If he was not guilty and not trying to HIDE anything, he should have sat down with the Special Counsel. If he was NOT guilty and wasn’t trying to HIDE anything he should not have lied about his actions.
Perjury trap. Not a chance that any lawyer worth their salt would knowingly subject their client to that. In his written responses, it was clear his memory was faulty in several areas. Ripe pickings for a seasoned prosecutor to trap the President.
“One of the great memories of all time” according to Trump. If those written responses we provided to any court of law, the court would ask for supplemental responses.
1 Like
That is not how justice works.
Imagine you were charged with a crime you didn’t commit - do you have the right to fire the investigator because you know they aren’t exonerating you fast enough?
No, you don’t. And neither does trump.
In this case the prosecutors concluded that there was no evidence of conspiracy to collude. That is THEIR interpretation of events so THEIR decision about intent is what is paramount.
If the prosecutors believed that they had a great case - as they did with OJ - then they would see obstruction - an intent to hide guilt in his actions.
It’s not about what Trump claims. It is about what the prosecutors FOUND. They found that the President was not guilty so he could not intend to hide his guilt.
You don’t try to hide the truth when you are not guilty and what they cared about was what did he intend to do, in their minds? He would NEVER intend to hide his innocense.
M
Err, yes you do, when you are in charge of the investigator. You may may a political price for it, but you can get a better investigator - one who more quickly gets the truth out - YOU ARE INNOCENT.
M
The report gives no opinion on collusion.
Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law,” Mueller writes. “For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.”
…
So when Mueller concludes that he “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” he is not saying that there is no evidence of “collusion” at all, in any sense. What he is saying is that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Trump administration was directly involved in Russian crimes like stealing Clinton’s emails.
from:
So all those other people who testified in front of Mueller just had bad lawyers?
Then why did trump order people to lie? Why did he order mueller fired? Why didn’t he agree to an interview?
But Mueller isn’t a court of law he is a prosecutor.
Nonsense.
That is a perfect way to end up guilty of something that is entirely disconnected to the crime you are being investigated over.
It’s called a perjury trap.
Next, you will try to claim that everyone who claims their 5th Amendment right is only guilty and trying to hide it, else why claim it?
M
Actually Trump did have the legal right to fire Mueller. 
Very true. I just think Mueller should have asked for clarification on those questions. He gave non answers on most of them. He could have been forced to provide more info.
You have to realize that the collusion delusion is dead. DEMs will be pushing the obstruction narrative. That is where the real political battle will take place. Collusion delusion is a dead horse. It really is.
Flynn had no lawyer.
Watever he did he did to try to get the BOGUS investigation over more quickly, as he knew he was innocent and he knew that it was a nightly national nightmare of charges, counter-charges, innuendo and lies against him and his government.
It was - and still is - tearing us as a nation apart over a LIE that he colluded with the Russians.
I can see GREAT frustraton over that.
But what I don’t see is an attempt to hide anything. He had nothing to hide. He was innocent.
M
If he truly wanted to speed up the investigation he could have agreed to the interview. He had plenty of good lawyers that could have defined the scope of the interview. The only reason his lawyers wouldn’t allow it was because they didn’t trust Trump to stick to the script.
Of course he did.
But obstruction can be done with legal devices.
But honestly, what continues to be most upsetting to me is not that Trump isn’t being brought up on charges - in fact, I’m happy that trump wasn’t completely and totally scheming with the russians! It’s a relief to me!
What is sad is that so many americans won’t allow that even though trump didn’t break a law, he still is a scum bag schister.
You have no opinion on his campaign sharing data with the russians, or him ordering the firing of mueller, or him berating his AG to protect him, etc…
It’s so depressing to think this is where we are. A group of people who regularly condemned a president for things like holding a cup of coffee with saluting can’t bring themselves to call trump’s actions wrong. Not illegal, just wrong.
He chickened out. He will be forever blamed for the mire we are still looking at, because he chickened out.
M
You can’t force someone to say something when they can’t remember. You can however attempt to refresh their memory. In any case, it was obviously not worth the effort, as it was likely irrelevant to Mueller’s findings.
