Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it's because he already developed his 'personal defense theory' for Mr. Trump without knowing any of the facts or evidence. Here he is in a memo to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein & Assistant Attorney General Steve Engel, dated June 8, 2018 outlining his 'personal defense theory':
Of course, he's talking about the law. Why do you think the attorney general should not follow the law?
What the heck are you talking about? You didn't even bother to read the memo. Just like some folks here didn't bother to read the report linked in the OP.
Who said he wasn't talking about the law? Besides you.
If all lawyers had to do was 'talk about the law' why would anything have to go to court?
Mr. Mueller's investigative report is based on the specific facts, the summary of evidence, & applicable legal standards, including case law, SCOTUS decisions, current state & federal law & statutes, et cetera.
The Business Insider found 11 instances of obstruction in the report. Mueller did not think he could charge the President so he left it up to congress to do what they need to do.
INSIDER reviewed the Mueller report and found that it includes 11 instances of potential obstruction, outlined below:
"The Campaign's response to reports about Russian support for Trump."
"Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn."
"The President's reaction to the continuing Russia investigation."
"The President's termination of Comey."
"The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him."
"Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's investigation."
"Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence."
"Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation."
"Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed."
"Conduct towards Flynn, Manafort, [REDACTED]."
"Conduct involving Michael Cohen."
According to US law, in order to establish an obstruction offense, the following criteria need to be met:
An individual has corrupt intent.
They engaged in obstructive conduct.
That conduct was connected to a "pending or contemplated proceeding."
In several instances, prosecutors outlined conduct that appears to meet those criteria, most notably involving Trump's conversations with the former White House counsel Don McGahn and his attempts to get McGahn to remove Mueller as special counsel.
But prosecutors provided little, if any, mitigating information pointing to Trump's innocence.
In fact, they emphasized, "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."
What the heck are you talking about? You didn't even bother to read the memo. Just like some folks here didn't bother to read the report linked in the OP.
Who said he wasn't talking about the law? Besides you.
Your comment was incoherent. I had to guess at what you were getting at. And, yes, I read the memo. I still have no idea what the point of your reference to it is.
Mueller's report presented documented evidence in a number of areas for obstruction of justice. Trump tried to get people to lie under oath. Trump tried to derail investigations. ...
What Mueller wrote was that since the AG determined that there would be no indictment, it was not fair to accuse Trump when he would not have an opportunity to defend himself in court.
He also wrote “Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office,”
That conclusion, “accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”
Surely the folks who cheered on 5+years investigating everything they could turn up on Bill Clinton and 2+ years of Benghazi hearings aren't calling Congressional investigations Kangaroo courts are they?
Mueller's report presented documented evidence in a number of areas for obstruction of justice. Trump tried to get people to lie under oath.
You're making that up.
Quote:
Trump tried to derail investigations. ...
What investigations?
Quote:
What Mueller wrote was that since the AG was determined that there would be no indictment, it was not fair to accuse Trump when he would not have an opportunity to defend himself in court.
He also wrote “Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office,”
That conclusion, “accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”
LOL. Like he is Congress's boss. How arrogant! Congress can decide for itself and most certainly does not Mueller's permission to do anything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
