Can someone give me a quick rundown of the Mueller report?
What's the most damaging part?
Can someone give me a quick rundown of the Mueller report?
Brayden Clark
Other urls found in this thread:
twitter.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Levi Smith
bread
and
circus
Angel Fisher
That Trump's people saved him commiting obstruction of justice a few times
Christian Smith
I don't think there was anything too damaging in it. I asked redditors, they said "collusion and obstruction, umpeach blumpf now" but they couldn't tell me what page it was on.
Austin Moore
The part where it says “If we could prove that Trump didn’t commit obstruction, we would say so. We do not say so.”
He committed blatant obstruction of justice.
In the American legal system you can’t accuse someone of a crime if they can’t defend themselves in court. A President can to be indicted of a crime, and cannot appear in court. Therefore, you can’t openly officially accuse the President of committing a crime, even if you have suffecient evidence yo do so.
Only Congress can impeach the President, which is what Mueller wanted Congress to do.
That doesn’t mean Mueller says he’s guilty, his bottom line is that Mueller is not empowered to say “guilty” or “innocent”. So he didn’t.
Gavin Foster
the mueller report is a culmination of a multi-year smear campaign against an elected president by two political parties who have so detached from the electorate they cannot fathom why they elected who they did
the most damaging part is that the smear campaign worked and the people who perpetuated it got away with no repercussions opening the door for future soft coups of elected officials
Nicholas Butler
Trump tried to lock her up and Sessions wouldn’t go for it.
Zachary Perez
That Trump, apart from not arresting Hillary, did nothing wrong, but the Democrats sure as fuck did
Jacob Reyes
And then I ask "what page did you see this on?" and then they never respond.
Luis Evans
Trump didn’t do anything wrong. The most damaging part is that the heroes of you floppy-cocked dickshits actually did commit crimes.
Henry Bell
Wow legit good sane response 2 posts in
Spbp user
Charles Thomas
fpbp
Jose Kelly
Volume 2, page 2.
>Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.
James Butler
>but they couldn't tell me what page it was on.
lmao they didn't read it and are still in denial about the results, delusional pussies living in a fantasy world of brown people and transgenderism.
Brandon Garcia
>not enough evidence to conclusively determine
That's the smoking gun right there. Impeach!
Nicholas Phillips
It’s on page 2 of volume 2.
Justin Evans
Good thing it's not the justice system's job to "prove" someone's innocence
James Hernandez
Do you ever worry the Russian puppet theory distracted from the fact that he might actually be a Saudi or Israeli puppet?
Henry Campbell
>Israeli puppet
kindly delete your post good sir and refrain from making such statements in future
Lincoln Gonzalez
You think it might actually be true?
Luis Rivera
>Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment
That's legalease for
>No collusion and we're not admitting it
>lawyerfag here
Jacob Russell
this is now a bog thred
Xavier Carter
it was literally nothing
Luke Evans
You’re just completely ignoring the sentence before that then?
The “judgement” that he’s saying they can’t come to is “innocence”.
They’re not talking about collusion. Volune 2 is about obstruction.
Benjamin Jenkins
>twitter.com
lmfao, ok hayes now back to the news desk
Caleb Howard
No, it’s not, but if they knew he was innocent they would say so, like collusion.
Oliver Ward
An investigator can't "prove" innocence
Eli Morris
Right, I know that, and so does he, which is why the report is meant to go to Congress.
They came to the conclusion that no collusion was committed.
They could not come to the conclusion that no obstruction was committed.
That’s why Congress is meant to open an investigation, to either prove innocence or prove guilt.
That’s the POINT.
Sebastian Perez
Isaiah Perry
I could point at trump right now and accuse him of being behind 9/11. I could say that hillary clinton is secretly a nazi. Assuming that they are both lies, you would still never be able to find proof that they are lies.
Daniel Cooper
You really don’t understand what you’re talking about.
Mueller found evidence of crimes. He couldn’t say “Trump committed crimes” because of DOJ guidelines.
The ONLY REASON Mueller was not allowed to say “Trump committed a crime” is because Trump is President.
