What The Mueller Report ACTUALLY States

[jc456]

Martha Stewart went to jail for obstruction even though the underlying crime was found not guilty.

So?

Fucking with investigators and justice system itself is a corrupt act.

It -might- be an -obstructive- act, if done with corrupt intent.

again, why mueller couldn't pull a trigger.

Why mueller didnt charge. Thats a very good question.
Its all detailed here, and its worth a read. basically its because of Mueller's interpretation of OLC decision.

just stated in another post...I will use his language.

"And the acceptance of the fact a charge of obstruction requires corrupt intent - a very high standard, one that could not be demonstrated due to the lack of an underlying crime to cover up."

Anyone that posts in this thread should at a minimum check the OP post, where you could have easily read this.
This is an excerpt from the SC Mueller report.

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.



So, jc456, the below statement is FALSE

"And the acceptance of the fact a charge of obstruction requires corrupt intent - a very high standard, one that could not be demonstrated due to the lack of an underlying crime to cover up."




Corrupt intent & the potential for any underlying crime are two completely different issues.

not sure your point, there was no corrupt intent. It's why he didn't charge him. you don't get it, but that doesn't surprise me at all. There is no prosecution, you highlighted prosecution, there wasn't one, nor will there be, since there is no corrupt intent.

 

[jc456]

Martha Stewart went to jail for obstruction even though the underlying crime was found not guilty.

So?

Fucking with investigators and justice system itself is a corrupt act.

It -might- be an -obstructive- act, if done with corrupt intent.

again, why mueller couldn't pull a trigger.

Why mueller didnt charge. Thats a very good question.
Its all detailed here, and its worth a read. basically its because of Mueller's interpretation of OLC decision.

just stated in another post...I will use his language.

"And the acceptance of the fact a charge of obstruction requires corrupt intent - a very high standard, one that could not be demonstrated due to the lack of an underlying crime to cover up."

That's Barr's language, not Mueller's.

obstruction of justice doesnt require underlying crime.

and mueller was dead right on obstruction.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to hold the president accountable by impeaching him for treason, bribery, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Historically, this term has not been limited to or even defined by the penal code. It is a term of art that most historians believe denotes a serious abuse of power. By declining to determine whether or not Trump committed criminal obstruction, Mueller left it to the constitutionally appropriate branch to decide whether the conduct outlined in his report amounted to such an abuse.

congress can't prosecute anyone. no authority, no grand jury, no nothing. impeach is all they have. go for it. no one has said anything about what option is out there. The fact is, there are no charges, no crimes. so what is it you impeach on? name fking something chicken shit!!!

no corrupt intent. every legal analyst out there has already stated mueller didn't charge due to the fact he couldn't. why would that be?

 

[caddo kid]

Martha Stewart went to jail for obstruction even though the underlying crime was found not guilty.

So?

Fucking with investigators and justice system itself is a corrupt act.

It -might- be an -obstructive- act, if done with corrupt intent.

again, why mueller couldn't pull a trigger.

Why mueller didnt charge. Thats a very good question.
Its all detailed here, and its worth a read. basically its because of Mueller's interpretation of OLC decision.

just stated in another post...I will use his language.

"And the acceptance of the fact a charge of obstruction requires corrupt intent - a very high standard, one that could not be demonstrated due to the lack of an underlying crime to cover up."

That's Barr's language, not Mueller's.

obstruction of justice doesnt require underlying crime.

and mueller was dead right on obstruction.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to hold the president accountable by impeaching him for treason, bribery, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Historically, this term has not been limited to or even defined by the penal code. It is a term of art that most historians believe denotes a serious abuse of power. By declining to determine whether or not Trump committed criminal obstruction, Mueller left it to the constitutionally appropriate branch to decide whether the conduct outlined in his report amounted to such an abuse.

obviously jc456 is a rookie ................

 

[caddo kid]

So?
It -might- be an -obstructive- act, if done with corrupt intent.

again, why mueller couldn't pull a trigger.

Why mueller didnt charge. Thats a very good question.
Its all detailed here, and its worth a read. basically its because of Mueller's interpretation of OLC decision.

just stated in another post...I will use his language.

"And the acceptance of the fact a charge of obstruction requires corrupt intent - a very high standard, one that could not be demonstrated due to the lack of an underlying crime to cover up."

