Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1167921)

...he might not be able to indict but he could certainly come to a conclusion or a judgment based on his exhaustive investigation and evidence as to whether Trump committed any crimes...

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1167925)

I think he was pretty clear in stating that rendering a judgement in a manner where the accused has no ability to put up a defense isn't fair and that Congress is the proper place to hear this out.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1167904)

Mueller said specifically they wouldn't say so without an indictment as the accused would have no legal process to show otherwise.

That is self-serving and hypocritical idiocy. Strongly implying has potentially similar consequences for Trump as those if Mueller had specifically said that Trump did commit a crime. There would be similar consequences re the various excuses Mueller states such as “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,” or “A prosecutor’s judgement that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator” and “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,” . . . “A prosecutor’s judgement that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.” And "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" of an accusation "could imperil the President’s ability to govern," All of those excuses for not clearly stating that Trump committed a crime of obstruction apply equally to IMPLYING that he did commit the crime. And, very importantly re the last excuse, Mueller's implication has imperiled the President's ability to govern.

So spare me the supposed noble reasons for not specifically saying that Trump committed a crime. The implication that he did are almost as damaging. So, if Mueller actually, personally concluded that Trump committed a crime, it was his duty to conclude so. Otherwise, what was the purpose of investigating Trump if he could not say that he committed a crime. If he could not have made a conclusion of criminality re Trump, that should not have been part of the scope of his investigation. That should have been left to the agencies, political or criminal, to investigate and make a conclusive finding. And the scope of Mueller's mission should have remained solely the investigation of Russian interference.

And there is, apparently, strong evidence that Mueller knew very early on that Trump had not conspired with Russia, so should have dropped that part of the investigation well before obstruction inquiries were made.

Mueller essentially said we would have but we couldn't. Congress, you're up.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1167894)

No, you are incorrect, the enabling legislation and DOJ rules calls out what is required and Mueller clearly lays out what he believed he could and could not do in the report.

Can you point out a DOJ rule that prohibited Mueller from concluding that Trump obstructed justice. A conclusion is not an indictment.

What we are to do at this point is really simple, the House investigates and if needed impeaches the President.

Who are "we"? You certainly seem to be part of that crowd. A different "we," would say that what we are to do at this point is really simple, it's over, move on.

Meanwhile Trump continues to obstruct the investigation, and it is justifiable in your mind because he's mad.

What "investigation" is Trump "obstructing"?

Others think he is covering things up.

"Others" think that Mueller, Schiff, Comey, Nadler, et al. are covering things up.

Pay attention to Muellers closing statement:
"I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.
That allegation deserves the attention of every American."

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1167928)

What "investigation" is Trump "obstructing"?

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1167928)

I paid attention to Mueller's closing statement, as you request, focused on it like a laser, and noted that the "central allegation" was of their "indictments". That there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election being alleged in their "indictments". I noticed that the "allegation" which deserves every American's attention was a central part of their "indictments".

Did you notice that Trump was not part of those indictments? That Mueller concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to indict Trump on charges of systematic efforts to interfere in our election?

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1167931)

Hard to prove when you consistently obstruct, that is the goal of obstruction.

Well if you can't prove it, quit yapping about it. Your constant referring to unproven talking points are an obstruction to civil, reasonable, logical, rational, meaningful, and ultimately fruitful discussion.

Why is it acceptable to some that Trump sought, received and welcomed aid from the Russians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kxG8uJUsWU

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1167887)

From the Mueller report:

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

"The conclusion that Congress may apply obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

From Mueller yesterday:

"It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.
The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."

"When (Mueller chooses his words very carefully, notice he did not say If) a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable."

Testimonials for the choice of Robert Mueller

"Robert Mueller is superb choice to be special counsel. His reputation is impeccable for honesty and integrity" – Newt Gingrich, May 18, 2017.

"I have a lot of confidence in Bob Mueller. I think it was a good choice" – Mitch McConnell, June 13, 2017.

"Robert Mueller is highly regarded by Republicans and Democrats" – John McCain, June 13, 2017.

"I have a lot of confidence in Bob Mueller. This is someone who will go to where the truth leads him" – Condoleezza Rice, June 28, 2017.

From the infamous Rudy spoken a year ago:
Rudy Giuliani on Wednesday claimed to CNN that special counsel Robert Mueller’s team told President Trump’s lawyers that they cannot indict a sitting president. “All they get to do is write a report,” Giuliani, who currently serves as a Trump lawyer, told CNN reporter Dana Bash. “They can’t indict. At least they acknowledged that to us after some battling, they acknowledged that to us.”

Now we get to watch them spin................................

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles (Post 1167933)

Wow,thanks for taking your time to expose this PeteF.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device