Rosenstein - and the US AG - Barr, the 2 men responsible for running the DOJ, part of the Judicial Branch. Mueller was working for THEM, NOT CONGRESS!

The Deputy US AG and the US AG DID make that call Mueller refused to make, the one he left for 'others' to make. Their decision was the same as his - NO COLLUSION, NO PROVEN GUILT OF COLLUSION.

We all know, though, that Mueller was not talking about his BOSSES - the Deputy US AG and the US AG. Mueller was talking about the Trump-hating Democrats in the House - THEY are who he meant when he said he left the decision on obstruction to 'others'.

The 2nd part of Mueller's Report was NOT written for his BOSSES. Mueller specifically wrote that 2nd part of his report for the DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS BECAUSE THE 2ND PART OF THE REPORT WAS MEANT TO INCITE THE DEMOCRATS INTO INITIATING IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT!

THIS was not the work is an appointed Special Counsel working for the DOJ.
THIS was work done by the INSURANCE POLICY Strzok talked about in his texts.

Want more proof of that?

As I pointed out, evidence in the form of documents just released show MUELLER HID EVIDENCE (AGAIN) - HE OMITTED CRITICAL EVIDENCE FROM HIS REPORT AND INSTEAD PURPOSEFULLY USED ONLY PART OF A CONVERSATION TO CRAFT A FALSE NARRATIVE AND PERCEPTION OF GUILT OF OBSTRUCTION.

The reason Mueller listed this event / incident as possible evidence of obstruction but personally refused to call it obstruction is because HE KNEW he had crafted the whole thing to look like obstruction by leaving out / hiding that evidence but KNEW IT WAS NOT OBSTRUCTION!

(Again, see the thread on this, read the articles...Mueller just got busted doing the same thing he did years ago when he knowingly intentionally sent 4 innocent men to prison -- HE HID EVIDENCE!)

Mueller's ass needs to be dragged before Congress under oath to testify and answer questions.

If he refuses, perhaps some of the same techniques he used to intimidate, bully, and pressure some of the witnesses he interviewed during his investigation should be used on him?!

 

[georgephillip]

What blows my mind here is that the questions I'm asking are perfectly reasonable, and yet, so many are just automatically reverting to their standard tribal talking points.

If Trump is accused of trying to get people to obstruct, don't we want to know HOW? Did he back down when he was told it wouldn't be legal, or did he keep pressing? Did he threaten people if they wouldn't obstruct, or did he stop and play it by the law? That's the fundamental question here.

Holy crap.

I've always said that adherence to a partisan ideology robs a person of their curiosity, but seriously, does it rob people of ALL of it? Is no one even SLIGHTLY curious about the details, or is just sticking with the standard partisan script all that people care about at this point?
.

f Trump is accused of trying to get people to obstruct, don't we want to know HOW? Did he back down when he was told it wouldn't be legal, or did he keep pressing? Did he threaten people if they wouldn't obstruct, or did he stop and play it by the law? That's the fundamental question here.

I think you will find it much easier to answer your questions after reading Volume II of Mueller's Report; there just isn't any other rational way of arguing whether or not Trump attempted to obstruct justice.

Read the Mueller Report: Searchable Document and Index (Vol. II, P.9)

"I. BACKGROUND LEGAL AND EVIDENTIARY PRINCIPLES

"A. Legal Framework of Obstruction of Justice

"The May 17, 2017 Appointment Order and the Special Counsel regulations provide this Office with jurisdiction to investigate 'federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.' 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

"Because of that description of our jurisdiction, we sought evidence for our obstruction-of-justice investigation with the elements of obstruction offenses in mind.

"Our evidentiary analysis is similarly focused on the elements of such offenses, although we do not draw conclusions on the ultimate questions that govern a prosecutorial decision under the Principles of Federal Prosecution. SeeJustice Manual § 9-27.000 et seq. (2018)."

 

[Tehon]

If Trump is accused of trying to get people to obstruct, don't we want to know HOW? Did he back down when he was told it wouldn't be legal, or did he keep pressing? Did he threaten people if they wouldn't obstruct, or did he stop and play it by the law? That's the fundamental question here.

Fundamental questions that were addressed in the report.

