What The Mueller Report ACTUALLY States

[Faun]

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!!!!!!

Mueller said a sitting president can't be indicted -- so why would Mueller indict a sitting president?

 

[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.

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!!!!!!

Mueller said a sitting president can't be indicted -- so why would Mueller indict a sitting president?

See, that is just HOW STUPID these people really are.

I posted this thread so that people could learn something, they REFUSE to read, then they come back with the same ole shit that has ALREADY been discussed, it' s obvious they are talking about shit they have yet to read, and they wonder why they look dumber than a shit sandwich.

Hillary was right; they are fucking rubes .............

 

[M14 Shooter]

See, that is just HOW STUPID these people really are.

Says he who ignores the parts of the Mueller report that destroy his narrative.

 

[jc456]

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!!!!!!

Mueller said a sitting president can't be indicted -- so why would Mueller indict a sitting president?

See, that is just HOW STUPID these people really are.

I posted this thread so that people could learn something, they REFUSE to read, then they come back with the same ole shit that has ALREADY been discussed, it' s obvious they are talking about shit they have yet to read, and they wonder why they look dumber than a shit sandwich.

Hillary was right; they are fucking rubes .............

what we learned is that you ignore the facts. thanks,

 

[caddo kid]

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!!!!!!

Mueller said a sitting president can't be indicted -- so why would Mueller indict a sitting president?

See, that is just HOW STUPID these people really are.

I posted this thread so that people could learn something, they REFUSE to read, then they come back with the same ole shit that has ALREADY been discussed, it' s obvious they are talking about shit they have yet to read, and they wonder why they look dumber than a shit sandwich.

Hillary was right; they are fucking rubes .............

what we learned is that you ignore the facts. thanks,

What we learned is that you make stupid, ignorant comments about the facts that you could have actually read in the OP

specifically that there is no need for an underlying crime to pursue an obstruction case against a defendant, according to case law

 

[M14 Shooter]

specifically that there is no need for an underlying crime to pursue an obstruction case against a defendant, according to case law

But there IS a need to prove corrupt intent, as Mueller --very-- clearly stated.
Why do you choose to ignore this?

 

[jc456]

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!!!!!!

Mueller said a sitting president can't be indicted -- so why would Mueller indict a sitting president?

See, that is just HOW STUPID these people really are.

I posted this thread so that people could learn something, they REFUSE to read, then they come back with the same ole shit that has ALREADY been discussed, it' s obvious they are talking about shit they have yet to read, and they wonder why they look dumber than a shit sandwich.

Hillary was right; they are fucking rubes .............

what we learned is that you ignore the facts. thanks,

What we learned is that you make stupid, ignorant comments about the facts that you could have actually read in the OP

specifically that there is no need for an underlying crime to pursue an obstruction case against a defendant, according to case law

well why did Barr say so? and Mueller left it to Barr. so again, are you deranged or what?

 

[caddo kid]

specifically that there is no need for an underlying crime to pursue an obstruction case against a defendant, according to case law

But there IS a need to prove corrupt intent, as Mueller --very-- clearly stated.
Why do you choose to ignore this?

that is ALL you have whined about this entire thread; it has been addressed ad infinitum.

why do you continue to whine about it?

lemme guess; you're a broken record?

 

[caddo kid]

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!!!!!!

Mueller said a sitting president can't be indicted -- so why would Mueller indict a sitting president?

See, that is just HOW STUPID these people really are.

I posted this thread so that people could learn something, they REFUSE to read, then they come back with the same ole shit that has ALREADY been discussed, it' s obvious they are talking about shit they have yet to read, and they wonder why they look dumber than a shit sandwich.

Hillary was right; they are fucking rubes .............

what we learned is that you ignore the facts. thanks,

What we learned is that you make stupid, ignorant comments about the facts that you could have actually read in the OP

specifically that there is no need for an underlying crime to pursue an obstruction case against a defendant, according to case law

well why did Barr say so? and Mueller left it to Barr. so again, are you deranged or what?

Mueller cited case law in his determination.

Barr? Not so much.

 

[jc456]

Mueller said a sitting president can't be indicted -- so why would Mueller indict a sitting president?

See, that is just HOW STUPID these people really are.

I posted this thread so that people could learn something, they REFUSE to read, then they come back with the same ole shit that has ALREADY been discussed, it' s obvious they are talking about shit they have yet to read, and they wonder why they look dumber than a shit sandwich.

Hillary was right; they are fucking rubes .............

what we learned is that you ignore the facts. thanks,

What we learned is that you make stupid, ignorant comments about the facts that you could have actually read in the OP

specifically that there is no need for an underlying crime to pursue an obstruction case against a defendant, according to case law

well why did Barr say so? and Mueller left it to Barr. so again, are you deranged or what?

Mueller cited case law in his determination.

Barr? Not so much.

did he leave it to Barr or not?

 

[jc456]

specifically that there is no need for an underlying crime to pursue an obstruction case against a defendant, according to case law

But there IS a need to prove corrupt intent, as Mueller --very-- clearly stated.
Why do you choose to ignore this?

that is ALL you have whined about this entire thread; it has been addressed ad infinitum.

why do you continue to whine about it?

lemme guess; you're a broken record?

well cuz....... cause you haven't addressed it.

 

[caddo kid]

See, that is just HOW STUPID these people really are.

I posted this thread so that people could learn something, they REFUSE to read, then they come back with the same ole shit that has ALREADY been discussed, it' s obvious they are talking about shit they have yet to read, and they wonder why they look dumber than a shit sandwich.

