What The Mueller Report ACTUALLY States

[caddo kid]

Exactly, which is their responsibility to do so

If there is evidence to support it yes your party’s candidate not winning an election is not grounds for impeachment. Even Nancy Pelosi has enough sense not to go down that road but if the Democrats are hell bound and determined to go down it be my guest.

as I stated previously, it is the responsibility of Congress

sorry jack ass but I don't have a "party"

I believe in The Constitution, period, and the document has no party; neither do I

Sorry jackass but you have no sense of how government works either if you rant like a Democrat and post like a Democrat the odds are pretty good you are Democrat. Nowhere in the constitution does it say Congress has the power to impeach without reason. As I said if they wish to down this road go for it they will fail and end up looking like idiots as will those who supported such an effort.

Congress most certainly has PLENTY reason to impeach the asshole; pay attention

Ok, and the also have plenty of evidence to indict Hillary, right? Where are the Democrats on that?

I wasn't aware HRC is POTUS; didn't Trump win the 2016 election?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Impeach

or

Shut the fuck up.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Congress most certainly has PLENTY reason to impeach the asshole; pay attention

What are those dumbasses waiting on?

Get on it.

.

 

[DBA]

If there is evidence to support it yes your party’s candidate not winning an election is not grounds for impeachment. Even Nancy Pelosi has enough sense not to go down that road but if the Democrats are hell bound and determined to go down it be my guest.

as I stated previously, it is the responsibility of Congress

sorry jack ass but I don't have a "party"

I believe in The Constitution, period, and the document has no party; neither do I

Sorry jackass but you have no sense of how government works either if you rant like a Democrat and post like a Democrat the odds are pretty good you are Democrat. Nowhere in the constitution does it say Congress has the power to impeach without reason. As I said if they wish to down this road go for it they will fail and end up looking like idiots as will those who supported such an effort.

Congress most certainly has PLENTY reason to impeach the asshole; pay attention

Ok, and the also have plenty of evidence to indict Hillary, right? Where are the Democrats on that?

I wasn't aware HRC is POTUS; didn't Trump win the 2016 election?

What does that have to do with anything? I didn't say she should be impeached, I said she should be indicted.

 

[caddo kid]

Congress most certainly has PLENTY reason to impeach the asshole; pay attention

What are those dumbasses waiting on?

Get on it.

.

I would say at a minimum they would like Mueller himself to extrapolate his opinion of the report before committee.

Of course other factors are required but Mueller's own testimony would be a minimum requirement, IMO.

 

[caddo kid]

as I stated previously, it is the responsibility of Congress

sorry jack ass but I don't have a "party"

I believe in The Constitution, period, and the document has no party; neither do I

Sorry jackass but you have no sense of how government works either if you rant like a Democrat and post like a Democrat the odds are pretty good you are Democrat. Nowhere in the constitution does it say Congress has the power to impeach without reason. As I said if they wish to down this road go for it they will fail and end up looking like idiots as will those who supported such an effort.

Congress most certainly has PLENTY reason to impeach the asshole; pay attention

Ok, and the also have plenty of evidence to indict Hillary, right? Where are the Democrats on that?

I wasn't aware HRC is POTUS; didn't Trump win the 2016 election?

What does that have to do with anything? I didn't say she should be impeached, I said she should be indicted.

Can't help ya; call your nearest SC

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's OK though; I created the thread for those here such as yourself & I didn't expect your brain dead ass to learn a fucking thing from the thread.

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

 

[blackhawk]

Congress can try and impeach if they wish which will fail but that is all they can do they have no criminal prosecution power.

Exactly, which is their responsibility to do so

If there is evidence to support it yes your party’s candidate not winning an election is not grounds for impeachment. Even Nancy Pelosi has enough sense not to go down that road but if the Democrats are hell bound and determined to go down it be my guest.

as I stated previously, it is the responsibility of Congress

sorry jack ass but I don't have a "party"

I believe in The Constitution, period, and the document has no party; neither do I

Sorry jackass but you have no sense of how government works either if you rant like a Democrat and post like a Democrat the odds are pretty good you are Democrat. Nowhere in the constitution does it say Congress has the power to impeach without reason. As I said if they wish to down this road go for it they will fail and end up looking like idiots as will those who supported such an effort.

Congress most certainly has PLENTY reason to impeach the asshole; pay attention

None based on the law or constitution sorry election butthurt is not grounds for impeachment no matter how badly some want it to be. If you truly feel Congress has grounds for impeachment maybe you should spend more time trying to get them to move on it and less time making silly claims about it here.

 

[easyt65]

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.

You always know a snowflake is lying when they attempt to give a translation of something a Republican said or of something that did not go their way.

