Democrats think they've got a slam-dunk obstruction case against Trump. They don't.

[Truth Detector]

Then why did Manafort share polling data with Kilimnik for months when he was campaign manager for Trump?

Mueller Report; Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.

Barr: 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.

[Truth Detector]

Why was Trump requesting or wishing anyone to lie to Congress?

Mueller Report; Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.

Barr: 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.

[USFREEDOM911]

FACT: Mueller is not going to contradict what he has already reported in the report. Leftists and Democratic morons think he can provide them with a smoking gun if they ask the right questions.

Here is the entire purpose of this Clown Show; Democrats hope Mueller’s testimony will make more Americans want to impeach Trump
https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...or-impeachment

It will fail as most Democratic efforts to smear rather than debate issues fail.

I HOPE that they record every DNC face, during the testimonies, every time he says "It's in the report" or anything similar.

[Truth Detector]

I HOPE that they record every DNC face, during the testimonies, every time he says "It's in the report" or anything similar.

I am looking forward to the Republican questions. Mueller's response will be typical; no response.

[Gonzomin]

There are 10 examples of obstruction in the Mueller report. The McGahn one is particularly clear. Trump told him to fire Mueller. McGahn refused because it is against the law. Trump repeated the demand a few times. McGahn put it in his record. When Trump heard about that, he demanded he remove it. McGahn refused. Trump told McGahn to do illegal acts and tried to erase the records. Trump is a blundering dishonest fool who only thinks about himself. He should take the time to learn what powers he really has and what the law is. But Trump has spent a lifetime skirting and evading the law. I hope this time, he pays for it.

[reagansghost]

On Wednesday, House Democrats will have a chance to breathe life into the Mueller report. Relatively few Americans have read the 448-page document in which special counsel Robert Mueller concluded the evidence did not establish that the Trump campaign and Russia engaged in a conspiracy or coordination to fix the 2016 election, and also declined to conclude whether or not President Trump obstructed justice. Democrats know the report has failed to capture the public imagination, and they hope bringing Mueller to Capitol Hill for questioning will catch the nation's attention.

"Not everybody is reading the book, but people will watch the movie," a House Judiciary Committee official told Politico's Playbook.

Mueller's testimony will be divided between the Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee. Judiciary will focus on Volume II of the report, which covered allegations of obstruction, and Intelligence will pursue Volume I, on conspiracy and coordination.

Democrats on the Intel committee will have the harder job, given the failure to establish conspiracy or coordination.
So it's likely most eyes will be focused on Judiciary. Many Democrats, and many in the press, believe the Mueller report proved the president obstructed justice. The report listed a number of episodes of possible obstruction, and according to press reports, Democratic aides recently told reporters the Judiciary Committee will focus on the top five.

"Democrats...intend to dwell heavily on five of the most glaring episodes of possible obstruction of justice that Mr. Mueller documented," the New York Times reported Saturday.

It's unclear whether there are actually five topics, or just three big topics with additional subheadings, but whatever the case, many Democrats believe they can make an overwhelming case against Trump. One committee Democrat promised to NBC that the Mueller hearing will highlight "truly shocking evidence of criminal misconduct by the president -- not once, but again and again and again."

But will it? It could be that the Mueller hearing, rather than showcasing a slam-dunk case against the president on obstruction of justice, will highlight how tenuous, subject to interpretation, and difficult to prove Mueller's allegations really are.

What's not there

The first thing to notice about the Democrats' choice of evidence is what is not included. If news reports are correct, the firing of FBI director James Comey, once treated in media discussions as Exhibit A in the case for obstruction, is not among the episodes Democrats will highlight. Nor are the conversations between Trump and Comey that Comey wrote up in his famous memos, including a talk in which Trump allegedly asked Comey to go easy on Michael Flynn -- another episode that was routinely discussed in the media as solid evidence of obstruction. Nor are the president's efforts to spin the public story of the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting -- yet another incident often characterized as obstruction.

Also important to remember is that the Muller investigation was not actually obstructed by the president, and neither was the FBI Trump-Russia investigation that preceded it. In the report, Mueller often argued that this or that act -- say, firing Mueller -- could have obstructed the investigation, had it actually occurred. But it did not. So the Democrats' accusations of obstruction will in fact be accusations of attempted obstruction.

Finally, it is important to recall that Mueller could never establish that the underlying crime he was assigned to investigate -- conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia -- actually took place. So in Wednesday's hearing,
Democrats will be showcase an investigation that was not obstructed into a crime that investigators could not establish actually happened.

