Mueller Investigation

Trump May Not Have Obstructed the Mueller Investigation, but It Sure Looks Like He Tried

Was the president saved by the swamp he campaigned against?

|

The Mueller report, a redacted version of which was released today, doesn't conclude that President Trump obstructed justice. But it also doesn't conclude that he didn't. Instead, it strongly suggests that he tried—and was foiled by a staff that refused to carry out his instructions.

Attorney General William Barr's initial summary of the report quoted it as saying that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The full paragraph is even more explicit about leaving open the possibility that Trump may have acted in a criminal manner.

"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," the report says. "Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment." The evidence collected during the investigation "presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred." Is Trump a criminal? The Mueller report answers that question by saying, essentially, that the Special Counsel's office can't rule it out.

Even if Trump did not obstruct the investigation, the report provides evidence that he tried to—and failed only when his staffers refused to carry out his instructions.

The report identifies several instances in which the president apparently attempted to influence the investigation, by narrowing its scope in some way or by removing Robert Mueller. Trump, for example, pushed former FBI Director James Comey to end an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Trump also directed former White House counsel Don McGahn to tell Rod Rosenstein of the Department of Justice that Mueller should be taken off the investigation. Trump later told McGahn to lie about being ordered to take Mueller off the case.

Yet none of these things actually happened. Trump's staff declined to follow his orders. 

As the report says:

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. Comey did not end the investigation of Flynn, which ultimately resulted in Flynn's prosecution and conviction for lying to the FBI. 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. Lewandowski and Dearborn did not deliver the President's message to 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.

There's a parallel here to the infamous Trump Tower meeting during the campaign, in which Trump's son and campaign associate, Donald Trump, Jr., met with a Russian national who promised to share embarrassing material on Trump's Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton. Informed about the potential for political dirt, the younger Trump wrote in an email, "if it's what you say, I love it." But the meeting was a bust, and none of the promised dirt ever materialized. (The Mueller report is similarly coy on this matter, stating that "although the evidence of contacts between Campaign officials and Russia affiliated individuals may not have been sufficient to establish or sustain criminal charges, several U.S. persons connected to the Campaign made false statements about those contacts and took other steps to obstruct" related investigations.)

The Trump campaign didn't collude with Russia—but it tried. Trump may not have obstructed the Mueller investigation—but it sure looks like he tried.

In contrast to suggestions that Trump is the ringleader of some sort of wide-ranging conspiracy, the picture emerging from the report is one of a temperamental and inexperienced president whose managerial bumbling and self-destructive instincts are kept at least partly in check by more experienced staff.

In some ways, it is a vindication of Trump's campaign trail argument that Washington is a swamp populated by politics-and-government lifers who hold much of the real power.

At the same time, it suggests that far from draining the swamp, Trump has become part of it, subsumed into its muck, and, if not completely powerless, consistently limited in his ability to change the political ecosystem around him. That ecosystem, meanwhile, has served as a protective buffer, preventing Trump from carrying out acts that might threaten his political future. In the end, the swamp may be what saved Trump's presidency.

NEXT: Here's a Searchable Version of the Mueller Report

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

169 responses to “Trump May Not Have Obstructed the Mueller Investigation, but It Sure Looks Like He Tried

  1. Instead, it strongly suggests that he tried…

    You fools! That’s what he wants you to think.

    1. I suppose if I were unfairly, incorrectly, accused of treason, I might try to jam the investigation too.

      I sure as hell would not cooperate.

      At all.

      1. Particularly when it turns into a fishing expedition with no specific charges attached and everyone who ever knew you is subject to investigation for any reason at all.
        Someone deserves to be in the slammer and it ain’t Trump.

      2. Yes the author is clearly a “Never Trumper” which is fine but at least admit it. I think if my ADA just appointed the guy I didn’t hire and that guy hired a cast of angry opposition meat heads I would probably say “how fast can I fire this jerk?”

    2. What kind of crime is attempting to stop an investigation into something that didn’t happen?

      1. It’s ‘Obstruction’. The Federal government uses it all the time.

        1. If he stays within his legal rights to fire anyone he wants to how is that criminal?

  2. The United States needs more immigration.

    1. It’s true. Otherwise Medicare and Social Security run out of money real quick.

  3. Obviously it is illegal to obstruct justice in any criminal investigation, but it is understandable that an actually innocent person would have nothing but contempt for such an investigation into themselves and therefore have contempt for the law regarding obstruction.

