DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump and his admin refusing to allow congress to investigate.

FOX has read it and you used them as a source.

I don't believe for a minute that most of the Fox anchors have read it. Maybe the ones who have said HE DID commit obstruction, I think they read it. Hannity and others might have looked at the words but couldn't make them out for Trump's butt cheeks blocking the view. Probably the same issue for you.

Have YOU read it?

Most but not all. I've read the second part. What could be read. I personally think the conspiracy part is confusing. Seems like conspiracy to me, but not enough evidence to meet a high bar for charges. I'm not sure how they interpret that from what I've read but I'm definitely not a lawyer.

If I were Mueller, I would have charged him and Don Jr.

Why don't you be a dear and post all 11 instances. Please quote the article.

You need a link to the report? Or do you want a summary? lol...


PDF: https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf

Might just be my computer, but your link doesn't work for me.

Allow downloads. It's a link to the file of the report. When you click on it it'll download a searchable PDF version.

Oh, never mind. I saw it was downloading. Estimated time was over an hour.

It would be easier if oldcold just linked to the 11 instances of obstruction, and the proof of them that would/could lead to prosecution. I mean, he said he had 11 instances of provable obstruction. How's it happen he has that info, and congress doesn't?

Might want to talk to your isp. Took me 30 seconds with a bad connection.

Perhaps I will. But, he stated "11 obstruction of justice" instances. Why would I need to read some 400 to 450 pages to glean that info?

Not sure where I said that. But I can find you a good summary.

This article is ok as a summary but doesn't cite by paragraph number or anything.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/19/barr-obstruction-mueller-trump-226664

or

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/...tion-of-justice

So, in essence, Barr lied about the conclusions of the Mueller report? And congress has seen the Mueller report, yet still not acted on impeachment? That's what you're going with in order to say there were 11 obstruction of justice charges?

Congress is acting methodically due to Trump's admin's lack of cooperation. They have to rediscover the underlying facts that Mueller has in his report as if they are new because Barr will not give them the entire report or underlying evidence. So that part is on Trump. They won't impeach unless they have that evidence and have shown the country what exactly Trump did and why it's impeachable. You can see enough in the report to know the evidence is there and Mueller all but draws the entire picture... yet without all the facts you can't tell average Joe the guy he voted for is a crook and expect a positive reaction. Nixon was loved by the right until the same type of evidence exposed him for a crook.

Long answer short, congress (house dems) are trying to get the evidence that Mueller has/had to reach his conclusion. Then they need to educate the electorate with REAL facts and not the misdirection of Barr/Trump.

Barr definitely needs to go.

You know how the progressive liberals work. If you are accused you are guilty. They do not believe in innocent until proven guilty anymore. So if there was accusations and they don't like a person. They must be guilty. That is why the moderate Democrats do not know what to do. Follow the communist mob or not.

Moderate Democrats are smart and won't fall for this crap.

Notice you don't hear much from them these days? They are quiet and trying not to lose their jobs to this vindictive mob.

Thanks for that. You seem to have all dems/libs/lefties figured out and well labeled... Guilty until proven innocent, huh? Why not just say what's really on your mind? You don't want to hear the truth because you have bought the Fox/Trump/Barr stories hook line and sinker! For you to find out that Trump actually did obstruct justice would be similar to having a bowl of steaming crap served to you for dessert after thinking your meal was the best ever.

It's been proven over and over and over again. Democrats don't believe in due process. They believe guilty until proven innocent.

Specifically see the MeToo movement,Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump, and Trump JR, among others.

Please present your case, Mr procecutor. Do try to use facts. I'm still waiting for these 11 instances. They're almost as secret as those 11 herbs and spices.

"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."

Well it's definitely been proven that dems are now the law and order party. They are the only adults in the room. The don't play the victim nearly as often as the right, and the do believe in due process while still seeking the truth and justice.

You included Kavanaugh, Trump, and Jr. If fully allowed to investigate with proper cooperation, all 3 would be in jail.

Show me where I said 11 instances please? You can't. But there were and apparently you can't read them and understand or you refuse to even try. You're that thirsty horse that has been led to water and still won't drink.

You need to check your toxic masculinity.

This is a good breakdown of the 11 instances:

11 moments Mueller investigated for obstruction of justice

As laid out in his report, special counsel Robert Mueller investigated 11 different incidents of possible obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump.

