ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The Mueller Report and Donald Trump; An Analysis - Part 3: Obstruction - The Evidence

Updated on May 20, 2019
My Esoteric profile image

ME has spent most of his retirement from service to the United States studying, thinking, and writing about the country he served.

Source

Part 2 of SO - What Does the Mueller Report REALLY Say? Nothing Good for Donald Trump - Part 2: Obstruction was getting rather long in the tooth with over 3,000 words and Part 3 is going to be just as long. So, I thought it best, following HP guidelines to break this up into another article.

The Evidence of Obstruction

In Part 2, I presented Mueller's reasoning as to why he investigated Donald Trump for Obstruction of Justice. Also in Part 2 are the several instances where Mueller thinks Trump might have broken the law. (Those will be repeated here as well).

Keep in mind, it was the potential obstructive act of firing FBI Director James Comey that precipitated the appointment of a Special Council in the first place. It is clear from what Mueller wrote that he thought it highly likely that Trump did indeed try to obstruct the investigation into Russian interference. First, let's consider the elements of proof which Mueller needs in order to convict someone of Obstruction of Justice.

Elements of Proof

For Obstruction of Justice, the statutes provide that three "elements of proof" are needed for a crime to have been committed:

  1. An obstructive act;
  2. A nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding;
  3. A corrupt intent.

Just three simple things - but so hard to prove. Mueller spends the next 150 pages or so analyzing each of the issues (instances of possible obstruction) listed previously. For each issue, the report covers each element of proof and the facts that bear upon it. Below is a selection from the various definitions Mueller presents on PDF pages 221 through 224 of the report.

An Obstructive Act

Statutes and Supreme or Inferior Court rulings define an Obstructive Act as:

  1. "... corrupt conduct ..." which can "... prevent[s] justice from being duly administered, regardless of the means employed."
  2. An Obstructive Act is an "effort to influence" an official proceeding "even if the effort was subtle or circuitous ..." nor "... however cleverly or with whatever cloaking of purpose it was made."
  3. An Obstructive Act "... can refer to anything that blocks, makes difficult , or hinders." an official proceeding
  4. "An improper motive can render an actor's conduct criminal even when the conduct would otherwise be lawful and within the actor's authority. "
  5. "any act by any party-whether lawful or unlawful on its face-may abridge ... if performed with a corrupt motive"

A Nexus Between the Obstructive Act and an Official Proceeding

  1. First, the obstructive act must be connected with a "... pending "judicial or grand jury proceedings. " be it "a federal agency proceeding or a congressional inquiry or investigation."
  2. "... the government must demonstrate "a relationship in time, causation , or logic " between the obstructive act and the proceeding or inquiry to be obstructed."
  3. To have a legitimate nexus, the "... individuals [must] have 'fair warning' of what the law proscribes."
  4. Other points are "... a defendant must act 'in a manner that is likely to obstruct justice ,'. It doesn't count, however, "... defendants who have an evil purpose but use means that would only unnaturally and improbably be successful.' "
  5. Importantly, "... defendant need not directly impede the proceeding." Instead, "... a nexus exists ...' even if a "third person" obstructs a proceeding "... if it was foreseeable to the defendant that the third party would act on the [defendant 's] communication in such a way as to obstruct the judicial proceeding"

A Corrupt Intent

  1. "The word "corruptly" provides the intent element for obstruction of justice" Corruptly means "acting knowingly and dishonestly or 'with an improper motive ... with the specific intent to subvert, impede or obstruct' the relevant proceeding". Also, "... It requires a "consciousness of wrongdoing."
  2. Variously, the "requisite showing" happens when a person acts in order to "... obtain an "improper advantage for self or someone else," which is "... inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others."
  3. Witness tampering is prohibited under this definition as well. You exhibit corrupt intent when you "knowingly use intimidation ... with the intent to [alter] testimony of any person in an official proceeding ..."
  4. "To establish corrupt persuasion, ..." all that need be done is for the "... defendant [to] ask[ed] a potential witness to lie to investigators in contemplation of a likely federal investigation into his conduct ... "
  5. Further, the tampering "... need not be coercive ...; it is sufficient to urge, induce, ask, argue, give reasons, ... coach, or remind witnesses by planting misleading facts."
  6. Important to ongoing actions by Trump is this finding - "Corrupt persuasion also can be shown ..." if someone "... with an improper motive , urges a witness not to cooperate with law enforcement.
  7. Mueller finally offered that what might constitute an "affirmative defense" (meaning that it is proof of innocence) would be conduct that was lawful and that the "... sole intention was to encourage , induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully."