    1. That’s what came to mind for me.

      I would be tempted to give a big middle finger and F-you too.

      There was no underlying crime. Why did they do this? /Looks over at Obama administration and Hilary.

    2. Obvious to you, but not to Suderman.
      He internalized the lie and now it’s too much a part of who he is. He couldn’t see the truth even if it teabagged him.

      1. But it also doesn’t conclude that he didn’t. Instead, it strongly suggests that he tried—and was foiled by a staff that refused to carry out his instructions.

        The President can fire anyone he wants. That is not Obstruction of Justice.

        Suderman is a hack.

      2. Let me get this straight.

        Trump, who COULD have asserted privilege over much of the White House communications, (written and verbal) chose not to.

        Trump, who COULD have refused to make his staff available for questioning and likely would have been upheld in the courts in many cases, chose not to.

        And, the assertion is that he tried to obstruct the investigation?

        Sounds to me like he was frustrated and pissed off, yet went above and beyond to cooperate in hopes it would be over more quickly.

      3. Yes well put another phony Libertarian …

    3. Given that no underlying crime existed, the only way Trump could have obstructed justice would have been to fake evidence he committed a crime.

      1. Why is it that 90% of the readers understand what happened but Suderman doesn’t? Where is the Editorial Staff? Or are they curled up in the fetal position crying because there was no “collusion”?

      2. No underlying crime?Then what was Flynn convicted of? And why was Trump’s attorney contacting Flynn’s to find out what he was telling prosecutors?

  4. So Hillary still isn’t President? I was promised that this investigation would nullify the election and make Hillary our True(tm) President. I feel lied to!

    1. Just because she’s not president doesn’t mean she isn’t the rightful heir to the Iron Throne.

    2. Peter does too! And he’s so pissed he’s going to write articles about how Trump is really guilty, but something, something!!!!!!!!
      Suderman? Seek help.

      1. The Adventures of Pseuder-Man!

      2. Well put … Suderman needs to dispatched to Kabul.

    1. They are doing their best to get Trump reelected, though. It’s as if they think it is in their best interest. I can understand that the mainstream media would love to see Trump win again. He’s got to be great for ratings. But it’s hard to see why the Democrats would want him to be successful. Maybe they think it helps them shift the party further left. Step 2: … Step 3: Permanent majority?

      1. If you are going to go all conspiracy theory, the reason why the Dem establishment would want to see Trump win again is because it would allow them to run a fist class nut and then when said nut loses would give them a club to beat all of the retards back into the closet.

        1. Well put.

        1. Is that your new tiresome talking point? That is the best you got?

          Jesus tapdancing Christ you have gotten boring.

          1. Yes, that is my new talking point. Good take.

            1. You have said it three times on this thread. So, yes it seems to be.

            2. Looks like someone got the latest OFA 3×5’s.

        2. Crusty, you’ve lost your damn mind. Trump is the establishment? What? He is the ultimate outsider! He’s never had a governmental position before this. His WHOLE life he was a successful real estate developer, which as we know is the business most distant from any government influence. If he was the establishment, why is everyone against him (except of course the other stalwarts against the establishment, like Fox News, talk radio, the Republican Party, all the right-wing think tanks, law enforcement lobbyists, and of course, the military)? No, dummy, the establishment is the evil /mainstream media and the treasonous Democrats! They wield the real power, not the guy in charge of the most powerful bureaucracy and military in the world!

          1. Successful? Well, ultimately… But there was a time when his net worth was in the negative billion range.

            The quote at the time was when you owe a million dollars to the bank the bank owns you. When you owe a hundred million dollars to the bank, you own the bank.

            1. Maybe you read about this in Trump’s book “Never Give Up”?

      2. fundraising.

      3. He’s got to be great for ratings.

        But cable news ratings have been on a downtrend for quite some time now.

        1. Not Hannity, Carlson and Ingraham. The Progtard programs yes.

  5. So it’s guilty until proven innocent new?

    1. Well, depends which side of #meToo you’re on.

    1. Trump apparently did collude with his staff to avoid conspiring with Russia and to avoid obstructing justice. So there was that collusion.

      1. Trump got and followed solid advice from his staff. The nerve of that guy.

        1. That’s what I see here.

          Trump, a temperamental billionaire owner of a large international business is angry at an unfair investigation that is distracting his presidential administration from the many goals he set for it and promises he made in getting elected, and he wants to do some things to minimize the investigation’s impact. He is not a lawyer, just a man who is used to fighting and (often) getting his way.

