Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Collusion And Obstruction? Yes


“Total exoneration! No collusion!” The Trump Cult has been repeating these two lies about the Mueller Report.

The lies are being tolerated and even embraced by the ignorant masses, of course.

Unfortunately the ignorant masses are not only in the cult. Moderates are duped as well. And so are many liberals who have not actually read the Mueller Report.

Orwell nailed it with, “Ignorance is strength.”

Trump was NOT exonerated. It’s clearly spelled out by Mueller:

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. ... Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Of course Mueller didn’t exonerate Trump, because he obstructed justice:

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."

Mueller presented the evidence here: (Pg. 158, Pt. II):

The President launched public attacks on the investigation and individuals involved in it who could possess evidence adverse to the President, while in private, the President engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation. For instance, the President attempted to remove the Special Counsel; he sought to have Attorney General Sessions unrecuse himself and limit the investigation; he sought to prevent public disclosure of information about the June 9, 2016 meeting between Russians and campaign officials; and he used public forums to attack potential witnesses who might offer adverse information and to praise witnesses who declined to cooperate with the government. Judgments about the nature of the President's motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence.

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 key elements of obstruction are clear. "The President's motives would be informed by the totality of evidence."

And that is a LOT of evidence.

Public attacks on the investigation and individuals...a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation... limit the investigation... attack potential witnesses... praise witnesses who declined to cooperate... efforts to influence the investigation...Judgments about the nature of the President's motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence.

He obstructed.

Now let's examine the “no collusion" lie.

We need to understand the definition of collusion and put it in context of the Mueller Report.

From Merriam-Webster:

Collusion: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose.

 As in, "Russia, if you're listening....", that's cooperation.

As in the secret Trump tower meeting cooperating with Russian agents, and as in Manifort giving polling data to Russian agents. THAT's collusion.

As in the words of the Mueller Report, "The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign...established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts..."

“The Campaign expected it would benefit”. THAT is cooperation, and collusion.

Vol 1 Pg 2:

“Collusion didn't apply to the investigation: In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But 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.”

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. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.”


The Trump Tower meeting with Russian agents and other efforts to cooperate with Russian agents was collusion, but Mueller didn’t find sufficient evidence to convict for specific legal conditions of conspiracy with the Russian government.

There was collusion with oligarchs and people with connections to the Kremlin, as in a secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose.

The truth is Mueller recounts numerous contacts between Trump’s people and Russians, and they LIED under oath about those contacts. Flynn, Papadopoulos, Gates, Manifort and Cohen are just five of the convicted criminals. None were convicted of conspiracy, but they most certainly colluded.

Mueller also noted the Trump campaign welcomed the Russian interference. They didn’t report it, as required by law. They cooperated with it. That is collusion.

VOl 1 Pg 1:

”...the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts...” 

Vol 1 Pg 5:

”The Russian contacts consisted of business connections, offers of assistance to the Campaign, invitations for candidate Trump and Putin to meet in person, invitations for Campaign officials and representatives of the Russian government to meet, and policy positions seeking improved U.S.-Russian relations.”

Vol 1 Pg 6:

“Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton. Throughout that period of time and for several months thereafter, Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government... On June 9, 2016, for example, a Russian lawyer met with senior Trump Campaign officials Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and campaign chairman Paul Manafort to deliver what the email proposing the meeting had described as “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary.” The materials were offered to Trump Jr. as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” The written communications setting up the meeting showed that the Campaign anticipated receiving information from Russia that could assist candidate Trump’s electoral prospects...”

That’s a lot of “secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose”, aka collusion.

