This was an actual headline concerning the mueller report release

[sakinago]

As I've said many times, the party has completely lost its shit. And that includes the media.
.

It makes me so angry. They can't see how close we are to forging a new path. Trump voters are by and large coming around to a more "left" leaning economic and foreign policies but they won't stop hammering us with their identity and gender hysteria which is the main point of contention between the two camps. No self respecting white male will ever, ever, ever sign on to that stuff.

And they know it. That's why they want to destroy us. Then they call us racist for getting defensive.

Okay, this is just a strange thing to say.

I am no Trump supporter, but no sane person moves leftward.

Supporting never ending military intervention is not sane. Supporting multinational corporations' rape of the world is not sane.

As I said, no sane person goes leftward.

Globalist capitalism will eventually result in a system of government functionally identical to communism.

Hahahaha uhwhut? There’s a lot of variables in there that I don’t think you’re taking into account. That was enough of a leap to cross the Grand Canyon as well as wildly off topic.

So when China went from a communist economic system to a more capitalistic one (and brought untold millions of their people out of poverty), is that in preparation to turn back into communism? Were China and Russia just ahead of the time, and are waiting for the rest of the world to catch up to communism?

 

[sakinago]

"I'm fucked" is in the Mueller report. Sure, it's a sensationalist part of the Mueller report however unlike your post the press was accurately representing the Mueller report.

Say you started a new job and were accused of a horrendous crime.
Whether you committed the crime or not your fucked!

Neat, what does that have to do with my post?

I know you dems are shallow thinkers but damn!!!

Shallow thinkers? Hell they don't think at all and most aren't equipped to think. Their masters ring a bell and they start to drool on cue. Just like they do right here.

Dems are like Browns fans,always losing.

That might change soon. The browns I mean, not the dems. They at least have the talent to start winning some games

 

[impuretrash]

It makes me so angry. They can't see how close we are to forging a new path. Trump voters are by and large coming around to a more "left" leaning economic and foreign policies but they won't stop hammering us with their identity and gender hysteria which is the main point of contention between the two camps. No self respecting white male will ever, ever, ever sign on to that stuff.

And they know it. That's why they want to destroy us. Then they call us racist for getting defensive.

Okay, this is just a strange thing to say.

I am no Trump supporter, but no sane person moves leftward.

Supporting never ending military intervention is not sane. Supporting multinational corporations' rape of the world is not sane.

As I said, no sane person goes leftward.

Globalist capitalism will eventually result in a system of government functionally identical to communism.

Hahahaha uhwhut? There’s a lot of variables in there that I don’t think you’re taking into account. That was enough of a leap to cross the Grand Canyon as well as wildly off topic.

So when China went from a communist economic system to a more capitalistic one (and brought untold millions of their people out of poverty), is that in preparation to turn back into communism? Were China and Russia just ahead of the time, and are waiting for the rest of the world to catch up to communism?

What's the difference between being ruled by a massive government bureaucracy or being ruled by corporations?

 

[sakinago]

So, YOU blame "they" and you blame "journalism" for putting this out there for public consumption; BIG FUCKING DEAL.

Does that mean it did not happen? NO, it does NOT.

What YOU & your kind need to get over is the FACT that Trump had CRIMINAL INTENT as far as the 'obstruction' issue is concerned BUT Trump subordinates actually saved Trump from an 'obstruction' charge by refusing Trump's numerous requests.

WHY in Hell are YOU & others here too goddamn fucking stupid to grasp that?

Where, post that part of mueller’s Ir nunes reports!

It is in the report. WHY in Hell are you fuck wads too fucking lazy to go & read the goddamn fucking report?

dude it's over. no criminal intent. and again, you can post the line from the report that says there was. I'm offering you the opportunity to prove your claim. I know it's over. Criminally trump and his campaign are cleared, exonerated. anything nadler does is his political suicide. urge him on for me.

caddo just can't come to grips that it's over and he lost. When you lose, it's bad enough.
But, when you have the TDS affliction and lose....it's a guaranteed psychotic episode as you just witnessed.

There is nothing criminal....that is the bottom line.

I haven't lost a thing.

If you're OK with any POTUS making massive amounts of attempts to obstruct DOJ investigations then I am not surprised that you hate the rule of law.

That isn't my problem; that is your lack of morality as far as the rule of law is concerned.

