███████████ Mueller Investigation Results Thread ███████████

[contrifan32]

That response reflects your ethnical and moral degeneracy.

No, its meant to poke fun and illustrate your serious case of TDS. You really should get that looked at before you blow a fuse... or something

 

[KeithD]

No, its meant to poke fun and illustrate your serious case of TDS. You really should get that looked at before you blow a fuse... or something

Triggered. (and running on empty)

 

[moarBB]

That's because Trump's obstruction efforts fell short. But you know that.

what OBSTRUCTION

 

[Adre]

what OBSTRUCTION

Obstruction, like a murder, need not be successful to qualify as a crime, Yidiot.

 

[KeithD]

It's OK with me if the Trumpettes exhibit how dumb they are about obstruction.

 

[Rightguide]

yeah but MuleLiar said he wasnt interefered with

didya miss that?

He missed the whole barn.

 

[OldJourno]

You might have some knowledge being a lawyer, but I have no doubt RG doesn't. I'm sure he googled "President's Article I authority" then said "the challenge was to educate yourself" when he failed to find anything.

Yes Trump had the authority to fire Muellor or not cooperate. That's not the issue. The issue is obstruction.

Here...Legal Definition of obstruction of justice

: the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process
https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/obstruction**0of**0justice

or here...18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "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 administration of justice."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice

The presidential authority you cited in article I and II do not include the president's legal authority to obstruct justice, which is what part 2 of the Mueller report is all about.

So how do you, a lawyer, view presidential authority under Art I and II as allowing obstruction of justice?

How many times did you take the bar before you passed it?

Rep. John Ratcliffe asked Mueller whether his investigation been curtailed, stopped or hindered at any time. Mueller answered, "No."

 

[moarBB]

Obstruction, like a murder, need not be successful to qualify as a crime, Yidiot.

what obstruction?

 

[Rightguide]

Obstruction, like a murder, need not be successful to qualify as a crime, Yidiot.

It does have to have "corrupt intent," and an underlying crime to obstruct. There was neither. As I've already said there can be no obstruction when the President is exercising his Article II authority. So, stop the subversive lies.

 

[moarBB]

“As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller said.

Mueller also pushed back on New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries’ characterization of the report’s findings on obstruction of justice, stating that he doesn’t “subscribe to the way that you analyzed that.”

Lieu also attempted to reach a conclusion on whether or not the president obstructed justice – something Mueller specifically declined to do in his report — prompting a clarification from the special counsel.

“Based on the evidence we heard today, I think a reasonable person can conclude three crimes of obstruction of justice by the president occurred,” Lieu said.


Mueller replied, “Going through the elements with you does not meant that I subscribe to what you’re trying to prove through those elements.”

 

[moarBB]

Finally, Alabama Rep. Terri Sewell claimed that three Trump campaign officials actively sought electoral help from Russia, to which Mueller declared, “I can’t accept that characterization.”

 

[Adre]

It does have to have "corrupt intent," and an underlying crime to obstruct. There was neither. As I've already said there can be no obstruction when the President is exercising his Article I authority. So, stop the subversive lies.

Your opinion. Mueller refused to exonerate. If he agreed with you, he would have.

 

[HisArpy]

You might have some knowledge being a lawyer, but I have no doubt RG doesn't. I'm sure he googled "President's Article I authority" then said "the challenge was to educate yourself" when he failed to find anything.

Yes Trump had the authority to fire Muellor or not cooperate. That's not the issue. The issue is obstruction.

Here...Legal Definition of obstruction of justice

: the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process
https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/obstruction**0of**0justice

or here...18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "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 administration of justice."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice

The presidential authority you cited in article I and II do not include the president's legal authority to obstruct justice, which is what part 2 of the Mueller report is all about.

So how do you, a lawyer, view presidential authority under Art I and II as allowing obstruction of justice?

How many times did you take the bar before you passed it?

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand what the law says. You don't have to be a lawyer to read judicial opinions and precedent.

What you have to be is intelligent enough to understand the concepts involved. Something I suspect most of the anti-Trump idjits are not capable of.

IF, the President cannot be constrained in who he fires from government service, then ANYTHING he does in that regard cannot, by definition be "a crime". You CANNOT claim "a crime" occurred when the act itself was lawful.

That is a basic concept which you seem unable or unwilling to accept.

Trump has authority under ARt II to terminate Mueller. Discussing such a thing with WH counsel is not "a crime" because it would be a LEGAL ACT. Requesting someone to fire Mueller would ALSO be "a legal act" since the termination would itself be LEGAL.

Nor is it "a crime" to conspire to commit a LEGAL act.

So dumass, you got bupkiss. Mueller says no collusion/conspiracy and the obstruction thing is predicated on ignorance of Trump's legal authority and powers under the US Constitution.

You know the cool thing about passing the State Bar exam? I did it. You didn't.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Everything Trump does has corrupt intent. There's no fun in it for him unless he can pick your pocket.

 

[HisArpy]

Everything Trump does has corrupt intent. There's no fun in it for him unless he can pick your pocket.

Once again the dumass strikes.

Don't you ever get tired of being a fuckup all day every day?

 

[HisArpy]

Your opinion. Mueller refused to exonerate. If he agreed with you, he would have.

It wasn't Mueller's job to exonerate. It was his job to investigate and present his findings. Failing to indict (for whatever reason) is an indication that no offenses were discovered.

Which is an exoneration by default.

 

[Adre]

It wasn't Mueller's job to exonerate. It was his job to investigate and present his findings. Failing to indict (for whatever reason) is an indication that no offenses were discovered.

Which is an exoneration by default.

You’re conveniently avoiding the OLC opinion. 1000 prosecutors of note disagree with you.

 

[KeithD]

Trump has already been fingered in New York (recently actually named) as a coconspirator (and actually the central figure and instigator) for what Michael Cohen is already in prison for. There's no reason other than his position, which other crimes of his has put into dispute, that he's not already in prison too. And the disgusting Trumpette toads know that and are just jerking the board around--or trying to. Ethically and Morally degenerate.

 

[Adre]

I expect the SDNY will indict him in 2021.

 

[LukNotLuke]

It wasn't Mueller's job to exonerate. It was his job to investigate and present his findings. Failing to indict (for whatever reason) is an indication that no offenses were discovered.

Which is an exoneration by default.

You disingenuous fucks are hilarious. Do you not remember that 45 himself said that he was exonerated?

 

[KeithD]

I expect the SDNY will indict him in 2021.

They'll have to stand in line with the good guys to get a piece of this asshole.

 

[KnottBeBe]

Your opinion. Mueller refused to exonerate. If he agreed with you, he would have.

http://giphygifs.s3.amazonaws.com/media/esB20S2G29w1G/200.gif

 

[HisArpy]

You’re conveniently avoiding the OLC opinion. 1000 prosecutors of note disagree with you.

1. Mueller stated unequivocally that the OLC opinion was not a factor if he could charge Trump with obstruction.

2. Who the fuck cares what 1000 dumass former prosecutors believe or say? The ONLY person that mattered was Mueller. And he said no.

3. The law is the law. Under the law, Trump cannot be charged for the use of his executive authority under the Constitution.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...stice-for-exercising-his-constitutional-power

 

[moarBB]

and you can get 1000 OTHERS who say otherwise

 

[HisArpy]

You disingenuous fucks are hilarious. Do you not remember that 45 himself said that he was exonerated?

dudly, if the Government is investigating you and they don't charge or indict you, I'd say you have every reason to stand up and say you were exonerated.