What The Mueller Report ACTUALLY States

[Defiant1]

I read the entire Mueller report, some of it I have read multiple times.

Oh.. so then you saw this:

"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 himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others."

And this:

"Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President’s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct."

"Requires the consideration of possible motives", other than corruption. << Reasonable doubt

Thus ends your fantasies about obstruction

No, it does not.

You & all the Trumpers can keep on screaming about how Barr stated Mueller's report exonerated Trump.

You & all the Trumpers can keep on screaming about how Trump stated Mueller's report exonerated Trump.

This is yet to be a 'done deal' ................. stay tuned ................

Stay tuned for what?

Who is going to file charges?
Barr?

 

[caddo kid]

Trumpers are foremost lazy retarded fucks & they refuse to read anything

In contrast to people such as yourself that refuse to read anything that does not confirm your bigoted , hyper-partisan preconceptions.

I read the entire Mueller report, some of it I have read multiple times.

How many times have you read the Mueller report? Have you read even one sentence of the report?

Do you believe the report is "hyper-partisan?"

I received nothing bigoted by reading the Mueller report.

You sir are a complete fucking moron.

The report is irrelevant.

Mueller didn't find any reason to file charges, case over.
The report was confidential to the AG.
It didn't have to be released.

No charges, case over.

You did not read the report, obviously.

Mueller emphatically states there was no plan to indict Trump, no matter the evidence.
Also, Mueller agreed with the OLC assessment from the DOJ that a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted.

Try reading something next time, instead of looking like the ignorant dumb ass you are.

 

[caddo kid]

I read the entire Mueller report, some of it I have read multiple times.

Oh.. so then you saw this:

"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 himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others."

And this:

"Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President’s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct."

"Requires the consideration of possible motives", other than corruption. << Reasonable doubt

Thus ends your fantasies about obstruction

No, it does not.

You & all the Trumpers can keep on screaming about how Barr stated Mueller's report exonerated Trump.

You & all the Trumpers can keep on screaming about how Trump stated Mueller's report exonerated Trump.

This is yet to be a 'done deal' ................. stay tuned ................

Stay tuned for what?

Who is going to file charges?
Barr?

If you can't keep up you may as well not comment

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thus ends your fantasies about obstruction

No, it does not.

It does, unless you can show Trump acted we/ corrupt intent.
And you can't.
And so, while you may continue your fantasies about obstruction, they are not based in fact.

 

[M14 Shooter]

.
Mueller emphatically states there was no plan to indict Trump, no matter the evidence.

Mueller stated obstruction requires a specific intent, and that he could not prove said intent.
Emphatically.

 

[caddo kid]

.
Mueller emphatically states there was no plan to indict Trump, no matter the evidence.

Mueller stated obstruction requires a specific intent, and that he could not prove said intent.
Emphatically.

You can't get over the fact that there was NEVER going to be an indictment of Trump as a result of the investigation, even if they could have proven Trump shot & killed an American on 5th Avenue.


Although this report does not contain a traditional prosecution decision or declination decision, the evidence supports several general conclusions relevant to analysis of the facts concerning the President's course of conduct. (Page 368)

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President' s conduct. (Page 394)

There was NEVER going to be a indictment/any indictments against Trump.

 

[M14 Shooter]

.
Mueller emphatically states there was no plan to indict Trump, no matter the evidence.

Mueller stated obstruction requires a specific intent, and that he could not prove said intent.
Emphatically.

You can't get over the fact that there was NEVER going to be an indictment of Trump...

You cannot get over the fact Trump did not commit obstruction.
While you may continue your fantasies about obstruction, they are not based in fact.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I really hope Nunes is indicted for obstruction of justice and witness tampering.

It states members of Congress contacted Flynn in attempts to influence his position in regard to the Mueller investigation.

The question begs: If Trump & his associates were innocent of any conspiracy with any Russian persons, why did these people act like they were guilty?

/——/ You’re confusing acting guilty with total outrage at being falsely accused and having his family attacked. But you’re simple minded and can’t tell the difference.

So, you imply an innocent man should & does act & look guilty; you are a complete dumb ass

An innocent man can act however he likes, until judged guilty in a court of law the man is still innocent.

If you were being investigated by law enforcement would you go out of your way to act & to look guilty, even if you were projecting you are innocent of any potential connection to the investigation?

LOFL

/—-/ I reject your premise. You saying Trump “acting” guilty 24/7 doesn’t make it true, it’s just you mindlessly bashing the President.

 

[M14 Shooter]

/—-/ I reject your premise. You saying Trump “acting” guilty 24/7 doesn’t make it true, it’s just you mindlessly bashing the President.

Like most on the pre-pubescent lunatic left, he started with "I hate Trump!!", worked backwards from there, and doesn't care about the truth,.

 

[caddo kid]

.
Mueller emphatically states there was no plan to indict Trump, no matter the evidence.

Mueller stated obstruction requires a specific intent, and that he could not prove said intent.
Emphatically.

You can't get over the fact that there was NEVER going to be an indictment of Trump...

