What The Mueller Report ACTUALLY States

[M14 Shooter]

Laugh all you like; that is what it is. Mueller documented it.
Trump demonstrated a pattern of obstructive behavior.

But no corrupt intent.
Thus, no obstruction.

 

[caddo kid]

So, you only re-enforce my suspicion; you HATE the fact that Congress is responsible for holding the executive in check, a basic tenet of The Constitution.

You obviously HATE the very document that IS our nation.

You are one sad sack of shit.

What the FUCK have I been saying this whole damn time?

IMPEACH HIM!!!

I am calling for your commie party to impeach. How does that "re-enforce" (I think you mean reinforce) your incorrect and idiotic suspicion that I allegedly hate checks and balances?

YOU hate the very document that is our nation is founded upon because you hate the electoral college and want to undo the results of an election.

Impeach, bitches. I am calling on you to take constitutional steps to remove Trump.

DO IT

.

I don't have a "party"

Neither does The Constitution

I know you hate The Constitution but then that's your problem

 

[georgephillip]

Who's proven "Russiagate" was a total joke?

/—-/ All made up bs designed to harm the president during the run up to 2020. Nothing more.

—-/ All made up bs designed to harm the president during the run up to 2020. Nothing more

Trump is perfectly capable of self-destruction without any help.

Or hadn't you noticed?

LMAO.

You just told 10,000 lies in one Meme.

if you would take Putin's Dick out of your ass, you might actually have a lucid and coherent point once in your life.

Loving Hairy Manbutt is no way to live your life, son.

LMAO.

You just told 10,000 lies in one Meme.

if you would take Putin's Dick out of your ass, you might actually have a lucid and coherent point once in your life.

This is your dog in this fight?

Seriously?

Like I said, pretty much Every Liberal Man is Gay, Effeminate or Transgender, Metroxexual, or just Sexually Confused or is a Pedo.
Even their own women don't really like them. Only other Gay and Effeminate, Sexually Confused Men can tolerate Liberal so called "men".

It's never too late to get help.

 

[Crepitus]

There seems to be some confusion concerning what the SC Mueller report actually contains.

Many here @ USMB seem to love to discuss the Mueller report but it is pretty obvious that 99.99% of the members here that comment on the report have NOT read the report.
I believe we need to set the record straight on a couple of the FACTS within the Mueller report.

I keep hearing members here @ USMB make really stupid statements concerning the Mueller investigation. One of the dumbest implications I constantly hear from USMB members is that there was no crime so, there could be no obstruction. That is complete baloney folks.

If we look at Volume II of the report, page 368 of the PDF, section L., Overarching Factual Issues, we can learn there is precedent law in place that precludes any underlying crime from an obstruction process. Please see the below from page 369 of the PDF of the Mueller report.

U.S. Department of Justice Atter11ey Werk Preettet // May Cetttaitt Material Preteetee U11eer Fee. R . Cril'H. P. 6(e) Second, many obstruction cases involve the attempted or actual cover-up of an underlying crime. Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had an improper obstructive purpose, see, e.g. , United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 1988), or that he contemplated an effect on an official proceeding, see, e.g., United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558, 591 (2d Cir. 2015). But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating, in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that "obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime"). Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.

There you have it folks: No underlying crime need be proven for an obstruction case to be determined, and/or pursued.



Now, on to the next observation. Many members here @ USMB continue to (erroneously) voice that there was NO obstruction by Trump, and/or no attempts by Trump to obstruct the Mueller investigation.
That is COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

The numerous attempts by Trump to obstruct the Mueller investigation can be learned by reading pages 224 to 448 of the PDF.

So, in conclusion, I hope this will help to educate the many here @ USMB that continue to make erroneous claims concerning the Mueller report, Trump’s documented attempts to obstruct the investigation, and the fact that there is NO need to prove any underlying criminal activity to pursue an obstruction case.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

You’re welcome.

They aren't gonna read it. tRump said it exonerated him totally and Hannity backed him up so that's all they needed to hear.

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

They are used to being led around by the nose, can't really expect them to think for themselves when they've got talk radio and faix news to do it for them.

 

[caddo kid]

How many fucking times are you gonna repeat INTENT, INTENT, INTENT, INTENT, INTENT,

Until you recognize the fact the crime of obstruction requires corrupt intent, and without said intent, as Mueller said, there can be no obstruction of justice.
When will you choose to accept the truth?

Mueller addresses INTENT no less than 10 tiimes between pages 227 & 368.

You still have no fucking clue what Mueller said about it.

Learn how to read and stop spamming the thread with your INTENT bullshit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They are used to being led around by the nose, can't really expect them to think for themselves when they've got talk radio and faix news to do it for them.

An -impressive- illustration of irony.
WELL done.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Mueller addresses INTENT no less than 10 tiimes between pages 227 & 368.

