Mueller: Investigation was “not at any time curtailed, stopped, or hindered”
Mueller’s testimony is not going the way Democrats hoped.
Amy Walter from the Cook Political Reported tweeted a comment on Robert Mueller’s testimony that pretty much sums up how damaging it has been to Democrats;
We are only 30 mins into this thing but I don’t think that this is going the way Democrats were hoping it would.
Robert Mueller under questioning by Republican Doug Collins admitted that the investigation was not actually obstructed:
Here's Mueller admitting his investigation was "not AT ANY TIME curtailed, stopped, or hindered."
No obstruction. #MuellerHearings pic.twitter.com/g9JUT2FfeY
— Andrew Clark (@AndrewHClark) July 24, 2019
This is pretty devastating. Even NBC News highlighted it:
Mueller answers “no” when asked by Ranking Member Collins if his investigation was ever curtailed or hindered at any point.
— NBC News (@NBCNews) July 24, 2019
This is case closed on actual obstruction.
Case closed on actual Obstruction. Now we're onto *attempted* Obstruction? https://t.co/87aixmZLyB
— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) July 24, 2019
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Mr. Mueller, you were not invited here to give us testimony or information that does not conform to our pre-formed beliefs. Now, once more. How many times did Donald Trump take a dog by the hind legs and force that dog to act like a wheelbarrow? And I remind you, you’re under oath.”
“And as a follow-on question, I’d like to know the names of all the witnesses who stated that they personally saw Mr. Trump mix, when doing the family’s laundry, solid colored clothing with the whites. The names, Mr. Mueller, the names!”
Be careful! They might just use your question. That question could turn the TIDE in favor of the Dems. ALL it would do is to allow them to GAIN a foothold and CHEER them on. It might even ARM & HAMMER nipping Nadler’s gavel during the kangaroo court hearing going on right now. So, keep it PUREX and simple, and let it BOUNCE off of you until your 7TH GENERATION. ( sorry, I couldn’t resist spinning a little dryer humor too in today’s news wash the truth out cycle )
Well, that’s it. Goodnight everybody.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzHfPN2SC1I
Attempted obstruction IS obstruction under the law. That’s rather the whole point of the obstruction statute, which includes terms such as “intent”, “endeavor”, and “attempt”.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-73
How can you obstruct an investigation that you aren’t a target of? Trump was told three times that he wasn’t the target of any investigation, and he actually encouraged the FBI investigate any issues with his campaign team.
Corrupt intent is a requirement of obstruction. How can an innocent man have corrupt intent when he seeks to stop a corrupt investigation?
Under Zachriel’s Stalinist interpretation of “The Law”, anyone who proclaims their innocence and hires a lawyer to defend them is Guilty of “Attempted Obstruction.” Seriously.
Zachriel’s view is a vile totalitarian and Anti-American legal doctrine. American’s fought a revolution to get away from rulers who thought like that.
Tom Servo: Under Zachriel’s Stalinist interpretation of “The Law”, anyone who proclaims their innocence and hires a lawyer to defend them is Guilty of “Attempted Obstruction.”
No. That is not part of the statute, and would be protected by the Constitution, in any case.
Zak, it seems you shove a great deal of crap.
Law-itis.
Be nice if you got 1/10,000th as worked up about the (D) party conspiring with Russia and lying to a FISA court to bring down a president. But that’s how you tyrants roll.
Hope your high blood pressure medicine supply doesn’t run out before 2024.
Response below.
Any case of obstruction or attempted obstruction requires that the person suspected of obstructing the investigation actively attempt to prevent witnesses from testifying, either through physical force or threats, or to stop the investigation by application of force or threats against the investigators or their agency. A desire, even one verbally acknowledged, is not sufficient to create the criminal act of obstruction of justice.
In this case, the President expressed his desire that people working for him directly not testify to the Special Council. However, when they were called upon to be interviewed, he made no effort to stop their honest testimony. Therefor, his deeds belie his words, undermining any claim that he actively attempted to obstruct justice.
Mac45: In this case, the President expressed his desire that people working for him directly not testify to the Special Council.