Included in all of those quotes are the various citations to court decisions and statutes to back up their assertions. It is important for you, the reader, to understand each of these elements if you are to make an informed decision as to whether Donald Trump, president of the United States, obstructed justice. It also is useful in deciding whether those who defend Trumps actions, be they the Attorney General or fellow Republicans (who would vote to convict in case of impeachment) are being honest in their assessment or just partisan.

There is one more thing which the Mueller team took into consideration, it is called

Attempts and Endeavors

As in "did someone attempt" to do something or "did someone endeavor" to do something like intimidate a witness. If they did, that could be a crime involving obstruction of justice. "Attempt" is a crime if they have "the intent to commit a substantive offense and takes an overt act that constitutes a substantial step towards that goal." Further, "[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." For example, "... soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime" may qualify as a substantial step."

I bet this is more than you ever wanted to know about obstruction of justice. But since the fate of our nation rests on the People knowing, and more importantly understanding, what Trump is accused of having done (or is doing today), I offer it for your edification. Now on to the potential crimes.

The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump

I am not sure that Mueller considered the following to be obstruction of justice, in and of itself, but it is what Mueller thinks laid the foundation of Trump's later actions which do rise to obstruction. He lays out, in detail, how Trump and his Campaign responded to the developing story of Russia's attempt to get Trump elected. The following is more a less a time line leading up to actual acts of obstruction.

  1. During the 2016 election season, media began reporting on instances where it looked like Russia was trying to impact the election.
  2. Trump said he denied having "any business involvement in Russia" in spite of trying as late as June or October 2016 to secure a deal for a Moscow Trump Tower.
  3. At the same time, "Trump also expressed skepticism that Russia had hacked the [DNC and Clinton] emails ..." while simultaneously asking Campaign staff (probably Stone) regarding "... information about any further planned WikiLeaks releases."
  4. After Trump was elected, "continued to deny any connections to Russia ..." and he began worrying the reports about Russian meddling "... might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election ."
  5. In 2016, Trump was alone in wanting "... closer ties with Russia ..." that "... he would get along well with ... Putin ..." while at the same time started "... questioning whether the NATO alliance was obsolete, and praising Putin as a "strong leader." Also. in February, the media began reporting "... that several Trump campaign advisors appeared to have ties to Russia." Mueller lays out several examples: 1) "... Michael Flynn was seated next to Vladimir Putin at an RT (Russia Today) gala in Moscow in December 2015," 2) "Flynn had appeared regularly on RT as an analyst", 3) "campaign foreign policy advisor Carter Page had ties to a Russian state-run gas company," 4) "campaign chairman Paul Manafort had done work for the Russian-backed former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.", and 5) at the Republican National Convention, Trump convinced them to soften the platform language from arming the Ukrainians to fight Russia to "assisting" them.
  6. On June 14, 2016, it was reported that the Russians hacked the DNC computers. On July 22, 2016, the day before the Democratic National Convention, Wikileaks drop their first tranche of stolen information. Shortly thereafter, Clinton's campaign manager correctly, as it turns out, that the Russians hacked the DNC in order to help Trump. The NY Times, on July 26, 2016, reported that "that U.S. "intelligence agencies ha[d] told the White House they now have 'high confidence' that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the [DNC]."

  7. Upon hearing this, "Trump Campaign aides reacted with enthusiasm ..." Maybe Roger Stone (as Michael Cohen later testified) "discussed with Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release the hacked material" Cohen also testified at a House Judicial Committee hearing that "Trump himself discussed the possibility of upcoming releases" as well as saying "oh good, alright," about the release. Mueller continues pointing out activities by Paul Manafort and Rick Gates designed to keep Trump up-to-date on the Wikileaks developments. He concludes by noting (from Rick Gates, I think) that "... and in the summer of 2016, the Campaign was planning a communications strategy based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks"
  8. With that in mind, consider this series of events:

- the "Campaign publicly rejected suggestions that Russia was seeking to aid candidate Trump."

