"I know! Let's put it in a format the progs will understand!"

This_person

Well-Known Member
Then find the quote where mueller said that in the report. Hint: he didn’t.
Hint: That's not how it works.

He said that he wasn't going to make a decision, because he couldn't do anything about it even if he did (which is stupid for him to have said, because there's no reason to write the report if that were true). Then he said that he COULD recommend Trump's indictment after the presidency was over, but didn't. Then he laid out all the facts of the case as his team perceived and spun them to be.

And, in those facts, he could not come up with any actual intent.

In real life, there's no bumper-sticker level answer to complex issues, so I can't give it to you in a bumper sticker. I'm sorry if that confuses and confounds you and your desires, but reality does that to the intellectually impaired sometimes. There's nothing that can be done about that.

But, since you believe it met the three criteria so solidly, lay out where you thought he sufficiently laid it out and said, "and there, ladies and gentlemen, is obstruction."

Hint: he didn't.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Hint: That's not how it works.

He said that he wasn't going to make a decision, because he couldn't do anything about it even if he did (which is stupid for him to have said, because there's no reason to write the report if that were true). Then he said that he COULD recommend Trump's indictment after the presidency was over, but didn't. Then he laid out all the facts of the case as his team perceived and spun them to be.

And, in those facts, he could not come up with any actual intent.

In real life, there's no bumper-sticker level answer to complex issues, so I can't give it to you in a bumper sticker. I'm sorry if that confuses and confounds you and your desires, but reality does that to the intellectually impaired sometimes. There's nothing that can be done about that.

But, since you believe it met the three criteria so solidly, lay out where you thought he sufficiently laid it out and said, "and there, ladies and gentlemen, is obstruction."

Hint: he didn't.
You obviously struggle with reading and logic.

At least we can agree that the mueller report DID NOT SAY no intent = no obstruction
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
You obviously struggle with reading and logic.

At least we can agree that the mueller report DID NOT SAY no intent = no obstruction
It actually does say that.
Volume II said:
Under general principles of attempt law, a person is guilty of an attempt when he has the intent to commit a substantive offense and takes an overt act that constitutes a substantial step towards that goal. … "[T]he act [must be] substantial, in that it was strongly corroborative of the defendant's criminal purpose." … While "mere abstract talk" does not suffice, any "concrete and specific" acts that corroborate the defendant's intent can constitute a "substantial step." … "It is well established that a[n] [obstruction-of-justice] offense is complete when one corruptly endeavors to obstruct or impede the due administration of justice; the prosecution need not prove that the due administration of justice was actually obstructed or impeded."
So, without intent, or without "corruptly" endeavoring to obstruct or impede, there is no "obstruction" - as it clearly states, no intent = no obstruction.

But, I'm sure that's not what you meant. You meant that it does not say there was no intent. Of course it does not say that. It simply provides no intent or corrupt endeavor. Thus, there's no obstruction.
 
Top