Hay snowflake, you let me know when the President is indicted for collusion or obstruction, ok.

Until then, this all more butt-hurt for losing AGAIN...

Well, you obviously never read the report, you obviously never read post 31, and you obviously never read post 39.

If you would have bothered to read ANY of that you would already know that Mueller never intended to initiate an indictment against Trump, nor decline an indictment against Trump.

That's OK though; I created the thread for those here such as yourself & I didn't expect your brain dead ass to learn a fucking thing from the thread.

You passed.

I read the report.
So, like I said, you little butt-hurt Jonathon Gruber puppets let me know when Trump is indicted / convicted for collusion or Obstruction.

The investigation is over.
No indictment.
No conviction.
But you snowflake keep hanging on...
That's what you have been doing for 3yrs...
How's that workin' out for you?

 

[Oddball]

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're the one who's too legally illiterate and low IQ to know that you don't prove negatives.

 

[caddo kid]

That's OK though; I created the thread for those here such as yourself & I didn't expect your brain dead ass to learn a fucking thing from the thread.

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

at a minimum, Congress has the responsibility to impeach Trump for his abuse of power as related to his documented attempts to obstruct SC Mueller's investigation

 

[Oddball]

at a minimum, Congress has the responsibility to impeach Trump for his abuse of power as related to his documented attempts to obstruct SC Mueller's investigation

There's nothing documented besides "we can't prove he didn't do X", which runs completely counter to proper rules of jurisprudence.

You poor, hapless, deluded kook.

 

[caddo kid]

at a minimum, Congress has the responsibility to impeach Trump for his abuse of power as related to his documented attempts to obstruct SC Mueller's investigation

There's nothing documented besides "we can't prove he didn't do X", which runs completely counter to proper rules of jurisprudence.

You poor, hapless, deluded kook.

The various attempts by Trump to obstruct the SC Mueller investigation are documented within Volume II, pages 15 -167, pages 224 - 448 of the PDF. https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Within that section of the report are at least 10 (documented) attempts by Trump to obstruct Mueller's investigation.

Congress has the responsibility to hold any POTUS accountable for such abuses of power.

I understand you are only seven years old so, I know this stuff is over your head.

You can leave now .............

 

[Indeependent]

at a minimum, Congress has the responsibility to impeach Trump for his abuse of power as related to his documented attempts to obstruct SC Mueller's investigation

There's nothing documented besides "we can't prove he didn't do X", which runs completely counter to proper rules of jurisprudence.

You poor, hapless, deluded kook.

The various attempts by Trump to obstruct the SC Mueller investigation are documented within Volume II, pages 15 -167, pages 224 - 448 of the PDF. https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Within that section of the report are at least 10 (documented) attempts by Trump to obstruct Mueller's investigation.

I understand you are only seven years old so, I know this stuff is over your head.

You can leave now .............

Considering that you're here 24/7, when did you have time to apply your skills as an attorney to these several hundred pages?

 

[edward37]

BREAKING........New Flynn filing reveals efforts to interfere in Meullers probe

 

[imawhosure]

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.

Well then Caddo, you need to read the Supreme Courts 9 to 0, let me spell that for you, NINE to ZERO determination, on virtually the SAME thing, where your hero Wiseman tried to pull the same crap. He put 85,000 people out of work, and the SC told him to stick it.

You are barking up the wrong tree. You want to impeach, DO IT! You want to pretend you have something? What is this, Caddo in Wonderland, lol.

PHONY BALONEY! You haven't got a clue, but why are we not surprised!

 

[Oddball]

at a minimum, Congress has the responsibility to impeach Trump for his abuse of power as related to his documented attempts to obstruct SC Mueller's investigation

There's nothing documented besides "we can't prove he didn't do X", which runs completely counter to proper rules of jurisprudence.

You poor, hapless, deluded kook.

The various attempts by Trump to obstruct the SC Mueller investigation are documented within Volume II, pages 15 -167, pages 224 - 448 of the PDF. https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Within that section of the report are at least 10 (documented) attempts by Trump to obstruct Mueller's investigation.

Congress has the responsibility to hold any POTUS accountable for such abuses of power.

I understand you are only seven years old so, I know this stuff is over your head.

You can leave now .............

It's over, fuckface....You bedwetting crackpots lost.

Over....Done....Finis...Terminated.

Grow the fuck up and move on.

 

[edward37]

Trump breaks record No access to briefing with lying Sanders

 

[Oddball]

BREAKING........New Flynn filing reveals efforts to interfere in Meullers probe

 

[Hale]

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.

You've proven something here, beyond all doubt: You are totally ignorant.