 

[ColonelAngus]

It's not Mueller's responsibility to prove Trump committed crimes; that responsibility lies with Congress which should require Mueller's public testimony under oath.

Ummm....MUELLER was appointed Special Counsel to investigate, to prove a crime was committed or not.

Congress in not part if the JUDICIAL Branch of the govt...

Ummm....MUELLER was appointed Special Counsel to investigate, to prove a crime was committed or not.

Congress in not part if the JUDICIAL Branch of the govt...

Rightly or wrongly, Mueller believed he did not have the power to indict a sitting president; therefore, he preserved evidence and passed the ball to Congress, the only branch of government with the power of Impeachment.

Actually, as I just mentioned, Mueller was tasked to decide if a crime was committed or not and give a report. He did both.

His decision was no collusion and no call on obstruction. With that, his investigation was / is over.

He said he left the final final call to others - that would be the Deputy US AG - Rosenstein - and the US AG - Barr, the 2 men responsible for running the DOJ, part of the Judicial Branch. Mueller was working for THEM, NOT CONGRESS!

The Deputy US AG and the US AG DID make that call Mueller refused to make, the one he left for 'others' to make. Their decision was the same as his - NO COLLUSION, NO PROVEN GUILT OF COLLUSION.

We all know, though, that Mueller was not talking about his BOSSES - the Deputy US AG and the US AG. Mueller was talking about the Trump-hating Democrats in the House - THEY are who he meant when he said he left the decision on obstruction to 'others'.

The 2nd part of Mueller's Report was NOT written for his BOSSES. Mueller specifically wrote that 2nd part of his report for the DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS BECAUSE THE 2ND PART OF THE REPORT WAS MEANT TO INCITE THE DEMOCRATS INTO INITIATING IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT!

THIS was not the work is an appointed Special Counsel working for the DOJ.
THIS was work done by the INSURANCE POLICY Strzok talked about in his texts.

Want more proof of that?

As I pointed out, evidence in the form of documents just released show MUELLER HID EVIDENCE (AGAIN) - HE OMITTED CRITICAL EVIDENCE FROM HIS REPORT AND INSTEAD PURPOSEFULLY USED ONLY PART OF A CONVERSATION TO CRAFT A FALSE NARRATIVE AND PERCEPTION OF GUILT OF OBSTRUCTION.

The reason Mueller listed this event / incident as possible evidence of obstruction but personally refused to call it obstruction is because HE KNEW he had crafted the whole thing to look like obstruction by leaving out / hiding that evidence but KNEW IT WAS NOT OBSTRUCTION!

(Again, see the thread on this, read the articles...Mueller just got busted doing the same thing he did years ago when he knowingly intentionally sent 4 innocent men to prison -- HE HID EVIDENCE!)

Mueller's ass needs to be dragged before Congress under oath to testify and answer questions.

If he refuses, perhaps some of the same techniques he used to intimidate, bully, and pressure some of the witnesses he interviewed during his investigation should be used on him?!

I’d love Barr to send 100 SWAT members to Comeys home when he is arrested...same with Brennan,

 

[easyt65]

I’d love Barr to send 100 SWAT members to Comeys home when he is arrested...same with Brennan,

...with Fox News there to film the whole thing by themselves because they just happened to be in the neighborhood...like CNN?

 

[SAYIT]

What blows my mind here is that the questions I'm asking are perfectly reasonable, and yet, so many are just automatically reverting to their standard tribal talking points.

If Trump is accused of trying to get people to obstruct, don't we want to know HOW? Did he back down when he was told it wouldn't be legal, or did he keep pressing? Did he threaten people if they wouldn't obstruct, or did he stop and play it by the law? That's the fundamental question here.

Holy crap.

I've always said that adherence to a partisan ideology robs a person of their curiosity, but seriously, does it rob people of ALL of it? Is no one even SLIGHTLY curious about the details, or is just sticking with the standard partisan script all that people care about at this point?
.

You must know "Trump obstructed" sounds an awful lot like "Trump colluded" which, as even you seem to admit, is now thoroughly debunked.

The fact is Mueller's witch-hunt continued perhaps a year or more after it become clear to many observers that it was going nowhere. It has long been obvious that some just won't accept any result that doesn't include Trump's head. The continuing hand-wringing, and teeth-gnashing is proof the many were correct.

