ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

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.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

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.

There is a recording.

Here's what Cohen pleaded guilty to.

"

Count 8: Excessive campaign contribution for when he pleaded guilty to making an excessive political contribution when he paid adult film actress Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels $130,000 for her story and silence about Clifford’s alleged affair with Donald Trump.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michael-cohen-gets-3-years-cases-involving-stormy-daniels-lying-n946956

This was done only to benefit Donald Trump.

This was Trump's weak response.

"

Trump, who insists the affairs never happened, argued on Twitter earlier this week that the payments to the women were "a simple private transaction," not a campaign contribution. And if it was a prohibited contribution, Trump said, Cohen is the one who should be held responsible.

The affairs never happened yet he paid $130,000! It was obviously a campaign contribution since it occurred a week before the election and the recording that Cohen made they talked about the election in context to the payment needing to be made quickly.

"

In 2016, AMI paid Playboy model Karen McDougal $150,000 for exclusive rights to her allegations of a ten-month affair with Donald Trump—which she claimed happened in 2006-2007, when he was already married to Melania[33]—but AMI never published the story. AMI publicly acknowledged having made the payment after The Wall Street Journal revealed it days before the 2016 presidential election, but AMI denied that its purpose had been to "kill damaging stories about" Trump; instead, AMI claimed it had paid only for "exclusive life rights to any relationship [McDougal] has had with a then-married man" and "two years’ worth of her fitness columns and magazine covers."[34][35] In March 2018, McDougal filed a lawsuit to invalidate the non-disclosure agreement she had with AMI.[36][37] A month later, AMI settled with McDougal, allowing her to speak about the alleged affair.[38] In August 2018, it was reported that AMI CEO/Chairman David Pecker and AMI chief content officer Dylan Howard were granted witness immunity in exchange for their testimony regarding hush money payments made by Donald Trump's then-personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, in an attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election.[39]

On December 12, 2018, the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced its agreement with AMI "AMI admitted that it made the $150,000 payment in concert with a candidate’s presidential campaign," the press release said, so that Karen McDougal wouldn't "publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election. AMI further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election." As a result of this agreement, AMI would not face prosecution and agreed to provide extensive assistance to prosecutors about the involvement of Trump and other politicians with the company.[2] The same press release also revealed that Michael Cohen had been sentenced to three years in prison for various crimes, including the $150,000 campaign finance violation—the facilitation of the payment to McDougal—to which he pled guilty on August 21, 2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Media,_Inc.#%22Catch-and-kill%22_scandals_related_to_Donald_Trump

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

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.

You are wrong. I presented many articles that referenced examples where there was no underlying crime. You just apparently have a strange unique and incorrect understanding of what no underlying crime means.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

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.

You have presented zero sources for this ridiculous argument, the only places that such a silly idea are floating around are places like the pathological liar's tweeter feed and social media because it is not part of the real world.

"

Turtledove wrote:

There is a recording.

Nope. There is no recording in which Trump instructs Cohen to break the law. There's a tape where Cohen tells Trump it would be a good idea to buy the rights to a story. They never went through with it btw.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Here's what Cohen pleaded guilty to.

"

Count 8: Excessive campaign contribution for when he pleaded guilty to making an excessive political contribution when he paid adult film actress Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels $130,000 for her story and silence about Clifford’s alleged affair with Donald Trump.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michael-cohen-gets-3-years-cases-involving-stormy-daniels-lying-n946956

This was done only to benefit Donald Trump.

This was Trump's weak response.

"

Trump, who insists the affairs never happened, argued on Twitter earlier this week that the payments to the women were "a simple private transaction," not a campaign contribution. And if it was a prohibited contribution, Trump said, Cohen is the one who should be held responsible.

The affairs never happened yet he paid $130,000! It was obviously a campaign contribution since it occurred a week before the election and the recording that Cohen made they talked about the election in context to the payment needing to be made quickly.

