ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

diablofdb wrote:

So you say that the report says: Trump tried to falsify evidence... show me. Show me where? That's what I'm asking man. I'm a man of thruth.

Show me where does it says that. It's a very simple task.

1. you made a claim.
2. I'm asking you to back that claim.
3. You back that claim.
4. I believe you.


Now show me.

edit: oh I'm going to make it easier for you, I'll tell you exactly what you need to do so it's going to be suuuuuper easy.

Just link me, to something that is DIRECTLY taken from the report and is a proof of what you're saying. No editing, no opinion, no false flag, no biased journalism, no that's what he she said. Just a simple link... A sentence would be enough.

The Mueller report is not online, as far as I know. This has been detailed many times though in many places.

"

Trump told the White House counsel to lie.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/04/19/muellers-biggest-bombshell-trump-told-white-house-counsel-lie/?utm_term=.da07cc88a4ee

"

Despite being advised by then-White House Counsel Don McGahn that he could face legal jeopardy for doing so, Trump directed McGahn on multiple occasions to fire Mueller or to gin up false conflicts of interest as a pretext for getting rid of the Special Counsel. When these acts began to come into public view, Trump made “repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story” — going so far as to tell McGahn to write a letter “for our files” falsely denying that Trump had directed Mueller’s termination.

https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1

"

"This evidence shows that the President was not just seeking an examination of whether conflicts existed but instead was looking to use asserted conflicts as a way to terminate the special counsel," Mueller wrote.

Mueller's report also directly refutes Barr's statement today that Trump may not have believed he was asking White House Counsel Don McGahn to say something false. In his analysis of the episodes with McGahn, the Mueller report says: "There also is evidence that the President knew that he should not have made those calls to McGahn."

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/barr-testimony-mueller-report/h_f631a0eae5eecd9fee3f259f5170538f

"

Special counsel Robert Mueller's report, a redacted version of which was released to the public Thursday morning, revealed President Trump ordered White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller in 2017. McGahn refused to do so and threatened to resign instead, telling an associate the president had asked him to do "crazy shit."
...
Mr. Trump attempted to convince McGahn to write a letter saying he had never told him to fire Mueller. McGahn refused to do so, according to the special counsel report. He also "shrugged off" the potential threat that Mr. Trump might fire him, saying "the optics would be terrible if the President followed through with firing him on that basis."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mueller-report-white-house-counsel-don-mcgahn-refused-trump-order-to-fire-mueller-wary-of-saturday-night-massacre/

Trump is terrified that his aides might not lie for him

All talk no evidences... where are the proof? I see a lot of she he said and biased journalism but again. Where are the proofs?


I've asked you to point to the Report.... not pseudo journalist who share their opinions.

You're like an anti-vaxxer.

"

Turtledove wrote:

The Mueller report is not online, as far as I know.

Have you tried Googling it?

"

Turtledove wrote:

This has been detailed many times though in many places.

Honk honk.

"

diablofdb wrote:

All talk no evidences... where are the proof? I see a lot of she he said and biased journalism but again. Where are the proofs?


I've asked you to point to the Report.... not pseudo journalist who share their opinions.

You're like an anti-vaxxer.

really lazy effort here to cast doubt on the report...


Here are the 10 instances of potential obstruction Mueller outlines in his report:

Trump asking James Comey to let Michael Flynn go


See if you can find the 9 others yourself.

Note that nobody except Barr and potentially Trump's White house has seen the unredacted full Mueller report, because apparently Barr is going to be held for contempt for not showing it to Congress, for his buddy Donnie.

Did someone on here actually say Mueller report is not online?

Oh man ... no words.

I'm certain it was somebody that claimed to have read all 400 pages by osmosis.

"

diablofdb wrote:

All talk no evidences... where are the proof? I see a lot of she he said and biased journalism but again. Where are the proofs?


I've asked you to point to the Report.... not pseudo journalist who share their opinions.

You're like an anti-vaxxer.

The report is not online. Feel nice and snug and safe in your Trump cocoon of lies.

Funny... in the same time everyone who wants to check Mueller report can google that whenever they want... even i found that...

Like others already said... even Mueller himself said there was NOTHING lol.



The main reason why they did that is because Trump won. If Hillary would win there would be NOTHING LIKE THIS. Its just pathetic... how blind and dumb people can be.... even when Mueller and others who was in charge says there was nothing people still dont believe. :D

So I decided to look up obstruction of justice, because I hadn't and fake news. It's 18 U.S. Code § 1505, if you're interested. Two definitions, first is anti-trust only so I omitted it.

