The Mueller report for all of us to see

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Open indictments against Russian military officers & IRA staffers

No new indictments

Barr said all those guys are still "at large" 😎

RE: bigleaguepolitics.com...

Why did Mueller not interview the lovely Natalia Veselnitskaya? Maybe she is the one who showed a nude Mueller "selfie" to investigators, to keep him away from her?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No evidence to support any sort of conspiracy.

No evidence to support charges for obstruction.

The key takeaway. Everything else is merely [interesting] minutia that must be read in that context.

EDIT: Comey, McCabe, Yates and soon to be many others threw away their careers for absolutely nothing

That is karmic justice

EDIT2: The Russia spy stuff is hardly a surprise. This back and forth intelligence nonsense is standard operating procedure, boring day to day stuff that goes on around the clock among the major powers.

10 instances of probable obstruction of justice by Trump himself somehow equal no evidence?

For there to be obstruction of justice, there has to be something deemed illegal to have occurred. A person can try to shift the focus and that is not illegal, lawyers do it every day in court rooms, it is part of what they do. Trump evidently did not break any laws, now people who leaked things out of the investigation to the MSM and Democrats broke actual laws, they never even got charged for doing that.

Here's what happens to you, if you're a Democrat who actually uses your brain and wisdom.

Steny Hoyer blasted for not wanting Trump impeached: twitter.com...

Nancy Pelosi feels the same as Congressman Hoyer. What will the low-IQ radicals do to her now???

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You've bolded the wrong bits. That is just addressing whether a President can, in their interpretation, commit obstruction in his official capacity. What you should bold is this:

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 himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others....

... we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.

In other words, "we don't have anything like the threshold of evidence needed to determine ill-intent, but we don't want to say he's innocent either. It's complicated "

This hoax should never happen to another president again.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No evidence to support any sort of conspiracy.

No evidence to support charges for obstruction.

The key takeaway. Everything else is merely [interesting] minutia that must be read in that context.

EDIT: Comey, McCabe, Yates and soon to be many others threw away their careers for absolutely nothing

That is karmic justice

EDIT2: The Russia spy stuff is hardly a surprise. This back and forth intelligence nonsense is standard operating procedure, boring day to day stuff that goes on around the clock among the major powers.

10 instances of probable obstruction of justice by Trump himself somehow equal no evidence?

No charges were brought

No charges doesn't equal no evidence.

Those ten issues are not probable obstruction, they are issues that could potentially be obstruction

Isn't that the same thing?

The special counsel proved there was no collusion

The Special Counsel did no such thing.

Collusion isn't a Federal offense.

that was a lie that trump haters spread for years as an excuse to hurt him and investigate his entire life.

Trump was the first to use the word 'collusion' in regard to Mueller's investigation.

... and it isn't 'unfair' for someone in a position of power to be under investigation, it is prudent. You wouldn't want to be ruled by a crook.

And mueller could not find enough evidence to charge trumo for obstruction

End of story

In the report, Mueller accepted the longstanding Justice Department view that a sitting president cannot be indicted on criminal charges. This fully explains why the President was not indicted. It doesn't mean the President is exonerated.

a reply to: chr0naut

No charges doesn't equal no evidence.

According to American jurisprudence, if there is no evidence of a crime, no charges can be filed. Such is the case in the Mueller report.

This fully explains why the President was not indicted. It doesn't mean the President is exonerated.

And Bernie can still win...Yes, yes. We get it.

PANIC! Senior FBI and DOJ Officials are flipping on their colleagues, in order to save their own skin.

Source: twitter.com...

They know that with the "Mueller blockade" now officially removed...BARR is coming for them.

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: vinifalou

As I hope every person on the right does. This report states he tried to obstruct justice. If this were a report about Hillary you would be SCREAMING. Oh the double standards.

How is it a double standard?

1 investigation was legitimate
1 investigation was a hoax.

1 investigation obstructed justice by destroying evidence with hammers and bleach bit.
1 investigation talked about firing the investigator but never did.

Tell me how these are related?

originally posted by: chr0naut

No charges doesn't equal no evidence.

In the report, Mueller accepted the longstanding Justice Department view that a sitting president cannot be indicted on criminal charges. This fully explains why the President was not indicted. It doesn't mean the President is exonerated.

That's true. No charges doesn't mean there was no evidence. If someone accuses you of theft, the accusation is evidence. The fact you may have been there is evidence. Those things would tend to incriminate you. All those things have evidentiary value while trying to build a case against you.

Fortunately our legal system doesn't allow the mere presence of evidence that may tend to incriminate you to be the basis for action.


So how does Mueller categorize the evidence he has collected over two years by warrant, subpoena, and interrogations?

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 himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.... 

... we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. 

The evidence presents too many difficulties to resolve to make a judgement for prosecution, and they cannot determine improper intent.

The standard in the country for legal jeopardy is not "must be exonerated" or " must exonerate oneself". If the prosecution cannot demonstrate criminal intent (and Mueller admits he cannot), that's it. The end.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: toolgal462

As long as there are redactions that are categorized as "harm to ongoing matters", it's not over.