That means you lost something; not me.

Obstruct with corrupt intent is what you have to prove. How are you going to explain his intent to obstruct justice for a crime he didn’t commit? You keep saying the intent is there, but you’re not explaining how you’re gonna prove his intent. Mueller even said in his report that if he can recommend indictment, he will. He didn’t, he punted it to the AG to decide. Mueller was even using a very loose defintion of intent, and even threw in stuff that’s not even law like “attempts” even when they are lawful acts. Still mueller couldn’t recommend indictment. So how are you gonna prove what mueller couldn’t?

 

[sakinago]

Okay, this is just a strange thing to say.

I am no Trump supporter, but no sane person moves leftward.

Supporting never ending military intervention is not sane. Supporting multinational corporations' rape of the world is not sane.

As I said, no sane person goes leftward.

Globalist capitalism will eventually result in a system of government functionally identical to communism.

Hahahaha uhwhut? There’s a lot of variables in there that I don’t think you’re taking into account. That was enough of a leap to cross the Grand Canyon as well as wildly off topic.

So when China went from a communist economic system to a more capitalistic one (and brought untold millions of their people out of poverty), is that in preparation to turn back into communism? Were China and Russia just ahead of the time, and are waiting for the rest of the world to catch up to communism?

What's the difference between being ruled by a massive government bureaucracy or being ruled by corporations?

Corporations still have to compete for your dollar. Even in the craziest one in a million worst case scenarios where they don’t have to compete for your dollar, there is still the government that’s above them. There is no one above the government, and extremely less so when it’s a communist government. That’s a pretty big discrepancy there.

 

[caddo kid]

Where, post that part of mueller’s Ir nunes reports!

It is in the report. WHY in Hell are you fuck wads too fucking lazy to go & read the goddamn fucking report?

dude it's over. no criminal intent. and again, you can post the line from the report that says there was. I'm offering you the opportunity to prove your claim. I know it's over. Criminally trump and his campaign are cleared, exonerated. anything nadler does is his political suicide. urge him on for me.

caddo just can't come to grips that it's over and he lost. When you lose, it's bad enough.
But, when you have the TDS affliction and lose....it's a guaranteed psychotic episode as you just witnessed.

There is nothing criminal....that is the bottom line.

I haven't lost a thing.

If you're OK with any POTUS making massive amounts of attempts to obstruct DOJ investigations then I am not surprised that you hate the rule of law.

That isn't my problem; that is your lack of morality as far as the rule of law is concerned.

That means you lost something; not me.

Obstruct with corrupt intent is what you have to prove. How are you going to explain his intent to obstruct justice for a crime he didn’t commit? You keep saying the intent is there, but you’re not explaining how you’re gonna prove his intent. Mueller even said in his report that if he can recommend indictment, he will. He didn’t, he punted it to the AG to decide. Mueller was even using a very loose defintion of intent, and even threw in stuff that’s not even law like “attempts” even when they are lawful acts. Still mueller couldn’t recommend indictment. So how are you gonna prove what mueller couldn’t?

Did you read Mueller's report? There were 10 instances sighted in which Trump ordered subordinates to obstruct the process of the investigation. That alone demonstrates intent to obstruct.
Mueller did not punt the obstruction issue to Barr; Mueller referred the obstruction issue to The US Congress.
Try getting your story correct next time.

 

[sakinago]

It is in the report. WHY in Hell are you fuck wads too fucking lazy to go & read the goddamn fucking report?

dude it's over. no criminal intent. and again, you can post the line from the report that says there was. I'm offering you the opportunity to prove your claim. I know it's over. Criminally trump and his campaign are cleared, exonerated. anything nadler does is his political suicide. urge him on for me.

caddo just can't come to grips that it's over and he lost. When you lose, it's bad enough.
But, when you have the TDS affliction and lose....it's a guaranteed psychotic episode as you just witnessed.

There is nothing criminal....that is the bottom line.

I haven't lost a thing.

If you're OK with any POTUS making massive amounts of attempts to obstruct DOJ investigations then I am not surprised that you hate the rule of law.

That isn't my problem; that is your lack of morality as far as the rule of law is concerned.

That means you lost something; not me.

