Stumbling Mumbling Old Fool Mueller

[Agnostic007]

The instances ? LOL - I guess a formerly sacked security guard like you would consider those as hard evidence  

Or was Mueller a Russian Agent and did not do what anyone with even average intelligence/skills would do and list in detail the crimes ?

You should read volume 2 sometime. I think you would find it interesting

[chaos]

You should read volume 2 sometime. I think you would find it interesting

Link?

[Board_SHERIF]

You should read volume 2 sometime. I think you would find it interesting

Clearly you did not - so here is the summary of Mueller's work:

In an executive summary, Mueller’s team clearly stated that it did not believe “collusion”—which Trump has incessantly insisted he did not commit—to be a legal term. For that reason, prosecutors did not assess whether Trump’s campaign “colluded” with Russia.

“In evaluation whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of ‘collusion,’ ” prosecutors wrote. They noted that the Justice Department had at times used the word “collusion” prior to Mueller’s appointment. “But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law,” they said.

They said they instead examined whether anyone associated with the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russians, as defined by conspiracy law. “We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”

They noted that an agreement requires two parties taking actions “informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests.”

Using that definition, they wrote, the investigation “did not establish” that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference.

— Rosalind S. Helderman

[Agnostic007]

Link?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html

[Agnostic007]

Clearly you did not - so here is the summary of Mueller's work:

In an executive summary, Mueller’s team clearly stated that it did not believe “collusion”—which Trump has incessantly insisted he did not commit—to be a legal term. For that reason, prosecutors did not assess whether Trump’s campaign “colluded” with Russia.

“In evaluation whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of ‘collusion,’ ” prosecutors wrote. They noted that the Justice Department had at times used the word “collusion” prior to Mueller’s appointment. “But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law,” they said.

They said they instead examined whether anyone associated with the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russians, as defined by conspiracy law. “We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”

They noted that an agreement requires two parties taking actions “informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests.”

Using that definition, they wrote, the investigation “did not establish” that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference.

— Rosalind S. Helderman

I'm not arguing the collusion aspect. I don't think many people are. Volume 2 deals with the obstruction allegation which I think volumn 2 indicates happened. However  because Mueller played the "If I can't indict him I can't allege that he is guilty" thingy, he left it so that if you try really hard, you can say "Well, he didn't outright say he committed obstruction so lets move on. " when he did everything but say "Holy crap! Read the damn report and hopefully Congress will do their job!" (paraphrasing from--)


"Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220(2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.

The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term, OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to govern.”  Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual § 9-27.220.

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, (because I've already said I can't even if there was video of it) it also does not exonerate him.

[Thin Lizzy]

I'm not arguing the collusion aspect. I don't think many people are. Volume 2 deals with the obstruction allegation which I think volumn 2 indicates happened. However  because Mueller played the "If I can't indict him I can't allege that he is guilty" thingy, he left it so that if you try really hard, you can say "Well, he didn't outright say he committed obstruction so lets move on. " when he did everything but say "Holy crap! Read the damn report and hopefully Congress will do their job!" (paraphrasing from--)


"Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220(2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.

The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term, OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to govern.”  Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual § 9-27.220.

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, (because I've already said I can't even if there was video of it) it also does not exonerate him.

Not anymore but for over two years we were led to believe that Trump was a Russian agent. Now, that the case has gone down the toilet your pinning your hopes on obstruction of a non-crime. As Dan Bongino pointed out, this is easier to do because it’s more of a judgment call, like disorderly conduct.

Here’s the reality. It’s not looking good for the Democrats in 2020 with an incumbent President and the economy strong. So, they believe their best bet is to attack trump via some bullshit like obstruction, taxes or some other nonsense that no one cares about.

[Board_SHERIF]

I'm not arguing the collusion aspect. I don't think many people are. Volume 2 deals with the obstruction allegation which I think volumn 2 indicates happened. However  because Mueller played the "If I can't indict him I can't allege that he is guilty" thingy, he left it so that if you try really hard, you can say "Well, he didn't outright say he committed obstruction so lets move on. " when he did everything but say "Holy crap! Read the damn report and hopefully Congress will do their job!" (paraphrasing from--)


"Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220(2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.

