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

The democrats have lost their minds. They are not going to successfully remove Trump from by impeachment. Pelosi knows this and will keep on resisting and very likely will not get enough democrats in the house to proceed. And once it gets to the senate, it is dead on arrival.

They will not find a jury which will unanimously vote for conviction. All it will take is a smart lawyer with the following argument:

The collusion was only in the mind of the democrats. It will take more than wanting Trump to do it so they can convict him.

There was no attempt to obstruct other than just talk. There was real obstruction which Trump could have taken, but did not.

The claimed obstruction did not obstruct.

In a court of law, you are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. They will not be able to prove it beyond a shadow of doubt to all members of the jury.

You are living in a hate driven fantasy world which very likely the very smart lawyer will use to his advantage.

 

Impeachment? I'm talking about prison!

 

Your powers of comprehension are disappearing rapidly. Go back and read what I wrote.

 

He's been exonerated for that

 

So then what are the "instructions to Congress" that you referred to?

 

All of it

 

None of those things you mentioned are illegal in and of themselves, therefore do not fit the definition of corrupt intent, and not a single American was indicted for conspiracy against the United States.

You have nothing, and you'll just have to clutch your box with your piece of string inside and brace yourself for what is coming.

 

I don't know about "in and of themselves". I just know they're illegal in that particular act, nexus and intent as described by Mueller.

I'm not talking about "a single American" or "conspiracy". I'm talking about Trump committing Obstruction of Justice.

I see now that when you say above "none of those things are illegal" you don't even know what "those things" are...

If you're going to comment on something, not reading it before you do is not going to make you look very smart. Just so you know...

 

I know you don't know, that's why you don't know what the meaning of corrupt intent is, or what's actually required for obstruction of justice.

Oh well please continue making me look bad. You're winning bigly here.

 

Was it Mueller's job to instruct Congress on what is needed?

 

Yes. Because as he interpreted the OLC guidelines for indicting a prez, presenting Congress with the evidence they need to impeach Individual 1 for his crimes was Mueller's only alternative.

 

Cool! So we got evidence now? Perfect! Please submit it to DOJ ASAP so I can stop seeing these desperate threads

 

Yes!

 

It was Mueller's job to instruct Congress on what is needed for impeachment?

 

So then his original brief would have guided him to present guidelines on how to impeach if he discovers that he cannot indict Trump?

 

There is no such crime as attempted obstruction. None of those things ever came to fruition. McGhan did not lie, Mueller was not fired, the AG never took over the investigation, and sessions never limited anything.

 

Your fabricated, malicious, corrupt investigation would get the entire case thrown out and the key witnesses thrown in jail. No prosecutor will bring that case.

 

There are many. For example (emphasis added)

18 U.S.C. § 1512
...
(b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; person to—
.... etc​

 

He threatened no one, intimidated no one and nothing was delayed so...

 

How big do you need me to make the word "attempt"

Responding to you is a waste of time

 

So attempt doesn't have anything to do with the rest of the words in the quote?

 

For each of the relevant actions investigated, the Mueller report set out evidence on both sides of the equation. So why did you exclude all the counter-acting evidence from your post? In fact, it was that counter-acting evidence from the Mueller report that led the AG and Deputy AG to conclude that there was no criminal case to be had against Trump. Yet, you keep calling Trump a criminal, when not even Mueller himself could make such a claim, which is why he punted to Barr.

The reality is that the only case you and the House Dems have against Trump is the case of your own partisan bias and hatred towards him, and for that you keep convicting yourselves each day.

 

No matter how big you make it, it won't make your argument any stronger; because you have no real argument, just contempt.

Nothing Trump did was intimidating, threatening, or corruptly persuasive: none of it impeded the Mueller investigation, and none of it was outside the powers of the Presidency.

 

You are confused. There were ten instances of Obstruction mentioned by Mueller. In six of them there was, as you say, either evidence on both sides of the equation or possible alternative explanations or information that was still lacking to make a determination, and which Mueller leaves instructions (to Congress) as to how to obtain that information. These six where lacking in one or two of the three elements necessary to make a conviction: act, nexus, intent.

The four cases that I present are the ones that are unequivocal. There is ample evidence and meet all the requirements in all three aspects required by any court to make a conviction: act, nexus and intent.

No. The AG admitted to Congress, under oath, that he made that determination without even looking at the underlying evidence.

That's because, unlike Mueller, I am not bound by DoJ regulations. Make no mistake about it. If Mueller were not bound by those regulations, he would be saying the same thing I am. Here.... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...even-say-that-trump-committed-a-crime.556548/

I don't have any case. I don't need a case because I have quotes. The Mueller Report has the case already made. There are four quotes on the OP.

There is one interesting thing you will notice in discussions about the Mueller Report. The right never quotes it. Every time I talk about the report, I quote it.

The report is everywhere. Here is one. If you think I omitted anything of relevance, you are more than welcome to quote it.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...n-full-trump-russia-document-what-does-it-say

 

You are correct in that I have no "real argument" because I have made no argument whatsoever. All I did was quote the law..

Mueller begs to differ. Read the OP
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...imes-100-proven-in-the-mueller-report.556547/
And, BTW, I'm not making any argument there either. I'm just quoting the report. Any conclusion you reach from reading it is yours, and yours alone.