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

[moarBB]

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

yup. the NIGGERS are drowning and AXING for help

we wont help

let em DROWN

 

[Adre]

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.

In the report, he noted that the Justice Department will not prosecute a sitting President, because that could “potentially preëmpt constitutional processes for addressing Presidential misconduct.”

 

[Adre]

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.

True...unless you’re the sitting President who can’t be indicted.

 

[KeithD]

True...unless you’re the sitting President who can’t be indicted.

Harpy just continues to be full of shit.

 

[moarBB]

In the report, he noted that the Justice Department will not prosecute a sitting President, because that could “potentially preëmpt constitutional processes for addressing Presidential misconduct.”

https://media1.giphy.com/media/3orif8W1GvLBLJjTNK/giphy.gif

 

[KeithD]

You're full of shit too, and I know that without taking you off ignore to look at your vomit.

 

[LukNotLuke]

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.

Even though Mueller had no right to exonerate him? I like how you have to keep spelling Dudley wrong after fucking it up the first time Stick to your guns, Rapey!

 

[moarBB]

The rock group Eagles performed a song called "get over it" The music from this song should be played at all Trump rallies. One of the lines from the song says "I'd like to find your inner child, and kick its little @ss". I highly recommend the song to all, especially progressives. You lost. Get over it!

 

[HisArpy]

Even though Mueller had no right to exonerate him? I like how you have to keep spelling Dudley wrong after fucking it up the first time Stick to your guns, Rapey!

What an ignorant little turd you turned out to be Margarita.

Mueller had no duty to exonerate Trump.

OTOH,

Trump has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to stand up and claim he was exonerated by the fact that he wasn't charged with a crime.

 

[jomar]

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.

With the name calling again, lol.

Ok, so let’s use Comey as an example. If Trump fires Comey because he doesn’t like the suit he’s wearing, no problem. If he fires Comey because he’s afraid of what an investigation might reveal about him, does that not meet an element or three of obstruction?

Same thing with Mueller. If he fires him, or has an agent acting on his behalf fire him, because he thinks the investigation is siphoning off golf money, no problem. If he fires or has him fired because he’s afraid of what the investigation will reveal, does that not speak to obstruction as it would serve to impede the investigation...and the corrupt intent?

And what about trying to get witnesses to not cooperate?

So it looks like he did meet at least some me elements of obstruction of justice though can’t be held accountable while President. And unless he does something even Republicans can’t ignore and sweep under the rug, impeachment is unlikely. The obstruction while being president is more more complex than we’re boiling it down here, most likely.

And you’re correct I never took the bar or went to law school...my graduate degrees are in a different area.

 

[LukNotLuke]

The rock group Eagles performed a song called "get over it" The music from this song should be played at all Trump rallies. One of the lines from the song says "I'd like to find your inner child, and kick its little @ss". I highly recommend the song to all, especially progressives. You lost. Get over it!

It's only been 3 years, you whiny bitches went on for 8 years and still bitch like toddlers. "Get Over It", indeed.

 

[HisArpy]

In the report, he noted that the Justice Department will not prosecute a sitting President, because that could “potentially preëmpt constitutional processes for addressing Presidential misconduct.”

Which in layman's terms means that Trump possessed the authority to fire Mueller if he wanted to under Art II and it wouldn't be "obstruction".

True...unless you’re the sitting President who can’t be indicted.

Sitting President or not, if you aren't charged with a crime because what you did was Constitutionally lawful, you can stand there and shout all you want about exoneration and absolutely be speaking the truth.

 

[jomar]

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.

Serious question. When you refer to needing an “underlying crime to obstruct,” precisely what are you referring to?

 

[jomar]

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

I know.

 

[moarBB]

With the name calling again, lol.

Ok, so let’s use Comey as an example. If Trump fires Comey because he doesn’t like the suit he’s wearing, no problem. If he fires Comey because he’s afraid of what an investigation might reveal about him, does that not meet an element or three of obstruction?

Same thing with Mueller. If he fires him, or has an agent acting on his behalf fire him, because he thinks the investigation is siphoning off golf money, no problem. If he fires or has him fired because he’s afraid of what the investigation will reveal, does that not speak to obstruction as it would serve to impede the investigation...and the corrupt intent?

And what about trying to get witnesses to not cooperate?

So it looks like he did meet at least some me elements of obstruction of justice though can’t be held accountable while President. And unless he does something even Republicans can’t ignore and sweep under the rug, impeachment is unlikely. The obstruction while being president is more more complex than we’re boiling it down here, most likely.

And you’re correct I never took the bar or went to law school...my graduate degrees are in a different area.

a document

called THE CONSTITUTION says he can fire anyone and no need for a reason

PLUS, you musta missed CriminalComey testifying

That even HIS firing doesnt stop an FBI Investigation




VoteCuntClinton, polls still open, no need for voter ID

 

[LukNotLuke]

What an ignorant little turd you turned out to be Margarita.

Mueller had no duty to exonerate Trump.

OTOH,

Trump has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to stand up and claim he was exonerated by the fact that he wasn't charged with a crime.

How can 45 claim to be exonerated by a report where the author of the report had no right to exonerate him?

How fucking pathetic will you get over this? Where's the law for that?

 

[HisArpy]

With the name calling again, lol.

Ok, so let’s use Comey as an example. If Trump fires Comey because he doesn’t like the suit he’s wearing, no problem. If he fires Comey because he’s afraid of what an investigation might reveal about him, does that not meet an element or three of obstruction?

