What The Mueller Report ACTUALLY States

[caddo kid]

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.

Thank you for attempting to educate the illiterate low IQ cons.

One can lead a Trumper to enlightenment but one cannot force a Trumper to flee the cave of stupidity ........

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

Thank you for attempting to educate the illiterate low IQ cons.

One can lead a Trumper to enlightenment but one cannot force a Trumper to flee the cave of stupidity ........

Did Mueller find any snitches or tattle tales?

 

[M14 Shooter]

odd that you would sight 18 U.S. Code § 1505. but then proceed to ask the questions that you ask BECAUSE there is no stipulation
within 18 U.S. Code § 1505. that takes into consideration the concept of 'motive.'

It is clear you do not have sufficient understanding of the law to have this conversation.
"Corruptly" necessitates not just motive, but a -specific- motive.

 

[caddo kid]

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

Yup. That's all they have. The just keep beating a dead horse that doesn't give a shit.

Wonder what they will say when Barr lets Durhams report out to the public??

You were one of the many Trump supporters saying you can't pursue obstruction if there was no crime.

Well, I demonstrated to you here that your claim is BS.

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.

You're welcome.

 

[caddo kid]

odd that you would sight 18 U.S. Code § 1505. but then proceed to ask the questions that you ask BECAUSE there is no stipulation
within 18 U.S. Code § 1505. that takes into consideration the concept of 'motive.'

It is clear you do not have sufficient understanding of the law to have this conversation.
"Corruptly" necessitates not just motive, but a -specific- motive.

It is also clear you have not read Mueller's report & learned what Mueller has to say in regard to motive, corrupt intention, patterns of behavior in regard to obstruction, nor number of attempts to obstruct.

But I wouldn't expect you to try and learn anything.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

But . . . But . . . Can'tDo Kid! YOU JUST PROVED TRUMP DIDN'T OBSTRUCT JUSTICE! THANK YOU.

Your argument: The wind can blow very high without a storm. There was no storm. Therefore the wind must have been blowing.

That is called MODUS TOLLENS.

WHERE IN YOUR DIATRIBE does Mueller say the words:

TRUMP COMMITTED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?

Mwah?

NOWHERE?

SHUT THE HELL UP YOU MORON!

Bill Clinton committed obstruction of justice in suborning perjury and was so charged and impeached for it. Democrats saved him from being thrown out of office.

If you can't show where Mueller SAYS he obstructed, when he will be CHARGED for it, then,

YOU GOT NOTHING. STFU and go away.

 

[caddo kid]

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.

But . . . But . . . Can'tDo Kid! YOU JUST PROVED TRUMP DIDN'T OBSTRUCT JUSTICE! THANK YOU.

Your argument: The wind can blow very high without a storm. There was no storm. Therefore the wind must have been blowing.

That is called MODUS TOLLENS.

WHERE IN YOUR DIATRIBE does Mueller say the words:

TRUMP COMMITTED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?

Mwah?

NOWHERE?

SHUT THE HELL UP YOU MORON!

Bill Clinton committed obstruction of justice in suborning perjury and was so charged and impeached for it. Democrats saved him from being thrown out of office.

If you can't show where Mueller SAYS he obstructed, when he will be CHARGED for it, then,

YOU GOT NOTHING. STFU and go away.

LOFL ................... but Clinton, Clinton, Clinton ............................ LOFL ...............

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is also clear you have not read Mueller's report....

I'm sorry you don't you like the fact the proper motive necessary for a charge of obstruction cannot be proven - but it -is- a fact.

"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."

This standard cannot be met.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Thank you for attempting to educate the illiterate low IQ cons.

You really think calling us illiterates is going to obscure the fact that no collusion ever took place (other than between Hillary Clinton's campaign and some foreign agents!) and that the entire Mueller investigation was nothing more than an attempt to smear someone that you couldn't beat at the polls?

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
It is also clear you have not read Mueller's report & learned what Mueller has to say in regard to 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."

This standard cannot be met.

"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."