Anyone that posts in this thread should at a minimum check the OP post, where you could have easily read this.
This is an excerpt from the SC Mueller report.

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.



So, jc456, the below statement is FALSE

"And the acceptance of the fact a charge of obstruction requires corrupt intent - a very high standard, one that could not be demonstrated due to the lack of an underlying crime to cover up."




Corrupt intent & the potential for any underlying crime are two completely different issues.

not sure your point, there was no corrupt intent. It's why he didn't charge him. you don't get it, but that doesn't surprise me at all. There is no prosecution, you highlighted prosecution, there wasn't one, nor will there be, since there is no corrupt intent.

So, you didn't read the last statement in my post; no surprise.

Corrupt intent & the potential for any underlying crime are two completely different issues.

You must be dumber than a fucking shit sandwich.

 

[jc456]

So?
It -might- be an -obstructive- act, if done with corrupt intent.

again, why mueller couldn't pull a trigger.

Why mueller didnt charge. Thats a very good question.
Its all detailed here, and its worth a read. basically its because of Mueller's interpretation of OLC decision.

just stated in another post...I will use his language.

"And the acceptance of the fact a charge of obstruction requires corrupt intent - a very high standard, one that could not be demonstrated due to the lack of an underlying crime to cover up."

That's Barr's language, not Mueller's.

obstruction of justice doesnt require underlying crime.

and mueller was dead right on obstruction.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to hold the president accountable by impeaching him for treason, bribery, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Historically, this term has not been limited to or even defined by the penal code. It is a term of art that most historians believe denotes a serious abuse of power. By declining to determine whether or not Trump committed criminal obstruction, Mueller left it to the constitutionally appropriate branch to decide whether the conduct outlined in his report amounted to such an abuse.

obviously jc456 is a rookie ................

well slim, if obstruction doesn't require an underlying crime, why didn't mueller put an indictment in his report sealed? you're lost with no options, I get it.

 

[caddo kid]

So?
It -might- be an -obstructive- act, if done with corrupt intent.

again, why mueller couldn't pull a trigger.

Why mueller didnt charge. Thats a very good question.
Its all detailed here, and its worth a read. basically its because of Mueller's interpretation of OLC decision.

just stated in another post...I will use his language.

"And the acceptance of the fact a charge of obstruction requires corrupt intent - a very high standard, one that could not be demonstrated due to the lack of an underlying crime to cover up."

That's Barr's language, not Mueller's.

obstruction of justice doesnt require underlying crime.

and mueller was dead right on obstruction.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to hold the president accountable by impeaching him for treason, bribery, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Historically, this term has not been limited to or even defined by the penal code. It is a term of art that most historians believe denotes a serious abuse of power. By declining to determine whether or not Trump committed criminal obstruction, Mueller left it to the constitutionally appropriate branch to decide whether the conduct outlined in his report amounted to such an abuse.

congress can't prosecute anyone. no authority, no grand jury, no nothing. impeach is all they have. go for it. no one has said anything about what option is out there. The fact is, there are no charges, no crimes. so what is it you impeach on? name fking something chicken shit!!!

no corrupt intent. every legal analyst out there has already stated mueller didn't charge due to the fact he couldn't. why would that be?

The ONLY reason SC Mueller made no charges is because Mueller agreed with long standing DOJ OLC theory that a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted.

This FACT has been discussed within this thread several tines already.

If you would pay attention to the thread you wouldn't look so fucking stupid.

 

[jc456]

again, why mueller couldn't pull a trigger.

Why mueller didnt charge. Thats a very good question.
Its all detailed here, and its worth a read. basically its because of Mueller's interpretation of OLC decision.

just stated in another post...I will use his language.

"And the acceptance of the fact a charge of obstruction requires corrupt intent - a very high standard, one that could not be demonstrated due to the lack of an underlying crime to cover up."

Anyone that posts in this thread should at a minimum check the OP post, where you could have easily read this.
This is an excerpt from the SC Mueller report.

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.



So, jc456, the below statement is FALSE

"And the acceptance of the fact a charge of obstruction requires corrupt intent - a very high standard, one that could not be demonstrated due to the lack of an underlying crime to cover up."




Corrupt intent & the potential for any underlying crime are two completely different issues.

not sure your point, there was no corrupt intent. It's why he didn't charge him. you don't get it, but that doesn't surprise me at all. There is no prosecution, you highlighted prosecution, there wasn't one, nor will there be, since there is no corrupt intent.