Mueller, whose full report with redactions was released Thursday, ultimately did not reach a final conclusion on the topic, saying the case raised “difficult issues” on whether the president should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. Instead, he presented multiple instances in which Trump’s actions were “capable of exerting undue influence over [the investigations].”

Here’s a look at the 11 specific obstruction-related actions that Mueller investigated and what the report found, along with a key passage for each section — and the page number in the PDF — to make reading the document easier.

1. What Trump knew and what he denied about Russia and WikiLeaks (pages 228-236)

Here, Mueller looks at Trump’s efforts to negotiate a Trump Tower deal in Moscow even as he told reporters in 2016 that he had no business dealings with Russians. It also addresses WikiLeaks and the hacked emails it published from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign officials.

What Mueller found: Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen testified that Trump told him in 2016: “Why mention [our work on a Russian hotel] if it is not a deal?” On WikiLeaks, onetime Trump deputy campaign manager Rick Gates testified that Trump specifically mentioned that he knew more damaging Clinton material would be coming.

2. Did the president try to cover up Michael Flynn’s phone calls with the Russian ambassador or protect him from prosecution? (pages 237-259)

This section includes Trump’s alleged remark to then-FBI Director James Comey to “let go” of the investigation into Flynn, who served briefly as national security adviser. Flynn was fired for lying to senior Trump administration officials about his contact with Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the United States.

What Mueller found: Mueller found evidence establishing that the president connected the Flynn investigation to the FBI’s broader Russia investigation. Mueller also wrote that Trump believed, as he told former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, that terminating Flynn would end “the whole Russia thing.”

Some evidence suggests that Trump knew about the existence and content of Flynn’s calls with Russia when they occurred. But the evidence is inconclusive, and could not be relied upon to establish the president’s exact knowledge of the nature of Flynn’s contacts with Russia.

3. Trump’s repeated urging of top administration officials to deny he was under investigation (pages 260- 273)

Mueller points to the president’s entreaties to several key officials, including Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers and Comey, asking them to publicly deny that he was under investigation.

What Mueller found: Mueller concluded the evidence does not show the president was trying to interfere with the investigation when he spoke with top intelligence officials about his potential involvement. But the report noted that his actions here are relevant in understanding his overall view that the investigation was a significant threat.

4. Why the president fired Comey (pages 274 – 289)

Mueller weighed the president’s decision to fire Comey in May 2017 and concluded that “substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President’s decision to fire Comey was Comey’s unwillingness to state the president was not personally under investigation” and that the evidence does not similarly support the president’s other stated rationales, including his argument that Comey was fired for mishandling the Clinton investigation. Mueller states that the president decided to fire Comey and later directed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to write a letter recommending the action.

What Mueller found: “Firing Comey would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural and probable effect of interfering with or impeding the investigation … substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President’s decision to fire Comey was Comey ‘s unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation. The evidence does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia.”

5. Trump’s efforts to fire Mueller (pages 289-302)

The report states that the president repeatedly directed officials to pressure the Justice Department to remove Mueller. Former White House Counsel Don McGahn told Mueller’s team the president told him that “Mueller has to go” at least twice, and on June 17, 2017, told McGahn to call Rosenstein to have the special counsel removed. McGahn did not follow through, “deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre.”

What Mueller found: “This evidence shows that the President was not just seeking an examination of whether conflicts in the Mueller team existed but instead was looking to use asserted conflicts as a way to terminate the Special Counsel. Instead of relying on his personal counsel to submit the conflicts claims, the President sought to use his official powers to remove the Special Counsel.”

6. Did Trump direct the White House counsel to lie about his order to fire the special counsel? (pages 325-332)

This section revolves around testimony by McGahn, who stated that Trump asked him to deny that the president had ordered him to fire Muller. As noted above, McGahn clearly recalled being ordered by the president to fire Mueller. In his report, Mueller weighs the possibility that the president may have sincerely been trying to correct inaccuracies in news stories reporting that he had tried to fire Mueller and was not asking McGahn to lie. In the end, Mueller seems to conclude that McGahn’s account is the more consistent.

What Mueller found: “Evidence indicates that by the time of the Oval Office meeting the President was aware that McGahn did not think the story was false and did not want to issue a statement or create a written record denying facts that McGahn believed to be true. The President nevertheless persisted and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate.”

7. Trump’s order to limit Mueller from investigating him (pages 303-310)

Here, Mueller writes some of his most sharp and clear conclusions about the president’s actions. The report found that Trump directed his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski in July 2017 to tell Attorney General Jeff Sessions that he must block Mueller from investigating the president or his campaign. Lewandowski asked another White House official to deliver the message, but that official did not follow through.