But not once did he mention, describe or declare a corrupt intent.
Not once.
Thus, no obstruction.

Why do you refuse to recognize the fact the crime of obstruction requires corrupt intent, and without said intent, as Mueller said, there can be no obstruction of justice.

 

[Crepitus]

Lol. Let me know when you make one.

Thank you for confirming your concession.

Wonk wonk wonk.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Lol. Let me know when you make one.

Thank you for confirming your concession.

Wonk wonk wonk.

And again - thank you.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

How many fucking times are you gonna repeat INTENT, INTENT, INTENT, INTENT, INTENT, INTENT, INTENT, INTENT, INTENT, in the damn thread?????????????? You continue to WHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE ABOUT INTENT.

Mueller addresses INTENT a minimum of TEN TIMES between pages 227 to 368 of the report.

Each comment of the TEN COMMENTS CONCERNING INTENT are specifically related to each instance of obstruction by Trump.

If you are TOO DAMN LAZY to go read it then stop WHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINING about INTENT.

Like I said, pretty much Every Liberal Man is Gay, Effeminate or Transgender, Metroxexual, or just Sexually Confused or is a Pedo.
Even their own women don't really like them. Only other Gay and Effeminate, Sexually Confused Men can tolerate Liberal so called "men".

Mueller addresses INTENT a minimum of TEN TIMES between pages 227 to 368 of the report.

Each comment of the TEN COMMENTS CONCERNING INTENT are specifically related to each instance of obstruction by Trump.

Here's another life-long Republican's thoughts about INTENT:

James Comey: 'It sure looks like' Trump had criminal intent to commit obstruction of justice - CNNPolitics

"Washington (CNN)Former FBI Director James Comey said Thursday that 'it sure looks like' President Donald Trump had criminal intent to commit obstruction of justice during special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.

"At a CNN town hall in Washington, Anderson Cooper asked Comey whether, based on the redacted version of Mueller's report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, he believed Trump had criminal intent to commit obstruction.

"'It sure looks like he did, in connection with a couple episodes -- the direction to (former White House counsel) Don McGahn to get the special counsel fired is to my mind a flaming example' of criminal intent, Comey said."

 

[Cellblock2429]

Mueller addresses INTENT no less than 10 tiimes between pages 227 & 368.

But not once did he mention, describe or declare a corrupt intent.
Not once.
Thus, no obstruction.

Why do you refuse to recognize the fact the crime of obstruction requires corrupt intent, and without said intent, as Mueller said, there can be no obstruction of justice.

/——/ Didn’t Hildabeast get off because it wasn’t her intent to distribute classified information?

 

[Crepitus]

Mueller addresses INTENT no less than 10 tiimes between pages 227 & 368.

But not once did he mention, describe or declare a corrupt intent.
Not once.
Thus, no obstruction.

Why do you refuse to recognize the fact the crime of obstruction requires corrupt intent, and without said intent, as Mueller said, there can be no obstruction of justice.

Hanging on an adjective. (That's a word that describes another word, like "corrupt" can describe "intent")

 

[M14 Shooter]

Mueller addresses INTENT no less than 10 tiimes between pages 227 & 368.

But not once did he mention, describe or declare a corrupt intent.
Not once.
Thus, no obstruction.
Why do you refuse to recognize the fact the crime of obstruction requires corrupt intent, and without said intent, as Mueller said, there can be no obstruction of justice.

Hanging on an adjective. (That's a word that describes another word, like "corrupt" can describe "intent")

You mean "hanging" on the legal definition of obstruction of justice.

The law:
18 U.S. Code § 1505.
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...
18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Mueller:
"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."

 

[Crepitus]

Mueller addresses INTENT no less than 10 tiimes between pages 227 & 368.

But not once did he mention, describe or declare a corrupt intent.
Not once.
Thus, no obstruction.
Why do you refuse to recognize the fact the crime of obstruction requires corrupt intent, and without said intent, as Mueller said, there can be no obstruction of justice.

Hanging on an adjective. (That's a word that describes another word, like "corrupt" can describe "intent")

You mean "hanging" on the legal definition of obstruction of justice.

The law:
18 U.S. Code § 1505.
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...
18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Mueller:
"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."

Oh just stop, you're BORING.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Mueller addresses INTENT no less than 10 tiimes between pages 227 & 368.

But not once did he mention, describe or declare a corrupt intent.
Not once.
Thus, no obstruction.
Why do you refuse to recognize the fact the crime of obstruction requires corrupt intent, and without said intent, as Mueller said, there can be no obstruction of justice.

Hanging on an adjective. (That's a word that describes another word, like "corrupt" can describe "intent")

You mean "hanging" on the legal definition of obstruction of justice.

The law:
18 U.S. Code § 1505.
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...
18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Mueller:
"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."