- And then Trump tweeted, on July 26, 2016, "that it was "[c]razy" to suggest that Russia was "dealing with Trump" (a lie that he repeats at least five times) and that "[f]or the record," he had "ZERO investments in Russia. " (a lie)

- Then, on July 27, Trump said "this whole thing with Russia" as "a total deflection" and stated that it was "farfetched" and "ridiculous."

- Trump, starting his habit of not believing America intelligence, said that "the assertion that Russia had hacked the emails was unproven,

- but stated that it would give him "no pause" if Russia had Clinton's emails." and "Russia , if you're listening , I hope you 're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press ."

In reaction to above, Trump began distancing his campaign from Russia.

  1. On "August 2016, foreign policy advisor J.D . Gordon declined an invitation to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak's residence because the timing was not optimal" in view of media reports ..."
  2. On August 19, Manafort was asked to resign amid media coverage scrutinizing his ties to a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine and links to Russian business"
  3. In Sep 2016, there were reports about Carter "Page's connections to Russia" and the "Trump Campaign officials terminated Page's association with the Campaign and told the press that he had played "no role" in the Campaign"
  4. Oct 7 was a very busy day. 1) Trump's "grab them by the p***y " tape hit the airwaves, 2) Obama told the world that "the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations." linking Russian hacking with the Wikileaks releases, and 3) the first tranche of emails from the John Podesta hack.
  5. Trump squeaked out an elector win on Nov 8a. On Oct 10, the Russians "... told the press that the Russian government had maintained contacts with Trump 's "immediate entourage" during the campaign". Wouldn't that at least be collusion? To this, Hope Hicks, Trump's spokeswoman stated uncategorically "We are not aware of any campaign representatives that were in touch with any foreign entities before yesterday ... It never happened. There was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign."
  6. Did Trump know this was going to happen? John Podesta thought so. On Oct 11, he said "... that the FBI was investigating Russia's hacking and said that candidate Trump might have known in advance that the hacked emails were going to be released."
  7. On Jan 6, 2017, Trump received a briefing by the American intel community about the Russian attack on our election. It was at this meeting where it was decided that FBI Director James Comey would tell Trump about the Steele Dossier.


a In my opinion, the Mueller report makes it very likely the Russian's were successful in getting Trump elected.

What's To Come

Because of the length of each obstruction issue, I will devote one article to each starting with the firings of Gen Flynn and James Comey. In them, I will give the evidence which Mueller presents and then link it to each of the elements of proof needed for obstruction of justice.

I have a little experience in doing this. Once upon a time, in another life, the Army designated me a "trial council". After tapping each shoulder once with a ceremonial sword, I became an "almost a lawyer" by-passing the need for all of that legal schooling. What that meant, for certain types of legal military legal proceedings, I acted as a prosecutor in real cases with real consequences.

In the military there are four levels of proceedings where a soldier can be tried and convicted for misconduct. The simplest one is called "non-judicial punishment"; in the Army this was known as an Article 15 proceeding carried out by the soldier's company commander. It can result in demotions and fines, but no jail time. I used these sparingly when I was a company commander in the California and Maryland National Guard.

There are three levels of judicial proceedings, the Summary, the Special, and the General Courts-martial. The Summary level is for misconduct where an Article 15 is not strong enough but not so bad as to require serious jail time. These are often held at the Battalion level. The General Courts-martial is for the big stuff, murder, rape, armed robbery and the like.

The Special Courts-martial is for everything in between such as long-term AWOL (absent without leave); desertion, in some cases; minor drug possessions, theft, assault and the like. Real jail time in Leavenworth can result at this level. This is where I did my work for almost two years.

There were real judges, real defense lawyers, sometimes real juries, and this little ole' trial counsel. Now it is not as one sided as it sounds. I had access to real lawyers to help me, and, if needed, sit with me in court (which was every time when I first began). In all, I think I tried about 61 cases, losing only two or three along the way.

My point in this aside is I was required to build my cases around the same types of elements of proof and was held to the same standards of evidence as any prosecutor trying an obstruction of justice case. This is why I can claim to have some experience in going through the evidence on obstruction regarding Donald Trump.

