What The Mueller Report ACTUALLY States

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, you, along with many others, hate the fact that The Constitution requires Congress to be a check on the executive.

Just go ahead and tell everyone here that you really hate OUR Constitution.

That IS your implication, that you HATE The Constitution.

Where did I say don't do it?

I said do it, you ******* idiot.

You're the pussies who don't like the constitution, because you won't accept a duly elected president.

Impeach or shut your ***** mouth.

.

I bet you were screaming the same bloviation of utter bullshit when Nixon was threatened with impeachment & resigned, and when Clinton was impeached, right. LOFL, you ******* loser ..............

I wasn't old enough for Nixon, but I was AGAINST impeaching Clinton. It was a stupid political move that the dog shit GOP paid the price for.

With all of the communist in your ******* party I want you buttfuckers to pay the same price.

Kill a commie for mommy.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

democrats are too ***** to impeach.

Bok bok bok booook!!!!!

Chicken!!!




******* pussies.

.

 

[caddo kid]

So, you, along with many others, hate the fact that The Constitution requires Congress to be a check on the executive.

Just go ahead and tell everyone here that you really hate OUR Constitution.

That IS your implication, that you HATE The Constitution.

Where did I say don't do it?

I said do it, you ******* idiot.

You're the pussies who don't like the constitution, because you won't accept a duly elected president.

Impeach or shut your ***** mouth.

.

I bet you were screaming the same bloviation of utter bullshit when Nixon was threatened with impeachment & resigned, and when Clinton was impeached, right. LOFL, you ******* loser ..............

I wasn't old enough for Nixon, but I was AGAINST impeaching Clinton. It was a stupid political move that the dog shit GOP paid the price for.

With all of the communist in your ******* party I want you buttfuckers to pay the same price.

Kill a commie for mommy.

So, you only re-enforce my suspicion; you HATE the fact that Congress is responsible for holding the executive in check, a basic tenet of The Constitution.

You obviously HATE the very document that IS our nation.

You are one sad sack of shit.

 

[SmokeALib]

So, you, along with many others, hate the fact that The Constitution requires Congress to be a check on the executive.

Just go ahead and tell everyone here that you really hate OUR Constitution.

That IS your implication, that you HATE The Constitution.

Where did I say don't do it?

I said do it, you ******* idiot.

You're the pussies who don't like the constitution, because you won't accept a duly elected president.

Impeach or shut your ***** mouth.

.

I bet you were screaming the same bloviation of utter bullshit when Nixon was threatened with impeachment & resigned, and when Clinton was impeached, right. LOFL, you ******* loser ..............

I wasn't old enough for Nixon, but I was AGAINST impeaching Clinton. It was a stupid political move that the dog shit GOP paid the price for.

With all of the communist in your ******* party I want you buttfuckers to pay the same price.

Kill a commie for mommy.

So, you only re-enforce my suspicion; you HATE the fact that Congress is responsible for holding the executive in check, a basic tenet of The Constitution.

You obviously HATE the very document that IS our nation.

You are one sad sack of shit.

And you're a worthless leftist traitor hack. 6 more years of crying for you.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

...

I'm not trying to argue comrade, I only insinuated that it's insane to expect people to take Obstructiongate seriously after it has just been proven that Russiagate was a total joke

 

[Cellblock2429]

Colluded: cooperate in a secret or unlawful way in order to deceive or gain an advantage over others.
Conspiracy: a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful; the action of plotting or conspiring.

Mueller: The investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

You lost. Suck it up, buttercup.

That said, I see you didn't address the issue of motive where obstruction is concerned.
Why?

Opportunity and means are easily understood when Trump's Tweets (the media reports on his every tweet=) and broadcast his every comments. Motive is obvious, he knows he is guilty.

/——/ Your non stop posts on USMB obviously means you’re guilty of something. Turn yourself into the police and cancel your membership.

 

[Cellblock2429]

So, you, along with many others, hate the fact that The Constitution requires Congress to be a check on the executive.

Just go ahead and tell everyone here that you really hate OUR Constitution.

That IS your implication, that you HATE The Constitution.

Where did I say don't do it?

I said do it, you ******* idiot.

You're the pussies who don't like the constitution, because you won't accept a duly elected president.

Impeach or shut your ***** mouth.

.

I bet you were screaming the same bloviation of utter bullshit when Nixon was threatened with impeachment & resigned, and when Clinton was impeached, right. LOFL, you ******* loser ..............

I wasn't old enough for Nixon, but I was AGAINST impeaching Clinton. It was a stupid political move that the dog shit GOP paid the price for.

With all of the communist in your ******* party I want you buttfuckers to pay the same price.

Kill a commie for mommy.

So, you only re-enforce my suspicion; you HATE the fact that Congress is responsible for holding the executive in check, a basic tenet of The Constitution.