What Mueller found: “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s efforts to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation … was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

8.Trump’s push for Sessions to reverse his recusal and take over the investigation (pages 319-325)

During 2017 and 2018, the president repeatedly tried to have the attorney general take control of the special counsel’s investigation, though Sessions recused himself on March 2, 2017. In addition, the president repeatedly asked or directed Sessions to launch an investigation of Hillary Clinton.

What Mueller found: “A reasonable inference from those statements and the President’s actions is that the President believed that an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia investigation.”

9. The June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Trump officials and a Russian lawyer (pages 310-319)

Mueller confirmed news reports that the president personally directed a misleading press statement, to be attributed to his son Donald Trump Jr., about the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between top campaign staff and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was the result of emails offering Donald Trump Jr. damaging material about Clinton. Mueller concluded that the president’s actions to conceal the truth about the meeting was a “press strategy” and does not meet the definition of obstruction of justice.

What Mueller found: “Each of these efforts by the President involved his communications team and was directed at the press. They would amount to obstructive acts only if the President, by taking these actions, sought to withhold information from or mislead congressional investigators or the Special Counsel. But the evidence does not establish that the President took steps to prevent the emails or other information about the June 9 meeting from being provided to Congress or the Special Counsel.”

10. Did the president witness tamper or offer pardons to Flynn, Manafort and an unnamed person? (pages 332-345)

This section looks at whether the president tried to influence witnesses, including with the promise of pardons, to remain loyal to him or not cooperate with the investigation. This includes public and private statements directed to Flynn and Manafort. For example, Manafort’s onetime deputy, Rick Gates, testified that Manafort told him that “he had been in touch with the President’s personal counsel … and ‘we’ll be taken care of’” though the word pardon wasn’t used. Mueller drew separate conclusions here regarding Manafort and Flynn.

What Mueller found on Manafort: Trump “intended Manafort to believe that he could receive a pardon, which would make cooperation with the government as a means of obtaining a lesser sentence unnecessary. We also examined the evidence of the President’s intent in making public statements about Manafort at the beginning of his trial and when the jury was deliberating. Some evidence supports a conclusion that the President intended, at least in part, to influence the jury.”

What Mueller found on Flynn: “Evidence concerning the President’s intent related to Flynn as a potential witness is inconclusive. Also, 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.”

11. Trump’s conduct with Michael Cohen (pages 346-368)

In the longest section on obstruction, Mueller looks at whether the president directed his longtime attorney and fixer Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, and whether Trump tried to influence Cohen’s testimony when he later cooperated with the special counsel. Mueller writes that the president knew Cohen was lying to Congress, but it is not clear if he ordered him to do that.

What Mueller found: “The evidence concerning this sequence of events could support an inference that the President used inducements in the form of positive messages in an effort to get Cohen not to cooperate, and then turned to attacks and intimidation to deter the provision of information or undermine Cohen’s credibility once Cohen began cooperating.”

“With regard to Cohen’s false statements to Congress, while there is evidence, described below, that the President knew Cohen provided false testimony to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow project, the evidence available to us does not establish that the President directed or aided Cohen’s false testimony.”

The PBS NewsHour’s Yamiche Alcindor reported for this story.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/11-moments-mueller-investigated-for-obstruction-of-justice


So there it is detailed and brief. Now you can argue about one or more if you like, but any one of the eleven is enough to impeach. That's why Barr will not provide the full report.

Maybe now you can see why we need the full report and why Congress needs to hold hearings.

Okay. Now we're getting somewhere. So, charge him.

[quote=OldColdDawg

Show me where I said 11 instances please? You can't. But there were and apparently you can't read them and understand or you refuse to even try. You're that thirsty horse that has been led to water and still won't drink. [/quote]


And then, 2 posts later, you list 11. Hmmm....

Fools rush in... Can't charge him until the facts are released/out and fully understood by John Q Public and more importantly GOP Senators. Then and only then does impeachment hold any weight. Why impeach in the current atmosphere of mistrust and muddy waters? The only thing that would do is hand Trump a political victory.

Dems have a responsibility to get the facts then decide rather or not to impeach based on the fats. Let it play out and I think you will see an impeachment before 2020.

John Q Public doesn't need to know jack squat about it.

The facts are out. Congress has seen them. Charge him, or shut up.

Dude, since day 1 you've been harping on "just wait for the Mueller report". Constantly. Incessantly. Report came out. You didn't like it - even though you read all 400 some pages..........now you want more investigation. You've become a joke.

