Here it is: The Mueller report is out.

[Vega1]

It depends, I suppose, on what he talked to them about. But an action of the President doesn't have to be illegal to be impeachable.

That's total crap.

 

[Speedwell]

That's total crap.

Maybe, but it is true nonetheless. The Congress can remove a President for any reason two thirds of them agree on.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Maybe, but it is true nonetheless. The Congress can remove a President for any reason two thirds of them agree on.

We have been lowered to that? When did the President become an at Will employee?

 

[FreeinChrist]

Even IF Donald Trump did talk to the Russians, it's not illegal to talk to the Russians.

It matters if he is looking for a business deal, or if he owes money to Russians.

There is nothing that we know of about money in the report. There are also 12 investigations we know nothing about as well.

 

[Speedwell]

We have been lowered to that? When did the President become an at Will employee?

1789, I think it was.

 

[FreeinChrist]

www.cnn.com
www.msnbc.com
www.nbc.com
www.nytimes.com
www.abc.com
www.cbs.com

Then look up statements since the Mueller report came out from:

Jerry Nadler
Nancy Pelosi
Elizabeth Warren
A.O.C
Adam Schiff

Or you can view:

A Case for Impeachment

When Trump won, Putin deployed his oligarchs

Find out how many are actually saying Trump is innocent because there was no substantive evidence of collusion, obstruction or anything criminal.

And then compare to how many are still in the narrative that the investigation must go on and in most cases expand.

Start there and then we can talk.

There is plenty of substantive evidence of obstruction and Mueller left it to congress to address as he could not indict him as the DOJ guidelines have.

We may see an impeachment yet. Or we may see a court case if Trump is voted out in 2020.

 

[Always in His Presence]

There is plenty of substantive evidence of obstruction and Mueller left it to congress to address as he could not indict him as the DOJ guidelines have.

We may see an impeachment yet. Or we may see a court case if Trump is voted out in 2020.

If there was plenty of substantive evidence of obstruction, charges would be recommended.

If there was plenty of substantive evidence of obstruction, Mr Mueller would have stated so.

If there was plenty of substantive evidence of obstruction, Mr Mueller would not have stated there was not enough evidence.

Also:

And we might see more of no there, there

And we might see the House flip red

And we might see Trump enter his second term

And we might see an investigation on the ones who started this mess.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Mueller whacks Trump with evidence of obstruction

“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 report says in a 182-page section dedicated to obstruction.

“Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” it continues.
​

Mueller starts off the obstuction section recognising the DOJ guideline about not indicting a president. It is congress's job to impeach and that will be considered.

"Under OLC's analysis, Congress can permissibly criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the President, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence, because those prohibitions raise no separation-of-powers questions." Page 382

see Here it is: The Mueller report is out.

"With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice."

 

[childeye 2]

Since we are sharing definitions:

re·al·i·ty
/rēˈalədē/
noun

1. 
   
2. 1.the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
   "he refuses to face reality"

The reality is that there was no collusion, there was not enough evidence to charge obstruction and now it is documented in the report that the President cooperated completely with the investigation, never using Executive Privilege for himself or his staff.

Respectfully, Trump probably could not even invoke the executive privilege of confidentiality since he publicly tweeted his position about almost every aspect of the investigation.

And also the report does not say that there is not enough evidence for establishing an obstruction of justice case. From the report:

After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.

 

[childeye 2]

If there was plenty of substantive evidence of obstruction, charges would be recommended.

If there was plenty of substantive evidence of obstruction, Mr Mueller would have stated so.

If there was plenty of substantive evidence of obstruction, Mr Mueller would not have stated there was not enough evidence.

Also:

And we might see more of no there, there

And we might see the House flip red

And we might see Trump enter his second term

And we might see an investigation on the ones who started this mess.

Putin started this mess when he aided Trump's campaign. Let's not blame the nose for noticing something stinks.

 

[rjs330]

What exactly IS the evidence of obstruction?
No collusion. But obstruction? What evidence has been presented that there was obstruction?

