Nolte: 15 Ways the Mueller Report Proves Trump Did Not Obstruct Justice

Trump seethes in foul-mouthed tirade against Mueller report

On top of thoroughly debunking the establishment media’s two year Russia Collusion Hoax, in ways large and small, the Mueller Report also proved President Trump is innocent of obstructing justice.

Before I get into the ten specific items the left-wing Mueller Report listed as possible examples of obstruction of justice, examples that actually prove the president did not obstruct justice, I’ll begin with the five larger pieces of proof, the overarching evidence.

  1. Mueller Admits He Was on a Literal Witch Hunt and Discovered NO CRIMES

Mueller did not charge the president with obstruction, nor did he recommend the Department of Justice or anyone else charge the president. Mueller did not even claim there was an obstruction charge to be made. In fact, Mueller admitted he had conducted a witch hunt (searching for a crime instead of investigating a known crime is the definition of a witch hunt) with this passage:

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, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.

In other words, the witch hunter could not find the witch; Mueller found exactly ZERO crimes.

Which brings me to number two…

  1. The Presumption of Innocence Is Undeniable

Even the president of the United States, even if that president is Donald J. Trump, there is something every American enjoys called the presumption of innocence. You are innocent until the state proves you guilty, and you sure as hell are innocent if a special prosecutor spends $35 million on an admitted witch hunt and comes up with bupkis.

Trump is innocent.

  1. Trump Never Used His Legal or Constitutional Authority to “Obstruct”

As president, Trump always had the power and constitutional authority to legally put an end to the investigation, to send it to where it should have always been — Congress.

He didn’t do that.

Trump also had the authority to issue orders about where the investigation could or could not go.

He didn’t do that.

Trump could have fired Mueller and his gang of Hillary-supporting Democrats at any time.

He didn’t do that.

Trump could have claimed executive privilege.

He never once did that.

  1. Trump Cooperated Fully with the Mueller Investigation

Rather than obstruct the investigation (as Bill Clinton did when he committed perjury and Hillary did when she illegally deleted 33,000 emails), rather than deliberately impede the investigation (as Hillary did when she hid the Rose Law Firm records during the Whitewater investigation) Trump and his White House cooperated fully with the investigation.

  1. The Sheer Volume of Mueller’s Obstruction ‘Examples’ Prove Trump’s Innocence

Strictly for partisan and political purposes, and as a deliberate way to politically damage Trump, Mueller and his gang of partisan investigators laid out a media-friendly listicle of ten items they believe could-possibly-maybe-perhaps-kinda be construed as Trump obstructing justice.

But the sheer volume of examples exonerates Trump because no prosecutor would fail to file or fail to recommend the filing of charges with ten pieces of evidence. Mueller admits he could not prosecute an obstruction case in court, which means he knows he has no case, which means Trump is innocent.

Summation: No charges were filed. No recommendation was made to file charges. Trump had the constitutional authority to obstruct and did not. Trump cooperated fully. Based on every ethical principle our country is based on, Trump is innocent. Mueller’s list of ten “obstruction” examples is so underwhelming, so frivolous and desperate, he stands alone as the only prosecutor in history to have ten pieces of “evidence” and no case.

Now to the specific list of Mueller’s ten absurd examples of “obstruction.”

  1. ALLEGATION: The president told disgraced former F.B.I. Director James Comey he “hoped” Comey could see his way clear of letting go of former National Security Adviser Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who was under investigation, even after the White House fired him.

TRUTH: Trump had the constitutional authority to legally put a stop to this investigation and did not use it. Expressing one’s “hope” is not an act of obstruction, nor is it an order … it is the expression of one’s hope. What’s more, Trump is expressing this hope about someone else, not himself.

  1. ALLEGATION: Trump wanted his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to not recuse himself from the Russia investigation.

TRUTH: So what? Trump selected Sessions to be his attorney general because he had faith in him in that role. Once Sessions recused himself, Trump — and don’t forget we are talking about a man innocent of the treason charges being investigated — was now at the mercy of the same Deep State that was already selectively and illegally leaking to frame him for treason.