That just means it's Top Secret # that that the public cannot see, due to the fact that you don't have clearance to see that. This could mean ongoing investigations not related to the Russian conspiracy, that the FBI can't show the public. That's it.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut

No charges doesn't equal no evidence.

According to American jurisprudence, if there is no evidence of a crime, no charges can be filed.

But the reverse isn't true. For instance, one cannot say that Al Capone was not guilty of racketeering or murder because they got him on tax evasion.

There can be evidence of a crime but no charges laid. It happens.

Such is the case in the Mueller report.

This fully explains why the President was not indicted. It doesn't mean the President is exonerated.

And Bernie can still win...Yes, yes. We get it.

If Bernie does get elected, he should be investigated, too.

It should come with the territory, if you become the POTUS, they should make damn sure you're not a crook.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: chr0naut

No charges doesn't equal no evidence.

In the report, Mueller accepted the longstanding Justice Department view that a sitting president cannot be indicted on criminal charges. This fully explains why the President was not indicted. It doesn't mean the President is exonerated.

That's true. No charges doesn't mean there was no evidence. If someone accuses you of theft, the accusation is evidence.

Hearsay is not evidence.

The fact you may have been there is evidence. Those things would tend to incriminate you. All those things have evidentiary value while trying to build a case against you.

Fortunately our legal system doesn't allow the mere presence of evidence that may tend to incriminate you to be the basis for action.

So how does Mueller categorize the evidence he has collected over two years by warrant, subpoena, and interrogations?

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 himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.... 

... we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. 

The evidence presents too many difficulties to resolve to make a judgement for prosecution, and they cannot determine improper intent.

The standard in the country for legal jeopardy is not "must be exonerated" or " must exonerate oneself". If the prosecution cannot demonstrate criminal intent (and Mueller admits he cannot), that's it. The end.

a reply to: chr0naut

That's not how it works.

Donald Trump is not guilty of anything except pissing off whiny liberal douche bags.

a reply to: chr0naut

No charges doesn't equal no evidence.

True. How many people went to prison for a long, long time based on evidence for crimes DNA later proved they didn't commit though? Sometimes, the existence of evidence isn't enough to establish guilt or even proof of commission of a crime.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut

That's not how it works.

Donald Trump is not guilty of anything except pissing off whiny liberal douche bags.

Are you suggesting that Donald Trump is sinless?



But, if we are just talking about legal cases: Legal affairs of Donald Trump From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

He isn't squeaky clean, even before he ran for President and no-one was, supposedly, 'picking on him'.

a reply to: chr0naut

Someone says they saw you take something, and that is not hearsay. It is evidentiary. It doesn't have to be true.

There can be evidence of a crime but no charges laid. It happens. 

There can also be lots of evidence, but no crime committed. It happens.


That's why our standard isn't "exonerate yourself".

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: vinifalou

As I hope every person on the right does. This report states he tried to obstruct justice. If this were a report about Hillary you would be SCREAMING. Oh the double standards.

How is it a double standard?

1 investigation was legitimate
1 investigation was a hoax.

1 investigation obstructed justice by destroying evidence with hammers and bleach bit.
1 investigation talked about firing the investigator but never did.

Tell me how these are related?

No hammers were involved. The FBI were given the intact e-mail server quite early on in the investigation.

Bleach bit also did not remove the source emails which remained in the Microsoft Exchange .EDB database. Bleach bit was only able to erase the exported .PST files, not the messages in the database.

The FBI were able to recover the relevant e-mails. That is how they were able to publish the details of the unredacted e-mails that should not have been sent from an insecure server.

a reply to: chr0naut

If the FBI notifies you they are investigating matter X,Y,Z and need your financial information as part of their investigation, burning your filing cabinets is still obstruction -- even if they get a complete copy of your bank records from the bank itself. Bonus points for: who knows what else was on those devices which may have been material to the investigation?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: vinifalou

As I hope every person on the right does. This report states he tried to obstruct justice. If this were a report about Hillary you would be SCREAMING. Oh the double standards.

How is it a double standard?

1 investigation was legitimate
1 investigation was a hoax.

1 investigation obstructed justice by destroying evidence with hammers and bleach bit.
1 investigation talked about firing the investigator but never did.

Tell me how these are related?

No hammers were involved. The FBI were given the intact e-mail server quite early on in the investigation.

Bleach bit also did not remove the source emails which remained in the Microsoft Exchange .EDB database. Bleach bit was only able to erase the exported .PST files, not the messages in the database.

The FBI were able to recover the relevant e-mails. That is how they were able to publish the details of the unredacted e-mails that should not have been sent from an insecure server.

My understanding is that many of the emails belachbitted were never recovered.

regardless, we know for a fact that the Mueller investigation was not obstructed.

the argument is Trump may have attemted to obstruct, and it not being successfukl is irrlevant.

So in that vein, even if the FBI recovered the emails, the destruction of them by bleach bit will still be attempted obstruction.

So yes, this is an adbsurd double standard.