Because he is in a position of authority over these people, giving an order to obstruct would be obstruction.
Simply being in a “position of authority” and voicing a desire to another does not automatically qualify as coercion. Some action or specific, direct threat is necessary for obstruction to be proven. And, as no negative consequences were experienced by witnesses actually testifying truthfully, nor is there any evidence that Trump attempted to retaliate against these witnesses in any way, no obstruction.
Obstruction is a criminal charge. It requires that there be proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trump attempted to obstruct justice. And, as Mueller said, no such evidence existed.
Remember this. The obstruction of justice investigation came about because Trump fired Comey, whom he knew to be lying to him. Rosenstein was the person responsible for providing the justification for a Comey firing. The day after Comey was fired, McCabe opened a criminal obstruction of justice investigation, of which Trump was the target. Within days, Rosenstein appoints a Special Council, reportedly without informing the WH. The existing FBI counter intelligence operations, against Trump and associates, as well as McCabe’s obstruction of justice criminal investigation were moved to the the SC’s office lock, stock, barrel and personnel. Mueller was appoint as the figurehead to give the SC’s investigation credibility. Sound like a set-up? The man who provides the justification for firing Comey, which is the basis for the criminal obstruction investigation becomes the man who sets up the SC investigation into obstruction, by the President, and is the supervisor of that investigation [Session had recused himself]. WHOA. The problem was that the SC could not dig up any evidence to flesh out an obstruction charge in the next 18 months. Why? Because it never existed.
Mac45: Some action or specific, direct threat is necessary for obstruction to be proven.
If the president orders someone to impede an investigation for corrupt purposes, then it is obstruction whether or not the person takes action on that order. You might quibble over whether expressing a desire is an order or not.
“Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?”
Mac45: It requires that there be proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trump attempted to obstruct justice.
That is correct. A criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. That doesn’t mean the president can’t be held to a higher standard.
Mac45: And, as Mueller said, no such evidence existed.
That is not correct. The Mueller report includes substantial evidence of obstruction, and specifically said they could not exonerate the president, meaning there is such evidence.
Zach,
“If the president orders someone to impede an investigation for corrupt purposes, then it is obstruction whether or not the person takes action on that order. You might quibble over whether expressing a desire is an order or not.
“Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?””
Well, there is more than a quibble, over whether the Presidents expressed desires to to impede the SC investigation was an order or not. As you may notice, no acts of obstruction actually occurred. And, as you note, any such action would have to be for a “corrupt purpose”. The fallacy their is that the President, as well as the SC’s office all knew that there was NO Russian Collusion when the SC was appointed. The obstruction investigation was the results of the actions which the supervisor of the SC’s office, Rod Rosenstein, had provided to the President to justify the termination of James Comey. This was, at the least, a gross example of a conflict of interest, which should have resulted in the recusal of Rosenstein,or Rosenstein was involved in a conspiracy to generate a situation which would provide a predicate for a criminal investigation of the President.
“That is correct. A criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. That doesn’t mean the president can’t be held to a higher standard. ”
Why would the President be held to a higher legal standard, in a criminal matter, than anyone else? The statue of Justice is blindfolded for a very good reason. Once we accept different standards for criminal prosecution, this nation is dead.
“That is not correct. The Mueller report includes substantial evidence of obstruction, and specifically said they could not exonerate the president, meaning there is such evidence.”
No, the report did not outline any evidence of obstruction on the part of ANYONE in the President’s orbit. In fact, Mueller stated exactly that in today’s hearings. Now, the reason why we, unlike France, have a presumption of innocence, is because it is much more difficult to prove a negative. In our criminal justice system, the lack of sufficient evidence to prove guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, constitutes exoneration for violation of criminal law.
Mac45: Well, there is more than a quibble, over whether the Presidents expressed desires to to impede the SC investigation was an order or not.
Among other things, Trump directed the White House attorney to oust Mueller. Then he directed the White House attorney to lie about the previous direction.
Mac45: As you may notice, no acts of obstruction actually occurred.
Obstruction occurs when someone endeavors to interfere with an investigation.