Obstruct with corrupt intent is what you have to prove. How are you going to explain his intent to obstruct justice for a crime he didn’t commit? You keep saying the intent is there, but you’re not explaining how you’re gonna prove his intent. Mueller even said in his report that if he can recommend indictment, he will. He didn’t, he punted it to the AG to decide. Mueller was even using a very loose defintion of intent, and even threw in stuff that’s not even law like “attempts” even when they are lawful acts. Still mueller couldn’t recommend indictment. So how are you gonna prove what mueller couldn’t?

Did you read Mueller's report? There were 10 instances sighted in which Trump ordered subordinates to obstruct the process of the investigation. That alone demonstrates intent to obstruct.
Mueller did not punt the obstruction issue to Barr; Mueller referred the obstruction issue to The US Congress.
Try getting your story correct next time.

No mueller laid out 3 options, one was try to indict trump. 2 was do nothing. 3 (the one you’re referring too) is a path for congress to start an impeachment process. Way different.

Also, thank you for showing all of us you really do not understand intent. If speeding had a standard of intent to prove, and a cop pulled over someone speeding and that person said I’m running late for work which is why I’m speeding...that’s intent there. If a cop pulled someone over for speeding and they said sorry officer, I had no clue, I just got into zombie driving mode and was going with the pack or whatever...no intent.

 

[bripat9643]

YOU are a lying piece of fucking shit.

Give us ONE example where Trump even came close to obstruction and watch as I shove it up your ass.

scumbag liar

here is a clue, jackass: Don McGahn. He may have saved Trump's presidency by refusing to do as Trump ordered him to do.
McGahn twice refused Trump's orders to obstruct the investigation.

Now, get off your lazy ass & go read the report if you want to understand.

here you are again arguing against trump. he won, it's over, why are you still going on about McGahn. so what. what is it you think can happen? I told you the only option. you don't believe me? LOL.

Look shithead, I replied to the other member, HE wants me to do his reading for him. I told him the info is in the report & that he can go read the material himself, If you don't like that = not my problem. Why in Hell are you replying to me?

But there is nothing in the report about collusion or obstruction to charge trump. why is it important otherwise? just to bitch. we're use to that.

It goes to the very foundations of the system of checks & balances, just as Mueller himself stated within the report.

Mueller's opinion is that it is the function of Congress to hold (any) POTUS accountable for attempts at obstruction.

If you would have read the report you would already know this, and you would not be asking me, here.

Next time; don't be so fucking lazy. Read.

"obstruction" of what, nimrod? If Mueller had enough evidence to indict, he would have done it. He knew he didn't, so he tried his sleazy end-around instead. He just wallowed in a vat of of sleazy innuendo that no prosecutor has any business making.

 

[jc456]

It is in the report. WHY in Hell are you fuck wads too fucking lazy to go & read the goddamn fucking report?

dude it's over. no criminal intent. and again, you can post the line from the report that says there was. I'm offering you the opportunity to prove your claim. I know it's over. Criminally trump and his campaign are cleared, exonerated. anything nadler does is his political suicide. urge him on for me.

caddo just can't come to grips that it's over and he lost. When you lose, it's bad enough.
But, when you have the TDS affliction and lose....it's a guaranteed psychotic episode as you just witnessed.

There is nothing criminal....that is the bottom line.

I haven't lost a thing.

If you're OK with any POTUS making massive amounts of attempts to obstruct DOJ investigations then I am not surprised that you hate the rule of law.

That isn't my problem; that is your lack of morality as far as the rule of law is concerned.

That means you lost something; not me.

Obstruct with corrupt intent is what you have to prove. How are you going to explain his intent to obstruct justice for a crime he didn’t commit? You keep saying the intent is there, but you’re not explaining how you’re gonna prove his intent. Mueller even said in his report that if he can recommend indictment, he will. He didn’t, he punted it to the AG to decide. Mueller was even using a very loose defintion of intent, and even threw in stuff that’s not even law like “attempts” even when they are lawful acts. Still mueller couldn’t recommend indictment. So how are you gonna prove what mueller couldn’t?

Did you read Mueller's report? There were 10 instances sighted in which Trump ordered subordinates to obstruct the process of the investigation. That alone demonstrates intent to obstruct.
Mueller did not punt the obstruction issue to Barr; Mueller referred the obstruction issue to The US Congress.
Try getting your story correct next time.

they didn't obstruct. dude, for someone who doesn't think they lost, are sure scrambling around trying to do the but, but, but, but. let me laugh at you. it's over as I stated. you can do whatever, but please, it's over.

