Trump's Four Obstruction of Justice Crimes 100% proven in the Mueller Report

Of course not! That's exactly what I explained on this thread

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...even-say-that-trump-committed-a-crime.556548/

I wrote this thread yesterday. Because he said the same thing on the report, but it wasn't as clear. It's the second paragraph that I quote from the report on that thread. Today he made it much more clear.

Bottom line: Not only did DOJ rules not allow him to indict a sitting president but, as the quote you bring states, he can't even accuse the President. No matter how guilty he is. The reason being that he wouldn't be able to defend himself in court.

 

Hahaha! No Collusion, No Obstruction......

 

These guys remind me of those old movies in which the guy is hauled away in a strait jacket screaming "The Elephants are Pink!. Pink I tell ya! ha hahaha!"

 

None of your examples are provable obstruction of justice. And if pressed Mueller would agree with that; he just had a motivation to entice congress with insinuations and implications. You need to bone up on the legal requirements for obstruction of justice.

 

How do we get to see this "substantial evidence"? All I can see is, "Mueller says there's substantial evidence". So where is it?

 

Was it Mueller's job to instruct Congress on how to impeach?

 

Unless you can distill the report down to simple one syllable words you will get the la la la I can't hear you response from trumpers.

 

On the report, of course! Where else?

 

Congress knows how to impeach. It's easy. You vote!

 

no, he did not.

 

he found a great deal.

that's why he didn't exonerate him of a crime

 

He certainly could have. He could have fired Rosenstein and kept firing until someone fired Mueller.

 

And then Trump would have surely been impeached

 

Which of those actions are illegal on their own.

Unless you can show they are, then you do not have corrupt intent.

 

all four are crimes

 

Really.

1. What is the statute that makes it a crime for the POTUS to suggest removal of a special counsel
2. What is the statute that makes it a crime for the POTUS to request the AG limit the scope of a special counsel
3. What is the statute that makes it a crime for the POTUS to request the AG un-recuse themselves in a case they were not required to recuse from
4. What is the statute that makes it a crime for the POTUS to dispute the termination of the special counsel, when the only evidence is the WH counsel's alleged recollection

 

But he did not do this and that is the point.

 

all of Trump's actions detailed in Mueller's report count as obstruction

 

Ha! You never heard of the Saturday Night Massacre?

The worst mistake Nixon could have made!

 

I don't have to show anything. Mueller already did. See the page number in front of each case? That shows where you can find exactly what you are looking for in the report: Act, nexus, intent. The three elements needed to prove a criminal case.

The cases are airtight. And Trump is fried.

 

If Clinton did the things that Trump did he would have been removed from office by the republican-controlled Senate

 

I don't agree since we know for a fact Clinton did break the law and we know for a fact President Trump did not.

 

Actually, none of those actions are illegal, even if he followed through by firing Mueller or getting Sessions to unrecuse himself. That's not against the law. He has the Constitutional authority to do all of those things. And the 4th one on your list is misleading.

 

Obstruction of justice is a federal crime