© 2019 Scott Belford

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad NOYFB 

      7 weeks ago

      Oct 7 was a very busy day. 1) Trump's "grab them by the p***y " tape hit the airwaves, 2) Obama told the world that "the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations." linking Russian hacking with the Wikileaks releases, and 3) the first tranche of emails from the John Podesta hack.

      B:

      What does the 2005 private conversation that was held by NBC and release by them just before the election have to do other than try and influence the election? This was a private conversation, and not an act, know the difference.

      Obama was wrong, and making a political and not an accurate statement.

      The Wikileaks of the emails were not in fact known to be hacked, and once again those emails would have already been in evidence with the congress. The authenticity of those emails were never challenged, and how did something that should have been in evidence become something that influenced the election.

      It did nothing that would have happened if the emails were not destroyed by Clinton. If Wikileaks wouldn't have released these deleted emails, you are OK with Hillary skirting justice.

      What did Hillary want to hide by bleaching, destroying and lying about those emails? This is the real kind of obstruction because we have the corruption and the intent.

      The point is how did Wikileaks change what should have happened if Hillary didn't ignore the subpoena. Are we supposed to ignore her actions and her hiding the evidence just because someone found them?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad NOYFB 

      7 weeks ago

      B:Scott here are some more of your opinions that are wrong.

      "On June 14, 2016, it was reported that the Russians hacked the DNC computers. On July 22, 2016, the day before the Democratic National Convention, Wikileaks drop their first tranche of stolen information. "

      B:

      This information would have already been out there if Clinton had not while under subpoena duces tecum tampered with her email server. The congress wanted to investigate her sever as part of their investigation.

      Instead she deleted over 30,000 emails, and that is obstruction.

      She then had her email service hard drives bleached bit scrubbing it clean. Another obstruction.

      She then had those hard drives and other devices physically destroyed, Another obstruction.

      The point is that had she complied with the subpoena, all those emails would have been part of her investigation. The emails that were released by Wikileaks, were also found on Huma Abedin's computer she shared with her husband Anthony Weiner. What were they doing on that computer?

      There was no proof that the election was influenced by anyone. Rod Rosenstein said that when he release his statement when Mueller indicted 13 Russians. NO America was involved and the election was not influenced.

      The FISA warrant based on the Steele Russian Dossier was a Clinton opposition paper that was used to continue a faux investigation, that clearly showed that the 17 intel agencies were wrong. Yet, a year long investigation of Carter Page did influence the election. Carter Page has never been even charged with a crime, and is a free man today.

      The difference between Hillary and Trump was that Hillary had actually obstructed justice. And all that she did to her unprotected, unauthorized email server was an indication of her corrupt intent to keep that information from congress and the FBI.

      --------------------------------------

      Shortly thereafter, Clinton's campaign manager correctly, as it turns out, that the Russians hacked the DNC in order to help Trump. The NY Times, on July 26, 2016, reported that "that U.S. "intelligence agencies ha[d] told the White House they now have 'high confidence' that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the [DNC].""

      B:

      As for the DNC, not any US agency, including Comey and his FBI actually got to investigate the DNC email servers. So being highly confident was actually highly irresponsible and a dereliction of their duty to investigate.

      And apparently Podesta's password was Password. How many people are there that could hack that? Even kids in grade school.

      What was the reference to Correctly?

      The indictment of the 13 Russians is not evidence to support that the Russians did hack the servers.

      These Russians have pleaded not guilty, and they have not been to trial. Until, there is a court verdict of guilty, they are presumed innocent. Mueller failed on this one, as he probably never expected them to challenge the indictment.

      And these Russians had nothing to do with the alleged attack, did they?

      So this part of your article is built on your rant, and not facts.

      Once again, the democrats don't care about justice, they just want revenge against Trump.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad NOYFB 

      7 weeks ago

      Trump dismissed Comey by way of a termination letter in which he stated that he was acting on the recommendation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

      And Mueller was investigating Trump and Russian, so nothing that I mentioned was out of scope.

      You are out of your expertise on this one, and you know it.

      "I'll go one round with you, Brad, but only because you have so much wrong."

      B:

      You and the other anti Trumpers just go off topic on other people's articles but you don't even answer on topic comments here?