So, you didn't read the last statement in my post; no surprise.

Corrupt intent & the potential for any underlying crime are two completely different issues.

You must be dumber than a fucking shit sandwich.

not at all, it's you what is a fking shit sandwich, and grasping at particles of lint floating in the atmosphere out of reach. but hey, I'm here and so is trump. fk take him on fool!!!

 

[jc456]

again, why mueller couldn't pull a trigger.

Why mueller didnt charge. Thats a very good question.
Its all detailed here, and its worth a read. basically its because of Mueller's interpretation of OLC decision.

just stated in another post...I will use his language.

"And the acceptance of the fact a charge of obstruction requires corrupt intent - a very high standard, one that could not be demonstrated due to the lack of an underlying crime to cover up."

That's Barr's language, not Mueller's.

obstruction of justice doesnt require underlying crime.

and mueller was dead right on obstruction.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to hold the president accountable by impeaching him for treason, bribery, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Historically, this term has not been limited to or even defined by the penal code. It is a term of art that most historians believe denotes a serious abuse of power. By declining to determine whether or not Trump committed criminal obstruction, Mueller left it to the constitutionally appropriate branch to decide whether the conduct outlined in his report amounted to such an abuse.

congress can't prosecute anyone. no authority, no grand jury, no nothing. impeach is all they have. go for it. no one has said anything about what option is out there. The fact is, there are no charges, no crimes. so what is it you impeach on? name fking something chicken shit!!!

no corrupt intent. every legal analyst out there has already stated mueller didn't charge due to the fact he couldn't. why would that be?

The ONLY reason SC Mueller made no charges is because Mueller agreed with long standing DOJ OLC theory that a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted.

This FACT has been discussed within this thread several tines already.

If you would pay attention to the thread you wouldn't look so fucking stupid.

dude, I just have to laugh again and again and again with you idiots. they have a sealed option to do such a thing. It's why it exists!! and yet, no sealed indictment. sorry, mueller's intent was exoneration. and you won't change that. no matter how many fking times you wish to post your nonsense in here. Impeach the man, go for it!!!!!!

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

You refuse to understand that your statement, above, however true, means nothing.


Three basic elements are common to most of the relevant obstruction statutes: (1) an obstructive act; (2) a nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding; and (3) a corrupt intent.

The word “corruptly” provides the intent element for obstruction of justice and means acting “knowingly and dishonestly” or “with an improper motive.”

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

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.


Let us know when you can prove corrupt intent.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The ONLY reason SC Mueller made no charges is because Mueller agreed with long standing DOJ OLC theory that a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted.

That's not what Mueller said.

 

[dudmuck]

Why mueller didnt charge. Thats a very good question.
Its all detailed here, and its worth a read. basically its because of Mueller's interpretation of OLC decision.

just stated in another post...I will use his language.

"And the acceptance of the fact a charge of obstruction requires corrupt intent - a very high standard, one that could not be demonstrated due to the lack of an underlying crime to cover up."

That's Barr's language, not Mueller's.

obstruction of justice doesnt require underlying crime.

and mueller was dead right on obstruction.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to hold the president accountable by impeaching him for treason, bribery, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Historically, this term has not been limited to or even defined by the penal code. It is a term of art that most historians believe denotes a serious abuse of power. By declining to determine whether or not Trump committed criminal obstruction, Mueller left it to the constitutionally appropriate branch to decide whether the conduct outlined in his report amounted to such an abuse.

congress can't prosecute anyone. no authority, no grand jury, no nothing. impeach is all they have. go for it. no one has said anything about what option is out there. The fact is, there are no charges, no crimes. so what is it you impeach on? name fking something chicken shit!!!

no corrupt intent. every legal analyst out there has already stated mueller didn't charge due to the fact he couldn't. why would that be?

The ONLY reason SC Mueller made no charges is because Mueller agreed with long standing DOJ OLC theory that a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted.

This FACT has been discussed within this thread several tines already.

If you would pay attention to the thread you wouldn't look so fucking stupid.

dude, I just have to laugh again and again and again with you idiots. they have a sealed option to do such a thing. It's why it exists!! and yet, no sealed indictment. sorry, mueller's intent was exoneration. and you won't change that. no matter how many fking times you wish to post your nonsense in here. Impeach the man, go for it!!!!!!