Mac45: The fallacy their is that the President, as well as the SC’s office all knew that there was NO Russian Collusion when the SC was appointed.
There was no finding of conspiracy, but that doesn’t eliminate corrupt motivations.
Mac45: No, the report did not outline any evidence of obstruction on the part of ANYONE in the President’s orbit. In fact, Mueller stated exactly that in today’s hearings.
The entire second half of the Mueller report outlined evidence of obstruction.
Mac45: Why would the President be held to a higher legal standard, in a criminal matter, than anyone else?
Trump seems to have reached the bar for obstruction. However, impeachment may or may not be justified as the standard is different. Trump was arguably disloyal to the United States when he welcomed help from a foreign power.
Next step… no witnesses for any defendant as that would be obstruction of justice. As for a President needing to be better..l fine… but name any Dem President (save Jimmy and Harry) that was above reproach? Not using this to defend Trump but cleaning up starts with the accusers.
alaskabob: Next step… no witnesses for any defendant as that would be obstruction of justice.
If the witnesses tell the truth, then it’s not obstruction of justice. If they lie with the intent to impede the investigation, then it is obstruction.
Zak, clearly you suffer from TDS, and it is looking like you also suffer Little Person Syndrome (LPS). It seems like we had someone with the same problems leave the forum, join them.
Zachriel, a paid commie poster that has no idea what he is talking about. At $7.50 an hour you don’t get much but a keyboardist typing from a list of commie talking points.
Or an underprivileged 10th rate, ambulance chasing lawyer.
Mueller was asked if he or any of his aides met with anybody on panel to go over his testimony. Mueller said no, they had not.
Rep. Cohen was asking about something and Mueller said he was unfamiliar with it and Cohen responded that one of Mueller’s aides had the information in his notes.
Now if Mueller and his aides did not prepare with members of congress, how did Rep. Cohen know what was in the aide’s notes?
More importantly, how did Cohen manage to speak into the microphone with half of a greasy chicken stuffed into his mouth?
Easy answer: Staff members from each of them met to coordinate, then met back with their bosses to pass along the information with the serial numbers filed off.
rdmdawg: How can you obstruct an investigation that you aren’t a target of?
stablesort: How can an innocent man have corrupt intent when he seeks to stop a corrupt investigation?
To protect someone else that you think, rightly or wrongly, to be involved in criminal activity. To prevent embarrassment due to non-criminal behavior. To coverup an unrelated crime. To coverup a related crime to which you are not yet a target.
Yep, keep on plucking that chicken. Highly convincing. /s
Lies from a cheaply paid commie typist, zachriel.
I listened to some on the radio a bit while out and about. Two things struck me:
– Mueller sounds old and frail
– His responses to Dem questioning were typically “its in the report” while his responses to a very powerful line of questioning from Jim Jordan were typically “I can’t get into that” which sounds like he is covering something up.
To me it looks like Mueller’s performance is undermining whatever credence his report previously had. Evasive and weak .
I have been involved in the legal system for about 40 years, in various capacities.
I cannot recall ever hearing about a case where “obstruction of justice” charges have been brought in any of the following instances:
1) Where the “obstruction” alleged is the exercise of Constitutionally mandated powers by the alleged criminal (as in this case, where the President is authorized to fire the head of the FBI by virtue of his winning the Presidency;
2) Where the underlying “crime”, the investigation of which was the subject of the alleged “obstruction”, has been found not to have occurred;
3) Where the alleged conspirator has been told in person by law enforcement, in this case by the head of the FBI,that he was not a target of the subject investigation. In other words, the person alleged to have obstructed the investigation was told that there was no investigation directed at him, thus requiring the prosecution to prove that President Trump intended to obstruct an investigation even after being told he wasn’t a target of it.
Are there no intellectually honest people on the left remaining in this country?
johnny dollar: 1) Where the “obstruction” alleged is the exercise of Constitutionally mandated powers by the alleged criminal (as in this case, where the President is authorized to fire the head of the FBI by virtue of his winning the Presidency;
Offering a pardon or an appointment to influence a witness would be an obvious case of obstruction that involves the use of an otherwise legal power.
johnny dollar: 2) Where the underlying “crime”, the investigation of which was the subject of the alleged “obstruction”, has been found not to have occurred;
That is more common than you might think. The obvious counterexample is a successful obstruction, preventing the authorities from gathering evidence of the underlying crime. In any case, an underlying crime does not have to be charged or proven.