1. Trump knew more damaging info on Clinton was coming. Yeah, Trump and everyone else on the planet. At worse, it's a personal belief. No evidence.

2. Evidence is inconclusive and can't be relied upon.

3. Evidence does not show the president was attempting to interfere.

Shall I continue, or does anyone else see the pattern yet?

Congress hasn't seen them at all. They've seen what I sent you a link to see for yourself. You seem to be having a problem following facts that don't mesh with the Trump/Barr agenda of make this go away.

You are the joke.

And then, 2 posts later, you list 11. Hmmm....[/quote]

Yes I did, two post later. Hmm... you can count.

MSNBC host presses GOP lawmaker on why he didn't read Mueller report


Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga.) says he “trusted” Robert Mueller to do his job when pressed on why he didn’t read the special counsel's full report.

On MSNBC Sunday night, host Kasie Hunt pushed Woodall on why he didn’t read the 448-page report, which summed up a nearly two-year-long investigation on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

"I said when we started this conversation that I trusted Mr. Mueller — he took a lot of slings and arrows throughout this process, but every U.S. attorney I knew said this is a man of great integrity. He’s gonna lead this investigation."

“So why not read the report?” Hunt asked.

“Well, I have a concern when you put the entire power of the United States Justice Department behind anything. You can achieve an agenda, you can drive a message."

"So you think the Mueller report was just driving an agenda?" Hunt continued. "There's nothing there that's worth figuring out?"

Ultimately, Woodall said, “obstruction is not a political issue, it is a criminal issue,” adding that Congress isn’t obligated to review the report, which did not bring any charges against President Trump but did not exonerate him.

“The constituents I represent don't want to see criminal activity at any place,” he said, “but they also don't want to see folks grinding their political axes when there are important economic issues, family issues, education issues that need to be handled."

"Folks are looking to turn that page," Woodall added. "I know people are pouring through that Mueller report looking for something to talk about again tomorrow and next week and the month after that."

Woodall said he “didn’t read the Bill Clinton report, either. I didn't follow any of that salacious news.”

“You weren’t in Congress at the time,” Hunt responded.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/44772...-mueller-report

The problems with the right start at the top.

So, really, after some 2 years of investigation, and the final report given, you're trying to tell me congress has only seen what you claim to have seen? And nothing more?

Come on man, really? After years of you saying "wait for the mueller report", "any day now", etc ad nauseum.........NOW you say "well, we didn't see it all"???

After you just listed 11 'obstruction' charges? And congress hasn't done a thing?

You, sir, are a running 2 year joke. And it gets better and better as the time goes on.

Maybe they needed to approve the report before they knew what was in it?

Why don't you tell them what was in it, since you read all 448 pages, and listed off 11 obstruction charges?

Bad facts, twists and turns,... anything to try and provoke a reaction. Either you are a very incompetent reader or you are looking to start an argument. Either way, I'm not going to play your little games.

I do hope somebody helps you with your slipping mental faculties.

4. The evidence does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia.”

5. “This evidence shows that the President was not just seeking an examination of whether conflicts in the Mueller team existed but instead was looking to use asserted conflicts as a way to terminate the Special Counsel. Instead of relying on his personal counsel to submit the conflicts claims, the President sought to use his official powers to remove the Special Counsel.

Number 5 is one of my personal favorites. It doesn't matter, as the special council was allowed to complete their inquiry. No crime, unless we start procecuting thought crimes.

6. He said, he said. No evidence of a crime, unless we procecute thought crimes.

7. “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s efforts to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation … was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

How is this a crime? Would any of you want a procecuter to have unfettered access to sift through your psst to find a crime? Could any of you stand up to that kind of scrutiny? Trump did. He might be the cleanest president we've ever had.

8. “A reasonable inference". If it's reasonable, it can't be a crime.

9. But the evidence does not establish that the President took steps to prevent the emails or other information about the June 9 meeting from being provided to Congress or the Special Counsel.” Evidence dies not establish. No crime.

10. These are both speculative statements. If speaking to the press is a crime for the president, they should also go after every commentator that said words like 'treason'.

11. the evidence available to us does not establish that the President directed or aided Cohen’s false testimony.” I think that says it all.

Are you sure about that obstruction?

11. “the evidence available to us”

I’ll just let this sink in here.

Mueller was/is. So much so that when Barr tried to say something other - he felt obligated to publicly correct the lies Barr spewed.