          His staff of lawyers and political operatives does what it is supposed to do and directs him away from actions that, within the legal and political realms, could make the situation worse for him.

          And so, in the end, nothing happened.

      2. Very clever.. you should be writing for Reason instead of the lame progressives currently working here.

  6. The report identifies several instances in which the president apparently attempted to influence the investigation, by narrowing its scope in some way or by removing Robert Mueller. Trump, for example, pushed former FBI Director James Comey to end an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Trump also directed former White House counsel Don McGahn to tell Rod Rosenstein of the Department of Justice that Mueller should be taken off the investigation. Trump later told McGahn to lie about being ordered to take Mueller off the case.

    Unless he told McGahn to lie under oath, all of that is perfectly legal. Trump, much to the sorrow of Suderman’s Trump derranged mind, is President and had it within his power to do all of that. The President lawfully exercising his authority over DOJ is not obstruction of justice and shame on reason for claiming it is.

    1. “had it within his power to do all of that. ”

      Had it as his responsibility to crush the Deep State Coup and prosecute them for treason.

    2. Thank you

  7. My generation’s Warren Commission it’s pretty fucking lame.

    1. Except that Kennedy really was killed. This is like a Warren Commission into an alleged assanation plot that didn’t actually occur.

      1. BUT HE TRIED!

        What will we tell our daughters!!!!

        1. Learn to code?

      2. Kennedy wasn’t killed. He is currently living in a nursing home in Nagadoches, TX, along with Elvis.

        1. I think I saw Elvis at a S-Mart.

        2. NO!

          Elvis was last seen in Kalamazoo!

    2. All right, that was funny.

  8. Only Sudderman could be dumb enough or obedient enough to the beltway fart bubble to say “attempted obstruction” with a straight face much less think it means anything.

    1. Suderman knows he had Trump with the strawberries.

      1. And he’d have proven it, too, if it weren’t for all you disloyal commenters undermining his authority with your jokes about “Old Yellow Stain”!

      2. loved that book/movie

    2. Conspiracy to obstruct was also not a charge that came from the Mueller investigation.

      The investigation was a nothing burger with respects to its primary purpose, and Trump trying to interfere with that investigation. It did get some people indicted on other charges. The smart dem would take what victory is there and move on.

      1. It was a failed coup d’etat using lawfare. Now that this is over, the conspirators should be dealt with. I hope the see many democrats and never Trumpers indicted, ruined, or even committing suicide.

        They have to go.

  9. John Hinndraker says it better than I can.

    One of the Democrats’ basic problems is that “attempting” to obstruct the investigation doesn’t make a lot of sense. If Trump had really wanted to obstruct the investigation, he could simply have terminated it. And Mueller acknowledges that the administration fully cooperated with the investigation in every way. So the “attempts to obstruct” come down to Trump expressing outrage at the fact that a baseless, partisan investigation was hampering his administration. Arguably Trump should have brought the Mueller farce to an end, but he didn’t.

    If Trump wanted to obstruct, he would have done it. It is really that simple.

    1. If Trump didn’t tweet, there would be no evidence of obstruction whatsoever.

    2. Since Muller was not fucked, Trump did not obstruct!

      1. If the glove doesn’t fit, he didn’t grab em by the slit.

    3. Evil Trump was mad that he was being investigated for complete bullshit. How DARE he?!

  10. At the same time, it suggests that far from draining the swamp, Trump has become part of it, subsumed into its muck, and, if not completely powerless, consistently limited in his ability to change the political ecosystem around him. That ecosystem, meanwhile, has served as a protective buffer, preventing Trump from carrying out acts that might threaten his political future. In the end, the swamp may be what saved Trump’s presidency.

    Yeah because Trump could not have just fired Mueller or refused to cooperate if he had wanted to.

    1. Also known as the Obama way.

      Not that Gerald Walpin means that much to Suderman.

      1. Or the Clinton way. Remember that time when Bill Clinton fired all but one sitting US Attorney and the media accused him of obstruction of justice?

        1. The media sure was harsh towards Clinton and Obama. Remember how both of them were called on every little inconsistency?

  11. Trump looked like he obstructed an investigation based on false evidence and a politically motivated smear campaign. IMPEACH NOW!