No. In order to find "obstruction" ALL OF THE ELEMENTS of the offense must be present.

One of the elements is having an "unlawful intent". IF you exercise your lawful authority, there is no "unlawful intent" formed regardless if the result would be unlawful for anyone else to do the same.

Same thing with Mueller. If he fires him, or has an agent acting on his behalf fire him, because he thinks the investigation is siphoning off golf money, no problem. If he fires or has him fired because he’s afraid of what the investigation will reveal, does that not speak to obstruction as it would serve to impede the investigation...and the corrupt intent?

And what about trying to get witnesses to not cooperate?

Same as above. Without the required mental intent, there is no offense.

So it looks like he did meet at least some me elements of obstruction of justice though can’t be held accountable while President. And unless he does something even Republicans can’t ignore and sweep under the rug, impeachment is unlikely. The obstruction while being president is more more complex than we’re boiling it down here, most likely.

"SOME elements" are not "ALL elements" of the offense. ALL elements must be present.

For ex: Your property is private property and no one can "trespass" on it without your permission. Yet, salesmen come across your yard to knock on your door and try to sell you candy bars. They aren't "trespassers". Why not? Because there are provisions in the law and societal custom which exempt them. Same with the mailman, the police and fire dept, and so on.

It is no different here. Trump basically has an "exemption" from being charged because one of the required "elements" is missing.

And you’re correct I never took the bar or went to law school...my graduate degrees are in a different area.

Good for you. If I ever need advice in your area of expertise, I'll certainly ask. The only thing I request is that you extend the same PROFESSIONAL courtesy. That sheepskin was earned by everyone who has one. Some degree of respect for that is appropriate no matter the differing political viewpoint.

 

[Adre]

In the report, he noted that the Justice Department will not prosecute a sitting President, because that could “potentially preëmpt constitutional processes for addressing Presidential misconduct.”

Which in layman's terms means that Trump possessed the authority to fire Mueller if he wanted to under Art II and it wouldn't be "obstruction".

It says nothing of the sort. Your reading comprehension is atrocious. How you got through law school is a mystery for the ages.

 

[icanhelp1]

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.

You have to forgive these idiots. They don't understand article II concepts because they can't count that high. They get stuck on one and stupid at the same time.

 

[jomar]

a document

called THE CONSTITUTION says he can fire anyone and no need for a reason

PLUS, you musta missed CriminalComey testifying

That even HIS firing doesnt stop an FBI Investigation

VoteCuntClinton, polls still open, no need for voter ID

That’s right, it prompted a special counsel.

 

[moarBB]

That’s right, it prompted a special counsel.

you mean CriminalComey leaking to the press prompted it? Yes, I agree

 

[jomar]

No. In order to find "obstruction" ALL OF THE ELEMENTS of the offense must be present.

One of the elements is having an "unlawful intent". IF you exercise your lawful authority, there is no "unlawful intent" formed regardless if the result would be unlawful for anyone else to do the same.

Same as above. Without the required mental intent, there is no offense.

"SOME elements" are not "ALL elements" of the offense. ALL elements must be present.

For ex: Your property is private property and no one can "trespass" on it without your permission. Yet, salesmen come across your yard to knock on your door and try to sell you candy bars. They aren't "trespassers". Why not? Because there are provisions in the law and societal custom which exempt them. Same with the mailman, the police and fire dept, and so on.

It is no different here. Trump basically has an "exemption" from being charged because one of the required "elements" is missing.

I know all the elements must be there for an actual charge/conviction of obstruction. Here are the elements:

Elements of an Obstruction of Justice Charge: Prosecutors must prove the following elements for a conviction under section 1503 of the federal statute (influencing or injuring an officer or juror):

1. There was a pending federal judicial proceeding;
2. The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
3. The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/obstruction-of-justice.html

Where does it talk about "unlawful intent"? I imagine lawyers could bill thousands of dollars debating unlawful intent vs corrupt intent, the latter of which has been used in the hearings.

The first two elements are clearly met. We know from the investigation that Trump tried to intervene (interfere), but might be difficult proving the corrupt intent, despite everyone knowing it.

ETA: Overlooked the “attempt to interfere” piece of element 3. That might suffice.

Good for you. If I ever need advice in your area of expertise, I'll certainly ask. The only thing I request is that you extend the same PROFESSIONAL courtesy. That sheepskin was earned by everyone who has one. Some degree of respect for that is appropriate no matter the differing political viewpoint.

Yep.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Once again the dumass strikes.

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

Look sweety, I'm aware that you and the rest of the geebee goon squad made up your feeble minds that Director Mueller wasn't going to find evidence to indict Trump as soon as he was appointed so I have no inclination to try to convince you of anything. It is your right to wallow in your chosen ignorance. Enjoy

 

[icanhelp1]

Serious question. When you refer to needing an “underlying crime to obstruct,” precisely what are you referring to?

The Mueller report was a criminal investigation under the auspices of the DOJ. Section one of the report dealt with conspiracy to interfere with a foreign entity to sway an election ( Russians collusion ) The Mueller investigation found the Trump team was not involved in criminal conspiracy, the underlying lack of crime.

 

[jomar]

The Mueller report was a criminal investigation under the auspices of the DOJ. Section one of the report dealt with conspiracy to interfere with a foreign entity to sway an election ( Russians collusion ) The Mueller investigation found the Trump team was not involved in criminal conspiracy, the underlying lack of crime.

Correct, for part one, which is irrelevant regarding obstruction.