The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term, OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to govern.”  Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual § 9-27.220.

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, (because I've already said I can't even if there was video of it) it also does not exonerate him.

Once again you have proven that you do not understand the basics of the law - their is no underlying crime to obstruct my un-learned friend. 

Secondly the examples given by Mueler for his fake obstruction are laughable, but I am sure you did not even bother to read them 

[chaos]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html

What part of that would you consider evidence of obstruction?

[Board_SHERIF]

What part of that would you consider evidence of obstruction?

What a total embarrassment the Mueller report is, looks like it was written by children who based everything they saw on CNN fake news.

[Agnostic007]

Once again you have proven that you do not understand the basics of the law - their is no underlying crime to obstruct my un-learned friend. 

Secondly the examples given by Mueler for his fake obstruction are laughable, but I am sure you did not even bother to read them 

Yeah, me and the 200 prosecutors that signed the letter saying there was enough to prosecute are wrong and you are right. I think it is you that is unclear on obstruction if you are buying that a crime has to be proven to have occurred before an investigation can be obstructed.

I KNOW based on your posts you haven't bothered to read any of volume 2. Otherwise you would never have said the examples given by Mueller were laughable.


I suspect you see my post and it looks like this to you.

pwej pwjo[[oiq dkddlsjs ;ljlkjgplkgl kwkejfjtj  ohew 200 jalgkhaa lkjalkjgkgo nrhrogj lgjgjhroir
kajakjgkfje lkwshw  lwkejrlwel dm;;wk krolri84 kjfhfjf 

I really don't know why I bother...

[Agnostic007]

What a total embarrassment the Mueller report is, looks like it was written by children who based everything they saw on CNN fake news.

the irony in this post is tremendous

[Agnostic007]

What part of that would you consider evidence of obstruction?

If you have read the 10 examples given from the report, outlining Trumps attempt to stop the investigation, and you still don't see it, it is beyond my ability to outline it for you, seriously.

[Board_SHERIF]

Yeah, me and the 200 prosecutors that signed the letter saying there was enough to prosecute are wrong and you are right. I think it is you that is unclear on obstruction if you are buying that a crime has to be proven to have occurred before an investigation can be obstructed.

I KNOW based on your posts you haven't bothered to read any of volume 2. Otherwise you would never have said the examples given by Mueller were laughable.


I suspect you see my post and it looks like this to you.

pwej pwjo[[oiq dkddlsjs ;ljlkjgplkgl kwkejfjtj  ohew 200 jalgkhaa lkjalkjgkgo nrhrogj lgjgjhroir
kajakjgkfje lkwshw  lwkejrlwel dm;;wk krolri84 kjfhfjf  

I really don't know why I bother...

 "the 200 prosecutors that signed the letter" - LOL do you have any idea how many are in the USA?

funny how we are all wrong except you ??

No wonder you got sacked as a security guard.

[Board_SHERIF]

the irony in this post is tremendous

I know right?, that a $40 million report looked like it was written by children.


"he tweeted please stop that" - Report suggests he was saying not to save his life 

[Agnostic007]

I know right?, that a $40 million report looked like it was written by children.


"he tweeted please stop that" - Report suggests he was saying not to save his life 

$40 million. Take a stab at how much the investigation recovered in asset forfeiture. I think you will find the American people ahead about $48 million since obviously money matters to you more than a corrupt President

[Agnostic007]

 "the 200 prosecutors that signed the letter" - LOL do you have any idea how many are in the USA?

funny how we are all wrong except you ??

No wonder you got sacked as a security guard.

If I understand you correctly, you are stating that obstruction of an investigation cannot exist without a proven crime. Is that your position?

Would you also say, given that criteria that it is impossible to obstruct an investigation if you are not the subject of the investigation? 