    1. Exactly what this boils down to. No adults left in the room.

  12. http://twitter.com/DavidRutz/status/1118872986361135104

    .@NicolleDWallace: “We know it wasn’t a criminal conspiracy with the Russians, but then what was it? Because Robert Mueller spent 22 months looking at it, and if there was nothing, I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t have taken 22 months to say nothing.”

    Wow. I mean really, wow.

    1. This dimwit must also believe that women never lie about being raped.

      1. I think that is a pretty good bet.

    2. WE HAVE TO INVESTIGATE PRECISELY BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!

      1. No, we already had an investigation, and the lack of evidence is evidence of just how much obstruction there was.

    3. Yes is there any more feckless toady than Nicolle Wallace?

  13. I knew Suderman was going to barf up an article like this sooner or later. Sorry, no matter how much you wanted it to be, Trump didn’t obstruct. The guy’s a grade-A asshole, but he didn’t obstruct. Stop trying to throw handfuls of confetti in the air to confuse the issue.

    1. Confetti? Or shredded documents implicating orange Yeezus?

  14. Is this the best Reason can do? Pathetic.

  15. Telling Comey to stop persecuting Flynn for process crimes related to testimony about a fully legal meeting which would be routine for an incoming NSA – isn’t obstructing anything

    1. My thoughts exactly and it is beginning to look like the Flynn prosecution is going to reveal some pretty nasty deep state shit if Barr gets serious about investigating Obama’s FBI and DOJ. In fact the case may yet unravel despite Flynn’s plea. But libertarians like Suderman are gleeful that a guy has been forced into bankruptcy defending himself against a process crime.

      1. Flynn only pleaded because they were going after his son and bankrupting him. That’s how lawfare works. Now that this bullshit is over they should prosecute Mueller for all the sleazy shit he did with this investigation, and in the past. This crap is nothing new for him.

      2. If Suderman is a Libertarian then I am joining the Whig party.

  16. No one outside the beltway cares.

    1. Look JB Trump may have attempted to obstruct an investigation into something we know didn’t happen. Only a deplorable could think that isn’t the biggest scandal EVER!!!

    2. Not true. The Interwebs are seemingly full of people whose very reason for DeRpiness is to help their superiors spin this story so it does something DeRpy. And I assume their next step is to keep this story going until they suck all the oxygen out of America.

      1. Nah. I think without the evil Russians involved, this reality show gets canceled. No one wants to sit around and hear people debate about the meaning of “attempted obstruction”. No Russians no ratings.

  17. This is almost as funny as that CNN analyst (Toobin I think) who said that Trump is guilty because of his “body language” because “happy people don’t obstruct justice”.

    1. Every time Toobin’s name is mentioned, people should be reminded that he knocked up his best friend’s 20 something daughter and then refused to admit paternity until he was sued and forced to take a DNA test showing he was the father.

      What a fucking dirtbag. It is bad enough to get your friend’s daughter knocked up. But then to basically call her a whore and say someone else got her pregnant really takes the cake. These people are scum. All of them.

      1. I had never heard that about Toobin (I confess little interest in people like him). His erstwhile friend should have had Toobin’s guts for suspenders.

        1. I have an odd fascination with how broken and awful media people always seem to be.

      2. Toobin’s also the scumbag who thinks the country should be run based on the sensibilities of hyper-dense megaplexes like New York City. He’s exactly the kind of urbanite scuzzball that makes Alma Coin’s version of the Hunger Games seem palatable.

      3. I thought that Toobin’s affinity for the Clintons was just political. Apparently he has more in common with the Clintons than just politics.

    2. I convict thee of WrongFeelz!

    3. Toobin is a turd… Class A Turd but still a turd.. good friends with Justice Kagan (the least qualified ) .. Doesn’t care much for the Electoral college and thinks Justice Thomas is a dolt.

  18. The new format doesn’t make Suderman sound any smarter.

    1. You ask for the impossible Aloysious.

    2. +1
      I lol’ed.

  19. Pete may not be a progressive, but he sure is trying.

  20. I’ve been slaving in the salt mines all morning. This is high in the running of dumbest MSM take.

    At the same time, it suggests that far from draining the swamp, Trump has become part of it, subsumed into its muck, and, if not completely powerless, consistently limited in his ability to change the political ecosystem around him. That ecosystem, meanwhile, has served as a protective buffer, preventing Trump from carrying out acts that might threaten his political future. In the end, the swamp may be what saved Trump’s presidency.

