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

Nothing like following a weak response with an even weaker response.

Ok... so you have no arguments. So noted.

 

Even if you're an American attorney what you wrote doesn't make any sense. What does it mean?

I ask again: what is it that Mueller supposedly did?

Please translate the following:

"But numpty Mueller opened his gob and the democrats have been frothing at the mouth since. What a right mess."

To English, preferably.

 

So you believe that Mueller can be nothing but 100% correct and that all the witnesses can be nothing but 100% accurate? No possibility whatsoever that there is any error or misstatement in anything they say? No possibility whatsoever that you might have misunderstood something in the report? 450 pages or whatever it is with no errors?

 

Well Kri, I pointed out that what you're saying indicates a real need for further congressional investigation. But I know better than to believe Golem takes a 100% position as you laid out. That's ridiculous. Why are you ridiculous?

 

No reply to post 284? I wonder why. LOL!!!!

 

He did take a 100% position and now denies that it is anything but a 100% position.

 

Oh dear. I'm going to go really slow. Ok, I am British living in the UK.

Mueller's job was to just to investigate, gather the facts/evidence and hand it over to the Attorney General. The Attorney General then informs Congress the outcome of the investigation via a report.

Mueller went further and commented on whether Trump was exonerated or not.

You said, "The only thing that Mueller is allowed to do is state the facts."

Are you still with me?

Mueller didn't state the facts, he went further and gave his verdict. He went beyond his remit.

In America, you have Attorneys. An American Attorney on YouTube covered the Mueller report with regard to American legislation. The Attorney said that Mueller should just collect the facts and evidence and give it to the Attorney General.

The Attorney went on to say that Mueller was not in a position to give his verdict on the investigation, that is not his job.

Are you still with me?

Now, is that simple!! Anything needs clarified!! Apologises for initially going too fast.

 

To the OP, "substantial evidence" does not equal "proven" as the thread title states.

 

The only people who speak of a viewpoint being 100% are those who want to go extreme to accuse someone of being extreme.

 

Do you feel that these 4 cases Mueller identified are serious issues?

 

Have you noticed the title of this thread.
Trump's Four Obstruction of Justice Crimes 100% proven in the Mueller Report

By the way when you say "The only people" it is not true.

 

Doesn't matter what he says...it matters on what he is legally allowed to do. And it was quite with in his purview to state "yes, President Trump broke XXX laws, here's why I believe that....". Making a claim and supporting that claim is just that...making a claim and supporting it. That doesn't mean that by doing so he is charging, in a legal sense, the President with a crime. Charging in the legal sense is making an arrest because X person broke Y law. So please don't confuse it with the more common usage that civilians use when they say "charge" for there is a difference. Mueller had every opportunity AND the legal opportunity to say that Trump broke XXX laws. Those opportunities does not include charging the President with a crime or indicting the President with a crime.

 

Quick, tell us what was Mueller's testimony? Weren't you the one that told us everything was in the Mueller report?

 

I have already heard and read his statement. Here's what 9-27.220 actually says:

Read rest here: 9-27.220 - Principles Of Federal Prosecution

What Mueller said is nothing more than two stepping nonsense. Again, there is nothing in that that prevented Mueller from saying "yes, President Trump broke XXX laws, here's why I believe that....".

THIS DOJ has a director that was appointed by Trump. The DOJ were you got that quote was from a Director that was put in place by an entirely different President. Which means that THIS DOJ and THAT DOJ are two different DOJ's as they are under different leadership's.

As for your sig, I do my due diligence in studying. And I'm not trying to "get" you in any way shape or form. As we converse you'll find that I'm not out to "win" anything. I'm just here to debate and have a good conversation. If people don't listen or believe what I say then its no skin off my back.

...this site needs a good :shrug: emoji.

PS: Since you referred me to your sig I'll refer you to mine.

 

TLTR.

 

Strictly in my opinion not based on any legal points whatsoever?

No. I do not.

 

Because we like those great things he's accomplished.

 

He didn't and he explained why. You can debate your uninformed opinion on whether Mueller could have "legally" charged him but it's just so much hot air. He is far more qualified than you or I, and he explained his reasons. I disagree with it too, but that doesn't matter.

 

So you are happy to let repeated crimes bordering on treason and apparent crimes of money laundering. tax evasion, and lying to Congress go without complaint because you like the 3 things he has done??????????

 

What do you disagree with for each one of the four?

 

I simply do not consider any of them to be significant. It all seems more like run of the mill politics to me.

 

The president has never been guilty of any of those things, heck the investigation wasn’t even into that.

 

Trump is not to blame

Everyone crossing the border without a visa should be returned to mexico the SAME DAY

 

not worth response.

 

What crimes? Trump has been exonerated by Mueller and the DOJ.