What seems a far bigger deal is the possibility that a cabal of top DOJ/FBI people used their offices and agencies and perhaps our media to influence and/or overturn a presidential election. Leaks, speculation, rumors, innuendo, and outright fabrications have been the daily routine for our MSM the last 2.5 years.

You seem far more concerned that Trump was unhappy about being pursued by those who may have been part of that cabal than you are about what those traitors tried to do to this country and our democracy.

 

[leftwinger]

Mueller has personal biases also. I don't want his, or anyone's, opinions on this.

Besides, injecting that would solve nothing, but would likely only serve to complicate matters.

I don't have a problem with Mueller per se, but I am sick as hell of this nonsense which has plagued our country for 2 plus years and resulted in nothing, ZERO, relative to what they were supposedly investigating, which was collusion.

I've had far more than enough and am simply done with it. Show me actual provable collusion or STFU and let the country get on with its business.

Collusion is a non-issue now. The Dems are going after Trump on obstruction.

The two are mutually exclusive.
.

Horseshit, they are going after Trump because he won the 2016 election and because he is exposing the corruption of the DC deep state made up of both parties.

Yes, this has always been political. My point is that we can't accurately examine the obstruction issue based on what we know so far.

The Left and the Right don't need more information, since their opinions are set in stone, but the rest of us could use it.
.

what information do you think exists that is not in the Mueller report, the IG report, and the two congressional reports on this subject? The only information we don't really have is that related to the dossier and the FACT that the Hillary campaign paid Russians to create it. So if Mueller's charge was to investigate russian influence, why didn't he investigate this?

I mentioned earlier that the main question I'd like the answer to is how Trump tried to get others to "obstruct".

Did he ask them to, and then, when told that would be illegal, back off and move on? That would not obstruction.

Did he ask them to, and then, when told that would be illegal, try to get them to do it anyway? That would be a different story.

Those seem like perfectly reasonable and obvious questions for anyone who is curious.
.

"READ THE REPORT"!!! Dats what dey say. OX brain.

What blows my mind here is that the questions I'm asking are perfectly reasonable, and yet, so many are just automatically reverting to their standard tribal talking points.

If Trump is accused of trying to get people to obstruct, don't we want to know HOW? Did he back down when he was told it wouldn't be legal, or did he keep pressing? Did he threaten people if they wouldn't obstruct, or did he stop and play it by the law? That's the fundamental question here.

Holy crap.

I've always said that adherence to a partisan ideology robs a person of their curiosity, but seriously, does it rob people of ALL of it? Is no one even SLIGHTLY curious about the details, or is just sticking with the standard partisan script all that people care about at this point?
.

Nope. Dont care about anything arising FROM the "setup illegal" investigation based on false warrants and DEM hit pieces. Anything and everything after that is entrapment perhaps? Lock them up one by one. Comely Brennan Powers Yates Clapper Strocker Paige McCabe Rosie on down the list for lying to Courts for starters? Sedition?

 

[SAYIT]

The collusion angle is over. History. The question now, and what the Democrats are going after, is obstruction...

Not so sure about that. The conclusion was that there was no finding of evidence. That the evidence was not uncovered…doesn’t mean it is not out there. Like somewhere…

 

[georgephillip]

It's not Mueller's responsibility to prove Trump committed crimes; that responsibility lies with Congress which should require Mueller's public testimony under oath.

Ummm....MUELLER was appointed Special Counsel to investigate, to prove a crime was committed or not.

Congress in not part if the JUDICIAL Branch of the govt...

Ummm....MUELLER was appointed Special Counsel to investigate, to prove a crime was committed or not.

Congress in not part if the JUDICIAL Branch of the govt...

Rightly or wrongly, Mueller believed he did not have the power to indict a sitting president; therefore, he preserved evidence and passed the ball to Congress, the only branch of government with the power of Impeachment.

Actually, as I just mentioned, Mueller was tasked to decide if a crime was committed or not and give a report. He did both.

His decision was no collusion and no call on obstruction. With that, his investigation was / is over.

He said he left the final final call to others - that would be the Deputy US AG - Rosenstein - and the US AG - Barr, the 2 men responsible for running the DOJ, part of the Judicial Branch. Mueller was working for THEM, NOT CONGRESS!