    1. I think you are probably right about that. It is so epically stupid it deserves to be parsed and fully appreciated.

      At the same time, it suggests that far from draining the swamp, Trump has become part of it, subsumed into its muck,

      So the fact that swamp won’t do what Trump tells them means Trump is now “part of the swamp”. Okay..

      and, if not completely powerless, consistently limited in his ability to change the political ecosystem around him.

      Trump got advice from the people around him and followed it. That according to Suderman makes him “powerless”. Let’s just forget all of the articles Suderman has written claiming Trump is a tyrant and saying the White House is in “chaos” because Trump won’t listen and keeps firing anyone who questions him.

      That ecosystem, meanwhile, has served as a protective buffer, preventing Trump from carrying out acts that might threaten his political future.

      I always thought that the point of having advisors is to get them to give you good advice and stop you from doing something dumb. According to Suderman, this means you are powerless and part of the swamp.

      1. They figure his connections got him off because that’s what they would have done.

      2. It’s incredible how many morons haven’t figured out this thing was 100% political from the time the CIA is running assets at Papadopolous to now.

  21. “The Trump campaign didn’t collude with Russia—but it tried. Trump may not have obstructed the Mueller investigation—but it sure looks like he tried.”

    Specious reasoning. It isn’t even clear whether the things being alleged here are illegal. We wouldn’t accept this kind of reasoning in a criminal conduct case, and there isn’t any reason to accept it here. The establishment didn’t succeed in impeaching Trump over nonsense, but it sure looks like they tried.

    I look forward to a full investigation of Comey’s behavior at the FBI.

    1. That is just a straight up lie on Suderman’s part. There is no evidence at all that they tried to collude with Russia. The investigation makes it clear that Russia wanted to influence the election but found no Americans willing to help it do so.

      So, according to Sudderman, Russia was looking to help Trump and Trump was looking for Russia’s help, but somehow it never happened.

      Sudderman has become one of the more odious writers at reason. He used to just be boring. But Trump has broken him.

      1. Imagine if Suderman’s allegations were being made in a high profile murder case or police shooting based on the same lack of evidence. Because it’s Trump, somehow, all the rules go out the window.

        1. That is right. You know they never have proven that couple in Houston that the police murdered wasn’t dealing drugs.

          That is the logic Suderman is pulling here. It is fucking disgraceful.

    2. Brilliant! it is right there in front of everyone

    1. That is funny. And frankly, I am hard pressed to come up with someone who deserves that treatment more than Jeff Sessions.

      I would like you to stay too Jeff but I am still keeping your resignation letter. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out. That is awesome.

      1. You should listen to Byron York’s podcast with Trump’s lawyer. Towards the end of the second one he really goes in on Sessions.

  22. So Trump tried to obstruct justice, but was thwarted by his advisors. Huh. Now there’s a compelling re-election slogan.

    “I tried to break the law but I hired the best people so that they would stop me from doing so! Vote Trump!”

    1. Except that he didn’t try to do that. Suderman can’t name a single thing that Trump wanted to do that amounts to obstruction of justice.

      And yes, claiming “he almost did obstructed an investigation into something that we know didn’t happen” is going to work out real well for the Democrats in 2020.

      1. Well, John, this is directly from the report, pp. 217-218.

        “In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. The President reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed. The President then met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the reports. In the same meeting , the President also asked McGahn why he had told the Special Counsel about the President’s effort to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the President. McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the President to be testing his mettle.”

        1. I don’t know precisely what “create a record” means. It sounds like Trump wanted McGahn to commit an act of fraud.

          1. If lying to the media was “obstruction of justice” every politician in American history would have been convicted of it.

            Just stop it. You are embarassing yourself.

            1. John, that ship sailed for all time when Jeffy went full pro-pedo recently. Now he’s just a toxic little moron who loves pedophiles as long as they’re foreign born and want to come rape our children.

          2. Or maybe Trump wanted him to correct an act of fraud. No transcripts, apparently, just press reports based off of an anonymous leaker.

            Hey, maybe McGahn was the leaker? And was refusing to correct his own lie to the press?

            Remember Comey going around telling everybody in Washington that Trump wasn’t under investigation, and then refusing a direct order to say publicly what he was telling everybody privately? Seems to have been a lot of that going around.

            What this sounds to me like, is McGahn being one of those ‘resistance’ moles, trying to set Trump up for an “OMG, he tried to fire Mueller!” charge.

        2. Trump had the legal right to remove the Special counsel. That would not have been obstruction of justice. He could have and really should have fired McGahn when he did this.