Requires the consideration of possible motives, other than corruption. << Reasonable doubt

Thus ends your fantasies about obstruction.

 

[caddo kid]

[
It is also clear you have not read Mueller's report & learned what Mueller has to say in regard to 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."

This standard cannot be met.

"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."

Requires the consideration of possible motives, other than corruption. << Reasonable doubt

Thus ends your fantasies about obstruction.

Not in the context of Mueller handing this off to Congress; Congress is under no such threshold of standard to be met, thus Mueller's own words:
CONCLUSION Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President' s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

This is exactly why Congress needs to address the matter with the authority they have as a check on abuse of power by the executive.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not in the context of Mueller handing this off to Congress; Congress is under no such threshold of standard to be met.

I accept your concession with regard to the inability to prove the crime of obstruction
Absent a provable crime, what do you suggest he be impeached for?
Hurting your feelings?

 

[blackhawk]

What the report said is there was no collusion on obstruction Mueller did not make a determination he left that one to the AG and Deputy AG they looked at his findings and decided not to charge obstruction. Nearly committing a crime or almost committing one is not a crime you can think about robbing a bank you can even come up with a plan to do it but unless you follow through you are not guilty of robbing a bank.

 

[caddo kid]

Not in the context of Mueller handing this off to Congress; Congress is under no such threshold of standard to be met.

I accept your concession with regard to the inability to prove the crime of obstruction
Absent a provable crime, what do you suggest he be impeached for?
Hurting your feelings?

You obviously hate The Constitution with it's requirement of 'checks & balances' of the co-equal branches.

I would expect such from the 'party of Nixon & Trump'

 

[caddo kid]

What the report said is there was no collusion on obstruction Mueller did not make a determination he left that one to the AG and Deputy AG they looked at his findings and decided not to charge obstruction. Nearly committing a crime or almost committing one is not a crime you can think about robbing a bank you can even come up with a plan to do it but unless you follow through you are not guilty of robbing a bank.

Wrong; Mueller left it up to Congress to determine.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What the report said is there was no collusion on obstruction Mueller did not make a determination he left that one to the AG and Deputy AG they looked at his findings and decided not to charge obstruction. Nearly committing a crime or almost committing one is not a crime you can think about robbing a bank you can even come up with a plan to do it but unless you follow through you are not guilty of robbing a bank.

As noted, Mueller knew he could not prove the intent necessary to meet a charge of obstruction because, absent the need to cover up a crime, Trump may been motivated by any number of non-corrupt intentions.
.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not in the context of Mueller handing this off to Congress; Congress is under no such threshold of standard to be met.

I accept your concession with regard to the inability to prove the crime of obstruction
Absent a provable crime, what do you suggest he be impeached for?
Hurting your feelings?

You obviously hate The Constitution with it's requirement of 'checks & balances' of the co-equal branches.
I would expect such from the 'party of Nixon & Trump'

I didn't think you had a meaningful answer to my question.
Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[DBA]

I am deeply saddened by the lack of intellect exhibited in this thread by those attempting to make the argument for obstruction based on the Mueller report. Protecting the ideology(anti-Trump) is obviously much more important than analyzing the actual facts.

 

[caddo kid]

I am deeply saddened by the lack of intellect exhibited in this thread by those attempting to make the argument for obstruction based on the Mueller report. Protecting the ideology(anti-Trump) is obviously much more important than analyzing the actual facts.

So, you sound as if you may have read the report; did you?

If you would have read the report, you would have seen this, from page 213.

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.

Knowing this there is no doubt that the SC was never going to bring any indictment against Trump, and that is beside the OLC consideration that does not allow for the indictment of s sitting POTUS.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am deeply saddened by the lack of intellect exhibited in this thread by those attempting to make the argument for obstruction based on the Mueller report. Protecting the ideology(anti-Trump) is obviously much more important than analyzing the actual facts.

So, you sound as if you may have read the report; did you?

Absent a provable crime, what do you suggest Trump be impeached for?
Hurting your feelings?