Posted on 03/31/2019 10:24:43 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney claimed Sunday that special counsel Robert Mueller intended for Attorney General William Barr to determine whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice in the FBI’s investigation into Russian election interference.
“What you saw here is simply Mueller saying, ‘You know what? I’m going to let Barr call this one,’” Mulvaney said, discussing the final report on Mueller’s 22-month probe with host Jonathan Karl on ABC’s “This Week.”
“He had plenty of evidence to say on collusion, ‘Absolutely not,’ and he actually punted over to Barr,” Mulvaney continued. “Again, that’s the way the system can and does work.”
In a four-page letter delivered to Congress last weekend summarizing the “principal conclusions” of Mueller’s nearly 400-page report, Barr wrote that the special counsel “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities” during the 2016 White House race.
But the attorney general revealed that Mueller declined to rule on whether the president obstructed justice, including by firing FBI Director James Comey.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Easy. Lie to the police.
Post of the day!!
Full disclosure: I didn't come up with that. Someone else here at FR did, I'm sorry I didn't note who at the time. It was posted during the rush of activity on Monday or Tuesday, after the Mueller findings came out.
It is, however, a very important observation, and I wish I'd thought of it.
So much was coming out early last week, there wasn't time to digest it all. The "obstructed the effort to find him not guilty" observation was one that stuck with me for days after I digested the initial flurry.
Special counsel
Trump was found cleared on any wrong doing.
That’s the point.
Yes, if the "obstructive act" is in and of itself, corrupt, then the corrupt intent requirement is met. So, if you threaten a witness, bribe a judge, destroy evidence, etc, and there is a nexus to a criminal investigation or proceeding, then you have met all three elements required to charge obstruction, even if they can't actually prove you committed any other crime.
But, the lie must demonstrate corrupt intent. Providing a false alibi to a killer is certainly corrupt, but saying you were home all day Saturday when you forgot you made a trip to the market for eggs is not.
This latest attack is playing on the ignorance of the basic principals of law. If the principle objective is to find collusion, how can there be obstruction over a false charge that was made up and could not be proven?
In my opinion, this digging for a crime should be unconstitutional. They pulled this crap on Sarah Palin by the way!
Your post is what I also said in a post on this thread. I am glad that others are seeing the real truth in this matter. The more people exposing the DemonCRAP’s effort to subvert our legal system with their calls for complete exoneration of the obstruction charge, the more cold water get thrown onto these freaks. I’m hoping for the wails of “I’m melting!” from these DemonCRAP subversive traitors.
Hillary wanted to deprive Nixon of his right to council during Watergate.
The Left would like to make it a criminal offense for anyone who resists them to defend themselves.
A Death blossom, huh? ;)
Trump should have had a White House ceremony with Muller, and asked him whether or not he was guilty of collusion or obstruction. With Jim Acosta asking follow ups, then Trump slamming him with the truth. :)
You mean like a "Seinfeld episode", a lie about nothing?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.