          Know what terms mean before you comment on them.

          1. Exactly, it isn’t just that Trump didn’t do the things that are being alleged. It’s also that the things being alleged aren’t obstruction of justice.

            It’s not enough to dislike Trump or what he does–that doesn’t make something obstruction of justice. In some ways, it’s like what I say about the AUMF.

            Because I don’t like what the AUMF says and what it authorizes, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t say it or doesn’t authorize it. Partisans, especially, have come to imagine that pretending that facts are other than what they are is perfectly appropriate if you don’t like what they imply. If you want to believe that Trump should be removed from office because he obstructed justice, then it’s your job to pretend that he obstructed justice–whether he did or not?

            It’s like Plato’s noble lie turned inside out. Plato argued that it’s better if people believe their leaders regardless of whether what they’re saying is true. Progressive journalists have taken it upon themselves to supply people with whatever lie they think will move the progressive cause forward–even when there is no leader in office to lie to them. Just believe that Trump obstructed justice, and it will all make sense to you! Everywhere I turn in the media, everyone seems to believe that Trump obstructed justice. Why can’t you?

        3. The obstruction occurred after the obstruction investigation. Obstruction inception.

          1. Post-hoc obstruction. We’re through the looking glass, people!

    2. “So Trump tried to obstruct justice, but was thwarted by his advisors. Huh. Now there’s a compelling re-election slogan.”

      Translated from fucking lefty ignoramus:
      “Trump didn’t break the law for some reason, and therefore, uh…”
      Jeff, there’s a place for your postings: It’s up your ass, along with your head.

    3. Better I thought about breaking the law (unknowingly) but my guys explained that this was not a good thing. So I took their advice because I am not an autocrat like the last dipsh&t in the WH.

  23. To quote Yoda, “There is no ‘try'”. The investigation didn’t get obstructed, and he had the legal authority to just order it terminated if he wanted. Instead he cooperated and just bitched about it.

    And why shouldn’t an innocent man have bitched about it?

    1. If you assume Trump might be innocent of obstruction of justice, then you’ve already lost the plot. You’re supposed to start with the assumption that he obstructed justice, and then everything you can’t quite see seems to confirm that assumption.

      See, this is how facts and logic so often lead people astray. Everything bad you say about Trump is true because Trump is bad. If you were truly educated, you’d understand that. Oh, and every good thing you say about Trump is wrong, too, because Trump is bad. That’s the way edumicated people think.

      They also don’t dress like rednecks, and that’s how you know to believe them.

  24. Other than the unwillingness of social justice progressives to accept the fact that the American people do not want them, is there a better explanation for the way media types are tying themselves in knots over this?

    Why is getting dirt on Hillary from the Russians such an important plot point if not because it suggests that the American people rejected her for some reason other than her politics? Why turn around and stand firm on the appropriateness of the investigation of Trump, even after we found out that the wiretap of his campaign was justified by opposition research?

    Put another way, why is the Russians interfering in a presidential campaign more frightening than the FBI using opposition research to interfere in a presidential campaign? It’s hard not to conclude that the real allegation the media is making is that the American people elected Donald Trump as president, an injustice they can never accept. Who cares if the FBI was wiretapping political campaigns under false pretenses–so long as the campaign being subjected to surveillance was Donald Trump’s and the American people voted for the wrong candidate?

    When Trump suggested that the news media is the enemy of the American people, I’m not sure he was wrong about that.

    1. It is that Ken but also the fact that the media were willing players in what is easily the worst abuse of authority since Watergate. The media didn’t discover it, they furthered it by carrying water for the participants and doing everything they could to discredit people who were trying to discover it. If the media admits there is nothing to this, then they have to answer for being a part of it.

    2. It was a coup. In a just world, the traitors would hang. Dare to dream.

  25. Tell us again exactly what he was obstructing. An investigation to exonerate him?

    1. I am laughing and crying at the same time

  26. What the heck is “attempted obstruction”? Can’t people go to jail for attempted murder? If Trump clearly tried to obstruct justice but failed or decline to do so, isn’t that a crime?

    If Mueller knew exactly what Trump said to his people, then where is even room for speculation? “Well he may have found some guy we don’t know about and THAT guy may have obeyed Trump’s instructions” That’s not how things work, is it?

  27. >>>But It Sure Looks Like He Tried

    how you obstruct something you can pull the plug on because it’s Tuesday?

