The Mueller report for all of us to see

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Arnie123

The question was "When did the investigation shift to obstruction", or something like that. I simply answered the question.

Yeah I know, but we also know how you are, hence, the back and forth to remind you of the results 😎

originally posted by: xuenchen
Michael Cohen vows to fill in Mueller report’s redactions, ‘tell it myself’

Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen on Thursday promised to fill in the blanks on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, hours before a redacted version of his report was due to be made public.

“Soon I will be ready to address the American people again...tell it all...and tell it myself!” Cohen tweeted.

😆

Oh?? Is that so? Cohen, hmmm? Really now, what do you suppose he'll fill the blanks with?

"orange man bad"

"ORANGE MAN BAD!!"

"MMMMM!! ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!!"

"Tthat's all"

😂😂

a reply to: JBurns

Regardless, the findings were clearly stated: "No evidence of a conspiracy involving Trump working with the Russians" "No evidence to support obstruction of justice"

That's not what the Mueller report says. There are 400 plus pages of evidence, so the claim of "no evidence" is ridiculous. The evidence didn't conclude that an agreement of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia occurred. It didn't exonerate anyone. It certainly didn't clear Trump of obstruction. Mueller kicked that football to Congress.

My God the Democrat Leadership is TOTALLY freaked out !!!

They're already chalking-up Lots of Lies. 😎😄

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Sweet Jesus

You didn't answer the question. Show me the relevant section of 18USC that criminalizes an "attempt" to obstruct justice. Obstructing justice is an affirmative act - one either did factually obstruct an investigation/pervert the course of justice or they did not. There is no middle ground. There is no thought crime.

Do me a favor, read 18 USC Chapter 73 as well as the jury instructions (from uscourts.gov) for conspiracy

www.law.cornell.edu...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JBurns

Regardless, the findings were clearly stated: "No evidence of a conspiracy involving Trump working with the Russians" "No evidence to support obstruction of justice"

That's not what the Mueller report says. There are 400 plus pages of evidence, so the claim of "no evidence" is ridiculous. The evidence couldn't conclude that an agreement of collusion occurred. It didn't exonerate anyone. It certainly didn't clear Trump of obstruction. Mueller kicked that football to Congress.


400 Pages of testimony but not evidence

Big difference

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Your assertions are on their face wrong.

Actually no report exonerates anyone at any time. That isn't the intent of an investigation, obviously. The "exoneration" claim arises from the default position of "not guilty" until proven otherwise. Even an indictment does not equal guilt, obviously. But that probable cause requirement (an easily met requirement, trust me) wasn't even established here

You say there is evidence, yet it clearly wasn't sufficient to warrant prosecution or a recommendation for impeachment/conviction/removal.

Evidence does not equal proof.

Mueller kicked that football to Congress.

Wrong again. Congress is uninvolved in the process unless impeachment/conviction is required. Read the special counsel regulations - the report and conclusions are solely for the AG. Congress has nothing to do with it. It is *NOT* their job to enforce the law, merely to make. It is the executive's job to enforce/execute the laws of the United States.

You're wrong Sookie. And you're making false claims, moving the goal posts and punting to avoid admitting that. An investigation always occurs to determine whether evidence exists to support prosecution. An investigation will *never* exonerate someone or say they didn't commit X crime merely that there isn't sufficient evidence to establish probable cause a crime occurred.

a reply to: JBurns
Scorched earth, you're seriously on fire and burning the ignorant perspectives to the ground.

There just has to be collusion, I was told there was collusion.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Innocent until proven guilty...if they won't even pursue charges, that sounds like exoneration to me.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JBurns

Regardless, the findings were clearly stated: "No evidence of a conspiracy involving Trump working with the Russians" "No evidence to support obstruction of justice"

That's not what the Mueller report says. There are 400 plus pages of evidence, so the claim of "no evidence" is ridiculous. The evidence didn't conclude that an agreement of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia occurred. It didn't exonerate anyone. It certainly didn't clear Trump of obstruction. Mueller kicked that football to Congress.

Mueller said specifically he did not exonerate Trump[ on obstruction.

He did not say that on collusion, which we can take to mean, after reading his report; There was no trump russian illegal collusion

a reply to: Arnie123

Did you expect anything less from these intellectually dishonest idiots?

That's about the only thing that they can latch onto.

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: JBurns
Scorched earth, you're seriously on fire and burning the ignorant perspectives to the ground.

Thanks buddy

I am tired of the blatant misrepresentations of fact, wilful distortions of reality and constant moving the goal posts

The jig is up

a reply to: Arnie123

you guys repeating "orange man bad" do you realize how ridiculously childish you sound?

lolololololol

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus



I'll wait for your Cliff's Notes version.

Cliff Notes: Orange Man Not So Bad...

a reply to: JBurns

Chapter 73. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE Section 1503. Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally

18 U.S. Code § 1503.Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally
U.S. Code
Notes

(a)Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It is Spot on!

Take the case of a LEO walking up to a car and requesting permission to search (ie: the subject to waive their 4A rights) because they suspect the driver is impaired by drugs or alcohol. If the subject declines the search (which is their right), the officer can still conduct a warrantless probable cause search under various circumstances, but lets just say they smell what appears to be marijuana or alcohol coming from the vehicle/drive.

In that case, a 4A compliant search can be compelled because probable cause exists that the individual in question violated the law

Merely "smelling smoke" or "smelling alcohol" is enough to establish probable cause

In this case, Mueller's investigators didn't even "smell smoke" to cross the threshold for saying a crime likely occurred which warrants prosecution (fact finding, by a jury.. or judge at the defedant's request)

a reply to: Grambler

this report is damaging as hell.

imo, republicans want him out, but they want the dems to do it, they're pusses.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Innocent until proven guilty...if they won't even pursue charges, that sounds like exoneration to me.

Fine. But don't tell me there was "no evidence" of collusion. "The evidence did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government" , which is what the Mueller report actually says.