Oh just stop, you're BORING.

I, again, accept your concession of the point.

 

[Crepitus]

Mueller addresses INTENT no less than 10 tiimes between pages 227 & 368.

But not once did he mention, describe or declare a corrupt intent.
Not once.
Thus, no obstruction.
Why do you refuse to recognize the fact the crime of obstruction requires corrupt intent, and without said intent, as Mueller said, there can be no obstruction of justice.

Hanging on an adjective. (That's a word that describes another word, like "corrupt" can describe "intent")

You mean "hanging" on the legal definition of obstruction of justice.

The law:
18 U.S. Code § 1505.
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...
18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Mueller:
"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."

Oh just stop, you're BORING.

I, again, accept your concession of the point.

I conceed you have a point.

It's at the top of your head.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But not once did he mention, describe or declare a corrupt intent.
Not once.
Thus, no obstruction.
Why do you refuse to recognize the fact the crime of obstruction requires corrupt intent, and without said intent, as Mueller said, there can be no obstruction of justice.

Hanging on an adjective. (That's a word that describes another word, like "corrupt" can describe "intent")

You mean "hanging" on the legal definition of obstruction of justice.

The law:
18 U.S. Code § 1505.
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...
18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Mueller:
"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."

Oh just stop, you're BORING.

I, again, accept your concession of the point.

I conceed you have a point.
It's at the top of your head.

Good to see you recognize you do not have a meaningful response to what I said, re: corrupt

 

[caddo kid]

Laugh all you like; that is what it is. Mueller documented it.
Trump demonstrated a pattern of obstructive behavior.

But no corrupt intent.
Thus, no obstruction.

Mueller specifies no less than ten commentaries in regard to Trump's intent as related to Trump's obstructive behaviors.
These can be found within Mueller's report on the (Volume II) pages listed below.
Pages 46 to 48
Pages 60 to 61
Pages 75 to 77
Pages 89 to 90
Pages 97 to 98
Pages 106 to 107
Pages 112 to 113
Page 120
Pages 132 to 133
Pages 155 to 156
These instances done at the hand of Trump himself & Trump's proxies, involve among other items, attempts by Trump to influence a jury verdict, acts of retaliation by Trump against witnesses, encouraging witnesses NOT to cooperate with the investigation, requesting counsel lie to investigators, etc.
These and other obstructive behaviors by Trump & Trump proxies at Trump's direction, not only demonstrate corrupt intent, the repeated pattern of obstructive activities by Trump also demonstrate someone that is willing to circumvent the judicial process at nearly every step.
Any federal prosecutor could have easily made a solid prosecution with this evidence, replete with multiple convictions.
AGAIN, the only reason Trump was not indicted is the fact that Trump is a sitting POTUS that is (currently) protected by the DOJ OLC concept that a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted.

Now, stop spamming the thread with your shit about intent, go read, and learn.

 

[Indeependent]

Mueller specifies no less than ten commentaries in regard to Trump's intent as related to Trump's obstructive behaviors.
These can be found within Mueller's report on the (Volume II) pages listed below.
Pages 46 to 48
Pages 60 to 61
Pages 75 to 77
Pages 89 to 90
Pages 97 to 98
Pages 106 to 107
Pages 112 to 113
Page 120
Pages 132 to 133
Pages 155 to 156
These instances done at the hand of Trump himself & Trump's proxies, involve among other items, attempts by Trump to influence a jury verdict, acts of retaliation by Trump against witnesses, encouraging witnesses NOT to cooperate with the investigation, requesting counsel lie to investigators, etc.
These and other obstructive behaviors by Trump & Trump proxies at Trump's direction, not only demonstrate corrupt intent, the repeated pattern of obstructive activities by Trump also demonstrate someone that is willing to circumvent the judicial process at nearly every step.
Any federal prosecutor could have easily made a solid prosecution with this evidence, replete with multiple convictions.
AGAIN, the only reason Trump was not indicted is the fact that Trump is a sitting POTUS that is (currently) protected by the DOJ OLC concept that a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted.

Now, stop spamming the thread with your shit about intent, go read, and learn.

Not cool to Copy/Paste without crediting the source.

 

[jc456]

Mueller addresses INTENT no less than 10 tiimes between pages 227 & 368.

But not once did he mention, describe or declare a corrupt intent.
Not once.
Thus, no obstruction.
Why do you refuse to recognize the fact the crime of obstruction requires corrupt intent, and without said intent, as Mueller said, there can be no obstruction of justice.

Hanging on an adjective. (That's a word that describes another word, like "corrupt" can describe "intent")

You mean "hanging" on the legal definition of obstruction of justice.

The law:
18 U.S. Code § 1505.
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...
18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Mueller:
"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."

Oh just stop, you're BORING.

oh the irony of that post.