 

[jc456]

dude it's over. no criminal intent. and again, you can post the line from the report that says there was. I'm offering you the opportunity to prove your claim. I know it's over. Criminally trump and his campaign are cleared, exonerated. anything nadler does is his political suicide. urge him on for me.

caddo just can't come to grips that it's over and he lost. When you lose, it's bad enough.
But, when you have the TDS affliction and lose....it's a guaranteed psychotic episode as you just witnessed.

There is nothing criminal....that is the bottom line.

I haven't lost a thing.

If you're OK with any POTUS making massive amounts of attempts to obstruct DOJ investigations then I am not surprised that you hate the rule of law.

That isn't my problem; that is your lack of morality as far as the rule of law is concerned.

That means you lost something; not me.

Obstruct with corrupt intent is what you have to prove. How are you going to explain his intent to obstruct justice for a crime he didn’t commit? You keep saying the intent is there, but you’re not explaining how you’re gonna prove his intent. Mueller even said in his report that if he can recommend indictment, he will. He didn’t, he punted it to the AG to decide. Mueller was even using a very loose defintion of intent, and even threw in stuff that’s not even law like “attempts” even when they are lawful acts. Still mueller couldn’t recommend indictment. So how are you gonna prove what mueller couldn’t?

Did you read Mueller's report? There were 10 instances sighted in which Trump ordered subordinates to obstruct the process of the investigation. That alone demonstrates intent to obstruct.
Mueller did not punt the obstruction issue to Barr; Mueller referred the obstruction issue to The US Congress.
Try getting your story correct next time.

No mueller laid out 3 options, one was try to indict trump. 2 was do nothing. 3 (the one you’re referring too) is a path for congress to start an impeachment process. Way different.

Also, thank you for showing all of us you really do not understand intent. If speeding had a standard of intent to prove, and a cop pulled over someone speeding and that person said I’m running late for work which is why I’m speeding...that’s intent there. If a cop pulled someone over for speeding and they said sorry officer, I had no clue, I just got into zombie driving mode and was going with the pack or whatever...no intent.

no, intent in your example is the cop pulls over a driver for doing the speed limit and the driver says I wanted to speed however, and gets a ticket for thinking about speeding in his model.

 

[bripat9643]

It is in the report. WHY in Hell are you fuck wads too fucking lazy to go & read the goddamn fucking report?

dude it's over. no criminal intent. and again, you can post the line from the report that says there was. I'm offering you the opportunity to prove your claim. I know it's over. Criminally trump and his campaign are cleared, exonerated. anything nadler does is his political suicide. urge him on for me.

caddo just can't come to grips that it's over and he lost. When you lose, it's bad enough.
But, when you have the TDS affliction and lose....it's a guaranteed psychotic episode as you just witnessed.

There is nothing criminal....that is the bottom line.

I haven't lost a thing.

If you're OK with any POTUS making massive amounts of attempts to obstruct DOJ investigations then I am not surprised that you hate the rule of law.

That isn't my problem; that is your lack of morality as far as the rule of law is concerned.

That means you lost something; not me.

Obstruct with corrupt intent is what you have to prove. How are you going to explain his intent to obstruct justice for a crime he didn’t commit? You keep saying the intent is there, but you’re not explaining how you’re gonna prove his intent. Mueller even said in his report that if he can recommend indictment, he will. He didn’t, he punted it to the AG to decide. Mueller was even using a very loose defintion of intent, and even threw in stuff that’s not even law like “attempts” even when they are lawful acts. Still mueller couldn’t recommend indictment. So how are you gonna prove what mueller couldn’t?

Did you read Mueller's report? There were 10 instances sighted in which Trump ordered subordinates to obstruct the process of the investigation. That alone demonstrates intent to obstruct.
Mueller did not punt the obstruction issue to Barr; Mueller referred the obstruction issue to The US Congress.
Try getting your story correct next time.

Wrong. None of those instances were examles of actual obstruction. It's perfectly legal for a president to fire anyone who works for him, including Mueller.

US obstruction of justice laws require intent

Obstruction of justice is a crime that requires more than overt acts. It also requires intent.

That principle helps explain special counsel Robert Mueller’s decision to veer away from pressing an obstruction case against President Donald Trump and instead leave it up to the US justice department.
​

Bottom line: no obstruction.

