Mueller: Obstruction by Trump failed because others refused to "carry out orders"

[brooklynite]

Source: CNN

In the report, special counsel Robert Mueller outlined why obstruction by President Trump failed. It failed because others refused to "carry out orders."

"The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests," the report said.

&quot James) Comey did not end the investigation of (Michael) Flynn, which ultimately resulted in Flynn's prosecution and conviction for lying to the FBI. (Don) McGahn did not tell the Acting Attorney General that the special counsel must be removed, but was instead prepared to resign over the President's order. (Corey) Lewandowski and Dearborn did not deliver the President 's message to (Jeff) Sessions that he should confine the Russia investigation to future election meddling only. And McGahn refused to recede from his recollections about events surrounding the President's direction to have the special counsel removed, despite the President's multiple demands that he do so. Consistent with that pattern, the evidence we obtained would not support potential obstruction charges against the President's aides and associates beyond those already filed," the report said.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/robert-mueller-report-public/h_c61fa5c765573075c040af056dfad52f

[onetexan]

1. The House investigations ought to call these people who refused to carry out

the Idiot's obstruction orders and charge them

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Why should they be charged? They *didn't* carry out his orders.

They definitely should be called in to testify, though.

[onetexan]

9. they should be charged because they kept silent and hid his obstruction

just because they didn't carry out his orders doesn't mean they're not guilty. Guilty by omission is the issue here. Not sure whre the law would stand here but it needs to be looked into in the least.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. That's not illegal.

If somebody asks you to do something illegal and you don't do it, you are not criminally responsible even if you might have a moral obligation to say something.

[SharonAnn]

5. So he tried to obstruct justice, but others refused to follow his orders.

I'd say, GUILTY.

[CountAllVotes]

3. Mueller knows

He knows that had he gone this way it would be no different than obtaining tRump's tax returns = wait wait wait, lie lie lie, you see nothing, nothing at all ... ad infinitum.

Wise move IMO.

Seriously, impeach this fraud now!

[SummerSnow]

4. Wouldn't it still be obstruction if he attempted it?

18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection.

§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal administrative agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice

[Deuce]

10. I believe I have heard a couple of commentators on TV say that...

[Talitha]

13. I heard them say it, too.

The actual obstruction didn't happen, but Twitler gave the order.
And in so doing, HE is guilty of obstruction of justice.

All together now: LOCK HIM UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SKKY]

6. Am I the only one who is fairly "relieved" by that revelation from the report?

Perhaps there are in fact adults in the WH who are holding this whole thing together.

[Yavin4]

7. So, I can't be convicted of conspiracy to murder someone because my hitman backed out...

at the last minute?


Isn't conspiring with someone to commit a crime a crime in of itself?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. The crime of conspiracy requires an agreement to commit a crime, plus

some overt act in furtherance of the crime. So if you and a couple of friends agree to rob a bank but don't do anything about it, that agreement is not the crime of conspiracy. But if you go out and buy three ski masks and one friend buys a gun and the other goes to the bank to case it, that's a chargeable conspiracy even if you all chicken out at the last minute. You could still be charged with conspiracy even if you don't show up at the last minute to help commit the robbery as planned. In order to withdraw from a conspiracy and not be charged with it whether or not the underlying crime is committed, you would have to take some affirmative action withdrawing from the conspiracy (maybe you don't buy the ski masks), and you would have to tell the other two that you aren't going to do it, and you don't show up at the bank.

In your example, your hitman might avoid being charged if he told you he wasn't going to do it and then didn't follow through (withdrew from the conspiracy), but because you never withdrew from the conspiracy to commit murder, you could be charged.

[Snellius]

16. The dumb question is what is the crime?

Willingness to commit a crime. Attempts to obstruct and cover it up. Lying to FBI. Grand jury. Those who have committed clear-cut crimes have been or are on their way to jail but in this case don't see how the Trump Tower meeting can be seen as like the overt break-in of the Watergate Hotel. Op research in itself is par for the course. The political crime seems more about how Trump reacted to it. So either there is something more direct and obvious we don't know about or Trump's paranoia is just nuts. He is so scandalous in general he's become almost scandal proof.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. Maybe there wasn't the crime of conspiracy, but that doesn't mean there was no "collusion."

There was collusion up the wazoo, but it wasn't necessarily illegal.

[Snellius]

18. Yes, but it seems to be getting our "God Save Us" hopes up only to lose.

when that may only placate or divert or distract us from more useful goals, like drug prices, climate, and roads. Been thru Watergate and Clinton scandals and this one, though completely justified, doesn't have the historical context of post-Vietnam or self-evident popular punch as the lurid stained dress. As much as I'd welcome the fight, completely agree with Pelosi's wisdom on this.

[beachbum bob]

8. LOL, if you order a hit on a neighbor and the hitman did not go thru, you are still charged with a

CRIME

[KayF]

14. and all those people are no longer working for him

there are 350,000,000 people in this country, Trump can find find some who will follow orders. Like Barr.

[LudwigPastorius]

15. Then why is it still not considered conspiracy to obstruct justice?

Even if obstruction did not occur, Trump was directing others to take actions that would have effectively derailed the investigation.

Can somebody splain to me?

[KPN]

19. Doesn't this then meet the standard of criminal attempt for an uncommitted crime?

[truthisfreedom]

20. One would think.

[Paladin]

21. trump shouldn't benefit from the secretive good deeds of his staff.

His rabid, clearly revealed efforts to break the law should be more than adequate to boot him out of office. Impeachment can't commence soon enough to suit me.

[Xolodno]

22. Have to say, this is damn interesting.

Trump orders a criminal act to an underling.

Underling doesn't carry out criminal act.

Trump gets investigated.

Trump freaks out because he knows he ordered a criminal act.

Nothing is brought against Trump because his underlings didn't carry out his orders.

--------------------------

So now you're Trump, your ass may have been saved because your underlings didn't carry out your orders. But now you realize, you can't trust your underlings to carry out your orders.

So when you desperately need your underlings to carry out orders....you don't know if they will.

At the same time, if they do one day, your foe's are already on to you...and you are toast.

And the kicker, everyone now knows you ordered illegal acts...that didn't get carried out.

So, now you have to deal with the fact that, you don't have the power you thought. And the fact that, everyone knows that. Plus, now every order you give will be scrutinized.

And despite best efforts, can still be impeached, though unlikely in the current term. Congress is a slow moving vehicle and they know the calendar. It's better to drop a turd every once in awhile during the campaign than give a reason to unite his supporters.

But if he does manage get a second term, the impeachment proceedings will start before he even swears in the second term, and then, criminal charges. If he fails at a second term, the shit is going to hit the fan.

His best bet, strike a deal. Resign and let Pence take over and get a pardon for himself and his family. But he can't that because one, his ego won't let him. Two, Pence knows what happened to Ford, he could make that conditional if he wins the election. Pence may not think he's done and could be looking at 2024.

I suspect, more irrational tweets in the future.

[ismnotwasm]

23. Whoa.