Ethan Gray
There are probably legitimate criticisms that are stronger than this.
Gabriel Campbell
There is a lots of things you can do with a foreign power thats its basically legal, inclusive funding your campaign if you add the right firewalls to your pacs
the dems are focused on the wrong things. they could outspend any campaign with chinese money in a pinch
Camden Kelly
What do you mean? I’m not criticizing anything, I’m stating facts.
Lucas Jones
I just think you fell for the distraction.
Sebastian Brooks
What evidence of crimes?
Charles Gray
Obstruction of justice. Telling Mcgahn to falsify evidence. Lots. Read the report, Volume 2, it’s public.
Julian Gonzalez
Explain.
Hunter Thompson
Jayden Green
Anthony Rivera
It’s all public. I’ve read it, why have ‘t you?
Logan Williams
WAIT so what you're saying is the worst part of the mueller report is that trump obstructed justice, nothing to do with the original claim that he colluded with russia?
as for i personally havent read it because i dont care enough about US politics
Dominic Davis
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
Obstruction is a crime.
Also, volume 1 may clear him of crimes but it also says he and his team were willing and eager to get help, they were just too incompetent to receive it.
Someone was trying to cooredinate with a bodybuilder with the same name as a Russian executive, for instance.
Luke Ward
eh. The obstruction part just sounds like trump being trump, and not something worth impeaching him for. I would of voted for him if i lived in america but i have to admit he really makes a fool of himself sometimes
Asher Butler
>Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.
means
>It's clear he didn't collude with Russia and there is no fucking way we're gonna say that
and
Colton Martinez
>The obstruction part just sounds like trump being trump, and not something worth impeaching him for
The President of the United States used the power of his office to obstruct an investigation into himself.
That’s a crime. Why wouldn’t he be punished for it?
Samuel Johnson
>They could not come to the conclusion that no obstruction was committed.
The report is such bogus congress can't and wont do shit about it
Jeremiah Barnes
>>It's clear he didn't collude with Russia and there is no fucking way we're gonna say that
The collusion part is in volume 1. They already said that he didn’t. This part is about obstruction, and they say “if he was innocent we would say so.”
What part of this is confusing you? Can you not read well?
Nicholas Kelly
Levi Barnes
he should really just the democrats are incompetent
Elijah Reyes
No they wouldn't, because the point of their investigation isn't to prove innocence.
In fact, the mere idea of "proving innocence" is an insult to our entire legal system, as it considers people innocent until proven guilty.
Oliver Cox
lol oops I was confusing our convo with another thread, flipping back and forth and lost track
Jaxson Sanchez
Okay, proving innocence isnt the right way of saying it.
The point I’m trying to make is that Mueller said “If we had not found any evidence of crimes, we would say so.” That means he did find evidence of crimes. They found evidence of the crime of obstruction.
The problem is that he’s literally not allowed to say that. So he didn’t.
Jose King
>ok you called me out so allow me to backpedal
No, you're just full of shit. Mueller literally couldn't say "we found no evidence of crimes" because that is a misnomer of the goals of the investigation.
It's political weasel words to not concede a lost point. This blatant politicizing of our justice system is why America is pissed and elected Trump.
The mere fact that a criminal investigation led to no prosecutions, no settlements, and no legal battles shows that there was nothing to be found. Anyone denying this fact has simply taken a large dose of political propoganda.
Adrian Carter
It's a hard sell now that we know the investigation was based on bullshit. The Democrats have gone from "Trump is a puppet of Russia" to "Trump is a criminal for trying to stop people from falsely accusing him of being a puppet of Russia." People who defended Trump before this will continue to defend him, people who hated him will continue to REEEEE, nothing will change. Impeachment is pointless. When fucking senile Nancy Pelosi is the voice of reason in your party you know you fucked up.
Jaxson Scott
>They came to the conclusion that no collusion was committed.
>They could not come to the conclusion that no obstruction was committed.
wow. a really rare absolute retard on 4chins. a person can not obstruct something that never happened. stop doing drugs
Ayden Mitchell
>What's the most damaging part?
That Trump wasn't guilty.