      You didn't have any facts to refute my comment, just more old man bullshit. You didn't give anything related to facts, you just dismiss it with diversions, distractions, and rants.

      "The rest of your comment is just deflection and has nothing to do with this article so I won't address it."

      Keep writing these lies. You won't probably be around to know what happens.

      "A LEGALLY mute question"

      B" The correct word is "Moot"

      It is not moot because I asked you to define Justice!

      These prosecutors while serving under republican and democrat administrations doesn't mean that they don't want a political advantage for the democrats. There is no other reason that politics for them to write this letter. There is no legal value to their letter, as it cannot be used for any legal reason.

      As I have here, and in my articles shown that Mueller didn't have the evidence to prove obstruction, he made a political play by not exonerating Trump.

      You still are just an Anti Trump Anti American slug.

      I took the time to write in detail and number the items and you do your cherry picking and play King waving your fairy wand and dismiss my comments. That is bullshit and you know.

      The reason is that you can't answer them.

      I find Comey’s admission to be deeply troubling from a professional and ethical standpoint. Would Director Comey have approved such a rule for FBI agents? Thus, an agent can prepare a memo during office hours on an FBI computer about a meeting related to his service . . . but leak that memo to the media. The Justice Department has long defined what constitutes government documents broadly. It is not clear if Comey had the documents reviewed for classification at the confidential level or confirmed that they would be treated as entirely private property. What is clear is that he did not clear the release of the memos with anyone in the government.

      Comey’s statement of a good motivation does not negate the concerns over his chosen means of a leak. Moreover, the timing of the leak most clearly benefited Comey not the cause of a Special Counsel. It was clear at that time that a Special Counsel was likely. More importantly, Comey clearly understood that these memos would be sought. That leads inevitably to the question of both motivation as well as means.

      Dissemination of FBI information is made strictly in accordance with provisions of the Privacy Act; Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a; FBI policy and procedures regarding discretionary release of information in accordance with the Privacy Act; and other applicable federal orders and directives.”

      What is your point?

      What do you expect to get from your rants, wild accusations. and thinking that only when you speak opinions are relevant?

      Your talk about government and how Trump is above the law and thwarting the congress. The truth is that the democrats made public their boast of resisting the president, and that is resisting the executive branch. So you are wrong. Deal with it.

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      Scott Belford 

      7 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      I'll go one round with you, Brad, but only because you have so much wrong.

      "It was the DOJ and not president Trump that fired Comey." - Please get your facts straight. DOJ did not fire Comey, Trump did. Even Trump says Trump fired Comey.

      "Mueller and Comey had a meeting shortly before Comey was to speak before Congress." - So What? What are you implying?

      "Mueller was Comey's mentor." - A right-wing myth

      "President Trump rejected Mueller's request for Comey's position." - FALSE! The TRUTH is "Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon told investigators that contrary to Trump’s repeated claims that he interviewed Mueller to be FBI director but turned him down, it was the White House that invited Mueller to the Oval Office to “offer a perspective on the institution of the FBI.” Mueller “did not come in looking for the job,” Bannon said."

      "The democrats in 2016 wanted Comey fired for the same reason that Trump fired him. " - If you say "a few Democrats" then you are right, otherwise, you are wrong.

      "Comey and all others that work for him, work at the pleasure of the president. He didn't need to fire Comey for cause." - THAT would be true UNLESS the dismissal was for corrupt reasons, which in this case is obstruction of justice

      "Why didn't Mueller investigate Comey about his leaking FBI official information to the papers?" - ONE - because Comey didn't illegally leak anything and TWO - because that was not Mueller's charge.

      "Why didn't Comey investigate the Comey investigation for a number of reasons." - SAY what??

      The rest of your comment is just deflection and has nothing to do with this article so I won't address it.

      "How can justice be served from going on about obstruction, when the underlying reason for the investigation wasn't valid?" - A LEGALLY mute question since there needs to be any underling crime to obstruct justice. All that is needed is an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and apparently in Mueller's (as well as hundreds of other prosecutors) expert opinion, Trump did that many times.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad NOYFB 

      7 weeks ago

      The Evidence of Obstruction

      In Part 2, I presented Mueller's reasoning as to why he investigated Donald Trump for Obstruction of Justice. Also in Part 2 are the several instances where Mueller thinks Trump might have broken the law. (Those will be repeated here as well).

