Trump's Four Obstruction of Justice Crimes 100% proven in the Mueller Report

Why?

You assume too much. I only go by the facts.

 

You could have fooled me.

 

This section............II. FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION.............begins in Vol. II, page 15.

 

But Mueller said he was never obstructed.

 

Not if you refuse to read the OP.. If you want all elements explained in detail, you will have to go to the report at the pages quoted, because they are many pages long. Too long to copy-paste. And, if you are really as interested as you say (and not just "trolling"), then you will open the report and read it there starting at those page numbers. I could not make it easier for you.

 

I don't even try. Because I would never be as good at fooling you as Trump is.

 

Trump has never fooled me. That means you are terrible.

 

He has. But you're right in that I'm terrible at fooling people. No experience, I guess. Unlike Trump who has a life-long experience which allows him to fool people, while most of them don't even realize that they're being fooled. I could never do that. Nor would I want to.

 

No. Because I believe very little that politicians say. Right or left.

 

And you quoted DIRECTLY from the report?

 

Yeah, but obstructing Mueller wasn't the only way that the investigation could've been obstructed.

 

Yes.

Below is an excerpt from Mueller's report referring to Comey's firing. I thought it would be useful to end the conjecture and show in black and white parts of Mueller's case for a charge of obstruction. See the link for the complete text. Note to monitors.......I'm assuming normal copyright rules don't apply to this document so I cut and pasted more than what is usually allowed.

"In analyzing the President's decision to fire Comey, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice:

a. Obstructive act. The act of firing Comey removed the individual overseeing the FBI's Russia investigation. The President knew that Comey was personally involved in the investigation based on Comey's briefing of the Gang of Eight, Comey's March 20, 2017 public testimony about the investigation, and the President's one-on-one conversations with Comey. Firing Comey would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural and probable effect of interfering with or impeding the investigation-for example, if the termination would have the effect of delaying or disrupting the investigation or providing the President with the opportunity to appoint a director who would take a different approach to the investigation that the President perceived as more protective of his personal interests.

b. Nexus to a proceeding. The nexus element would be satisfied by evidence showing that a grand jury proceeding or criminal prosecution arising from an FBI investigation was objectively foreseeable and actually contemplated by the President when he terminated Comey. Several facts would be relevant to such a showing. At.the time the President fired Comey, a grand jury had not begun to hear evidence related to the Russia investigation and no grand jury subpoenas had been issued. On March 20, 2017, however, Comey had announced that the FBI was investigating Russia's interference in the election, including "an assessment of whether any crimes were committed." It was widely known that the FBI, as part of the Russia investigation, was investigating the hacking of the DNC's computers-a clear criminal offense.

c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President's decision to fire Comey was Comey's unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation, despite the President's repeated requests that Comey make such an announcement. In the week leading up to Comey's May 3, 2017 Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, the President told McGahn that it would be the last straw if Comey did not set the record straight and publicly announce that the President was not under investigation. But during his May 3 testimony, Comey refused to answer questions about whether the President was being investigated."

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

You should read this thread.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...the-lies-about-mueller-and-his-report.559396/

 

However, Mueller said his investigation was was not obstructed.

 

The opening post is nonsense. Mueller didn't even find enough evidence to justify an indictment, much less a conviction.

According to Comey and Mueller, Mueller Committed Perjury In Congressional Testimony.

“Did Robert Mueller lie to Congress and mislead them about his intent in holding a May press conference? Under normal circumstances, the answer to this question would be no. Using the standards applied by Comey and Mueller, the standard they have used to jail people, the special counsel himself to several individuals charged with making false statements to investigators, Dirty Bob would be in serious legal jeopardy.”



On May 28, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich called attorneys prosecuting the case into her courtroom for a closed hearing. Friedrich agreed with one defendant’s claims that Mueller had overstated the evidence when he implied in his report to Congress that the trolls were controlled by the Russian government and that the social media operations they conducted during the 2016 presidential campaign were directed by Moscow. News organizations had seized on the highly suggestive wording in his report to report they were part of a Kremlin-run operation.

Concerned that Mueller’s words could prejudice a jury and jeopardize the defendants’ right to a fair trial, Friedrich ordered the special prosecutor to stop making such claims and “to minimize the prejudice moving forward” — or face sanction.

