Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Using Mueller’s Standard, Did Obama Obstruct Justice?

 

Andrew McCarthy said Thursday night that, using Mueller’s standard, almost any action by a president could be obstruction of justice. In 2016, the DOJ was investigating HRC’s illegal server. We know that the investigation was a bit of a joke. HRC was not put under oath. A person of interest was allowed to serve as her lawyer; many members of her team were given immunity. Obama in April said that she hadn’t done anything wrong. Certainly she did not intend to do harm (in his opinion).

The statute does not require intent. Comey was writing his exculpatory memo before the investigation was completed. The AG secretly met with Bill Clinton. Comey then let her off in his press conference. It sounds like obstruction of justice to me.

There are 17 comments.

  1. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Thatcher

    Yes. It’s even worse than your summary. President Obama not only publicly opined no crime had been committed, the person he opined about was his selected successor as president. We now know that despite his protestations he knew Hillary was using a private email address and he had communicated with her via it. Thus he was not only obstructing justice when it came to Hillary but also as to himself.

    Further, after opining none of Obama’s political appointees in charge of the investigation at DOJ or FBI recused themselves despite their boss sending a clear message as to how they should decide the case.

    In carrying out Obama’s plans to clear Hillary ,regardless of the evidence, in furtherance of the conspiracy to obstruct, the AG falsely gave the impression she had recused herself from the process whereas we now know (via the testimony of Lisa Page and others) she effectively directed Comey not to press charges, and McCabe, another member of the conspiracy, successfully pressed Comey to change language in his public statement that would have effectively concluded Clinton did commit a criminal act.

    Unlike the case of Trump, where Sessions recused himself, and (according the Mueller report) several of Trump’s staff declined to follow his instructions, all of those in the prior administration followed Obama’s instructions when it came to the Hillary investigation.

    • #1
    • April 19, 2019, at 9:28 AM PST
    • 17 likes
  2. Seawriter Member

    That’s different!

    Why?

    Er . . . Aaah . . .

    Because Trump!

    • #2
    • April 19, 2019, at 9:33 AM PST
    • 11 likes
  3. Jason Obermeyer Member

    Using Mueller and “Republicans for the Rule of Law’s” standard, yes it is.

    Using the constitution and the actual rules of law’s standard, no.

    This one of the the ways you know the term “rule of law” is being used as a throw away line by some people.

    • #3
    • April 19, 2019, at 10:13 AM PST
    • 7 likes
  4. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge

    Clearly there are double standards. 

    HRC destroys emails and server that are subpoenaed by Congress and DOJ doesn’t care. DJT makes a joke about Russians having those emails and DOJ opens counter-espionage investigation into PDT.

    BO (openly) and Bill Clinton [WJC] (quitely) shut down investigation into HRC and DOJ doesn’t care. PDT complains quietly and publicly about bogus investigation taking too long and DOJ opens obstruction investigation into PDT.

    HRC/WJC takes millions in donations to CGI, while WJC collects $500K in Moscow money booth for 20 minute speech in clear pay for play and DOJ does nothing. When Don, Jr. meets with a Russian with pretense of evidence of HRC crimes and DOJ investigates.

    Tyranny is the greatest offense an American can do and Team Obama engaged in worse than any American ever. This is a dangerous.

    • #4
    • April 19, 2019, at 10:22 AM PST
    • 14 likes
  5. PHenry Member

    They are turning obstruction of justice in to just another process crime (like lying to the FBI) they can use against targets there isn’t any solid criminal evidence against. It is Muller and Weissmann’s MO, and it is blatant abuse of power. 

    If they want to get you, they can and will get you, and you committing a crime has nothing to do with it. Innocence is no longer the default, guilt is assumed unless and until you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, otherwise. Even then, the process crimes will get you. 

    • #5
    • April 19, 2019, at 11:09 AM PST
    • 7 likes
  6. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge

    Obama? Obstruction? Their was no corruption during the Obama Administration. This a known fact.

    • #6
    • April 19, 2019, at 11:13 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  7. Percival Thatcher

    PHenry (View Comment):

    They are turning obstruction of justice in to just another process crime (like lying to the FBI) they can use against targets there isn’t any solid criminal evidence against. It is Muller and Weissmann’s MO, and it is blatant abuse of power.