Former FBI Linguist Arrested and Indicted on Obstruction Charges
johnny dollar: 3) Where the alleged conspirator has been told in person by law enforcement, in this case by the head of the FBI,that he was not a target of the subject investigation.
Pretty obvious again. Someone is questioned in the disappearance of a person. The investigators are just interviewing neighbors looking for any witnesses, and he is told he is not a subject. When they leave, he hides the body in a closet. The investigators return with more questions, notice the smell, find the body and now consider him a suspect. Hiding the body is obstruction, even if the obstruction is not successful, even if he didn’t commit a murder. So yes, you can commit obstruction even after being told you are not a subject of the investigation.
Sorry. Missed a tag. Preview isn’t working for some reason.
Your example #3 posits the existence of a dead body.
There is no “dead body” in this case. You can’t obstruct an investigation into a murder homicide if no one was killed. That is the case here: There never was any conspiracy with the Russians.
As to example number 2, you refer to the underlying crime. There is no underlying crime here.
As to example #1, you are correct that all bribery cases of governmental figures, for instance, involve officials exercising their duly authorized powers for corrupt motives. But, as a factual and practical matter, it is impossible to convince a jury that someone obstructed the investigation for corrupt motives when the underlying crime did not occur and the head of the FBI told you that you were not under investigation for the crime which was ultimately determined not to have occurred.
Democrats wanted Comey fired as well, before the election, when it looked like Hillary would win.
A prosecution of this President for these spurious charges would be a disaster for the county, and would forever harm the judicial system.
johnny dollar: There is no “dead body” in this case. You can’t obstruct an investigation into a murder homicide if no one was killed.
Yes, you can. If someone is missing, and you impede the investigation, then you can be charged with obstruction, even if the body is never found, or the missing person is found unharmed.
johnny dollar: As to example number 2, you refer to the underlying crime. There is no underlying crime here.
We provided an example without an underlying crime. In any case, you may not know if there is or is not an underlying crime if there is obstruction. You can still charge obstruction.
johnny dollar: But, as a factual and practical matter, it is impossible to convince a jury that someone obstructed the investigation for corrupt motives when the underlying crime did not occur and the head of the FBI told you that you were not under investigation for the crime which was ultimately determined not to have occurred.
People are often charged of obstruction without a finding of an underlying crime, though they often plead out to lesser crimes, such as lying to an official proceeding.
johnny dollar: A prosecution of this President for these spurious charges would be a disaster for the county, and would forever harm the judicial system.
It’s a disaster either way. The president has repeatedly said that he welcomes foreign interference in elections. There’s no easy way to undo the damage.
“”The president has repeatedly said that he welcomes foreign interference in elections. There’s no easy way to undo the damage.””
Frankly, I’m a lot more worried about Google’s interference in free and fair elections than I am about any foreign power.
Zachy will keep repeating that lie until he dies.
txvet2: Frankly, I’m a lot more worried about Google’s interference in free and fair elections than I am about any foreign power.
Google is a U.S. entity.
Any family connection with Beria or the NKVD/KGB/GRU?
johnny dollar: As to example number 2, you refer to the underlying crime. There is no underlying crime here.
–> We provided an example without an underlying crime. In any case, you may not know if there is or is not an underlying crime if there is obstruction. You can still charge obstruction.
Zachriel, who is this “we” you are referencing? Is it the we that is typing, as in several people forming replies or are/were you involved in the investigation and/or Democrat party?
So staged and manufactured by the Democrats. What a waste. The Republicans should keep asking about the start and why things were NOT included, even if Mueller does not answer.
Rep. Cicilline opens his inquiries with the statement: “Director, as you know, we are specifically focusing upon five episodes of obstruction today…”
Another case that would indicate prior coordination between Mueller’s team and the committees members.