You obviously HATE the very document that IS our nation.

You are one sad sack of shit.

/——/ DemocRATs grimace as Barr digs in. Funny stuff
AG Bill Barr tells Fox News public must know if officials 'put their thumb on the scale' in Russia probe

 

[georgephillip]

...

I'm not trying to argue comrade, I only insinuated that it's insane to expect people to take Obstructiongate seriously after it has just been proven that Russiagate was a total joke

I'm not trying to argue comrade, I only insinuated that it's insane to expect people to take Obstructiongate seriously after it has just been proven that Russiagate was a total joke

Who's proven "Russiagate" was a total joke?

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Who's proven "Russiagate" was a total joke?

Saint Mueller of course... it was all over the news, don't tell me you missed it..

 

[Cellblock2429]

...

I'm not trying to argue comrade, I only insinuated that it's insane to expect people to take Obstructiongate seriously after it has just been proven that Russiagate was a total joke

I'm not trying to argue comrade, I only insinuated that it's insane to expect people to take Obstructiongate seriously after it has just been proven that Russiagate was a total joke

Who's proven "Russiagate" was a total joke?

/—-/ All made up bs designed to harm the president during the run up to 2020. Nothing more.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, it's obvious now that Nunes is referring to the Mueller report as the Mueller dossier & fantas...

Mueller understood obstruction only exists if intent can be proven -- and he could not prove intent.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Opportunity and means are easily understood when Trump's Tweets (the media reports on his every tweet=) and broadcast his every comments. Motive is obvious, he knows he is guilty.

Mueller understood obstruction only exists if corrupt intent can be proven -- and he knew could not prove intent.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Federal laws states:

18 U.S. Code § 1505.
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law...
18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

For obstruction to exist, the motive for the claimed obstruction must be "corrupt".
For a conviction of obstruction, the prosecutor must prove said motive was "corrupt".
Trump knew the Mueller investigation would find nothing on collusion with Russia; the Trump administration cooperated with the Mueller investigation in innumerable ways.

Prove Trump's motives were corrupt..

You don't know the meaning of the word, "OR," do ya, Spunky?

Under the law, for obstruction to exist, the allegedly obstructive act must be motivated by a corrupt intent.
Prove Trump's motives were corrupt.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Federal laws states:

18 U.S. Code § 1505.
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law...
18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

For obstruction to exist, the motive for the claimed obstruction must be "corrupt".
For a conviction of obstruction, the prosecutor must prove said motive was "corrupt".
Trump knew the Mueller investigation would find nothing on collusion with Russia; the Trump administration cooperated with the Mueller investigation in innumerable ways.

Prove Trump's motives were corrupt..

He said it... He clearly said he fired Comey over the 'Russian Thing'... He clearly said he did not fire Comey for his job performance...

Mueller disagrees - he himself said that, absent collusion with the Russians, motives other than some corrput intent must be considered.
For obstruction to exist, the motive for the claimed obstruction must be "corrupt".
For a conviction of obstruction, the prosecutor must prove said motive was "corrupt".
Thus: you have nothing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The question begs: If Trump & his associates were innocent of any conspiracy with any Russian persons, why did these people act like they were guilty?

Upon the release of the Mueller report, your question is irrelevant.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, you, along with many others, hate the fact that The Constitution requires Congress to be a check on the executive.

What crime do you suggest he be impeached for?

 

[Crepitus]

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.

They aren't gonna read it. tRump said it exonerated him totally and Hannity backed him up so that's all they needed to hear.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They aren't gonna read it.

Ironic, given how you hyper-partisan bigots refuse to understand that obstruction can only exist if corrupt intent can be proven -- and Mueller said he could not prove said intent.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

 

[Crepitus]

They aren't gonna read it.

Ironic, given how you hyper-partisan bigots refuse to understand that obstruction can only exist if corrupt intent can be proven -- and Mueller said he could not prove said intent.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

You didn't even read the OP, how could anyone think you will ever read a 400+ page report?

 

[M14 Shooter]

They aren't gonna read it.

Ironic, given how you hyper-partisan bigots refuse to understand that obstruction can only exist if corrupt intent can be proven -- and Mueller said he could not prove said intent.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

You didn't even read the OP, how could anyone think you will ever read a 400+ page report?

Look at you, refusing to understand the truth, as stated in the report.

Federal laws states:

18 U.S. Code § 1505.
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law...
18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

For obstruction to exist, the motive for the claimed obstruction must be "corrupt".
For a conviction of obstruction, the prosecutor must prove said motive was "corrupt".
Trump knew the Mueller investigation would find nothing on collusion with Russia; the Trump administration cooperated with the Mueller investigation in innumerable ways.

Mueller report:
"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.

Mueller report:
"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.