    If they want to get you, they can and will get you, and you committing a crime has nothing to do with it. Innocence is no longer the default, guilt is assumed unless and until you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, otherwise. Even then, the process crimes will get you.

    According to Mueller, Trump needs to provide “clear evidence” that he didn’t obstruct justice.

    This isn’t how that is supposed to work.

    • #7
    • April 19, 2019, at 12:09 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  8. The Reticulator Member

    Percival (View Comment):

    PHenry (View Comment):

    They are turning obstruction of justice in to just another process crime (like lying to the FBI) they can use against targets there isn’t any solid criminal evidence against. It is Muller and Weissmann’s MO, and it is blatant abuse of power.

    If they want to get you, they can and will get you, and you committing a crime has nothing to do with it. Innocence is no longer the default, guilt is assumed unless and until you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, otherwise. Even then, the process crimes will get you.

    According to Mueller, Trump needs to provide “clear evidence” that he didn’t obstruct justice.

    This isn’t how that is supposed to work.

    I’ve always thought that government officials should be assumed guilty until proven innocent. I’m reluctant to start applying that principle with Trump, because that would pretty much guarantee that it got applied to nobody else.

    • #8
    • April 19, 2019, at 12:13 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  9. Full Size Tabby Member

    PHenry (View Comment):

    They are turning obstruction of justice in to just another process crime (like lying to the FBI) they can use against targets there isn’t any solid criminal evidence against. It is Muller and Weissmann’s MO, and it is blatant abuse of power.

    If they want to get you, they can and will get you, and you committing a crime has nothing to do with it. Innocence is no longer the default, guilt is assumed unless and until you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, otherwise. Even then, the process crimes will get you.

    The proliferation of these “process crimes” certainly causes me to be much more reluctant to talk voluntarily to any law enforcement or regulatory agency.

    I’m too low on anybody’s list to be a target of a political prosecution, but us peons are regularly used as leverage. So, I’m still planning to keep mum if law enforcement or regulatory agencies come calling. 

    • #9
    • April 19, 2019, at 1:01 PM PST
    • 6 likes
  10. PHenry Member

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    The proliferation of these “process crimes” certainly causes me to be much more reluctant to talk voluntarily to any law enforcement or regulatory agency.

    My mother and I just had this conversation yesterday. Previously, if any law enforcement officer (especially FBI!) came to me to ask questions, I would be proud to assist in any way I could. 

    No more. I wish it weren’t so, but the fact is that any conversation on any level with FBI puts my life and freedom in jeopardy ( and not because I intend to lie! )

    • #10
    • April 19, 2019, at 1:05 PM PST
    • 8 likes
  11. Larry3435 Member

    Using Mueller’s Standard, did Obama Obstruct Justice?

    Using Mueller’s standard (or at least that standard that is being attributed to Mueller in the lefty media) it would be hard to find anyone who hasn’t obstructed justice. As far as I can tell, if a defendant pleads “not guilty,” that is obstruction of justice. Oh yeah, sure, the defendant has a Constitutional right and all that, but the “not guilty” plea is making it harder to get a conviction – and so, voilà, obstruction of justice!

    The way I learned it in law school, obstruction of justice required certain specific actions, like suborning perjury (Bill Clinton) or destroying evidence (Hillary Clinton). But apparently there is a new form of obstruction, which consists of being Trump. And nothing else.

    • #11
    • April 19, 2019, at 1:08 PM PST
    • 15 likes
  12. PHenry Member

    I’m no lawyer, but as I understand it, intent is vital in the charge of obstruction. How in the world can they prove intent to obstruct an investigation in to something you are innocent of? If I’m innocent of the charge, then no matter what else I do, my intent can’t be to prevent you from finding out about my guilt! 

     

    • #12
    • April 19, 2019, at 1:30 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  13. Percival Thatcher

    PHenry (View Comment):

    I’m no lawyer, but as I understand it, intent is vital in the charge of obstruction. How in the world can they prove intent to obstruct an investigation in to something you are innocent of? If I’m innocent of the charge, then no matter what else I do, my intent can’t be to prevent you from finding out about my guilt!