“The government shall refrain from making or authorizing any public statement that links the alleged conspiracy in the indictment to the Russian government,” Friedrich stated in her ruling, which was private at the time. “Willful failure to do so in the future will result in the initiation of contempt proceedings.”

The judge explained that Mueller’s report improperly referred to the defendants’ “social media operations” as one of “two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections” carried out by the Russian government. She also pointed out that he also referred to their Internet trolling as “active measures” — a term of art that typically includes operations conducted by Russian intelligence to influence international affairs. She said this was a departure from the government’s original February 2018 indictment, which “does not link the defendants to the Russian government” and “alleges only private conduct by private actors.”​

In his surprise Press Conference, Dirty Bob Mueller stepped back carefully from the report in one key passage, which went largely unnoticed at the time:

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities, and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.

And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election.​

That distinction between the sources of the two efforts was rarely if ever made publicly by either Mueller or those working off of the same material. The closest that the unredacted Mueller report comes to characterizing the Internet Research Agency (IRA) to Russian intelligence is to note that the IRA was funded by a Putin crony, Russian oligarch Yevgeniy Prigozhin. Yet Mueller’s team and Congress often conflated the two separate operations into one government-run mission, which might still be the case but not what the grand jury alleged.

Mueller’s standing in court was his main objective for his statement. And it worked; Judge Friedrich ruled on July 1 that the presser put Mueller back in compliance:

“In delivering his remarks,” she said, “the special counsel carefully distinguished between the efforts by ‘Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military’ and the efforts detailed ‘in a separate indictment’ by ‘a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.’”​

This brings us to Mueller’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on July 24th, two weeks ago today. Republican Tom McClintock asked Dirty Bob directly about this very point, to which Mueller eventually gave a denial (~ the 3-minute mark):



Mueller flat-out lied. Dirty Bob knowingly gave Congress a false statement under oath, and he wants to see the former special counsel’s sworn testimony referred to the Justice Department for investigation of possible perjury — a charge for which Mueller has sent Trump associates to prison. Most of them were prosecuted for lying to federal agents, but Mueller busted Trump lawyer Michael Cohen specifically for lying to Congress last November.

“If he lied, he’s guilty of perjury and lying to Congress,” McClintock said, adding that “I think this would be of interest to the U.S. attorney investigating misconduct in this matter and the inspector general’s office.”​

 

This is Mueller explaining what would be required in order for act, nexus and intent to be established. Are you saying that this is him saying that all three apply to Trump? This would be him saying that he thinks that Trump is guilty!

 

This is Mueller explaining what would be required in order for act, nexus and intent to be established. Are you saying that this is him saying that all three apply to Trump? This would be him saying that he thinks that Trump is guilty!

 

WHY wouldn't it make sense if Mueller allowed Barr to get away with making a false testimony, saying that Mueller said something that he didn't say? Because Mueller wasn't
even happy with Barr's summary letter! And you think that he would let a false testimony by Barr go unchallenged? Yeah right!

 

What I pasted is Mueller providing the evidence of act, nexus and intent, not explaining what would be required to sustain a charge of obstruction in theory. He does this for the 10 separate instances of obstruction he lists in the report.
His intention for doing so is to fulfill his mandate as the Special Counsel. That mandate, as he sees it, is not to make a judgement as to Trump's guilt or innocence but rather to lay out the facts and let Congress to decide what to do since judicial proceedings through the DOJ are not permitted.

 

But you're saying that the evidence says that he is guilty aren't you?

 

Yes, IMO, and in the opinion of over 1,000 former federal prosecutors the evidence presented in the report is sufficient for a guilty verdict of obstruction of justice in a court of law.

 

How many thousands of former federal prosecutors are there? Without that little tid bit of information that number is pretty much useless.

 

LOL, we still talking about this? THIS IS DEAD... No matter what is said, it's DEAD. EXPOSED for being a HOAX..

 

I'm sure you badly want to believe it's dead and a hoax. But.........you know.........neither is true, so...............

 

Do you believe that if it was not for the OLC opinion, that Mueller would've indicted Trump for Obstruction?

 

Based on the evidence Mueller details in the report, yes. It might be useful for you to read this over.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map

It highlights the 4 strongest instances of obstruction Mueller reveals.