re: How do you completely mind frick a Prog/Dim leftist loon? It's easy........

They did the same thing with Hillary you fricking idiot. All investigations describe the statutes they looked at. Now point directly to where Bob says they reached that threshold. Try without linking to Uber anti Trumper Quinta.

If you did understand it you wouldn’t have posted the inaccurate info graphic. Let me know when you catch up?

quote:

---

Your statement that "he was not found to have ever committed a crime" is factually incorrect. Mueller said that it would be improper for him to say that no matter how great the evidence of Trump is.

---

So essentially what you're saying is this, Trump is not a sleaze ball lawyer/Swamp D.C. politician and because he doesn't know the ways of the Swamp (lying and deception), because he was tired of the backlash of defeating your girl and was not afraid to stand up to the Swamp Skunks, because he never fired anyone but Comey (who should already be in prison with Hilldawg for his failure to execute his responsibilities as FBI director), because he isn't afraid of the "resistance" and will not be railroaded by enemies of this great democratic republic...., well I guess if that's your standards for impeachment then y'all gotta impeach away then.

Now here's another question that completely mind fricks a Prog/Dim leftist... If Hilldawg wins the election is there one damn Prog/Dim leftist, never Trumper or DimMedia talking head giving two shits about investigating the Big Bad Orange Man? You know the damn answer......FRICK NO!!!!!

quote:

---

substantial
evidence for our report

---

For the report but not for obstruction

Good grief you are so dumb.

quote:

---

Here you go.

---

This graph isn't in the Mueller report. This is some DU bullshite.

Those "Obstruct/Intent/Nexus - Yes/Yes/Yes" are 100% biased assertions by Lefty hacks fantasizing their dreams.


1. Trump allegedly asking Comey to "see your way to letting this go" is missing context.

The quote is actually, "I HOPE you can see your way to letting this go. Flynn is a good guy. I HOPE you can let this go."

But of course, you fricking Leftists can't help but twist lies by omission and try to make something appear worse than it really was.

"I hope..." is NOT A DIRECTIVE OR ORDER. If Comey took it that way, that's HIS (clearly biased) OPINION.

Comey has proven with zero doubt that he is and has always been biased against Trump. He's up to his eyeballs in shite over the OIG/Huber reports about to come out, with the FISA abuse, 702 abuse, allowing contractors to surveil Americans, changing 302's, his entire bullshite investigation and pre-exoneration of Hillary, his knowledge of the Dossier and attempt to use it to strongarm Trump, and all his LEAKING for purposes of damaging Trump, etc. etc. He's fricked and has zero credibility.

And that's why him claiming he interpreted this as an order is bullshite and has no credibility.

And your graph here is now fricked and has zero credibility since right off the bat it lied and fabricated a fallacy by omitting context clearly on purpose.


2. Asked McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing himself? First of all, Sessions DID recuse himself. This is like "thought policing". He thought it and asked it, but the request never happened or was executed.

This is like going, "I would really like to kick that guy's arse. Hey Jimmy, let's beat his arse.", but the assault never happens, but dipshits like you still want to charge him with assault. Sorry, but that's not how shite works.

Your graph even says, "Unclear" on obstruction, but then says "Yes/Yes" for intent and nexus????? That is retarded. This is clearly a bullshite graph created by an imbecile with an insane bias who pulled it all out of their arse.

In what world is asking Sessions not to recuse himself possibly obstruction of anything anyways????


3. Fired Comey? bullshite. First of all, firing Comey wouldn't have ended any investigation. There's still dozens and dozens of FBI who would still be working on the investigation. It wouldn't have ended shite.

Second, firing the FBI director is perfectly within Trump's Constitutional authority.

And lastly, Sessions and Rosenstein wrote a letter recommending Trump fire him, plus the Dems were asking for him to fired, and Repubs were saying he should be fired... EVERYONE was saying he should be fired. Only after he fired him did the Dems change their tune.

It's asinine to say the intent of this was to obstruct the investigation, when we obviously know it didn't stop shite. When Comey was fired, nothing stopped. Trump himself even said to do the investigation and if anyone in his Campaign did anything wrong, prosecute them to the fullest extent.


4. Tried to fire Mueller? WRONG

This is another case where context is conveniently omitted.

Trump told McGahn, "IF Mueller has a conflict of interest, he needs to go. If he's got a conflict of interest, you need to get him out of there, Don."

First of all, the request wasn't fulfilled. You can't charge him for Obstruction for an action that never happened.

Second, the context clearly matters and he was correct. If there's a conflict of interest, he should have been fired.

And lastly, firing Mueller doesn't end the Special Counsel. It would have changed NOTHING. Rosenstein would have simply appointed a new SC and the investigation would have continued.