Barr's intent is exoneration, but Mueller's intent.
Youre mixing up the two.

 

[caddo kid]

again, why mueller couldn't pull a trigger.

Why mueller didnt charge. Thats a very good question.
Its all detailed here, and its worth a read. basically its because of Mueller's interpretation of OLC decision.

just stated in another post...I will use his language.

"And the acceptance of the fact a charge of obstruction requires corrupt intent - a very high standard, one that could not be demonstrated due to the lack of an underlying crime to cover up."

That's Barr's language, not Mueller's.

obstruction of justice doesnt require underlying crime.

and mueller was dead right on obstruction.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to hold the president accountable by impeaching him for treason, bribery, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Historically, this term has not been limited to or even defined by the penal code. It is a term of art that most historians believe denotes a serious abuse of power. By declining to determine whether or not Trump committed criminal obstruction, Mueller left it to the constitutionally appropriate branch to decide whether the conduct outlined in his report amounted to such an abuse.

obviously jc456 is a rookie ................

well slim, if obstruction doesn't require an underlying crime, why didn't mueller put an indictment in his report sealed? you're lost with no options, I get it.

Concerning the potential for a 'sealed indictment' in regard to Trump, Mueller wrote this; quoted from Mueller's report.

"It would be very difficult to preserve an indictment’s secrecy and if an indictment became public, the stigma and opprobrium could imperil the President’s ability to govern,"

 

[jc456]

just stated in another post...I will use his language.

"And the acceptance of the fact a charge of obstruction requires corrupt intent - a very high standard, one that could not be demonstrated due to the lack of an underlying crime to cover up."

That's Barr's language, not Mueller's.

obstruction of justice doesnt require underlying crime.

and mueller was dead right on obstruction.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to hold the president accountable by impeaching him for treason, bribery, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Historically, this term has not been limited to or even defined by the penal code. It is a term of art that most historians believe denotes a serious abuse of power. By declining to determine whether or not Trump committed criminal obstruction, Mueller left it to the constitutionally appropriate branch to decide whether the conduct outlined in his report amounted to such an abuse.

congress can't prosecute anyone. no authority, no grand jury, no nothing. impeach is all they have. go for it. no one has said anything about what option is out there. The fact is, there are no charges, no crimes. so what is it you impeach on? name fking something chicken shit!!!

no corrupt intent. every legal analyst out there has already stated mueller didn't charge due to the fact he couldn't. why would that be?

The ONLY reason SC Mueller made no charges is because Mueller agreed with long standing DOJ OLC theory that a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted.

This FACT has been discussed within this thread several tines already.

If you would pay attention to the thread you wouldn't look so fucking stupid.

dude, I just have to laugh again and again and again with you idiots. they have a sealed option to do such a thing. It's why it exists!! and yet, no sealed indictment. sorry, mueller's intent was exoneration. and you won't change that. no matter how many fking times you wish to post your nonsense in here. Impeach the man, go for it!!!!!!

Barr's intent is exoneration, but Mueller's intent.
Youre mixing up the two.

not at all, no sealed indictment, exonerated. and in Mueller's report several times, there was no interference into the 2016 election. exonerated. there is no other option. sorry, you lose.

 

[jc456]

Why mueller didnt charge. Thats a very good question.
Its all detailed here, and its worth a read. basically its because of Mueller's interpretation of OLC decision.

just stated in another post...I will use his language.

"And the acceptance of the fact a charge of obstruction requires corrupt intent - a very high standard, one that could not be demonstrated due to the lack of an underlying crime to cover up."

That's Barr's language, not Mueller's.

obstruction of justice doesnt require underlying crime.

and mueller was dead right on obstruction.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to hold the president accountable by impeaching him for treason, bribery, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Historically, this term has not been limited to or even defined by the penal code. It is a term of art that most historians believe denotes a serious abuse of power. By declining to determine whether or not Trump committed criminal obstruction, Mueller left it to the constitutionally appropriate branch to decide whether the conduct outlined in his report amounted to such an abuse.

obviously jc456 is a rookie ................

well slim, if obstruction doesn't require an underlying crime, why didn't mueller put an indictment in his report sealed? you're lost with no options, I get it.