Conclusion: He obstructed. They colluded. 

~~~

Update: The latest witness tampering and obstruction of justice is evidenced from Trump's personal attorney in a voicemail to Flynn's attorney, "It wouldn't surprise me if you've gone on to make a deal with ... the government. ... (I)f ... there's information that implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue, ... so you know, .... we need some kind of heads up.”

Hey, Congress! We need some kind of heads up about now.



11 comments:

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Nice analysis, Dave. I'm also reading through the Mueller Report, and if any rational and honest person did the same thing, they'd come to the same conclusion: Trump obstructed; Trump and his campaign colluded.

Both are impeachable offenses. But, of course, the Democrats are exposing their lack of courage and inner-strength -- not to mention, ignoring their Constitutional duty -- and are stepping in-line with Speaker Pelosi and vowing no impeachment.

The Democratic Party, being the "Republican-lite" wing of the uni-Corporatist Party, is obstructing justice if they also put party before country -- as we've seen the Republican wing do for decades.

This is just one example of why I typically vote third-party, and why I may in 2020.

Dave Dubya said...

JG,
As I see it, there is only one good reason to not impeach. It isn't the fear that it would backfire at the polls. And it isn't the fact the crooked Party of Trump in the Senate would block it. It is because Pence would pardon the asshole.

The advantage in voting him out would be he would then face charges for his crimes.

That doesn't mean the House shouldn't declare they are initiating impeachment hearings. They will be met with stonewalling and obstruction all the way, of course. Fine. But the Constitution must be followed.

Then the Dems could say, "We've been meeting our Constitutional requirements. Republicans are obstructing and violating our Constitution, so it's time for voters to finish the job."

IF the Dems were smart, they'd hammer their demands to "Follow the Constitution, seek justice, and defend decency".

They need to declare Trump obstructed justice, violated campaign finance laws, as well as the Constitution's Emoluments Clause. These facts should be in every campaign speech by every Democrat.

They should declare they are the real "Party of law and order" and clearly demand the rule of law over the rule of Trump. They need stay on message that they are defending and supporting the Constitution and Republicans are abetting Trump's crimes.

That's IF they were smart, and had the guts and discipline to follow through.

And we know how unlikely that is.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

"[Democrats] need to declare Trump obstructed justice, violated campaign finance laws, as well as the Constitution's Emoluments Clause. These facts should be in every campaign speech by every Democrat." ~~ Dave Dubya

A written script of talking-points, written for each and every candidate, should be repeated regularly so that it's not missed and not forgotten.

But they will not do this. They'll, instead, turn the public comatose with mundane and boring policy topics. Important, yes, but when their opponent plays dirty, it's imperative they can match his lies with the inconvenient truth.

Republicans know how to inundate the airways with sound-byte-sized lies, repeatedly. Democrats need to do the same with digestible-sized and decipherable chunks of truth about the illegalities, corruptness and incompetencies of Trump and his cohorts.

Don't forget, candidates need to be able to reach the functionally illiterate, such as Vern, so extreme simplicity and repeatability will be necessary.

I see a Fox News poll shows Biden is pulling away from the pack. It's all name recognition, isn't it? [head shaking]

Just the Facts! said...

Still want to bitterly cling to your collusion and obstruction claims dave?

The heads of Obama's FBI and CIA both voted for Communists during the Cold War, yet were somehow able to move up the ranks within the same US intelligence community that had spent decades fighting that very ideology.

Journalist Paul Sperry noted on Wednesday that former FBI Director James Comey admitted in a 2003 interview to having voted Communist before casting his ballot for Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Former CIA Director John Brennan, meanwhile, admitted in 2016 to voting Communist in the 1970s. When asked at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's annual conference whether past activism would create a barrier for diverse candidates who want to enter the intelligence community, Brennan said that he was forced to admit to voting for Communist Gus Hall for president in 1976, according to CNN.

Some very fine people, right dave...lol

Dave Dubya said...

JTF,
Whether all those REPUBLICANS are very fine people, or who those REPUBLICANS voted for is irrelevant. It is all distraction and deflection.

I presented Mueller's evidence to support my positions. You cite nothing to support yours.

You lose.

And since YOU voted for a white nationalist racist liar. What does that make you? Another "very fine person", I'm sure.

Dave Dubya said...

Sorry JTF.

Take your lies and deflections somewhere else. And NO you don't get to say what Mueller's job was, and declare there was no evidence. I quoted the evidence. It supports my case.

All you can prove is when it comes to MAGAts and truth, NO collusion.

Jesus knows you are a liar. You still lose.

Take comfort, all those fellas with the hoods and tiki torches agree with you. ;-)

Jefferson's Guardian said...

"And since [Vern] voted for a white nationalist racist liar. What does that make [Vern]? Another 'very fine person', I'm sure." ~~ Dave Dubya

I'll give many who voted for Trump a pass, either because they hoped for a populist personality who would work for them and be in their corner, or they just weren't paying close enough attention during the campaign.

Those like Vern, however, who continue to support Trump do so purely because they're avowed racists, or still closeted racists, and in their eyes they finally have a confirmed racist in the White House.

Their racism is more important to them than the Constitution, more important to them than the rule of law, more important to them than having elections not infiltrated and influenced by hostile foreign nations, more important to them than caging and separating children from their parents, and more important to them than having reliable and affordable healthcare.

Their racism trumps all and every issue. For this reason, and only this reason, they got their perfect president.

They're ecstatic about it.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

"...all those fellas with the hoods and tiki torches agree with you." ~~ Dave Dubya

With spring here, I wonder if KKKowards like Vern celebrate with some sort of festival? Maybe a big cross-burning at the home-place on White Settlement?

How 'bout it, Vern? I know you're "listening". Got big plans for the ol' gang? Have a playlist with sing-a-longs?

Vern, like your president you're a despicable human being.

But you already knew this.

Dave Dubya said...

JG,

His response? The commie card, "WhataboutObama!" and "No collusion! No obstruction!"

Funny how he can't find those words in the Mueller Report. He can't insert them either.

With facts, logic, reason and evidence dismissed out of hand, all that's left for them is hate.

Vern,

Take comfort, all those fellas with the hoods and tiki torches agree with you.

Just the facts.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

"Take comfort, [Vern,] all those fellas with the hoods and tiki torches agree with you." ~~ Dave Dubya

Dave, would you say Vern and his "clan" are all cut from the same cloth? ;-)

Jefferson's Guardian said...

"[Vern's] response? The commie card, 'WhataboutObama!' and 'No collusion! No obstruction!'" ~~ Dave Dubya

Vern is infatuated with communism, isn't he? On another blog he's back to labeling the both of us "commies", and crying about communists at UCLA calling for revolution. LOL

I can picture Vern ranting and raving on a street corner in Ft. Worth, waving his arms hysterically while shouting slurs about the Soviet Union, cheering Joseph McCarthy, and carrying a MAGAt sign. ;-)

Vern's a certifiable head-case. As he said, there's definitely "no collusion", none whatsoever -- between him and sanity.