Mueller: Trump Could Be Charged with Obstruction of Justice After Leaving Office

Considering that an attempt to obstruct justice is considered a crime, any individual who doesn't have the status of POTUS would have been prosecuted.

It should be recalled that Trump asked Don McGahn to fire Mueller.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...ring-ken-buck-obstruction-charges-sot-vpx.cnn

 

Change that to SHOULD BE!!!

 

Technically, he DIRECTED McGahn to have the Special Counsel REMOVED...

Trump seems to object to the word "fired" later in the report, so let's stay with what's in the report..

AND we knew this 3 months ago...

 

Mueller also admitted that he changed his view of HIS OWN interpretation of Obstruction to save his prosecutors after the Supreme Court of the United States rejected their use of that interpretation in their cases.

As he stated, his interpretation is in the report.

That means, he knows Trump cannot be charged which is why he never moved forward.

 

Incorrect.

Mueller had neither the mandate nor the power to charge Trump.

Only Congress can do that.

Mueller could only present the evidence he had gathered and hand it over to the Attorney General.

 

And Mueller can be charged right now.

 

Okie dokie...

Look forward to it 5 years from now.

 

That's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the fact that Mueller didn't advise to move forward with a case (for Congress). Because his own views of Obstruction mean that Congress can't find him guilty.

As per the Supreme Court's decision on the same view of Obstruction in his prosecutor's team's cases. Those were overturned and viewed as unlawful.

Do you only watch the parts of this hearing that you want to hear or did you watch the whole thing so far? lol

 

They're not even waiting on talking points. No impeachment ... but an indictment in 2021 ... for sure, this time.

 

It has never been his mandate, and he has no right to do so.

Anyway, on the charges of obstructing justice, Mueller cannot exonerate Trump, which means that there is a high chance that a crime has been committed.

 

The boomerang hits them square in the face, so what do they do?

Pick it up, throw it again and wait.

 

LMFAO

 

Lol who said it's his mandate? The counsel was created to advise Congress and provide them with material on whether he did in fact obstruct justice.

By his (and the Supreme Court that overturned the cases his colleague's used) definition WHICH IS IN THE REPORT, Trump cannot be found guilty of obstruction.

If that is a "win" for you, then enjoy being miserable for a while.

 

Oh I expected nothing less ... just not so soon. By the time Blitzer gets to the "situation room" Schiff will have "ample & direct evidence" that he can't reveal because he got it in the closed door hearing. ::

 

A lemmings natural inclination is to head towards the edge of the cliff with the rest of the "mainstream".

 

Your statement might have merit in the country of Chad.

"Chad’s judicial system comprises the Supreme Court and criminal and magistrate courts. A Constitutional Council and a High Court of Justice, the latter made up of National Assembly members elected by their peers to handle any cases of treason involving members of the government, were abolished under the 2018 constitution."

But we don't live in Chad.... So your argument has no merit whatsoever.

 

The last few minutes of this is terrific:

Viewing this now:

 

No, it means there is evidence that he might have committed a crime.

 

Mueller:
Three basic elements are common to most of the relevant obstruction statutes: (1) an obstructive act; (2) a nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding; and (3) a corrupt intent.

Mueller:
Applying the obstruction statutes to the President’s official conduct would involve determining as a factual matter whether he engaged in an obstructive act, whether the act had a nexus to official proceedings, and whether he was motivated by corrupt intent.

Mueller:
“Acting ‘corruptly’ within the meaning of § 1512(c)(2) means acting with an improper purpose and to engage in conduct knowingly and dishonestly with the specific intent to subvert, impede or obstruct” the relevant proceeding

Mueller:
As an initial matter, 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 [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

Where did Mueller determine Trump acted with corrupt intent?

No individual without the status of PotUS could do what Trump did.

Mueller:
Direct or indirect action by the President to end a criminal investigation into his own or his family members’ conduct to protect against personal embarrassment or legal liability would constitute a core example of corruptly motivated conduct. So too would action to halt an enforcement proceeding that directly and adversely affected the President’s financial interests for the purpose of protecting those interests. In those examples, official power is being used for the purpose of protecting the President’s personal interests. In contrast, the President’s actions to serve political or policy interests would not qualify as corrupt. The President’s role as head of the government necessarily requires him to take into account political factors in making policy decisions that affect law-enforcement actions and proceedings. For instance, the President’s decision to curtail a law-enforcement investigation to avoid international friction would not implicate the obstruction-of-justice statutes.

 

Absence proof of innocence, the accused must be guilty.

 

His own views, no, he clearly stated Trump could be charged with obstruction.

 

He corrected the record and said he meant what the report says and that’s that they never considered whether they would indict trump.

 

Did you not read what you just responded to? The committee pointed out that Mueller's OWN interpretation was rejected and THROWN OUT by the Supreme Court when his colleague's tried to use it against the energy company they originally got convicted.

The SAME interpretation he admitted to posting in the report.

lol is this too hard for you guys to understand?

 

He said a President, after leaving office, could be charged, not that the "possibly obstructive acts" actions taken by Trump were chargeable.

 

He then corrected it right afterwards and in his opening statement of the next hearing. Let’s be factual please