      B1:

      "Thinks" Is that the basis of evidence, or of bias?

      ----------------------------------------------------------

      Keep in mind, it was the potential obstructive act of firing FBI Director James Comey that precipitated the appointment of a Special Council in the first place.

      B2:

      It was the DOJ and not president Trump that fired Comey. The investigation never stopped or even slowed down.

      The appointed of Mueller shouldn't have been accepted by Mueller because of conflicts of interest.

      1. Mueller and Comey had a meeting shortly before Comey was to speak before Congress.

      2. Mueller was Comey's mentor.

      3. President Trump rejected Mueller's request for Comey's position.

      4. The democrats in 2016 wanted Comey fired for the same reason that Trump fired him. That reason was the way he handled the Hillary Clinton investigation.

      5. Comey and all others that work for him, work at the pleasure of the president. He didn't need to fire Comey for cause.

      6. Why didn't Mueller investigate Comey about his leaking FBI official information to the papers?

      7. Why didn't Comey investigate the Comey investigation for a number of reasons.

      A. For obstruction of justice in changing the Gross Negligence of the USC 18 statute to something that was the same but using different words.

      B: For not putting Hillary Clinton's FBI interview under oath, and not being recorded.

      C. Why wasn't Mueller investigating why Comey didn't investigate Clinton deleting her emails, bleach bit scrubbing the hard drives on her private email server, and then physically destroying the drives all while she was under a subpoena duces tecum to save all the data, and the hardware for congress. This is evidence of real obstruction of justice by Hillary and Comey. Hillary for doing it, and Comey for not investigating it.

      D. Why didn't Miller investigate the Loretta Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton days before Comey claimed she didn't do anything criminal.That is also more obstruction by multiple parties.

      There is more but that would take a hub that I already published.

      ------------------------------------------------------

      It is clear from what Mueller wrote that he thought it highly likely that Trump did indeed try to obstruct the investigation into Russian interference.

      B3:

      Thinking again!

      -------------------------------

      First, let's consider the elements of proof which Mueller needs in order to convict someone of Obstruction of Justice.

      Elements of Proof

      For Obstruction of Justice, the statutes provide that three "elements of proof" are needed for a crime to have been committed:

      An obstructive act;

      B4:

      Most of the examples that Mueller used were public declarations by the president, and they should have been investigated then by the DOJ, or at least filed in official records.

      ------------------------------

      A nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding;

      B5:

      This didn't happen at all.

      ------------------------------

      A corrupt intent.

      B6:

      There was no indication of corrupt intent except in the mind of Mueller. Remember that Trump knew he was innocent and 5 investigations proved it.

      ------------------------------

      Just three simple things - but so hard to prove. Mueller spends the next 150 pages or so analyzing each of the issues (instances of possible obstruction) listed previously. For each issue, the report covers each element of proof and the facts that bear upon it. Below is a selection from the various definitions Mueller presents on PDF pages 221 through 224 of the report.

      An Obstructive Act

      B7:

      I did 2 articles on Mueller and his ten obstructions. The result is pure fantasy. NO evidence, just Mueller's desire to indict.

      -----------------------------------------

      Statutes and Supreme or Inferior Court rulings define an Obstructive Act as:

      "... corrupt conduct ..." which can "... prevent[s] justice from being duly administered, regardless of the means employed."

      B8:

      How can justice be served from going on about obstruction, when the underlying reason for the investigation wasn't valid?

      Where is the justice in that?

      There were 5 complete investigations into Trump Russia Collusion to influence the 2016 election. Like the investigations of Judge Kavanaugh also by the democrats.

      Yet, in either case, no evidence was found relevant to the charge. And why wasn't Feinstein investigated for her sandbagging the hearing, and waiting until the committee was ready to vote.

      Once again, why were these so called obstructions handled at the time? imo, because there was no obstructions. Of course on the 5th investigation with no evidence anyone would get frustrated as did Trump. Especially, when he knew that he didn't do anything wrong.

      -----------------------------------------

      B9:

      Define Justice as applied to president Trump.

      ---------------------------------------

      I am going to stop here because I am close to the limit of the comment.

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)