"

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication

So, it needs to be either threatening or done "corruptly…" whatever that means. Edit: here it is, hiding in §1515:

"

As used in section 1505, the term “corruptly” means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information. This chapter does not prohibit or punish the providing of lawful, bona fide, legal representation services in connection with or anticipation of an official proceeding.

So influencing another person to make a false or misleading statement or to withhold information for an improper purpose would be "corrupt…" unless you're a lawyer talking to your client, then influence them to withhold as much as you please. Somehow it got even more vague. Back to §1505:

"

influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede

So contrary to what I've heard previously, an attempt to obstruct can be obstruction, pursuant to the legal meaning of the verb "endeavor." (Edit: "As a verb, denotes the exertion of physical and intellectual strength toward the obtainment of an object. To use efforts, to attempt; to strive. See Evenson v North West Airlines, Inc. (D.C. Va.)268 F. Supp. 29.") Also, since all those working on administration of law influence it, the only protection investigators have against the statute is the "corruptly" qualifier.

"

the due and proper administration of the law

Meaning that the investigation needs to be running properly, and that obstructing an improper administration of law is NOT illegal.

"

under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress

I think this is where TDS_Impeacher's infographic got the "is aware of an investigation" part from. A person who isn't aware the investigation is from an official US government entity (as listed) isn't criminally liable under the statute.

"

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

So the bad news for Team MAGA is that an attempt may count as obstruction, even if unsuccessful at achieving impact. The good news for Team MAGA is that Impeacher's infographic missed a fourth necessary component — the law being obstructed must have "proper" process, or obstruction is legal, regardless of intent.

"

rojimboo wrote:

How does the free press undermine democracy compared to Trump's effort to do so?

The "free" press is spreading lies about the president in order to undermine his presidency and by proxy the will of the people. The directly Aided & Abetted (I like these leftist conspiracy nut words from Twitter) the deep state coup. Trump defended democracy by fighting against the coup.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Really simple - Mueller says crime, you say no crime. Need I explain more?

No, Mueller says possible crime. I don't disagree, but I think if it ever came to a court dispute Trump would get off scot-free because he has enough plausible deniability and he defended democracy from traitors, which is a plus.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Yeah 2018 was a particularly good year for you people not believing in science,

U.S. Carbon Emissions Surged in 2018 Even as Coal Plants Closed

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/climate/greenhouse-gas-emissions-increase.html

This is only Trump's fault because the economy is booming and energy demand is through the roof. The market will solve this problem within the next ten years, when carbon-free energy will become the undisputed leader in cost-efficiency. Also it's a worldwide problem tbh.

https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-energy-linked-co2-emissions-hit-record-high-in-2018/a-48060649

"

Turtledove wrote:

Trump also known as Individual 1 is guilty of directing Cohen to break the law on two counts. There is a recording of Trump telling Cohen to break the law. In the Cohen indictment, Trump was referred to as individual 1.

"muh individual 1" is a nice soundbite in conspiracy circles on Twitter, but it's absolutely meaningless otherwise. And as I said, even if Trump directed Cohen to break the law (there is no evidence of that btw, no recording or anything), he'd get a slap on the wrist and that'd be it. He'd pay a five digit fine or something and be done with it.

"

Turtledove wrote:

The 735 former professional federal prosecutors say that the facts in the Mueller report say that your argument that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and the experience of 735 former prosecutors.

Yet there apparently isn't a single example of someone being convicted of obstruction without any underlying crimes. Funny how that works.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Xav your arguments run counter to the many sources that I previously presented to you regrading underlying crimes being required for an obstruction of justice case. You insisted on disbelieving that reality. You have been unable to produce even one source supporting this fantasy position. Your arguments are refuted by what these 735 professionals think, they run counter to logic, according to these 735 former prosecutors. These professionals have the experience the expertise and the knowledge. Yet you reject their opinion because apparently you would suffer such severe cognitive dissonance that you must reject reality and instead embrace this fantasy.

Again, my source is the real world, where people don't get convicted of obstruction if they don't break the law otherwise.

"

Turtledove wrote:

A very important idea in the USA is that no one is above the law, not even the President. Trump is attempting to warp reality in order to place himself above the law.

It's an idea that has no basis in reality. Powerful people are usually above the law.