What crimes has Trump committed?
Don't be fooled Folks
- Thread starter Robo
- Start date
What crimes has Trump committed?
Because you say so? STFU you whiny troll.
Wrong; he couldn't indict because you need solid proof of a conspiracy in order to prove obstruction. There was no crime; there was no conspiracy. There was NOTHING to obstruct. The investigation continued unhindered, documents were provided, questions were answered. Ergo; no obstruction.
Major I R O N Y from a clown who parrots the fake news from CNN and MSNBC. STFU you idiot.
What crime?
Obama wants 'good relations with Russia'President Obama discusses Russian President Vladimir Putin and the relationship between the U.S. and Russia.
Apparently you don't know what is contained in Volume II, page 1:
INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME II
This report is submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c), which states that, "[a]t the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he ... shall provide the Attorney General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions [the Special Counsel] reached."
Beginning in 2017, the President of the United States took a variety of actions towards the ongoing FBI investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters that raised questions about whether he had obstructed justice. The Order appointing the Special Counsel gave this Office jurisdiction to investigate matters that arose directly from the FBI's Russia investigation, including whether the President had obstructed justice in connection with Russia-related investigations. The Special Counsel's jurisdiction also covered potentially obstructive acts related to the Special Counsel' s investigation itself. This Volume of our report summarizes our obstruction-of-justice investigation of the President.
We first describe the considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation, and then provide an overview of this Volume:
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers."1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC' s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct .
Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct "constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name -clearing before an impartial adjudicator.5
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President ' s term, OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment's] secrecy," and if an indictment became public, "[t] he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President ' s ability to govern."6 Although a prosecutor' s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the person' s conduct constitutes a federal offense." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however , we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President ' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
* * *
This report on our investigation consists of four parts. Section I provides an overview of obstruction-of-justice principles and summarizes certain investigatory and evidentiary considerations. Section II sets forth the factual results of our obstruction investigation and analyzes the evidence. Section TIT addresses statutory and constitutional defenses. Section IV states our conclusion.
The BS is all yours asshole.
Nothing in Barr's summary is divergent from the Mueller Report. It's obvious you have read neither and merely parrot the idiot talking points you are fed like a gullible dunce from CNN.
What has he done to corrupt it?
LIE and LAME. List the pages and paragraphs you think this was done.
Good lord; you give new meaning to the word "moron."
Trump didn't fire Comey you dumb twat. He acted on the recommendation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Trump didn't need any excuse to fire Comey; it is his prerogative.
Yet no one can seem to name what crime he is guilty of.
You mean the SPYING on an opposition campaign was started before Trump took office. Yes, and that is now under investigation.
LIE and LAME.
There was ZERO evidence of collusion or conspiracy and ZERO evidence of obstruction which was why there were no recommendations for indictments.
Page 131; it is obvious you haven't read anything in the report.
Analysis
In analyzing the President's conduct towards Flynn, Manafort,litia, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice:
a. Obstructive act. The President's actions towards witnesses in the Special Counsel's investigation would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.
With regard to Flynn, the President sent private and public messages to Flynn encouraging him to stay strong and conveying that the President still cared about him before he began to cooperate with the government. When Flynn 's attorneys withdrew him from a joint defense agreement with the President, signaling that Flynn was potentially cooperating with the government, the President's personal counsel initially reminded Flynn's counsel of the President's warm feelings towards Flynn and said " that still remains." But when Flynn's counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information under a joint defense agreement, the President's personal counsel stated that the decision would be interpreted as reflecting Flynn's hostility towards the President. That sequence of events could have had the potential to affect Flynn's decision to cooperate, as well as the extent of that cooperation. Because of privilege issues, however, we could not determine whether the President was personally involved in or knew about the specific message his counsel delivered to Flynn's counsel.
With respect to Manafort, there is evidence that the President' s actions had the potential to influence Manafort' s decision whether to cooperate with the government. The President and his personal counsel made repeated statements suggesting that a pardon was a possibility for Manafort, while also making it clear that the President did not want Manafort to "flip" and cooperate with the government. On June 15, 2018, the day the judge presiding over Manafort's D.C. case was considering whether to revoke his bail, the President said that he "felt badly" for Manafort and stated, "I think a lot of it is very unfair." And when asked about a pardon for Manafort, the President said, "I do want to see people treated fairly. That' s what it's allabout." Later that day, after Manafort ' s bail was revoked, t_he President called it a "tough sentence" that was "Very unfair! " Two days later, the President's personal counsel stated that individuals involved in the Special Counsel' s investigation could receive a pardon "if in fact the [P]resident and his advisors... come to the conclusion that you have been treated unfairly"- using language that paralleled how the President had already described the treatment of Manafort. Those statements, combined with the President's commendation ofManafort for being a "brave man" who "refused to ' break' ," suggested that a pardon was a more likely possibility if Manafort continued not to cooperate with the government. And while Manafort eventually pleaded guilty pursuant to a cooperation agreement, he was found to have violate d the agreement by lying to investigators.
The President's public statements during the Manafort trial, including during jury deliberations , also had the potential to influence the trial jury. On the second day of trial, for example, the President called the prosecution a "terrible situation" and a "hoax" that "continues to stain our country" and referred to Manafort as a "Reagan/Dole darling" who was "serving solitary confinement" even though he was "convicte d of nothing." Those statements were widely picked up by the press.
First; Trump doesn't need exoneration. He was never ACCUSED of doing anything illegal.
Secondly; what part of "we are unable to reach that judgment" are you still struggling with?
Truth deflector," I did not read the report and do not know what is in and will prove it, How stupid am I let me post the ways. ".
Mueller in the report. "If we had confidence, after a thorough investigation of the facts, that the president did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on facts and applicable legal standards, we are unable to make that judgment,"
You are so proud of your ability to parrot right wing crap. That talent is enhanced with your penchant for doing it over and over plugging up threads with drivel.
Dishonest dumb fuck; the statement "Based on facts and applicable legal standards, we are unable to make that judgment," is moronic. If you can't make a judgement based on the applicable legal standards, why the hundreds of pages of tormented legalese trying to find a way to justify it?
Alas, you're an idiot on steroids with a sad pathetic case of TDS so reality, facts, truth and honesty have no place in your whiny, pathetic attempts to distort the facts.