That is not illegal. Believe it or not taking a meeting with someone from Russia is not illegal. This report is pretty cut and dry there was no collusion period. There was no dirt transferred in the meeting and was a ruse in order to reverse sanctions on adoptions. This was a giant hoax pushed by the Democrat party and a willing media.
If there was any doubt in Muellers mind, KNOWING that his report will first go to the DOJ and AG Barr, why wouldn't he just recommend charges there? The only possible explanation is there wasn't enough actual evidence to show they willingly and criminally obstructed justice. Unless Mueller is playing 9D chess with us all...
Just because somone on TV said meeting or interacting with Russians/citizens is literally the worst thing a person could do, doesn't mean it's true.
If Jr knew this person was a Russian Agent or acting on behalf of the Russian government then he would already be in jail.
Last edited by Sinyc; 2019-03-24 at 11:02 PM.
"After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues… Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."
World needs more Goblin Warriors https://i.imgur.com/WKs8aJA.jpg
Taking a meeting, based on getting dirt on a political opponent ABSOLUTELY is illegal. And the report doesn't say there was no collusion, Mueller didn't make any recommendation.
Just because there was no dirt given, doesn't make it not illegal. Let's take your shitty suggestion and say that if someone tries to kill someone else's wife, and misses with the shot, and gives up when he is caught. Does that mean that attempted murder isn't illegal? The fact that they were discussing sanctions alone makes it a Hatch Act violation because they weren't even sworn in as government officials.
Mm, the specific quote is "while this report does not conclude the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Which could be read a couple ways:
1) Trump didn't do anything against the letter of the law.
2) Trump didn't do anything, period; you can't exonerate someone who is not a criminal.
In any case, the Barr letter also suggests that there was no conspiracy, which is one of the primary asks of the special counsel: "In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent..."
In any event, we'll get to see most or all of the report. "As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel's report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies."
Well if he can't recommend charges be filed, is there no way, under his power given him to by the law, to convey overwhelming evidence and give his opinion on the matter? I will wait to read the entire report, because I don't fully frust Barr as he is a Trump appointee. Barr is getting to set the narrative for these first 24-48 hours, which is the most important time frame because everyone just assumes what is being relayed to them is 100% truth, and after 24-48 hours the public's attention is gone on that subject.
Edit: Barr quotes the Mueller report where it states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Why couldn't he do the inverse for Obstruction?
Last edited by Sinyc; 2019-03-24 at 11:13 PM.
Then how come Mueller's principle conclusion was: "the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities."
You lost, its been fun but its over. You people should be eating crow at this point. There was no collusion and no obstruction of justice as there was no underlying crime.
- - - Updated - - -
I am not moving any goal posts. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton should have been tried because I don't think she had intent when she mishandled classified information. The emails hacked by WikiLeaks did do a lot of damage to her campaign but the emails were not fake they were real. The American people simply got to know her better.
Again, barr not believing a president can act with corrupt intent with regards to obstruction of justice has nothing to do with whether or not a sitting president can be indicted. I have already covered this in a previous post. Barr's footnote is specific to the constitutional considerations of whether or not a sitting president can be indicted. That has nothing to do with the constitutional considerations of whether or not a president can act with corrupt intent.