Yes, Dems Really Believe a Few Dozen Unarmed Trespassers Almost Overthrew the US Government

[WEATHER53]

He detailed the evidence of Trump's guilt in granular fashion.

E. Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”



F. Efforts to curtail Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

He did not deliver the kill shot you wanted so you have emotionally interpreted his comments to be what you feel you want

 

[berg80]

Mueller famously said...
“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct,” Mueller wrote.

Mueller emphasized, however, that his analysis of the evidence did not clear the president of obstruction. Said Mueller: “if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

The applicable legal standard being the DoJ's prevention from filing charges because of the OLC opinion.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

I love the smell of fear on the right. They know this is going to be a big deal. Trying to hard to get out in front of it.
You notice it isn't having any effect.

You loved the smell of fear with the Kavanaugh hearings and we just laughed at you .

 

[easyt65]

He detailed the evidence of Trump's guilt in granular fashion.

E. Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”



F. Efforts to curtail Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

How many charges, convictions?


EXACTLY

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Trump’s Long Campaign to Steal the Presidency: A Timeline

The insurrection wasn’t a one-day event. It was the culmination of a multifaceted, yearslong plot — and it isn’t over.

nymag.com

But the intense focus on a few wild days in Washington can be misleading as well. Trump’s campaign to steal the 2020 presidential election began shortly after the 2016 election, and arguably the moment of peak peril for Joe Biden’s inauguration had already passed by the time Trump addressed the Stop the Steal rally on January 6.

A full timeline of the attempted insurrection is helpful in putting Trump’s frantic, last-minute schemes into the proper context and countering the false impression that January 6 was an improvised, impossible-to-replicate event, rather than one part of an ongoing campaign.

NYmag. Hahahahhahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahaahhah

 

[berg80]

How many charges, convictions?

It's at this point that I would normally ask a reasonable person to consider the evidence Mueller reported on since he was prohibited from filing charges. But that would be silly because you're a brainwashed rube.

 

[WEATHER53]

Mueller famously said...
“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct,” Mueller wrote.

Mueller emphasized, however, that his analysis of the evidence did not clear the president of obstruction. Said Mueller: “if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

The applicable legal standard being the DoJ's prevention from filing charges because of the OLC opinion.

Translation-
He’s not proven innocent and we can’t find charges to bring against him.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

No one who loves the American Republic can defend a group that indeed succeeded in interrupting a Constitutionally mandated Congressional function of confirming a Presidential election. Fortunately, that group was made up of bumbling, adult-age adolescents for the most part and didn't do even more damage than was done. We can be thankful for that. For those of us who revere what America can stand for, it was horrifying when it happened. The example that should be made of them is one which should make future such events unthinkable.

Being the leftist lemming that you I’m sure you’re unaware of the leftist kook groups that interrupted every new republican presidents proceedings since Reagan. Not to mention the Supreme Court Justices.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Just think of what we Americans with 435 million guns have learned from that dry run then.

“The select committee has found evidence about a lot more than incitement here, and we’re gonna be laying out the evidence about all of the actors who were pivotal to what took place on Jan. 6,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) toldthe Washington Post.

Raskin claims the partisan committee has evidence of “concerted planning and premeditated activity” and that the forthcoming hearings will “tell the story of a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election and block the transfer of power.”

J6 Committee Members Claim They Have Evidence of Incitement. They Don’t. Here’s How We Know.

pjmedia.com

It was as much as insurrection as my kids trying to overthrow the household with a temper tantrum. Annoying but hardly threatening.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

It's at this point that I would normally ask a reasonable person to consider the evidence Mueller reported on since he was prohibited from filing charges. But that would be silly because you're a brainwashed rube.

I would ask a reasonable person to consider Muellers own words so I won’t waste my time posting them for you.

 

[Oldestyle]

It's at this point that I would normally ask a reasonable person to consider the evidence Mueller reported on since he was prohibited from filing charges. But that would be silly because you're a brainwashed rube.

With all due respect, Berg? All those millions the Mueller's group spent investigating this and somehow they never learned that Hillary Clinton was behind the whole Russian collusion hoax? Excuse me if I don't put any faith in the people who gave us THAT "investigation" that obviously was never intended to get to the truth!

 

[Oldestyle]

I would ask a reasonable person to consider Muellers own words so I won’t waste my time posting them for you.

Did you listen to Muellar's testimony? I'm not sure WHO it was that wrote that report but it's obvious that Muellar didn't! He didn't seem to even know what was in it. So my question to you is a simple one! Who were the people who wrote the Muellar report?

