What The Mueller Report ACTUALLY States

[Faun]

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.

Too bad there's no such law of which you speak.

 

[basquebromance]

hopefully we'll find out why Flynn lied.

Flynn lied, people died! Flynn lied, people died! Flynn lied, people died! Flynn lied, people died!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Agreed, M14 is a complete troll shit head.

What's that?
You -can't- cite where Mueller mentions, describes, declares, or even hints at a corrupt intent behind Trump's possibly obstructive acts?

That's right. You can't. Because they do not exist.

According to the law, if there is no corrupt intent, there is no obstruction.

 

[caddo kid]

Oh look; it' Lawyer M14

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh look; it' Lawyer M14

It's not -my- fault you refuse to understand the truth.

 

[Faun]

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."

LOLOL

You highlighted the wrong word there, Spunky. Here, lemme help ya...

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...​

See that? No matter how many times you insist corruption is a required element of that statute, the statute itself laughs in your face, along with everyone here who understands it; as the way the statute reads, as an example, an individual can simply Tweet something with the intent of influencing the "proper administration of the law" and be violation of that statute without committing any corruption.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Oh look - its lawyer caddo

 

[Faun]

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.

It is NOT 'copy & paste' jack ass.

I compiled it in a WORD file; go fuck yourself.

did mueller give Barr the last word in his report to decide the obstruction? yes or no.

Barr always had the last word. A Special Counsel can't prosecute.

 

[caddo kid]

In assessing the evidence we obtained, we relied on common principles that apply in any investigation. The issue of criminal intent is often inferred from circumstantial evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293, 1305 (I Ith Cir. 2016) ("[G]uilty knowledge can rarely be established by direct evidence .... Therefore, mens rea elements such as knowledge or intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence.") (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Robinson, 702 F.3d 22, 36 (2d Cir. 2012) ("The government's case rested on circumstantial evidence, but the mens rea elements of knowledge and intent can often be proved through circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom." ) (internal quotation marks omitted). The principle that intent can be inferred from circumstantial evidence is a necessity in criminal cases, given the right of a subject to assert his privilege against compelled self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and therefore decline to testify. Accordingly, determinations on intent are frequently reached without the opportunity to interview an investigatory subject.

page 227



Anyone (M14?) still desire to address intent like the spam shit you keep posting?
Take your BS to another thread ................

 

[caddo kid]

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.

It is NOT 'copy & paste' jack ass.

I compiled it in a WORD file; go fuck yourself.

did mueller give Barr the last word in his report to decide the obstruction? yes or no.

Barr always had the last word. A Special Counsel can't prosecute.

Current DOJ OLC determines a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted.

Not that Barr would shit on his meal ticket.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Anyone still desire to address intent? Take you BS to another thread ................

If you had any reasonable education at all, you'd understand this is an explanation of how a prosecutor might show corrupt intent, not a declaration of Trump acting with that intent.
As I said - you cannot show anything in the report where Mueller even hints at Trump acting with a corrupt intent.
Please - continue to prove me right at your leisure.

 

[Defiant1]

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.

It is NOT 'copy & paste' jack ass.

I compiled it in a WORD file; go fuck yourself.

did mueller give Barr the last word in his report to decide the obstruction? yes or no.

Barr always had the last word. A Special Counsel can't prosecute.

Current DOJ OLC determines a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted.

Not that Barr would shit on his meal ticket.

So again I ask what do you expect to happen?
Are you lobbying your congressman for impeachment?
Let's get it on...

 

[Faun]

Anyone still desire to address intent? Take you BS to another thread ................

If you had any reasonable education at all, you'd understand this is an explanation of how a prosecutor might show corrupt intent, not a declaration of Trump acting with that intent.
As I said - you cannot show anything in the report where Mueller even hints at Trump acting with a corrupt intent.
Please - continue to prove me right at your leisure.

LOL

Annnnd..... corrupt intent is still not required to violate that statute.

Hysterically, you still don't know the meaning of the word, "or."

 

[caddo kid]

Not cool to Copy/Paste without crediting the source.

It is NOT 'copy & paste' jack ass.

I compiled it in a WORD file; go fuck yourself.

did mueller give Barr the last word in his report to decide the obstruction? yes or no.

Barr always had the last word. A Special Counsel can't prosecute.

Current DOJ OLC determines a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted.

Not that Barr would shit on his meal ticket.

So again I ask what do you expect to happen?
Are you lobbying your congressman for impeachment?
Let's get it on...

Congress has the responsibility to proceed with articles of impeachment, IMO

They have more than enuff evidence of multiple attempts of obstruction documented by the SC investigation

Until such time as Congress initiates the process, Trump is above the law

Even if the Senate won't vote to impeach, the process is required under The Constitution

A clear message must be sent

 

[jc456]

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.

It is NOT 'copy & paste' jack ass.

I compiled it in a WORD file; go fuck yourself.

did mueller give Barr the last word in his report to decide the obstruction? yes or no.

Mueller could tell The Congress that point; not me.

You should go ask Mueller.

No input eh? Seems you should drop out of the discussion then

 

[caddo kid]

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.

It is NOT 'copy & paste' jack ass.

I compiled it in a WORD file; go fuck yourself.

did mueller give Barr the last word in his report to decide the obstruction? yes or no.

Mueller could tell The Congress that point; not me.

You should go ask Mueller.

No input eh? Seems you should drop out of the discussion then

re: post #294

pay attention

 

[jc456]

It is NOT 'copy & paste' jack ass.

I compiled it in a WORD file; go fuck yourself.

did mueller give Barr the last word in his report to decide the obstruction? yes or no.

Barr always had the last word. A Special Counsel can't prosecute.

Current DOJ OLC determines a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted.

Not that Barr would shit on his meal ticket.

So again I ask what do you expect to happen?
Are you lobbying your congressman for impeachment?
Let's get it on...

Congress has the responsibility to proceed with articles of impeachment, IMO

They have more than enuff evidence of multiple attempts of obstruction documented by the SC investigation

Until such time as Congress initiates the process, Trump is above the law

Even if the Senate won't vote to impeach, the process is required under The Constitution

A clear message must be sent

Why do you supposed they haven’t given your point ? I can tell you, but you’re not smart enough to understand . No charges were presented for them to use

 

[caddo kid]

did mueller give Barr the last word in his report to decide the obstruction? yes or no.

Barr always had the last word. A Special Counsel can't prosecute.

Current DOJ OLC determines a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted.

Not that Barr would shit on his meal ticket.

So again I ask what do you expect to happen?
Are you lobbying your congressman for impeachment?
Let's get it on...

Congress has the responsibility to proceed with articles of impeachment, IMO

They have more than enuff evidence of multiple attempts of obstruction documented by the SC investigation

Until such time as Congress initiates the process, Trump is above the law

Even if the Senate won't vote to impeach, the process is required under The Constitution

A clear message must be sent

Why do you supposed they haven’t given your point ? I can tell you, but you’re not smart enough to understand . No charges were presented for them to use

I'm not a member of Congress so, I can't say

 

[jc456]

Not cool to Copy/Paste without crediting the source.

It is NOT 'copy & paste' jack ass.

I compiled it in a WORD file; go fuck yourself.

did mueller give Barr the last word in his report to decide the obstruction? yes or no.

Mueller could tell The Congress that point; not me.

You should go ask Mueller.

No input eh? Seems you should drop out of the discussion then

re: post #294

pay attention

I asked you a question, you refuse to answer, I give two shits about post 294.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Congress has the responsibility to proceed with articles of impeachment, IMO

Absent a provable crime - impeach him for what?