Mueller : Trump is guilty of obstruction. Congress should handle it. Don't bother me again.

[OKTexas]

Mueller had no proof, wonder girl.

Yeah, he had no proof that Trump wasn't a damn criminal,

Why do you think this is meaningful?
Hoe does this translate, outside your world of make-believe, that Trump is a criminal?

Mueller told you very clearly that if he could have cleared Trump of obstruction, he would have. He could not. Now given that he did so in Vol1, it's not hard to see what he meant.

That doesn't mean he could prove it in a court of law either.

.

He didn't need to, dope. Congress doesn't need to either.

Actually he does, every American has the presumption of innocence, a president doesn't give that up when elected.

.

 

[basquebromance]

I trust Attorney General Barr as much as The Panthers trusted the FBI.

 

[edward37]

Maybe throw enough crap at trump something will stick that even his most loyal ass kissers will admit to

Lib 101
Thank you for raising your hand

FYI I'm a democrat that believes china is a problem What I find offensive and downright stupid is the trump method of making a deal Why not get 3 or 4 allies to go with him into dealing with china?/ He can't because no ally wants to stand with him He's nasty a bully and abusive and for my money he can go f himself

 

[basquebromance]

"Trump’s days as the most corrupt, bigoted and traitorous president in US history are numbered. The most patriotic thing Trump could do at this point is resign." - Rep Waters

 

[edward37]

Maybe throw enough crap at trump something will stick that even his most loyal ass kissers will admit to

Yep, do what you do best.

We learned that from you doing it to Hillary and Bill That chimp loses a little weight he'd look like McConnell

 

[M14 Shooter]

For -actual- obstruction to exist, corrupt intent must be proven.
Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Per Mueller:
As an initial matter, the term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

Well?

If you're looking for an answer I can't help you BUT I'm sure that among those 10 potential cases there will be more than one that pins the tail on the monkey

Mueller could not concretely demonstrate corrupt intent - how can YOU be "sure" it exists?

LOL All I need is one out of 10 ,,I like those odds

You avoided the question:
Mueller could not concretely demonstrate corrupt intent - how can YOU be "sure" it exists?

I can't be sure of anything I just feel that the chances are good

Oh.
You "feel".

Thanks

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why is this not in the Conspiracy section????
All we have now is libbies rehashing what has already been disproven.

10 cases of obstruction HAVE NOT been disproven

Where does the burden of proof lie?

 

[edward37]

Why is this not in the Conspiracy section????
All we have now is libbies rehashing what has already been disproven.

10 cases of obstruction HAVE NOT been disproven

Where does the burden of proof lie?

With the accuser which will take place at his impeachment trial Love to see the lying sack of s put his hand on a bible

 

[WEATHER53]

If you're looking for an answer I can't help you BUT I'm sure that among those 10 potential cases there will be more than one that pins the tail on the monkey

Mueller could not concretely demonstrate corrupt intent - how can YOU be "sure" it exists?

LOL All I need is one out of 10 ,,I like those odds

You avoided the question:
Mueller could not concretely demonstrate corrupt intent - how can YOU be "sure" it exists?

I can't be sure of anything I just feel that the chances are good

Oh.
You "feel".

Thanks

Feelings
Woah Woah woah feelings

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why is this not in the Conspiracy section????
All we have now is libbies rehashing what has already been disproven.

10 cases of obstruction HAVE NOT been disprove

Where does the burden of proof lie?

With the accuser

Who must demonstrate corrupt intent.
Something Mueller could not do.

 

[OKTexas]

I do find this rather amazing in that apparently the president may possibly be guilty of obstruction of justice in the commission of a crime that was never committed in the first place. Got to be kidding me, so all I have to do is create a false narrative and anyone attempting to discredit said narrative is possibly guilty of obstruction of justice? So how did the president actually obstruct the investigation?
I think the key is burden of proof? Good luck with that.

Obstruction of justice does not require an underlying crime

It does, however, require a specific motive,m which Mueller could not find.

What could possibly be Trump's motive in obstructing investigations that were trying to discover evidence that he colluded with the Russians to win the election?

The better question is why would Trump try to obstruct an investigation on him of something he was never guilty of?

Because he's dumb as shit.

Obstruction has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It has to do with interfering with the investigation itself.

So where in the Mueller report did Mueller explicitly say he, or his team, was interfered with? Come on commie, give us a quote.

