Wait until you see the tapdance around Trump and his cronies attempting to collude, but being too stupid and incompetent to send an email.
This is a rather interesting analysis from an actual lawyer.
No. He could've used executive powers to stop this investigation dead in its tracks but he allowed it to continue. He could've fire Mueller, he could've ordered the investigation closed, he could've ordered his employees not to speak to Mueller, he could've blocked the release of the report - Trump didn't do any of that. Basically, he did not collude with Russia and he did not obstruct the investigation into Russian election interference so as far as I can tell he served my interests rather well.
No. He could've used executive powers to stop this investigation dead in its tracks but he allowed it to continue. He could've fire Mueller, he could've ordered the investigation closed, he could've ordered his employees not to speak to Mueller, he could've blocked the release of the report - Trump didn't do any of that. Basically, he did not collude with Russia and he did not obstruct the investigation into Russian election interference so as far as I can tell he served my interests rather well.
Intent to commit obstruction isn’t obstruction. Lying to the press, or (reprehensively) getting your son to change his statement to the press also isn’t obstruction. Had he done either of those to Mueller’s investigators, or exacted his executive powers to halt the investigation, however, that would certainly make the case.All of those are obstructions of justice, and there's a strong indication he tried to do many if not all of those, but nobody around him was willing to soil their hands with this bullshit.
A few things to add:Of course he didn't collude. He wanted power for himself, Russia thought he was the perfect guy to have as president of the USA. They didn't collude, their interest converged naturally.
The question is what Russia's interest was (or still is), why Trump suited it that well, and if that converges to the USA's, or even to yours. It's the same question I ask myself when I see Russia's interference in the EU.
As for the rest, if he was spotless, Muller would have said it plain and simple.
You are correct, “impartial” was the wrong word on my part.Mueller's job was not to be impartial, that is the job of a judge. The job of a special prosecutor is to seek evidence. The job is really an investigator.
It’s the prosecutor’s job to recommend to the AG whether or not to proceed with the prosecution. He punted.By law, the AG gets the report. The AG, or the acting head of the investigation have been involved since this thing started. That is why Trump.was so pissed that Sesions refused himself.
By your logic, the report should therefore include any and all comments, such as how many times Trump says “fuck” or calls someone in the media “fake news.” Yet they don’t, because they weren’t germane to the investigation. “I’m fucked” (sans even the slightest subtext of guilt) wasn’t relevant.... and therefore the only logical conclusion to its inclusion was to give the appearance of guilt, and Mueller is smart enough to know that.The Trump comment was uncovered in the investigation, so it was included in the report.
1. The report indicates the Russian hackers also approved of Bernie Sanders and vehemently opposed Hillary Clinton... therefore it’s possible their intent may have been “ABC” (anyone but Clinton) as much as they were “for Trump.”
Russia doesn’t want to be relegated to 2nd fiddle by EU/US interests as it has been for decades now. So yep they want to weaken the west (would also love to do that to China but that’s difficult)That is quite interesting and reinforces the question: "what was Russia's interest? What were they trying to do?"
Russia doesn’t want to be relegated to 2nd fiddle by EU/US interests as it has been for decades now. So yep they want to weaken the west (would also love to do that to China but that’s difficult)
Intent to commit obstruction isn’t obstruction.