"

In 2016, AMI paid Playboy model Karen McDougal $150,000 for exclusive rights to her allegations of a ten-month affair with Donald Trump—which she claimed happened in 2006-2007, when he was already married to Melania[33]—but AMI never published the story. AMI publicly acknowledged having made the payment after The Wall Street Journal revealed it days before the 2016 presidential election, but AMI denied that its purpose had been to "kill damaging stories about" Trump; instead, AMI claimed it had paid only for "exclusive life rights to any relationship [McDougal] has had with a then-married man" and "two years’ worth of her fitness columns and magazine covers."[34][35] In March 2018, McDougal filed a lawsuit to invalidate the non-disclosure agreement she had with AMI.[36][37] A month later, AMI settled with McDougal, allowing her to speak about the alleged affair.[38] In August 2018, it was reported that AMI CEO/Chairman David Pecker and AMI chief content officer Dylan Howard were granted witness immunity in exchange for their testimony regarding hush money payments made by Donald Trump's then-personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, in an attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election.[39]

On December 12, 2018, the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced its agreement with AMI "AMI admitted that it made the $150,000 payment in concert with a candidate’s presidential campaign," the press release said, so that Karen McDougal wouldn't "publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election. AMI further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election." As a result of this agreement, AMI would not face prosecution and agreed to provide extensive assistance to prosecutors about the involvement of Trump and other politicians with the company.[2] The same press release also revealed that Michael Cohen had been sentenced to three years in prison for various crimes, including the $150,000 campaign finance violation—the facilitation of the payment to McDougal—to which he pled guilty on August 21, 2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Media,_Inc.#%22Catch-and-kill%22_scandals_related_to_Donald_Trump

My point stands. Worst case scenario, Trump pays a small fine and is done with it. It will never happen though.

"

Turtledove wrote:

You are wrong. I presented many articles that referenced examples where there was no underlying crime. You just apparently have a strange unique and incorrect understanding of what no underlying crime means.

Nope. Prejury is a crime.

"

Turtledove wrote:

You have presented zero sources for this ridiculous argument, the only places that such a silly idea are floating around are places like the pathological liar's tweeter feed and social media because it is not part of the real world.

My source is the real world and its utter lack of obstruction convictions with no other crimes involved. If you claim that obstruction convictions without other crimes involved happen "all the time", you have to prove it. So far, you haven't.

As my last post shows, I've been researching obstruction of justice today to the best of my amateur paralegal abiliy. I've determined that earlier in this thread I was working with a bad assumption of what was needed to demonstrate obstruction. Specifically, I was assuming we didn't live in a motherfucking clown world where telling someone to shut the fuck up went halfway to an obstruction charge.

Let me illustrate with a hypothetical. Let's say I went on 4chan for some masochistic reason and read Anon claim that they were a whistleblower who leaked classified information but they were pretty sure they were about to be caught because they knew the FBI was onto them. Let's say I posted something like "Good job sticking it to The Man. Just plead the Fifth on everything and hopefully it all works out."

Now let's say Anon's story was true, and the FBI read my post. Did I influence someone party to an investigation to withhold information? Yes. Did I have neither proper intent nor an attorney-client relationship with the influenced? True; I'm not a lawyer, and was clearly expressing hope people who committed such crimes would get away with it. Did I have knowledge of and intend to obstruct an FBI investigation and act on that intent? That's a question of whether I actually believed Anon's story or not; I certainly responded as if I did. Was the FBI investigation conducted improperly? How would I know?

So based off just that, I'd be vulnerable to prosecutorial discretion under the obstruction of justice statute. They could go after 4chan to track me down, then go after me with an indictment — for questionable posting on the Internet. And my defense in court, if I didn't accept a plea deal, would hinge almost entirely on whether, deep down in my heart, I believed Anon was a LARP or not, unless by some miracle I could prove investigator misconduct somehow.

That's what we're dealing with here, non-TDSers. The law for obstruction of justice is so broad that telling anyone to withhold information — not to lie, not to mislead, merely to be quiet — puts you at the whim of a courtroom to read your mind at the time to determine whether your intent was "corrupt" or not. And the Mueller report very clearly states that Trump instructed people to withhold information, multiple times. Unless Trump can dispute those findings or persuade people the Mueller probe was a coup, the rest comes down almost entirely on whether people believe Trump had pure motives, or whether his heart is full of racism and malice.

I'm starting to think the TDSers' list of lawyers isn't a bunch of hot air. I think US federal prosecutors have gone after people for obstruction of justice with less evidence, and won.

I hope this unfair law gets challenged and sent back to Congress for rewording. But in the meantime, the broad definition should be used to indict every single person who's even been in the same room as Hillary Clinton. Including her.

Honk honk.