  28. […] Reason‘s Peter Suderman put it: “The picture emerging from the report is one of a temperamental and inexperienced president […]

    1. The Left always projects.
      Every accusation is a confession.

    2. Gosh
      sounds like the last one we had from Kenya

  29. Since the other stuff is already been taken on, I’ll comment on the Trump Tower meeting. You are claiming that the only reason there was nothing wrong about that meeting is that they didn’t have any dirt for him.

    Pretend for a moment they had actually given up a file folder full of embarrassing stories about HRC. Nothing about hacked emails, but a bunch of unverifiable dirt. Exactly what are you claiming would have been illegal?

    And that is without even opening myself up for a charge of whataboutism. Because we all know the other campaign actually did accept the offer of dirt, and paid through the nose to get it.

    1. What if they had evidence she was being bribed by the Chinese? According to Suderman, Trump going to the public with that evidence would have been collusion and wrong if not immoral.

      Suderman is claiming truthful information about a candidate should be withheld from the public if it comes from the wrong source.

    2. And Mueller concluded that Trump didn’t even know about a meeting that wasn’t a crime and didn’t amount to collusion.
      https://tinyurl.com/y2kbat8y
      By claiming that this inconsequential event is in any conceivable way is even newsworthy Suderman beclowns himself and Reason. Yet again.

    3. “Exactly what are you claiming would have been illegal?”

      It’s illegal for the Left to lose power.

  30. Trump is a beneficiary of the fact that:

    NONE OF US ARE AS SMART AS ALL OF US.

  31. Talking to A Russian is not the same as colluding with THE Russians! As Trump tweeted he had the authority to fire everyone and end the whole thing but he didn’t.

  32. Orange Man Bad

    I read Drumpf’s tweets on twitter
    He lives rent free in my head
    I live for the moments
    When he tweets at 3 a.m.
    He makes me so damn mad
    Orange man bad

    In the government school system
    They’ve trained us how to think
    We’ve been properly programmed
    And some of us are still in sync
    I’m smart ‘cause I’m a college grad
    They’ve told me orange man bad

    I believe the women
    I wear the pussy hat
    When I see a Trumpster
    I knock off their MAGA cap
    I’m hopin’ this is all just a fad
    ‘Cause orange man bad

    I get my news from talk shows
    I hear the people clap
    When I watch Jimmy Kimmel
    He always makes me laugh
    He cheers me up when I am sad
    He knows that orange man bad

    I worship famous people
    They tell me how to vote
    And when one disappoints me
    I wanna punch ‘em in the throat
    They’re no longer my comrade
    ‘Cause orange man bad

    I am a resister
    Impeach 45
    And if we lose this next election
    I’ll scream at the sky
    But I think our blue wave’s ironclad
    ‘Cause orange man bad

    Orange man bad
    Orange man bad
    Orange man bad

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2TKoxQTdvI

    1. Got a better one you will hate even more.

      Eminem with the awesome Alicia Keyes. A duet.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg6ELmpcqiI

      (Eminem)

      Yo, shout to everybody
      Who’s been on this trip with me
      You don’t have to, agree
      But if you feel like me
      Someone get this Aryan a sheet
      Time to bury him, so tell him to prepare to get impeached
      Everybody on your feet
      This is where terrorism and heroism meet, square off in the street
      This chump barely even sleeps
      All he does is watch Fox News like a parrot and repeats
      While he looks like a canary with a beak
      ….

      (Alicia)
      Here’s to where we all began, all began (stand up!)
      Here’s to the land that made me
      And made me who I am, who I am (hands up!)
      Here’s to the land that raised me
      This one for the only place that really knows me
      From the cracks in the road that drove me
      There’s no place like home

  33. Let the staff get it out of their system. It’s a cathartic moment for tds’ers. Nick will have the final say and then we can all just moveon.org.

    1. “Let the staff get it out of their system. It’s a cathartic moment for tds’ers. Nick will have the final say and then we can all just moveon.org.”

      You are too optimistic. This is just the beginning of those with TDS demanding an investigation into the investigation!
      The investigation found nothing, therefore the investigation must have failed!
      That other guy on the grassy knoll? The left is now wedded to the assumption that he was Elvis’ alien love-child! And they are not going to let the adults forget it!