You cannot get over the fact Trump did not commit obstruction.
While you may continue your fantasies about obstruction, they are not based in fact.

There are a minimum of 10 documented cases in which Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation.
These are documented within the report, pages 227 to 368 of the PDF.
If, and only if Trump were not POTUS, Trump would have faced multiple indictments for obstruction.
Besides those FACTS, each of the 10 instances of attempted obstruction by Trump have specific related commentary concerning INTENT.
So, you can KEEP WHINING like a jack ass, or you can go read the report.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are a minimum of 10 documented cases in which Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation.

Like Mueller, you cannot prove corrupt intent intent.
Absent that corrupt intent, as Mueller said, there can be no obstruction of justice.

While you may continue your fantasies about obstruction, they are not based in fact.

 

[Faun]

Thus ends your fantasies about obstruction

No, it does not.

It does, unless you can show Trump acted we/ corrupt intent.
And you can't.
And so, while you may continue your fantasies about obstruction, they are not based in fact.

LOLOL

Dayum, Spunky, you're just fuckin' ineducable, huh? Even after being shown that statute doesn't state what you think it does, you still cling to your ignorance by yet again repeating stupidity.

Again, corruption is not a required element of that law in order to violate it. The word, "or," as highlighted below, means any one or more of those elements is required...

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress--

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331 ), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.​

 

[Defiant1]

I read the entire Mueller report, some of it I have read multiple times.

Oh.. so then you saw this:

"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 himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others."

And this:

"Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President’s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct."

"Requires the consideration of possible motives", other than corruption. << Reasonable doubt

Thus ends your fantasies about obstruction

No, it does not.

You & all the Trumpers can keep on screaming about how Barr stated Mueller's report exonerated Trump.

You & all the Trumpers can keep on screaming about how Trump stated Mueller's report exonerated Trump.

This is yet to be a 'done deal' ................. stay tuned ................

Stay tuned for what?

Who is going to file charges?
Barr?

If you can't keep up you may as well not comment

What did I miss?
Is the House going to impeach?
Please, please tell me the House is going to move forward to impeach.
You seem to have inside information.
Are you going to help the dems in the House?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What did I miss?
Is the House going to impeach?

Absent a provable crime, they can't impeach.
I mean, they CAN, but it will be a disaster for them.
So, lets cross our fingers and hope their partisan bigotry overruns their stupid.

 

[Defiant1]

Thus ends your fantasies about obstruction

No, it does not.

It does, unless you can show Trump acted we/ corrupt intent.
And you can't.
And so, while you may continue your fantasies about obstruction, they are not based in fact.

LOLOL

Dayum, Spunky, you're just fuckin' ineducable, huh? Even after being shown that statute doesn't state what you think it does, you still cling to your ignorance by yet again repeating stupidity.

Again, corruption is not a required element of that law in order to violate it. The word, "or," as highlighted below, means any one or more of those elements is required...

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress--

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331 ), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.​

Why do you keep quoting these things?
Are you expecting Barr to change his mind?
Do you think Barr is going to reopen his investigation?

What are you expecting to happen?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why do you keep quoting these things?
Are you expecting Barr to change his mind?
Do you think Barr is going to reopen his investigation?
What are you expecting to happen?

He's in denial..
It's the first step.

 

[Defiant1]

What did I miss?
Is the House going to impeach?

Absent a provable crime, they can't impeach.
I mean, they CAN, but it will be a disaster for them.
So, lets cross our fingers and hope their partisan bigotry overruns their stupid.

The dem leadership is too chicken shit to start impeachment.
I believe they are trying to start a faux impeachment in the media.
We should continue triggering these insane libs to demand their leaders to start real impeachment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The dem leadership is too chicken shit to start impeachment.
I believe they are trying to start a faux impeachment in the media.
We should continue triggering these insane libs to demand their leaders to start real impeachment.

The media has no issue carrying the Democrat's water - If I were Trump, I'd respond by asking if the House leadership plans to impeach him, or just levy accusations they know they cannot prove.

"If the Democrats are so sure I broke the law, why haven't they impeached me? Why haven't they begun the process? Simple - they know I didn't break the law".

 

[Cellblock2429]

.
Mueller emphatically states there was no plan to indict Trump, no matter the evidence.

Mueller stated obstruction requires a specific intent, and that he could not prove said intent.
Emphatically.

You can't get over the fact that there was NEVER going to be an indictment of Trump...

You cannot get over the fact Trump did not commit obstruction.
While you may continue your fantasies about obstruction, they are not based in fact.

There are a minimum of 10 documented cases in which Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation.
These are documented within the report, pages 227 to 368 of the PDF.
If, and only if Trump were not POTUS, Trump would have faced multiple indictments for obstruction.
Besides those FACTS, each of the 10 instances of attempted obstruction by Trump have specific related commentary concerning INTENT.
So, you can KEEP WHINING like a jack ass, or you can go read the report.

/——-/ “Attempted” I cant stop laughing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

/——-/ “Attempted” I cant stop laughing.

He's a child - don't set the bar too high.