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

"Mueller begs" not to be subpoeaed by Nadler or Schiff.

 

Removing Mueller would not have obstructed the investigation and he wasn't removed anyway. Mueller brought no charge nor asserted one. The Attorney General said no OOJ, the Deputy Attorney General concurred, the Office of Legal Counsel concurred. End of story.

 

18 U.S.C 1512(c)(2)
[Whoever corruptly—]
...obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

 

As this drama unfolds, facts continue to strip away Trump defender's arguments for Trump's innocence. This is troubling because Trump supporter's final argument is that Trump is above the law.

 

Corruptly is the key word. Even if Trump did actively attempt to fire him, you have to prove he had a corrupt intent. But even then, firing Mueller would not have had any affect on the official proceeding and he had the legal right to do so.

 

Removing Mueller would not have obstructed the investigation and he wasn't removed anyway. Mueller brought no charge nor asserted one. The Attorney General said no OOJ, the Deputy Attorney General concurred, the Office of Legal Counsel concurred. End of story.

 

It is the Trump attackers claiming he is above the law. If he violated the law bring the charges......oh that's right the Special Counsel did not find that and neither did the AG, the DAG or the OLC.

 

But some folks like to live on Fantasy Island and they keep hope alive

 

What would be obstruction by your definition?

 

Not a problem

Page 120

c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated , the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn 's account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President's conduct towards the investigation.
​

As for having an effect or not, how many times do I have to quote this?

18 U.S.C 1512(c)(2)

[Whoever corruptly—]
...obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
​

BTW, the Mueller Report does show that Trump's obstruction definitely had an effect. Especially in other instances of obstruction. But I don't have to prove that because, as shown above, an attempt is enough to land him in jail for up to 20 years.

 

​

It probably has something to do with Trumps innocence in regards to Russian collusion, which Mueller proved.

 

"..... or attempts to do so..."

 

Replacing Mueller WOULDN'T HAVE.

The investigation would have continued unabated.

 

LOL

 

You mean TDS? That ain’t evidence.

 

1; He said neither he, nor anyone close to him would have control over the Trump Organization while he was president, and promised to establish a blind trust to run the company as acting Chairman and CEO in his stead. Instead, he appointed his sons to run the company, and there is evidence gives them orders on how to run the company, effective being CEO and President at the same time, which is a crime, and there is also evidence that he gives them insider information, and promises political favors to foreign officials if they stay in his hotels, both of which are also crimes.

2; He promised to replace Obamacare with something better, and the only thing he did was come upwithan idea that would strip 90,000,000 Americans of their insurance coverage, while also repealing laws which prohibit insurance companies from refusing to cover people because of family histories of diseases.

3; He promised to do away with the entire deficit by the end of his first term. Instead, even with his own party in charge of both houses, has more than doubled the deficit.

4; He promised that north korea was going to give up their nuclear program following their talk, but they haven't stopped enriching uranium.

5; He promised to push for congressional term limits, and would get a bill passed his first year, but never said a single word about it after the election.

6; He promised to left the ban on torture and bring back waterboarding. He didn't.

7; He promised to allow individuals to deduct healthcare premiums from their taxes. Instead, he established a policy of allowing EMPLOYERS to do this for their part of their employees' premiums, but didn't do it for individuals.

8; Establish a ban on ALL Muslims entering the US. He did try a very selective ban, which exempted any country which he has personal business dealings with.

9; He promised to strip Syrian refugees of their asylum and deport them (he doesn't have that authority, but he's too stupid to understand that)

10; He promised to create deductions for dependent care expenses. He didn't.

11; He promised to repeal taxes on capital gains and the alternative minimum. He didn't do either.

12; He promised to repealed the carried interest loophole for wallstreet. He didn't.

13; He promised to change the name of Mount Denali back to Mount McKinley, claiming that Obama had changed it back to it's native name because he hated American history and culture, but actually the state of Alaska had officially changed it in 1975. The US government was simply changing it to the local name in the federal registeration.

14; He promised to block the merge of ATT and Time Warner, claiming that it would result in too much power because in the hands of a single company. He didn't even try to block it.

 

Nice trade-off because collusion wouldn't have landed him in jail. The above will, though.

 

So you're saying that it was a stupid attempt because it wouldn't have succeeded. But being stupid is not a valid defense in court.

 

Clearly you didn't read the Mueller report....he clearly stated that any sort of conspiracy with Russia to interfere in the election would have been a crime.

 

It wouldn't have succeed because he would have replaced him with some else because he had no intent to stop or interfere with the investigation

 

Doesn't matter with what it "has to do with", whether innocent or guilty. It is obstruction.

 

No, There has to be an actual violation of the law to obstruct justice.

There isnt.

 

No and I've been quite clear in what I said. Firing Mueller would not have stopped or impeded the investigation in anyway and Trump knew it wouldn't. No corrupt intent.

 

And you have 4 violations to drool over.

 

Whether someone is innocent or guilty has a lot to do with it. In the United States, the presumption is people are innocent until ones accusers prove beyond a reasonable doubt they are guilty. Since Mueller didn't have enough evidence to even get a recommendation of an indictment (or impeachment), then the President remains innocent.