 

[Always in His Presence]

What exactly IS the evidence of obstruction?
No collusion. But obstruction? What evidence has been presented that there was obstruction?

The biggest complaint I see is that the President wanted Mueller fired (which isn’t illegal), and his attorney did not.

The attorney was willing to resign over it and the President did not fire Mueller.

How not firing Mueller is obstruction, I don’t know.

 

[Allandavid]

What exactly IS the evidence of obstruction?
No collusion. But obstruction? What evidence has been presented that there was obstruction?

Why, none at all...........except for...

• His request to Comey to “let go” the Flynn case.
• His attempts to have Sessions ‘unrecuse’ himself.
• His firing of James Comey, because of the “Trump Russia thing”.
• His statement to Russian officials about firing Comey.
• His orders to McGahn to fire Mueller.
• His efforts to force Sessions to curtail Mueller’s investigations to only future presidencies.
• His orders to McGahn to lie about his previous order to fire Mueller.
• His efforts to influence Manafort’s testimony.
• His inducements towards Cohen and his testimony.

Other than that...? You’re dead right....they got nuthin’...!

 

[Allandavid]

The biggest complaint I see is that the President wanted Mueller fired (which isn’t illegal), and his attorney did not.

The attorney was willing to resign over it and the President did not fire Mueller.

How not firing Mueller is obstruction, I don’t know.

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

 

[childeye 2]

What exactly IS the evidence of obstruction?
No collusion. But obstruction? What evidence has been presented that there was obstruction?

The totality of the granular evidence is quite a thick read and it is found in volume 2 of the report. However if you want a decent understanding you can take about fifteen minutes and read this: What Mueller Found on Russia and on Obstruction: A First Analysis

 

[Always in His Presence]

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

You can’t find a person guilty of something that might have happened.

 

[childeye 2]

You can’t find a person guilty of something that might have happened.

From the Mueller report:

Attempts and endeavors. Section 1512(c)(2) covers both substantive obstruction offenses and attempts to obstruct justice. Under general principles of attempt law, a person is guilty of an attempt when he has the intent to commit a substantive offense and takes an overt act that constitutes a substantial step towards that goal. See United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 106-107 (2007). “[T]he act [must be] substantial, in that it was strongly corroborative of the defendant’s criminal purpose.” United States v. Pratt, 351 F.3d 131, 135 (4th Cir. 2003). While “mere abstract talk” does not suffice, any “concrete and specific” acts that corroborate the defendant’s intent can constitute a “substantial step.” United States v. Irving, 665 F.3d 1184, 1198–1205 (10th Cir. 2011). Thus, “soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime” may qualify as a substantial step. Model Penal Code § 5.01(2)(g); see United States v. Lucas, 499 F.3d 769, 781 (8th Cir. 2007).

The omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 prohibits an “endeavor” to obstruct justice, which sweeps more broadly than Section 1512’s attempt provision. See United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 302 (2d Cir. 2018); United States v. Leisure, 844 F.2d 1347, 1366-1367 (8th Cir. 1988) (collecting cases). “It is well established that a[n] [obstruction-of-justice] offense is complete when one corruptly endeavors to obstruct or impede the due administration of justice; the prosecution need not prove that the due administration of justice was actually obstructed or impeded.” United States v. Davis, 854 F.3d 1276, 1292 (11th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).

 

[Allandavid]

You can’t find a person guilty of something that might have happened.

You can, however, find someone guilty of trying to obstruct a legal investigation, no matter the outcome of that investigation.

 

[Always in His Presence]

You can, however, find someone guilty of trying to obstruct a legal investigation, no matter the outcome of that investigation.

The charge is obstruction, not talking about obstruction.

The obstruction has to have happened.

 

[Allandavid]

The charge is obstruction, not talking about obstruction.

The obstruction has to have happened.

WRONG.....how surprising.

ATTEMPTED obstruction is also a crime...

As Mueller states, “Under general principles of attempt law, a person is guilty of an attempt when he has the intent to commit a substantive offense and takes an overt act that constitutes a substantial step towards that goal”

Like ordering McGahn to sack Mueller....twice!