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Did you listen to Muellar's testimony? I'm not sure WHO it was that wrote that report but it's obvious that Muellar didn't! He didn't seem to even know what was in it. So my question to you is a simple one! Who were the people who wrote the Muellar report?

Keep spinning my weak minded leftist friend.

 

[berg80]

Translation-
He’s not proven innocent and we can’t find charges to bring against him.

Can't find charges? Here are 4 instances of obstruction that meet all the benchmarks for prosecution.


E. Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

F. Efforts to curtail Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.

Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.

Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

J. Conduct toward Flynn, Manafort, and unknown individual (Stone?)

Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” Though Trump’s lawyers exchange with Flynn’s lawyers “could have had the potential to affect Flynn’s decision to cooperate,” Mueller “could not determine” whether Trump had any knowledge of or involvement in the exchange. Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”

Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward all three individuals “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”

Intent (p. 132): “Evidence concerning the President’s intent related to Flynn as a potential witness is inconclusive.” But “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government,” though “there are alternative explanations” for Trump’s comments during the Manafort trial.

 

[Lesh]

It was as much as insurrection as my kids trying to overthrow the household with a temper tantrum. Annoying but hardly threatening.

Your kids drove you out of your house in fear?

Interesting

 

[berg80]

With all due respect, Berg? All those millions the Mueller's group spent investigating this and somehow they never learned that Hillary Clinton was behind the whole Russian collusion hoax?

Please tell me you're saying that tongue in cheek. Please tell me you aren't that far down the right wing media rabbit hole. Durham's face plant on the Sussmann prosecution put that sham to rest.

 

[jknowgood]

I love the smell of fear on the right. They know this is going to be a big deal. Trying to hard to get out in front of it.
You notice it isn't having any effect.

Well we have Schumer on tape inciting a killer for Kavanaugh. Time to prosecute.

 

[scruffy]

OK, Capital police let in 700 unarmed people.
Next time we arm them and the US government is no more.

It's not QUITE that easy... but... yeah.

I want to go on record though: I don't want to destroy our government. I like our government.

I just want to clean the rats off the ship.

And, at this point, there's so many of the fuckers I'm willing to call Western Exterminator

 

[easyt65]

It's at this point that I would normally ask a reasonable person to consider the evidence Mueller reported on since he was prohibited from filing charges. But that would be silly because you're a brainwashed rube.

At this point I would ask a reasonable, non-emotional, no -TDS-suffering person to accept the fact that Mueller could full well declare, openly where there is no doubt, that while mo charges could be filed they still found Trump (criminally) obstructed justice...

...much like how Comey publicly declared Hillary had broken laws but he deemed her too be too stupid to know she was doing it, thus was not going to recommend (not his job) charges to be filed.

I would also ask such a reasonable person to remember Mueller finally testifying, proving he was a dain bragged figurehead who had no clue what was going on and that is was Clinton associate Rosenstein running the bogus Hillary scandal investigation.


One could even argue that since the entire investigation based on now proven Hillary originated propaganda and carried out by Barry, Biden, and their criminal administration that one could not really obstruct a criminal investigation - one everyone involved knew was bullshit (the largest criminal political scandal in US histrlory).

FBI Agent Pauge testified the FBI had run its own internal investigation before Mueller was appointed Special Counsel and had found there was no merrit to the scandal.
-- This scandal was the EXACT scandal the FBI warned Obama about in advance, how Hillary was going to try to pull this shit. Instead of stopping it, he and his administration. took it over and ran with it.

- Also, according to Paige, Mueller - Comey's old boss who had run an FBI Agency that had been caught violating the FISA Court rules as well - Mueller HAD TO KNOW the whole thing was a sham because the FBI had already determined there was nothing to it. Comey knew, and he wasn't going to withhold that from his d boss ... was / did he?

(Not that Mueller would have remembered / known it because he demo started his own level of dementia when he testified.)

So again, no statement / claim of obstruction,no charges, no censure ... and IF Trump had attempted to Obstruct he actually would have been trying to obstruct what has been proven to be the largest criminal political scandal in US history.

Is that what you snowflakes are pissed about? Trump 'obstructed' Hillary's & Obama's seditious, treasonous failed coup attempt?

 

[scruffy]

Please tell me you're saying that tongue in cheek. Please tell me you aren't that far down the right wing media rabbit hole. Durham's face plant on the Sussmann prosecution put that sham to rest.

LEFTARD FOOL! ^^^

Nothing's been 'put to rest", you idiot