     

    I suppose that you could obstruct justice on behalf of another.

    Trump got Comey to tell him multiple times that he was not being investigated. After telling Comey that he wanted to know if anyone in his campaign had done anything wrong, he asked Comey to tell the press that he (Trump) was not subject to the investigation. Comey didn’t do it. Comey got fired.

    • #13
    • April 19, 2019, at 2:10 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  14. Seawriter Member

    Percival (View Comment):

    PHenry (View Comment):

    They are turning obstruction of justice in to just another process crime (like lying to the FBI) they can use against targets there isn’t any solid criminal evidence against. It is Muller and Weissmann’s MO, and it is blatant abuse of power.

    If they want to get you, they can and will get you, and you committing a crime has nothing to do with it. Innocence is no longer the default, guilt is assumed unless and until you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, otherwise. Even then, the process crimes will get you.

    According to Mueller, Trump needs to provide “clear evidence” that he didn’t obstruct justice.

    This isn’t how that is supposed to work.

    It is in the Soviet Union. You know the Progressive utopia.

    • #14
    • April 19, 2019, at 3:28 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  15. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge

    PHenry (View Comment):

    I’m no lawyer, but as I understand it, intent is vital in the charge of obstruction. How in the world can they prove intent to obstruct an investigation in to something you are innocent of? If I’m innocent of the charge, then no matter what else I do, my intent can’t be to prevent you from finding out about my guilt!

     

    Sadly it is getting so the minorities have the right of it. Law enforcement are not your friend. They are becoming the enemy which you need to avoid at all costs.

    • #15
    • April 19, 2019, at 4:16 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  16. Eugene Kriegsmann Member

    There is a pattern here. Minorities, specifically black people, cannot be racist. By the same logic or lack there of, Democrat Presidents cannot commit obstruction of justice. Those are the rules. Get used to them.

    • #16
    • April 20, 2019, at 3:42 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  17. Profile Photo Member

    There are many,many questions regarding the conduct of Buraq Hussein:

    • Was he aware of the efforts of his subordinates like James Comey and particularly Loretta Lynch to obstruct the investigation of the Hillary Emails and particularly the squashing of the investigation of the Weiner laptop which has gone absolutely nowhere. The corollary to that is did he as President order that obstruction?

    • We know that from Norway, Australia and Uranium One at least the Clinton Foundation collected over 300 million dollars. We also know that the Clintons were involved in a shady Pharmaceutical Drug shakedown around the world with Bill Gates that played on Hillary’s capacity as SecState that made millions. We know that there have been substantiated allegations that the Clinton Foundation raped Haitian relief efforts for millions. And that is just the beginning, because Deep State watchdogs everywhere have put the kibosh on mainstream media reporting of these massive crimes. It’s hard for me to believe a guy like Obama if he knew his Secretary of State was extorting millions from foreign governments, and he allowed that to happen, ( which I think he did) , that he didn’t get a little piece of the vig in compensation to keep his mouth shut.

    • To what extent was Buraq involved in the slimy transfer of billions to Iran for his nuclear deal? Was that transfer ever approved by Congress? Were they even notified?

    • There was a January 5th 2017 meeting between Obama, Susan Rice, Sally Yates, James Comey, and Joe Biden ( the “sensitive matters team”) that seemed to be the jumping off point for obstruction of the Trump Presidency. After that several of the people the DOJ,FBI assault team were investigating were approached to spy on the Trump White House. There were even allegations that actual bugs were placed in the White House to gather information on the Trump White House. For me, this is the big enchilada. All the skullduggery during his Presidency, Obama can probably skate on because of Presidential immunity, but the stuff after his Presidency, Obama can be indicted for. The question is were these allegations just rumors or did Obama and his people actually try to obstruct the Trump Presidency?

    Since the previous Trump AD, the criminal Jeff Sessions ,in a conversation with Congressman Jason Chaffetz , actually refused to investigate any of the aforementioned, there is still much to be learned that we still don’t know and hopefully the new AD will do his duty to find out.

    • #17
    • April 21, 2019, at 9:21 AM PST
    • 2 likes