.

 

[WEATHER53]

Thread title is fake-a lie

 

[caddo kid]

Mueller clearly walked a fine line, implicating Trump enuff to do nothing more than to imply it is up to Congress to exercise their authority to act as a check on the abuse of power by the executive; just as The Constitution intended.

One would have to be a fool to think that Trump did not obstruct Mueller, Comey, and now congress. When Trumps fights, he uses every means at his disposal. Issues of legality, he leaves to his lawyers.

Exactly what did he do that affected Mueller doing his job?

.

obviously you did not read the report; you so funny

What's wrong commie, can't answer the question. The fact is Mueller completed his investigation, NO ONE interfered with him.

.

well of course no one interfered; that's why Mueller documented at least TEN, yes, no less that TEN obstructive acts by Trump.
See my signature? You can go & read it all, right there.

 

[WEATHER53]

Mueller clearly walked a fine line, implicating Trump enuff to do nothing more than to imply it is up to Congress to exercise their authority to act as a check on the abuse of power by the executive; just as The Constitution intended.

One would have to be a fool to think that Trump did not obstruct Mueller, Comey, and now congress. When Trumps fights, he uses every means at his disposal. Issues of legality, he leaves to his lawyers.

Exactly what did he do that affected Mueller doing his job?

.

obviously you did not read the report; you so funny

What's wrong commie, can't answer the question. The fact is Mueller completed his investigation, NO ONE interfered with him.

.

well of course no one interfered; that's why Mueller documented at least TEN, yes, no less that TEN obstructive acts by Trump.
See my signature? You can go & read it all, right there.

He did not identify them as obstructive acts, you choose to emotionally interpret them that way based on the fallacy of “what if”

 

[OKTexas]

You folk on the far right need to revisit Sweet Lindsay's views and thoughts about what impeachment means and what a President can be impeached about during the Clinton years.

It's on YouTube, you really should take a look and get up to speed.

The Starr report said Clinton was guilty 11 times. Come up with similar statements in the Mueller report.

.

Starr wasn't operating under DOJ rules, fool.

I know the difference between the two laws, but the fact is Mueller never once said Trump was guilty of anything. Nothing in the special counsel law would have prevented him from doing so.

.

 

[caddo kid]

One would have to be a fool to think that Trump did not obstruct Mueller, Comey, and now congress. When Trumps fights, he uses every means at his disposal. Issues of legality, he leaves to his lawyers.

Exactly what did he do that affected Mueller doing his job?

.

obviously you did not read the report; you so funny

What's wrong commie, can't answer the question. The fact is Mueller completed his investigation, NO ONE interfered with him.

.

well of course no one interfered; that's why Mueller documented at least TEN, yes, no less that TEN obstructive acts by Trump.
See my signature? You can go & read it all, right there.

He did not identify them as obstructive acts, you choose to emotionally interpret them that way based on the fallacy of “what if”

then you obviously did not read the report but then no one expects a Trump supporter to be able to read.

 

[OKTexas]

That doesn't mean he could prove it in a court of law either.

.

He didn't need to, dope. Congress doesn't need to either.

Yep....impeachment used to be a legal matter......now Democrats are using it to overturn elections

But what do you expect from a bunch of anti-Americans.

It was never a legal matter.

If it was you know you'd get laughed out of court.

But it used to be you needed crimes to start impeachment. Since they don't have a crime and have been talking about impeachment since the day he won the election, more than half of America knows impeachment is purely political and illegitimate. The public may be moved to act. Democrats/Communists need a disarmed electorate in order to function.

Impeachment never required crimes. Only misconduct.

Really, that's not what my copy of the Constitution says.

Article 2, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

.

 

[MarcATL]

Yeah, republicans really hate Trump. I guess that explains why Trump has a 90% job approval rating from them

And the only Republicans that hate Trump, are in law enforcement, a sector historically known for gathering THEE most conservative people in our society. Republican logik.

 

[edward37]

Why is this not in the Conspiracy section????
All we have now is libbies rehashing what has already been disproven.

10 cases of obstruction HAVE NOT been disprove

Where does the burden of proof lie?

With the accuser

Who must demonstrate corrupt intent.
Something Mueller could not do.

Congress The House

 

[MarcATL]

Mueller is playing you and helping himself.

Helping himself to what hack?