And one more thing: The Mueller report includes a lengthy section headlined "Legal Defenses To The Application Of Obstruction-Of-Justice Statutes To The President." The section includes compelling arguments against the report's obstruction allegations. But the arguments are legal ones, some quite complicated, and it is important to keep in mind that the Judiciary Committee inquiry is not a legal proceeding, but a political one. The lawmakers are not prosecutors but rather members of Congress, some of whom are seeking to impeach the president. It is an entirely political process, and whether or not to impeach will be a political decision. So a lot of the legal analysis that dominates cable TV coverage won't really apply; the president's defenders can make commonsense defenses that appeal to the vast majority of Americans -- 324 million or so -- who are not lawyers.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...rump-they-dont

detailed aticle at link

oopsy

These are the 10 episodes Mueller investigated for obstruction of justice

.....The list includes James Comey’s firing and Trump’s changing behavior toward Michael Cohen.


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ustice-summary

[LV426]

There are 10 examples of obstruction in the Mueller report. The McGahn one is particularly clear. Trump told him to fire Mueller. McGahn refused because it is against the law. Trump repeated the demand a few times. McGahn put it in his record. When Trump heard about that, he demanded he remove it. McGahn refused. Trump told McGahn to do illegal acts and tried to erase the records. Trump is a blundering dishonest fool who only thinks about himself. He should take the time to learn what powers he really has and what the law is. But Trump has spent a lifetime skirting and evading the law. I hope this time, he pays for it.

Exactly...call it whatever you want; an order, a request, a wish...what it boils down to is that Trump wanted McGahn to lie to Congress and put pressure on him to do that.

No Conservative have given a good reason for why.

The best reason they can come up with is because Trump was emotional from hurt feelings.

[USFREEDOM911]

Exactly...call it whatever you want; an order, a request, a wish...what it boils down to is that Trump wanted McGahn to lie to Congress and put pressure on him to do that.

No Conservative have given a good reason for why.

The best reason they can come up with is because Trump was emotional from hurt feelings.

Which is it, an order, a request, or a wish??

And you are aware that it's the left who appears to have "hurt feelings".

[Getin the ring]

Democrats have a car load of clowns they need to get rid of is what they have

[Rune]

All lawmakers are lawyers


LOL, dumbass

68 times more likely to be a lawyer

[Adolf_Twitler]

What is going to come out, clear as a bell, during the upcoming Congressional Hearing with Bob Mueller, is the fact that our executive branch has been granted way too much over-the-top executive privilege.

When Donald Trump publicly said, "I could go out on 5th Avenue and kill someone and get by with it", he wasn't just kidding, he was actually right according to Mueller's explanation of FBI's internal policy that prevents the FBI of being able to indict a sitting president.

So, if it's true that Bob Mueller's interpretation of FBI internal policy is accurate, and I'm not even sure that that has been proven to be the case according to the Constitution, but if that is proven true, then it will also be obviously proven in this hearing that FBI internal policies will have to be updated to include indicting sitting presidents, as well- for all future presidents- or the Democracy Crisis will just continue into America's future and rear it's ugly head again and again, now that Donald Trump has taken us down that slippery slope.

I know it sounds nice, and intentions are good, when we say, "No one is above the law"!

But, if our own Constitution does not back that up, then our Constitution is a useless lie when it comes to equality issues, and separations of power issues of any kind.

So look for new Bills to come along in the immediate future that limits many executive powers.

And as more and more Americans realize the madness of giving presidents too much power, and as it will be obvious in the upcoming hearing, more people will realize that only the Democrats can fix and resolve this fallacy in our Constitution.

Because as so long as a Republican president is the one in office abusing his privileges and power, the Republicans will never limit the powers of the president.

Watch how the Democrats will use this urgent need to limit presidential powers, and recruit more people to their side of the aisle in the upcoming 2020 election.

Trust me on this- limiting presidential power will be on the ballot in 2020!

[Stretch]

it's pretty clear Mueller has been given the talking points, and 5 hours of testimony is going to be more then
"yes and no"

But it won't go outside the scope of the report either. Its designed to gin up TV drama.
When you read Mueller's narrative it's legalese and one needs some understanding of events / law.

The Dems want it read back in a dramatic fashion instead

Agree, but I'm going to go out on a limb...and it's a limb that's been used before.
IMO Mullet will give the Dems & media another ambiguous foggy throw-away line to keep the fires burning. I think he'll stick
to the report, but toss out another 'semantic brain teaser' that the left can again twist into whatever they want it to mean again.
There's no way Nadler is doing this for grins. Guess we'll know by Wednesday night.

Here's good link for the LIVE coverage on Wednesday.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...efore-congress

[Lord Yurt]

Attempted obstruction is the same thing as obstruction you useless retard.

Is attempted murder the same as murder?

BTW, it is not Tru all lawmakers are lawyers. Did you know you don't even need a law degree to be qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice?

[Sailor]

Anything to get Epstein and the ensuing Democrat take down out of the headlines.

[Earl]

Mueller Report; Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.

Barr: 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.

This should be tattooed on the forehead of every radical Democrat Socialist in Congress,

Thanks for posting it, TD, please continue to do so.