[Agnostic007]

I'm on page 45 Volume 2. It is written in a fairly easy to read format. It starts with an overall summary, then moves to list several incidents that may be obstruction. Then he breaks it down into an in-depth report on each incident citing memos, testimony, and written evidence such as office diaries, calendars organizers. He matches statements made by a person to co berating information. What jumps out beyond the obstruction, is the number of times he documents Trump flat out lies, against all evidence, his own administration etc etc. It's concerning, and should be  concerning to the American citizen, the propensity for this man to lie. I think it moves beyond youtube jokes when peoples jobs, careers lively hood hangs in the balance and he is shown time and time again in the report to fabricate lies to cover his butt.

[chaos]

If you have read the 10 examples given from the report, outlining Trumps attempt to stop the investigation, and you still don't see it, it is beyond my ability to outline it for you, seriously.

I'm not going to go over each one individually with you. As an ex law enforcement officer, which ones do you think would constitute obstruction charges and hold up in a court of law?

[Agnostic007]

I'm not going to go over each one individually with you. As an ex law enforcement officer, which ones do you think would constitute obstruction charges and hold up in a court of law?

Most of them

[Agnostic007]

I'm not going to go over each one individually with you. As an ex law enforcement officer, which ones do you think would constitute obstruction charges and hold up in a court of law?

And again, the report underscores time and time again when Trump lies about things. Lies that if this were an I. A. investigation would get him terminated from most departments. Why doesn't that concern you?

[chaos]

Most of them

Really? With no crime commited, no physical evidence, just a bunch of heresy, you think he should be indicted and charged with obstruction? I'm beginning to think you didn't retire willingly.
As for your other question, every single politician in history is a liar, the media chooses to manipulate weak minded people like you into focusing on the negative instead of the positive.

[Board_SHERIF]

If I understand you correctly, you are stating that obstruction of an investigation cannot exist without a proven crime. Is that your position?

Would you also say, given that criteria that it is impossible to obstruct an investigation if you are not the subject of the investigation? 

how do you obstruct an investigation if someone else would take it over ?

[Board_SHERIF]

$40 million. Take a stab at how much the investigation recovered in asset forfeiture. I think you will find the American people ahead about $48 million since obviously money matters to you more than a corrupt President

Manfort's assets that are not related to Trump at all, Mueller got lucky on this - if not for this then it was a complete waste of millions on a fake investigation.

Do you think fake investigations to overthrow a duly elected President is good ??

[Dos Equis]

Most of them

 

[Dos Equis]

Really? With no crime commited, no physical evidence, just a bunch of heresy, you think he should be indicted and charged with obstruction? I'm beginning to think you didn't retire willingly.
As for your other question, every single politician in history is a liar, the media chooses to manipulate weak minded people like you into focusing on the negative instead of the positive.

how do you obstruct an investigation if someone else would take it over ?

Take note that people like Agnostic and others who have bought into this nonsense don't walk through each example and talk about them specifically.  It's like the people who cited the number of indictments and convictions whenever someone called the Russian investigation a witch hunt, without going through each indictment and conviction, because to do so would show how they were completely irrelevant to Trump being a Manchurian Candidate. 

Similarly, you don't really hear people talking about things like Trump firing Comey obstructed the Mueller investigation.  Why?  Aside from the fact it's friggin stupid, there is this: 

(a) Trump received a memo from the Deputy AG that recommended Comey's firing.
(b) The IG said Comey was insubordinate.
(c) The POTUS had the Constitutional authority to fire Comey.
(d) Firing Comey did absolutely nothing to prevent Muller from obtaining all of the funding he requested, getting all of the subpoenas he wanted, all of the pen registers, convening a grand jury, and interviewing hundreds of witnesses. 
(e) The investigation involved an alleged crime that never happened and was invented by paid opposition research. 

Now if after all that you think Trump obstructed the Mueller investigation by firing Comey you have to be either not too bright, a partisan, or suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. 

We could go through this analysis with each one of those instances of "obstruction," but good luck finding people who will do that.