      1. There is an election the Libertarian Party will barely be invited to to grumble over.

  34. […] ready and try this searchable version. Have questions about collusion? Read an overview here, or some other takes […]

  35. […] Reason‘s Peter Suderman put it: “The picture emerging from the report is one of a temperamental and inexperienced president […]

  36. Comments are closed.

  37. […] Reason‘s Peter Suderman put it: “The picture emerging from the report is one of a temperamental and inexperienced president […]

  38. Mr Pseudo-Man, you disgust me. You are not a man, willing to stand up and present the truth. You are a weasel.

    This is the type of article that makes people doubt that Reason is serious. The sort of unmitigated pap that could only be written by someone who hates Trump so much he refuses to think what he is saying.

    No, talking to the Russians about Hillary’s faults would not be collusion. If talking to foreigners constitutes collusion then of course Hillary Clinton was the one actually guilty in this case of that crime. What did you say? Collusion is not a crime? There is no law against “collusion” with a foreign entity with which the US is not at war? Oh. Wow.

    So this was nonsense from the start, with no crime. Sort of like, the investigation should never have started, or should perhaps have been stopped. The justice department investigating actions of a US citizen that are not against the law seems really Orwellian. Maybe, since the investigation was under the auspices of the executive the top man of that branch of government should have stepped in to stop this obvious farce.

    Which brings us to the “obstruction”. I don’t think there is such a thing as “attempted obstruction”. So when you can’t pin one imagination crime on Trump you want to make up a new one. The problem is that Trump could quite legally have stopped the investigation at any time he wanted , at least according to certain blogging experts on law (whom I will defer to, rather than you). He could also have insisted his underlings obey his instructions. It sounds more like they demurred, and he begrudgingly accepted their objections.

    Considering we now know (1) that there was no collusion and (2) that collusion is not illegal (I knew this before, but if you read this comment you might be learning it for the first time) I am kind of sympathetic to Trump trying to shut down the investigation, although I see the political reasons not to do so. He knew for a fact that the subject did nothing wrong as, you know, he was the subject. And he had done nothing wrong. He also knew that the investigation found no evidence (because there was none) and yet continued month upon month, a fact doing harm to his Presidency. Any competent investigation with the resources available to this one should have known within a few weeks that they were going nowhere. So Trump knew they were trying desperately to get some result, way off their remit (where they are not permitted to go).

    This leads to the final injustice: injustice. Several people were prosecuted for “crimes” unrelated to the original charge, at least one of them clearly falsely. General Flynn was forced, on the false testimony of an FBI agent later fired from the investigation for being biased against Trump, to take a plea bargain – a deep injustice of the sort Reason usually rails against unless you have lost your reason to Trump derangement.

  39. “the infamous Trump Tower meeting”

    The Russian lawyer involved met with Fusion GPS before and after the meeting.

    You knew that. And failed to mention it.

  40. […] on witnesses, or otherwise gumming up the works. I trust my Reason colleagues (Scott Shackford, Peter Suderman, Jacob Sullum, and Eric Boehm), each of whom argues to varying degrees that if President Donald […]

  41. […] witnesses, or otherwise gumming up the works. I trust my Reason colleagues (Scott Shackford, Peter Suderman, Jacob Sullum, and Eric Boehm), each of whom argues to varying degrees that if President Donald […]

  42. Jenis Permainan Judi di Agen Togel Terbaik. Untuk game Judi Togel singapura dapat disebut juga dengan permainan yang telah menjadi salah satu permainan judi online yang sudah melegenda. Tentu para penggila togel akan bermain dengan uang yang terbilang cukup besar apalagi uang itu menjadi berganda karna sudah kena candu, sebab bermain judi menyenangkan apalagi hadiah yang ditawarkan sangatlah besar.

  43. He tried and failed! So what. I tried to get that Social Security that I paid into for sooo many years in a lump sum. I failed.

  44. […] “Trump May Not Have Obstructed the Mueller Investigation, but It Sure Looks Like He Tried,” by Peter Suderman […]

  45. […] “Trump May Not Have Obstructed the Mueller Investigation, but It Sure Looks Like He Tried,” by Peter Suderman […]

  46. Thanks admin for giving such valuable information through your article . Your article is much more similar to https://www.pradabagtmall.com/prada-1mh132-robot-logo-saffiano-leather-wallet-in-black-red.html word unscramble tool because it also provides a lot of knowledge of vocabulary new words with its meanings.

  47. […] a bit different. Mueller’s team found several attempts to interfere with the investigation: Among the many listed are asking White House Counsel Don McGahn to have Mueller removed, directing Attorney General Jeff […]

Comments are closed.