It is likely that Mueller will provide no new information, not found in the SC report. He will duck that. However, these hearings give the Republicans a good opportunity to skewer some of the reports claims as well as paint Mueller and his staff as partisan hacks, more interested in manufacturing a criminal charge against Trump, than in investigating potential criminal acts in a non-partisan, professional manner.
In that case Mac, job done.
I’m confused — all I see are news reports about how Ken Buck scored an own goal against the Republicans when Mueller indicated the President could be charged with obstruction when he left office. I understand ‘could’ could be theoretical but the snippets seem to suggest Mueller does think Trump obstructed justice. That is the takeaway of the Democrats. This seems very helping to them.
The problem with Mueller saying that Trump could be indicted for obstruct for his actions while in office, has to be viewed from the position of a lawyer.
Mueller never said that Trump would, or even could, be CONVICTED of obstruction. Then, he also weaseled by saying that his investigation did not produce enough evidence to prove that Trump attempted to obstruct justice. That they could not find sufficient evidence to exonerate Trump of attempting to obstruct the investigation. Mueller also said that, if evidence of obstruction existed, he could not bring criminal charges against a sitting President, because of DOJ policy. But, if there was not enough evidence to prove that Trump obstructed justice, then the existence of such a rule is moot.
Mac45: Mueller never said that Trump would, or even could, be CONVICTED of obstruction.
That is correct.
Mac45: Then, he also weaseled by saying that his investigation did not produce enough evidence to prove that Trump attempted to obstruct justice.
That is not correct.
Mac45: But, if there was not enough evidence to prove that Trump obstructed justice, then the existence of such a rule is moot.
That is incorrect.
You prove that my point #2 is indeed correct in the excerpt from the Mueller Report which you included.
“Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
This indicates that that there was NOT enough evidence to lead the investigators to conclude that trump committed ANY crime. And, if there was NOT enough evidence to conclude that Trump committed any crime, then whether or not some rule existed which made it impossible to charge a sitting President exists is not applicable and therefor MOOT.
Thank you for proving my points to be correct.
Mac45: This indicates that that there was NOT enough evidence to lead the investigators to conclude that trump committed ANY crime.
That is not what the statement means. The Mueller report explains why they never reached a decision about indicting the president.
Per their rules, in light of DOJ policy, these are the cases:
• Evidence of crime, no determination
• No evidence of crime, exoneration
In this case, the president was not exonerated, so that leaves at least some evidence of guilt, which was detailed in the report. Whether this reaches the threshold required to bring charges was not determined by the Special Counsel. And that leaves the question of impeachment, which is based on a different standard.
You are a lying FOS commie. There is nothing in our criminal justice system or any DOJ guidelines about exoneration.
There was no crime, no collusion with the Russians (well, excepting the democrats criminal collusion), no obstruction. Nothing, nada, zero, zip.
In fact let’s be perfectly clear, while you can theoretically obstruct justice even though you are innocent of a crime, the bar is much higher absent a crime.
And when the so called crime is a crime of corruption itself, when the charges are fabricated, when the investigators are the criminals, you can not legally be guilty of obstruction.
Go collect your $7.00 an hour and peddle your BS elsewhere.
Quoting Ratcliffe:
“…nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It’s not in any of the documents. It’s not in your appointment order. It’s not in the special counsel regulations. It’s not in the OLC opinions. It’s not in the justice manual, and it’s not in the Principles of Federal Prosecution.
Nowhere do those words appear together because respectfully, respectfully, director, it was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it.”
Well, with more background the questions seemed general to what could possibly happen to any president. But I guarantee Mueller’s later statement that his team made no determination of a crime will be ignored, and this will be constantly played. I’m getting really sick of this.
Zachriel and Ming the Merciless.
Separated at birth?
What makes you think they were separated?
One could tell from Mr. Mueller’s testimony that he was a figure head for the investigation or that he has medical issues.
It’s sad if it’s the latter and the Demo crats forced him to go thru that exercise in futility.The scary part is that up till three years or so ago he was involved in the active running of the Federal Bureau of Incineration.