Another Left-Wing Hoax About Trump Blows Up

Source: PJ Media.

This is great. I championed the Mueller report and Bill Barr’s decision not to prosecute then President Trump when they came out. At the time and ever since, the anti-Trumpers on this web site claimed that Mueller’s report proved Trump was guilty, at least, of obstruction of justice.

Now we learn that the obstruction allegation was never prosecutable, not on the merits, not no way; never.

Patience, patriots. Reality has a conservative bias.

22 thoughts on “Another Left-Wing Hoax About Trump Blows Up

  1. Interesting. Last week when discussing the prosecution of a climate activist, the decision of the prosecutor with jurisdiction not to pursue charges due to lack of evidence was not seen as an indicator of innocence by DT and JTR. In DT’s case, it was seen as further evidence of his guilt since the “highly partisan 2nd District of New York DA” declined to prosecute.

    What are we to make of this?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. RE: “What are we to make of this?”

      We see that your comment is rhetoric, not argument. It accuses others of being inconsistent, but without showing how the two cases at law are similar.


      1. It has nothing to do with any similarity of the individual cases. It’s about what it means when a prosecutor declines to prosecute.

        If Trump is not guilty because the case against him was ” never prosecutable, not on the merits, not no way; never” (your words) then the same decision not to prosecute due to lack of evidence should also imply the innocence of the climate activist in question, and anyone else for that matter.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Like I said, rhetoric, not argument.

          I never said Trump was innocent, only that anti-Trumpers willfully misinterpreted the Mueller report.

          Moreover, I don’t agree that prosecutorial discretion is sufficient to establish guilt or innocence.


          1. “Like I said, rhetoric, not argument.”

            I’m attempting to have an argument with you about the implications of prosecutorial discretion. Either it matters and that’s the end of a case, or it doesn’t matter and maybe we should allow Pelosi to hire the general counsel of Planned Parenthood as a private prosecutor for Trump.

            But you keep sidestepping and refusing to engage with the argument you’re implying and the article makes explicitly.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “I’m attempting to have an argument with you about the implications of prosecutorial discretion.”

            Yes, you are. But I don’t agree with your premises:

            • I never said that prosecutorial discretion proves that Trump was innocent or that it proves Donziger was guilty.

            • Further, I don’t agree that prosecutorial discretion played the same role in both cases at law. In one the prosecutor explicity refused to exercise discretion (Mueller); in the other, a judge overrulled the jurisdictional prosecuter’s decision (Donziger).


  2. What hoax? You people throw that word around a lot. Do you know what it means?

    The Independent Cousel thought there could be an obstruction of justice offenses that the DOJ should consider in light of the existing DOJ ruling that a sitting President could not be prosecuted. Trump’s man Barr decided not to proceed. Trump’s behavior known to the public is enough to show that this claim of obstruction is not because of a “hoax.” This posting summarize the MANY actions by Trump documented by Mueller that are obstructive in nature and whether they meet the threshold for prosecution.

    It seems to me that AG Garland is following the principle that he said he would follow when being vetted by the Senate – not let politics determine his decisions. In this case the DOJ wants to protect its “deliberative process privilege” even if it means seeking protection for the DOJ process under Barr.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “What hoax?”

      As stated, the hoax was misinterpretation of the Mueller report as establishing Trump’s guilt on obstruction charges. Or, as the source story puts it: “The Left and the media long suspected that the Department of Justice memo upon which former Attorney General William Barr based his decision not to prosecute then-president Donald Trump for obstruction of justice contained a ‘smoking gun’ that would prove Trump guilty and discredit Barr’s conclusions.”


      1. Paul’s point about Garland’s choice not to release the document in question is valid. PJM taking that to mean there was nothing prosecutable is conjecture as no one there, here or anywhere outside the DOJ has seen that document.


          1. We know this from the WAPO quote in the story: “The central document at issue is a March 2019 memo written by two senior Justice Department officials arguing that aside from important constitutional reasons not to accuse the president of a crime, the evidence gathered by Mueller did not rise to the level of a prosecutable case, even if Trump were not president.”


          2. “We know this from the WAPO quote in the story

            So all of a sudden WAPO is a good source of information?

            Just goes to prove that you only use that which supports your pre-conceived notion of truth.


      2. So, you actually do not know what the word “hoax” means.

        Observers had every reason to believe that the decision by Barr was suspect. He already shown himself to be Trump’s agent and famously undercut the Mueller Report’ release for political reasons. The facts of what Trump did of an obstructive nature had been publicly spelled out and analyzed for the elements needed to prosecute in the Mueller Report.

        This may be a stretch it may be that Garland is playing rope-a-dope and wants the court to compel release of the entire document so that the public can have it, he will not be seen rushing to violate procedure for political reasons and will have defended – albeit unsuccessfully – the process privilege of the DOJ.


        1. RE: “Observers had every reason to believe that the decision by Barr was suspect.”

          Whatever they believed, shame on them. They were wrong.


          1. Well, based on the release of part of the material and the words of the current HONEST AG it does seem that Barr’s decision is defensible even if we have not seen the full memo that was the basis of it. So you are right, what such observers believed was wrong. I disagree that there is any “shame” since the evidence of obstruction laid out by Mueller is compelling.

            Where YOU are wrong is calling any of this a “hoax.” Trump brought it ALL on himself by what we know that he did.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “Nope.”


            Your imagining corrupt motives for someone’s reasonable opinions based on evidence about matters of public importance is not evidence of a “hoax.”

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s