Hillary was right; they are fucking rubes .............

what we learned is that you ignore the facts. thanks,

What we learned is that you make stupid, ignorant comments about the facts that you could have actually read in the OP

specifically that there is no need for an underlying crime to pursue an obstruction case against a defendant, according to case law

well why did Barr say so? and Mueller left it to Barr. so again, are you deranged or what?

Mueller cited case law in his determination.

Barr? Not so much.

did he leave it to Barr or not?

There is debate concerning that point.
That is one reason why Nadler's Congressional committee wants to speak with Mueller.

 

[caddo kid]

specifically that there is no need for an underlying crime to pursue an obstruction case against a defendant, according to case law

But there IS a need to prove corrupt intent, as Mueller --very-- clearly stated.
Why do you choose to ignore this?

that is ALL you have whined about this entire thread; it has been addressed ad infinitum.

why do you continue to whine about it?

lemme guess; you're a broken record?

well cuz....... cause you haven't addressed it.

still can't read, huh?

 

[M14 Shooter]

specifically that there is no need for an underlying crime to pursue an obstruction case against a defendant, according to case law

But there IS a need to prove corrupt intent, as Mueller --very-- clearly stated.
Why do you choose to ignore this?

that is ALL you have whined about this entire thread; it has been addressed ad infinitum.

This is a lie.
Not once have you addressed the absence of a demonstrably corrupt intent - -indeed, not even hinted at - in the Mueller report.
Not once.

 

[jc456]

what we learned is that you ignore the facts. thanks,

What we learned is that you make stupid, ignorant comments about the facts that you could have actually read in the OP

specifically that there is no need for an underlying crime to pursue an obstruction case against a defendant, according to case law

well why did Barr say so? and Mueller left it to Barr. so again, are you deranged or what?

Mueller cited case law in his determination.

Barr? Not so much.

did he leave it to Barr or not?

There is debate concerning that point.
That is one reason why Nadler's Congressional committee wants to speak with Mueller.

there is this:

specifically that there is no need for an underlying crime to pursue an obstruction case against a defendant, according to case law

But there IS a need to prove corrupt intent, as Mueller --very-- clearly stated.
Why do you choose to ignore this?

that is ALL you have whined about this entire thread; it has been addressed ad infinitum.

why do you continue to whine about it?

lemme guess; you're a broken record?

well cuz....... cause you haven't addressed it.

still can't read, huh?

I can't read what isn't there. just saying.

 

[jknowgood]

You’re beating a decomposed horse. Enough with this shit

The thread is a learning opportunity for the greater majority of USMB members; those that believe they already know what the report states, when in fact these members DON'T know what they speak of.

Thanks for letting us know you desire to stay ignorant.

Lol, the report shows how corrupt the Obama administation was. Makes Nixon look like a choir boy..

 

[caddo kid]

What we learned is that you make stupid, ignorant comments about the facts that you could have actually read in the OP

specifically that there is no need for an underlying crime to pursue an obstruction case against a defendant, according to case law

well why did Barr say so? and Mueller left it to Barr. so again, are you deranged or what?

Mueller cited case law in his determination.

Barr? Not so much.

did he leave it to Barr or not?

There is debate concerning that point.
That is one reason why Nadler's Congressional committee wants to speak with Mueller.

there is this:

specifically that there is no need for an underlying crime to pursue an obstruction case against a defendant, according to case law

But there IS a need to prove corrupt intent, as Mueller --very-- clearly stated.
Why do you choose to ignore this?

that is ALL you have whined about this entire thread; it has been addressed ad infinitum.

why do you continue to whine about it?

lemme guess; you're a broken record?

well cuz....... cause you haven't addressed it.

still can't read, huh?

I can't read what isn't there. just saying.

You obviously could NOT read the info in the OP that explained there is no requirement for any underlying crime to pursue an obstruction case.

Keep whining & keep looking like the idiot that U R

 

[M14 Shooter]

You obviously could NOT read the info in the OP that explained there is no requirement for any underlying crime to pursue an obstruction case.

Why do you choose to ignore the need to prove corrupt intent?
Why do you refuse to understand Mueller does not, anywhere in the report, describe, declare or even hint at a corrupt intent?
I mean other than your partisan bigotry....

 

[caddo kid]

You obviously could NOT read the info in the OP that explained there is no requirement for any underlying crime to pursue an obstruction case.

Why do you choose to ignore the need to prove corrupt intent?
Why do you refuse to understand Mueller does not, anywhere in the report, describe, declare or even hint at a corrupt intent?
I mean other than your partisan bigotry....

corrupt intent ........... corrupt intent ............ corrupt intent ............ you keep screaming & whining like a little girl

corrupt intent has been addressed ................ little girl ............

 

[jc456]

well why did Barr say so? and Mueller left it to Barr. so again, are you deranged or what?

Mueller cited case law in his determination.

Barr? Not so much.

did he leave it to Barr or not?

There is debate concerning that point.
That is one reason why Nadler's Congressional committee wants to speak with Mueller.

there is this:

But there IS a need to prove corrupt intent, as Mueller --very-- clearly stated.
Why do you choose to ignore this?

that is ALL you have whined about this entire thread; it has been addressed ad infinitum.

why do you continue to whine about it?

lemme guess; you're a broken record?

well cuz....... cause you haven't addressed it.

still can't read, huh?

I can't read what isn't there. just saying.

You obviously could NOT read the info in the OP that explained there is no requirement for any underlying crime to pursue an obstruction case.

Keep whining & keep looking like the idiot that U R

there is but one option, impeach. go for it, if they believed that, then they would just move on it. the mere fact they aren't exonerates the trump campaign. no more investigation, move to impeach, it is their only option left to politicize this hoax.