 

[Edgetho]

Wrong. None of those instances were examles of actual obstruction. It's perfectly legal for a president to fire anyone who works for him, including Mueller.

US obstruction of justice laws require intent

Obstruction of justice is a crime that requires more than overt acts. It also requires intent.

That principle helps explain special counsel Robert Mueller’s decision to veer away from pressing an obstruction case against President Donald Trump and instead leave it up to the US justice department.
​

Bottom line: no obstruction.

What dimocrap scum are too fucking stupid to understand is --

You need BOTH. Without an overt act, intent is irrelevant.

WITH an overt act, there MUST be intent as well. TOGETHER

You can NOT separate the two. They MUST be together.

Intent, by itself means nothing.

If you intend to fire a gun at somebody but don't, there is no violation of the law. period

dimocraps are not just scum, they're stupid

ALL of them

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Say you started a new job and were accused of a horrendous crime.
Whether you committed the crime or not your fucked!

Neat, what does that have to do with my post?

I know you dems are shallow thinkers but damn!!!

Shallow thinkers? Hell they don't think at all and most aren't equipped to think. Their masters ring a bell and they start to drool on cue. Just like they do right here.

Dems are like Browns fans,always losing.

That might change soon. The browns I mean, not the dems. They at least have the talent to start winning some games

I'll believe when I see it.
No doubt they have reason to be confident but never underestimate the ability of their front office to fuck things up.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The only reason that Trump wasn't nailed for obstruction is because when he told some of his people to do things that WOULD have obstructed the investigation, they simply didn't do what Trump told them to. More than likely, it wasn't out of loyalty to Trump, it was because they knew it was their asses too if caught.

 

[sakinago]

Neat, what does that have to do with my post?

I know you dems are shallow thinkers but damn!!!

Shallow thinkers? Hell they don't think at all and most aren't equipped to think. Their masters ring a bell and they start to drool on cue. Just like they do right here.

Dems are like Browns fans,always losing.

That might change soon. The browns I mean, not the dems. They at least have the talent to start winning some games

I'll believe when I see it.
No doubt they have reason to be confident but never underestimate the ability of their front office to fuck things up.

True dat, that front office has been a revolving tire fire. Zero of the scouts and GM they’ve employed the past decade should ever have get a job again. This GM seems to have the right idea. Took a risk on mayfield and that seems to have paid off, so far at least.

 

[caddo kid]

dude it's over. no criminal intent. and again, you can post the line from the report that says there was. I'm offering you the opportunity to prove your claim. I know it's over. Criminally trump and his campaign are cleared, exonerated. anything nadler does is his political suicide. urge him on for me.

caddo just can't come to grips that it's over and he lost. When you lose, it's bad enough.
But, when you have the TDS affliction and lose....it's a guaranteed psychotic episode as you just witnessed.

There is nothing criminal....that is the bottom line.

I haven't lost a thing.

If you're OK with any POTUS making massive amounts of attempts to obstruct DOJ investigations then I am not surprised that you hate the rule of law.

That isn't my problem; that is your lack of morality as far as the rule of law is concerned.

That means you lost something; not me.

Obstruct with corrupt intent is what you have to prove. How are you going to explain his intent to obstruct justice for a crime he didn’t commit? You keep saying the intent is there, but you’re not explaining how you’re gonna prove his intent. Mueller even said in his report that if he can recommend indictment, he will. He didn’t, he punted it to the AG to decide. Mueller was even using a very loose defintion of intent, and even threw in stuff that’s not even law like “attempts” even when they are lawful acts. Still mueller couldn’t recommend indictment. So how are you gonna prove what mueller couldn’t?

Did you read Mueller's report? There were 10 instances sighted in which Trump ordered subordinates to obstruct the process of the investigation. That alone demonstrates intent to obstruct.
Mueller did not punt the obstruction issue to Barr; Mueller referred the obstruction issue to The US Congress.
Try getting your story correct next time.

they didn't obstruct. dude, for someone who doesn't think they lost, are sure scrambling around trying to do the but, but, but, but. let me laugh at you. it's over as I stated. you can do whatever, but please, it's over.

Mueller handed the obstruction issue off to Congress; Sorry you are TOO FUCKING STUPID to grasp that idea.