Trump was not calling on Sessions to reverse his recusal and shut down the investigation. He wanted someone he trusted overseeing it. That is not obstruction, it’s common sense and the way you would expect an innocent man to act.

  1. ALLEGATION: Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation.

TRUTH: Trump fired Comey on Rod Rosenstein’s recommendation. Trump fired Comey because Comey deliberately set him up with that briefing about the phony dossier (Comey’s briefing was the hook the fake news media used to make what became known as the pee pee dossier public). Trump fired Comey because Comey refused to report the truth — that the president was not under investigation and Trump felt (for legitimate reasons) as though he were being blackmailed. Trump fired Comey, as he told Lester Holt on NBC, because he knew Comey would drag his feet with the Russian investigation and Trump wanted to put the issue behind him.

The only way the firing of Comey could be construed as obstruction is if Comey’s replacement agreed to stop the investigation. That didn’t happen because Trump wanted the exact opposite: he wanted the matter resolved.

  1. ALLEGATION: Trump was angry about the appointment of a special counsel and expressed a desire to fire people.

TRUTH: So what? Mueller is actually attempting to claim that Trump’s tweets about the “witch hunt” and his threats to fire people (that were never followed through on) constitute obstruction.

An innocent man raging against a plot to frame him is not, in any legal or moral sense, obstruction. What’s more, had Trump followed through with firing Mueller and Sessions, that would not have been obstruction because it was well within his legal authority to do so.

  1. ALLEGATION: Trump asked his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to tell Sessions to announce that the investigation was very unfair to him, and that he had done nothing wrong.

TRUTH: So what? Asking your attorney general to tell the public the truth is not obstruction.

  1. ALLEGATION: Trump was not publicly forthcoming about the Trump Tower Meeting.

TRUTH: Lying to the media or to the public is not obstruction of justice. All Trump did was spin the meeting in the most favorable light possible — which only proves he’s a politician. When Obama did this, the media gushed over his amazing talent at “slow-walking the truth.”

If lying to the public or to the media is obstruction of justice, the jails are gunna be awfully full.

  1. ALLEGATION: Trump continued to pressure Sessions to unrecuse himself.

TRUTH: So what? Trying to put someone else in charge of an investigation is not obstruction. In fact, the Mueller Report notes that Trump told Sessions: “I’m not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly” — which tells you that Mueller including this in his childish listicle is his way of padding his non-case.

  1. ALLEGATION: Trump didn’t want the public to know he 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. “

TRUTH: Again, lying to the press and to the public is not obstruction, and if Trump had truly wanted Mueller fired he could have legally done it. This entire narrative about Trump wanting people fired or wanting to put Sessions in charge of the investigation is breathtakingly desperate and dumb.

  1. ALLEGATION: Trump praised former campaign manager Paul Manafort and Flynn when they held strong and criticized them when they rolled over.

TRUTH: It is not obstruction of justice to express an opinion and these opinions are perfectly in line with an innocent man being falsely accused of treason while the Deep State and media attempt to frame him.

What’s more, Trump was almost always publicly expressing these opinions. People do not commit crimes in front of 50 million Twitter followers.

  1. ALLEGATION: Trump praised his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen when he held strong and criticized him after he rolled over.

TRUTH: As you can see, to pad his non-case to number ten, rather than include Cohen with Manafort and Flynn, Mueller makes Trump’s reaction to Cohen a separate item.

Sorry, but in America telling a friend to “stay strong” when he’s under investigation and then publicly calling him a “rat” when he falsely accuses you of crimes is not obstruction.

Robert Mueller knows what obstruction of justice is. What he’s hoping is that the public doesn’t know.

Bottom line: Just like his best pal Comey, Robert Mueller is a dirty cop who failed to frame Trump so on his way out the door he bitterly lashed out with lies, ad hominem, false accusations, and total blithering, blathering nonsense. 

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.