Mueller's testimony: even many of those on the left say it was a train wreck for them

[JimL]

How could there be ‘obstruction’ when the crime being investigated never occurred?

Because, had there not been so much obstruction, the underlying crimes may have been found. That's why obstruction happens Lilpix. Besides that, there are underlying crimes that run throughout his campaign.

[Cow Poke]

Because, had there not been so much obstruction, the underlying crimes may have been found. That's why obstruction happens Lilpix. Besides that, there are underlying crimes that run throughout his campaign.

Actual testimony:

Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee: "was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?”
Robert Mueller: "No"

[lilpixieofterror]

Because, had there not been so much obstruction, the underlying crimes may have been found. That's why obstruction happens Lilpix. Besides that, there are underlying crimes that run throughout his campaign.

I see, so the lack of evidence is proof that a crime occurred, we just need to keep digging till we prove a crime occurred. That’s a lovely guilty till proven innocent logic you have there, it’s a shame that in reality land, you need evidence to prove a crime occurred. The 16th century wants its justice system back Jimmy.

[lilpixieofterror]

Actual testimony:

Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee: "was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?”
Robert Mueller: "No"

That destroys the conspiracy, Jimmy doesn’t need any stinking evidence. He knows Trump is guilty, he just needs to keep looking till he finds some. Just like any good conspiracy theorist.

[Bill the Cat]

Keep lying to yourself, Bill.

It's not a lie, and you know it. You are desperately trying to hang on to your last ditch effort to get rid of Trump, and it has failed miserably. That you are too ignorant to accept it isn't my problem. Your delusions do not define reality or truth.

It only goes to show that, like the rest of the Trumpsters, you don't care.

Blah, blah, blah.... your broken record routine is pathetic.

It is true that a trial must always ensue, in this case an impeachment, or a determination of guilt made by Congress, and that will happen in my opinion.

And you are the epitome of unbiased, right? This crap fest is DOA, and the final nail in the coffin was driven in it when Bob finished testifying.

But anyone without a biased mind can see by the evidence presented in the report that the President is guilty of multiple counts of obstruction.

He didn't obstruct anything. Bob said that quite plainly.

Besides that, Trump has a whole lot more criminal activity on his part to worry about than just what's in the report.

You are blatant proof that drugs are bad.

[Bill the Cat]

It's a big nothing burger only to those biased minds suffering from cognitive dissonance.

Whatever you say, Bernie. Just say it louder, ok?

[Cow Poke]

I see, so the lack of evidence is proof that a crime occurred, we just need to keep digging till we prove a crime occurred. That’s a lovely guilty till proven innocent logic you have there, it’s a shame that in reality land, you need evidence to prove a crime occurred. The 16th century wants its justice system back Jimmy.

Who was that nutty liberal who made the statement about not needing evidence, because of the seriousness of the charge?

Thomas S. Foley, the House Speaker, and George J. Mitchell, the Senate Democratic leader, said they had designated the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to supervise separate but coordinated inquiries.

"These allegations are both persist ent and disturbing," the two leaders said in a joint statement. "We have no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, but the seriousness of the allegations, and the weight of circumstantial information, compel an effort to establish the facts."

[Cow Poke]

Whatever you say, Bernie. Just say it louder, ok?

And wave the arms!

https://twitter.com/i/status/1156376797124030464

"Throw your hands up," Hickenlooper said, raising his.

"All right," replied Sanders, doing just that.

"Oh ho, I can do it," Hickenlooper responded, once again raising his arms as the crowd in the Fox Theater roared.

[lilpixieofterror]

Who was that nutty liberal who made the statement about not needing evidence, because of the seriousness of the charge?

Thomas S. Foley, the House Speaker, and George J. Mitchell, the Senate Democratic leader, said they had designated the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to supervise separate but coordinated inquiries.

"These allegations are both persist ent and disturbing," the two leaders said in a joint statement. "We have no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, but the seriousness of the allegations, and the weight of circumstantial information, compel an effort to establish the facts."

If that how it works, they were both Russian spies that work for the KGB. It’s a pretty serious charge, so it’s true.

[rogue06]

And they would if it weren't for Moscow Mitch and the rest of the cowardly unamerican Republicans in the Senate who put party and power over democracy and their country. But I agree, they should, and guess what CP, they are, they're in the midst of an impeachment inquery, even if they're not calling it that.

It is a source of endless perplexity and not just a wee bit of humor to listen to liberals having to fabricate scenarios and concoct personas in order for them to sustain their fever-pitched outrage as their earlier delusions (what set them off in the first place) are undeniably crashing and burning before their very eyes.

[Cow Poke]

It is a source of endless perplexity and not just a wee bit of humor to listen to liberals having to fabricate scenarios and concoct personas in order for them to sustain their fever-pitched outrage as their earlier delusions (what set them off in the first place) are undeniably crashing and burning before their very eyes.

Wow.... I'm still marveling at the jargon! After lunch, I'll try to read what you said.

[Mountain Man]

How could there be ‘obstruction’ when the crime being investigated never occurred? I see you’re still functioning on the assumption some sort of ‘treason’ occurred, despite the total and complete lack of evidence that anything illegal ever happened. Apparently, I don’t have the blind faith to be a democrat.

In theory, an obstruction charge can be successfully prosecuted where there is no underlying crime; it's just incredibly difficult to make the case that an innocent man acted with corrupt intent.

[Cow Poke]

In theory, an obstruction charge can be successfully prosecuted where there is no underlying crime; it's just incredibly difficult to make the case that an innocent man acted with corrupt intent.

Even in extreme cases like somebody escapes from jail after being wrongly detained, the courts have looked at the fact that "he shouldn't have been in jail in the first place, so how can we charge him with escape"?

But, they can, in fact, charge him with escape!

[Teallaura]

Even in extreme cases like somebody escapes from jail after being wrongly detained, the courts have looked at the fact that "he shouldn't have been in jail in the first place, so how can we charge him with escape"?

But, they can, in fact, charge him with escape!

That's because escape isn't the legal remedy to unjust incarceration. The remedy is to prove innocence and then sue the heck out of the jurisdiction for false arrest et cetera.

[NorrinRadd]

How could there be ‘obstruction’ when the crime being investigated never occurred? I see you’re still functioning on the assumption some sort of ‘treason’ occurred, despite the total and complete lack of evidence that anything illegal ever happened. Apparently, I don’t have the blind faith to be a democrat.

To be fair, some legal experts -- Turley, for one -- have opined that the case for obstruction is weak, almost laughably so, but also believe that it IS possible to commit obstruction even in the absence of an underlying crime.