So insisting this is obstruction and intent was to obstruct makes ZERO logical sense. Now add to this the fact that Trump knew he didn't commit any conspiracy/collusion crime, and it's abundantly obvious the only thing going on here was Trump was pissed about Mueller because he's a walking conflict of interest and clearly NOT impartial.

Which anyone who's honest realizes Mueller wasn't impartial and is/was doing everything in his power to be the "insurance policy".


5. Tried to get investigation to only focus on future elections?

WTF is this nonsense? Again, you can't charge someone with obstruction simply because of their thoughts. And you sure as shite can't insist his intent was to obstruct when he knows he didn't commit any conspiracy or collusion crime.


6. Tried to have Sessions take over Mueller Investigation?

See #4. This is not only bullshite, but it's again perfectly within his Constitutional authority to direct his AG to do his job. And again, the end result never happened. You can't charge obstruction for thoughts. Nothing changed. Nobody stopped anything. Nobody took over anything.


7. Ordered McGahn to deny Trump's attempt to fire Mueller?

And another reason why this graph is a lie and has zero credibility. It's purposely omitting all the context that proves he wasn't trying to obstruct anything.

NYT wrote an article that purposely misinterpreted/changed the context of McGahn's Congressional testimony. The article stated that "Trump ordered McGahn to fire Mueller, but McGahn refused." But this wasn't McGahn's words, these were the words of Senator Whitehouse.

McGahn's testimony was that Trump said, "IF Mueller has a conflict of interest, he needs to go. If he's got a conflict of interest, you need to get him out of there, Don."

Trump had read the NYT article and told McGahn he needed to go correct the record and tell them he never ordered him to simply fire Mueller.

Again, context matters. It shapes the real truth, not this bullshite made up fantasy that you Dems keep fabricating.


8. Flynn... this is a duplicate of #1. Whomever created this graph is a freaking moron.


9 & 10. Attempted to influence Paul Manafort? How? Again with "thought policing" simply because he tweeted some derogatory shite about the railroading of Manafort and the fact all they got him on was tax fraud from 7+ years ago?

LOL, OMG Trump's tweets tried to influence the Manafort jurers! OBSTRUCTION! HIS INTENT WAS OBSTRUCTION!

What a crock of shite.


11 & 12 - Same as above. Tweets of Trump contradicting biased media and Dem narratives about Roger Stone and Michael Cohen are not "attempts to influence" shite. The media is lying and making up baseless false claims every day, and he's not allowed to call them out?

And you clown fricks want to label that "obstruction"? GTFO

quote:

---

Your statement that "he was not found to have ever committed a crime" is factually incorrect. Mueller said that it would be improper for him to say that no matter how great the evidence of Trump is.

---

You are lying here.

Mueller specifically stated that "No American's, including nobody from Trump's campaign, nor Trump himself, were found to have conspired or colluded with any Russians."

And then he also specifically said that he did not base his decision not to charge Trump with obstruction based on the OLC Guideline.

Yes, he flip-flopped this in his 9 minute press conference. But then later his spokesperson had to correct the record.

Barr has now said numerous times that Mueller told him he didn't not make a determination on Obstruction based on the OLC Guideline.

It's abundantly clear that Mueller's only purpose for this was so he could punt it to the House left open-ended so they could make their own biased opinion on how to interpret everything, just like this retarded graph and you have done.

quote:

---

quote: But you claim substantial evidence. Do you still stand by That? Absolutely, because it is what Mueller says in his own report. From Mueller report pg 418: quote: Recognizing that the President would not be interviewed voluntarily, we considered whether to issue a subpoena for his testimony. We viewed the written answers to be inadequate. But at that point, our investigation had made significant progress and had produced substantial evidence for our report. We thus weighed the costs of potentially lengthy constitutional litigation , with resulting delay in finishing our investigation , against the anticipated benefits for our investigation and report. As explained in Volume II, Section H.B., we determined that the substantial quantity of information we had obtained from other sources allowed us to draw relevant factual conclusions on intent and credibility , which are often inferred from circumstantial evidence and assessed without direct testimony from the subject of the investigation.

---

This ^^^^^ BS is exactly what the OP stated, they wanted Trump on perjury or process crimes because they knew there wasn't any collusion between Team Trump and Russia.

quote:

---

First of all, the request wasn't fulfilled. You can't charge him for Obstruction for an action that never happened.

---

This is blatantly false. The law states that anyone who endeavors to obstruct, is guilty of obstruction.

She is so fricking stupid!

quote:

---

endeavors to obstruct

---

Those are two different checkboxes. No reasonable jury would check them both off. It really is not a close case.

quote:

---

He said it would be unfair to accuse the president of anything

---

Again
(1) That is complete BS. The only thing "unfair" is TeamMueller not doing its job and issuing findings, and (2) It has been done before. There is precedent. The POTUS was able to defend himself quite effectively albeit in the face of unquestionable guilt.