Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To the contrary, Mueller lays out the prosecutorial framework in Point I(A), then he applies that framework in Point II to each act by Trump.
By way of example, on page 9 (in Point 1[A]), Mueller lays out that "[t]hree basic elements are common to most of the relevant obstruction statutes: (1) an obstructive act; (2) a nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding; and (3) a corrupt intent." In other words, to prove obstruction, one must prove all three of those elements. He spends the rest of Point I(A) discussing how Appellate Courts have interpreted the showing required for each of those elements. Then he applies those standards to the facts his team uncovered.
Again by way of example, in Point II(I) starting on page 113 of Volume II, Mueller address's Trump's efforts to try to have McGahn lie about Trump's attempts to fire the Special Counsel. Pages 113-117 is a annotated description of all of the facts gathered by the Special Counsel concerning Trump's efforts to get McGahn to deny that Trump had tried to fire Mueller. Then, starting in the Section called "Analysis," Mueller considers whether those efforts amounted to obstruction.
Page 118 (Point II[i][a]) entitled "Obstructive Act" discusses whether Trump's behavior amounted to an "obstructive act" under the legal framework detailed in Point I[A]. Page 119, entitled "Nexus to an official proceeding" then discusses whether Trump's behavior was connected to an official proceeding. Third, on page 120, Mueller considers whether those acts had a "corrupt intent." He repeats this process for each of Trump's other potentially obstructive acts.
And what did he conclude? He found that Trump's behavior met all three prongs of the "obstruction of justice" statutes he discussed in Point I(A) on at least eight occasions and that it did perhaps on four more. A chart illustrating what Mueller (in simple terms, for simple people) found using this analysis is below:
(gee, I guess it turns out I know something about the law after all)
No, you don't. The fact that you're using someone else's chart (which doesn't even match up with the episodes discussed by Mueller) ought to clue you in to that fact.
That doesn't address what I wrote. The analysis doesn't tie any act to any statute. It pretends that the "obstructive" acts covered by the various statutes are the same and that the 'nexus" requirement for all the statutes is the same.
They're not. So your silly chart is inaccurate because it mixes and matches elements from different statutes, and it also, in some cases, falsely represents the report's conclusions on the elements even if we use the most favorable statute for a given point.
I'm looking forward to Mueller's testimony sometime in the next month. I would prefer to hear directly from Bob Mueller, the man who actually wrote the report, not an interpretation from Barr, an incredibly biased AG who is trying to protect the president.
During his testimony, I'm sure Mueller will be asked directly: "If Donald Trump were not currently President of the United States, would you have charged him with obstruction or any other crimes?"
Regardless of Mueller's answer, that exchange will go down in history books as one of the most pivotal moments in 21st century American history.
I think Trump would rather Mueller was killed than he testify...
Mueller won’t get chance to testify unless he resigns from the DOJ and becomes a regular citizen...
But not Trump apparently has said that Don Jr won’t respond to the subpoena from the Senate Intel Committee
Which someone pointed out must mean he already failed to agree to testify from just a REQUEST by the Committee—ergo the subpoena to compel
Will be interesting to see how the Senate Committee responds to Trump’s usurpation of power over all oversight by House and Senate...
Takes a big shovel to dig a grave for the entire GOP...
I'm looking forward to Mueller's testimony sometime in the next month. I would prefer to hear directly from Bob Mueller, the man who actually wrote the report, not an interpretation from Barr, an incredibly biased AG who is trying to protect the president.
During his testimony, I'm sure Mueller will be asked directly: "If Donald Trump were not currently President of the United States, would you have charged him with obstruction or any other crimes?"
Regardless of Mueller's answer, that exchange will go down in history books as one of the most pivotal moments in 21st century American history.
And the answer would be: I do not charge anyone, I provide the details, I cannot exonerate anyone nor charge them.....
But the better questions would be: When did yo know there was no collusion?
I don't really expect Mueller to say much more than he said in his report. The Democrats want him to testify to help educate Americans as to what the report says. Trump has said one thing, Barr another, Congressional democrats something else. I read the report, but I honestly do not expect that the average American will do so. I do expect, however, that they would watch 20 minutes of testimony highlights on TV and draw their conclusions based on what the Report's author says.
I'm looking forward to Mueller's testimony sometime in the next month. I would prefer to hear directly from Bob Mueller, the man who actually wrote the report, not an interpretation from Barr, an incredibly biased AG who is trying to protect the president.
During his testimony, I'm sure Mueller will be asked directly: "If Donald Trump were not currently President of the United States, would you have charged him with obstruction or any other crimes?"
Regardless of Mueller's answer, that exchange will go down in history books as one of the most pivotal moments in 21st century American history.
Mueller has to answer "no", because Trump was doing or talking about doing things no one but the President could have done, and he was being investigated because he was President.
In the sense that the poster hasn't read or understood the report and wants you to spend your time summarizing what is already available for them to read so that they can try to pick apart your layman's summary rather than the detailed, annotated, caselaw-citing, evidence-based descriptions of the events set forth in the report along with its accompanying legal analysis as to why the events do (or, some cases, do not) clearly amount to felonious obstruction of justice.
Don't give them the satisfaction by allowing them to re-frame the facts to make their argument easier for them given their refusal to digest the readily-available report.
New post by Louise Mensch on her blog
Goes into details about Mueller’s report that indicates Barr stopped Mueller’s investigation because he was getting too close to Trump’s connection to Wikileaks and the GRU cooperation
Specific references to Mueller’s report and logical analysis
But—you have to read...so not for everyone...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
