Official Mueller Report Thread

[justoffal]

Barr’s News Presser COMPLETELY VINDICATED President Trump!

No it didn't idiot. Barr has no credibility and his word is meaningless.

The only thing that can vindicate Trump is Mueller's (NOT BARR'S) report, and Barr has speciifically said that the report DOES NOT exonorate Trump.

Yes it did idiot....you have no credibility and your word is meaningless. See how easy that is?

Oh and BTW you protozoan twit, if Barr has no credibility how can you believe him if he says the report doesn't exonerate Trump?
You have the IQ of a garden tomato.

Jo

Umm yes dummy, my word is meaningless, though only a bit more so than Barr’s.

That’s why we need to see the report.

The one that Mueller redacted?

Jo

 

[AntonToo]

Move on with the Trump Russia hoax that failed, lefties.

He was NOT EXONERATED

The DOJ can't exonerate someone who hasn't been convicted.

What about someone who was convicted?

 

[Pete7469]

Mike it's not "Round 5684"...

It's been the same continuous round of bed wetting, crying, lying and tantrums since Nov 2016.

It's the longest in history and I expect it to continue well after Mike Pence gets elected to a second term in 2024.

 

[g5000]

On pages 111 - 112 of Volume 2, there is another documented example of Trump attempting to obstruct justice when he tried to force Sessions to unrecuse himself, fire Mueller, and restrict the scope of the investigation.

 

[AntonToo]

Barr’s News Presser COMPLETELY VINDICATED President Trump!

No it didn't idiot. Barr has no credibility and his word is meaningless.

The only thing that can vindicate Trump is Mueller's (NOT BARR'S) report, and Barr has speciifically said that the report DOES NOT exonorate Trump.

Yes it did idiot....you have no credibility and your word is meaningless. See how easy that is?

Oh and BTW you protozoan twit, if Barr has no credibility how can you believe him if he says the report doesn't exonerate Trump?
You have the IQ of a garden tomato.

Jo

Umm yes dummy, my word is meaningless, though only a bit more so than Barr’s.

That’s why we need to see the report.

The one that Mueller redacted?

Jo

Sure, lets at least see the redacted version today. That’s a start.

Though you’ll have no idea who redacted what. Surely some parts must remain redacted to public, but Congress must get the full report to ensure reductions were for good reason, not political considerations.

 

[g5000]

Page 112:

c. Intent. There is evidence that at least one purpose of the President's conduct toward Sessions was to have Sessions assume control over the Russian investigation and supervise it in a way that would restrict its scope.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Rachel Maddow is on suicide watch, but nobody cares about him

 

[AntonToo]

On pages 111 - 112 of Volume 2, there is another documented example of Trump attempting to obstruct justice when he tried to force Sessions to unrecuse himself, fire Mueller, and restrict the scope of the investigation.

I’m more curious about the pages where Mueller explains why that’s insufficient evidence for a conviction

 

[edward37]

14 investigations going to other justice dept offices Trump and company still in deep bawanga

 

[ozro]

Rachel Maddow is on suicide watch, but nobody cares about him

If she suicides on live tv, hundreds, ok dozens, of viewers will be traumatized

 

[g5000]

Page 118:

a. Obstructive act. The President's repeated efforts to get McGahn to create a record denying that the President had directed him to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness if he testified consistently with his memory, rather than with what the record said.


Page 120:

c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn's account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President's conduct toward the investigation.

 

[edward37]

On pages 111 - 112 of Volume 2, there is another documented example of Trump attempting to obstruct justice when he tried to force Sessions to unrecuse himself, fire Mueller, and restrict the scope of the investigation.

I’m more curious about the pages where Mueller explains why that’s insufficient evidence for a conviction

Mueller said that the people who came before him lied their asses off and if they didn't he might have had sufficient evidence

 

[edward37]

Page 118:

a. Obstructive act. The President's repeated efforts to get McGahn to create a record denying that the President had directed him to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness if he testified consistently with his memory, rather than with what the record said.


Page 120:

c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn's account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President's conduct toward the investigation.

McGahn said trump asked him to do some terrible s**t

 

[DigitalDrifter]

So I jumped to Volume II based on the statements on page 16.

On page 97 of Volume II (page 309 of the pdf), we find this:

a. Obstructive act. The President's effort to send Sessions a message through Lewandowski would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.


Mueller then lays down the facts which proves just that in the following paragraphs, until we come to this:

c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the President's efforts to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President's and his campaign's conduct.

But we have had a thorough investigation, and there is no conclusion that Trump obstructed, so what makes you believe anything more will come out of this that will PROVE obstruction ?

 

[Dick Foster]

On pages 111 - 112 of Volume 2, there is another documented example of Trump attempting to obstruct justice when he tried to force Sessions to unrecuse himself, fire Mueller, and restrict the scope of the investigation.

Keep hanging in there dumbass, that trophy is within your grasp. Maybe all the other shitforbrains will throw in the towel leaving you winner by default.

 

[edward37]

Rachel Maddow is on suicide watch, but nobody cares about him

If she suicides on live tv, hundreds, ok dozens, of viewers will be traumatized

Not so with Scump If he did the right thing the world would be partying

 

[Auld Phart]

14 investigations going to other justice dept offices Trump and company still in deep bawanga

I have no doubt, if they keep digging, they will find actionable evidence.



(It may be written in Chinese, but they'll 'find' it)

 

[Hale]

Very few Lefties here.

What's the deal, guys, are you busy scrubbing your accounts to remove those embarrassing "Trump is going to prison" posts?

Sorry, it's too late. You look like the fools you are.

 

[AntonToo]

So I jumped to Volume II based on the statements on page 16.

On page 97 of Volume II (page 309 of the pdf), we find this:

a. Obstructive act. The President's effort to send Sessions a message through Lewandowski would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.


Mueller then lays down the facts which proves just that in the following paragraphs, until we come to this:

c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the President's efforts to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President's and his campaign's conduct.

But we have had a thorough investigation, and there is no conclusion that Trump obstructed, so what makes you believe anything more will come out of this that will PROVE obstruction ?

It may still be bad enough for impeachment.

Remember, Congress is the judge and jury in that proceeding and if they believe that is Obstruction (As any reasonable person would) then it is.

 

[Claudette]

Russiagate is dead.

Now, let's have a proper investigation into Obamagate. Mueller did not investigate the origin of the fake dossier and the Clinton-DNC collusion with foreign agents to produce it.

I'm sure Barr's investigation will uncover a lot. His report should be very illuminating.