The Deputy US AG and the US AG DID make that call Mueller refused to make, the one he left for 'others' to make. Their decision was the same as his - NO COLLUSION, NO PROVEN GUILT OF COLLUSION.

We all know, though, that Mueller was not talking about his BOSSES - the Deputy US AG and the US AG. Mueller was talking about the Trump-hating Democrats in the House - THEY are who he meant when he said he left the decision on obstruction to 'others'.

The 2nd part of Mueller's Report was NOT written for his BOSSES. Mueller specifically wrote that 2nd part of his report for the DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS BECAUSE THE 2ND PART OF THE REPORT WAS MEANT TO INCITE THE DEMOCRATS INTO INITIATING IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT!

THIS was not the work is an appointed Special Counsel working for the DOJ.
THIS was work done by the INSURANCE POLICY Strzok talked about in his texts.

Want more proof of that?

As I pointed out, evidence in the form of documents just released show MUELLER HID EVIDENCE (AGAIN) - HE OMITTED CRITICAL EVIDENCE FROM HIS REPORT AND INSTEAD PURPOSEFULLY USED ONLY PART OF A CONVERSATION TO CRAFT A FALSE NARRATIVE AND PERCEPTION OF GUILT OF OBSTRUCTION.

The reason Mueller listed this event / incident as possible evidence of obstruction but personally refused to call it obstruction is because HE KNEW he had crafted the whole thing to look like obstruction by leaving out / hiding that evidence but KNEW IT WAS NOT OBSTRUCTION!

(Again, see the thread on this, read the articles...Mueller just got busted doing the same thing he did years ago when he knowingly intentionally sent 4 innocent men to prison -- HE HID EVIDENCE!)

Mueller's ass needs to be dragged before Congress under oath to testify and answer questions.

If he refuses, perhaps some of the same techniques he used to intimidate, bully, and pressure some of the witnesses he interviewed during his investigation should be used on him?!

Again, see the thread on this, read the articles...Mueller just got busted doing the same thing he did years ago when he knowingly intentionally sent 4 innocent men to prison -- HE HID EVIDENCE!)

Do you have a credible link for that claim?

 

[BrokeLoser]

What blows my mind here is that the questions I'm asking are perfectly reasonable, and yet, so many are just automatically reverting to their standard tribal talking points.

If Trump is accused of trying to get people to obstruct, don't we want to know HOW? Did he back down when he was told it wouldn't be legal, or did he keep pressing? Did he threaten people if they wouldn't obstruct, or did he stop and play it by the law? That's the fundamental question here.

Holy crap.

I've always said that adherence to a partisan ideology robs a person of their curiosity, but seriously, does it rob people of ALL of it? Is no one even SLIGHTLY curious about the details, or is just sticking with the standard partisan script all that people care about at this point?
.

f Trump is accused of trying to get people to obstruct, don't we want to know HOW? Did he back down when he was told it wouldn't be legal, or did he keep pressing? Did he threaten people if they wouldn't obstruct, or did he stop and play it by the law? That's the fundamental question here.

I think you will find it much easier to answer your questions after reading Volume II of Mueller's Report; there just isn't any other rational way of arguing whether or not Trump attempted to obstruct justice.

Read the Mueller Report: Searchable Document and Index (Vol. II, P.9)

"I. BACKGROUND LEGAL AND EVIDENTIARY PRINCIPLES

"A. Legal Framework of Obstruction of Justice

"The May 17, 2017 Appointment Order and the Special Counsel regulations provide this Office with jurisdiction to investigate 'federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.' 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

"Because of that description of our jurisdiction, we sought evidence for our obstruction-of-justice investigation with the elements of obstruction offenses in mind.

"Our evidentiary analysis is similarly focused on the elements of such offenses, although we do not draw conclusions on the ultimate questions that govern a prosecutorial decision under the Principles of Federal Prosecution. SeeJustice Manual § 9-27.000 et seq. (2018)."

Nothing there suggests that Trump committed obstruction...dumbed down, it simply reads “we suspected the potential so we looked into it”
georgephillip says:
“I just know Trump is quilty because I want him to be.”