Concerning the potential for a 'sealed indictment' in regard to Trump, Mueller wrote this; quoted from Mueller's report.

"It would be very difficult to preserve an indictment’s secrecy and if an indictment became public, the stigma and opprobrium could imperil the President’s ability to govern,"

it's called double talk. he could have sealed an indictment if he truly believed a crime was committed. leaving any other option, impacts the presidency anyway and why it is double talk. the mere fact that he didn't seal one implies exoneration. he knows it. it's why he wrote that jibberish shit.

Impeach trump, go for it. stop trying to convince yourself through trump supporters.

 

[caddo kid]

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

You refuse to understand that your statement, above, however true, means nothing.

Correct: My statement is true & yes, it does mean something.

 

[caddo kid]

just stated in another post...I will use his language.

"And the acceptance of the fact a charge of obstruction requires corrupt intent - a very high standard, one that could not be demonstrated due to the lack of an underlying crime to cover up."

That's Barr's language, not Mueller's.

obstruction of justice doesnt require underlying crime.

and mueller was dead right on obstruction.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to hold the president accountable by impeaching him for treason, bribery, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Historically, this term has not been limited to or even defined by the penal code. It is a term of art that most historians believe denotes a serious abuse of power. By declining to determine whether or not Trump committed criminal obstruction, Mueller left it to the constitutionally appropriate branch to decide whether the conduct outlined in his report amounted to such an abuse.

obviously jc456 is a rookie ................

well slim, if obstruction doesn't require an underlying crime, why didn't mueller put an indictment in his report sealed? you're lost with no options, I get it.

Concerning the potential for a 'sealed indictment' in regard to Trump, Mueller wrote this; quoted from Mueller's report.

"It would be very difficult to preserve an indictment’s secrecy and if an indictment became public, the stigma and opprobrium could imperil the President’s ability to govern,"

it's called double talk. he could have sealed an indictment if he truly believed a crime was committed. leaving any other option, impacts the presidency anyway and why it is double talk. the mere fact that he didn't seal one implies exoneration. he knows it. it's why he wrote that jibberish shit.

Impeach trump, go for it. stop trying to convince yourself through trump supporters.

I offered you Mueller's exact words from the report; why are you screaming like a little fucking girl?

 

[The Original Tree]

There is no Obstruction without Evidence of a Crime. The President cooperated without once claiming Executive Privilege and turned over Millions of Documents.

Compare that to Hillary Clinton who destroyed 18 Electronic Devices, Had a Secret Server that her and Obama Lied about and communicated on, and She Bleach Bit 33.000 Documents that were under Two Federal Court Orders NOT TO BE TOUCHED.

And Comey Allowed it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Correct: My statement is true & yes, it does mean something.

Not in reference to the legal requirement to prove a charge of obstruction.


Three basic elements are common to most of the relevant obstruction statutes: (1) an obstructive act; (2) a nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding; and (3) a corrupt intent.

The word “corruptly” provides the intent element for obstruction of justice and means acting “knowingly and dishonestly” or “with an improper motive.”

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

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.


Let us know when you can prove corrupt intent.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I offered you Mueller's exact words from the report;

I offered you Mueller's exact words form the report; like a good partisan bigot, you ignored them because you know they negate your narrative.

 

[Faun]

again, why mueller couldn't pull a trigger.

Why mueller didnt charge. Thats a very good question.
Its all detailed here, and its worth a read. basically its because of Mueller's interpretation of OLC decision.

just stated in another post...I will use his language.

"And the acceptance of the fact a charge of obstruction requires corrupt intent - a very high standard, one that could not be demonstrated due to the lack of an underlying crime to cover up."

That's Barr's language, not Mueller's.

obstruction of justice doesnt require underlying crime.

and mueller was dead right on obstruction.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to hold the president accountable by impeaching him for treason, bribery, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Historically, this term has not been limited to or even defined by the penal code. It is a term of art that most historians believe denotes a serious abuse of power. By declining to determine whether or not Trump committed criminal obstruction, Mueller left it to the constitutionally appropriate branch to decide whether the conduct outlined in his report amounted to such an abuse.

obviously jc456 is a rookie ................

well slim, if obstruction doesn't require an underlying crime, why didn't mueller put an indictment in his report sealed? you're lost with no options, I get it.

Because Mueller said a sitting president can't be indicted.