The President directed that Sessions should give a speech publicly announcing: I know that I recused myself from certain things having to do with specific areas. But our POTUS.. is being treated very unfairly. He shouldn't have a Special Prosecutor/Counsel b/c he hasn't done anything wrong. I was on the campaign w/ him for nine months, there were no Russians involved with him. I know it for a fact b/c I was there. He didn't do anything wrong except he ran the greatest campaign in American history. 609 The dictated message went on to state that Sessions would meet with the Special Counsel to limit his jurisdiction to future election interference Now a group of people want to subvert the Constitution of the United States. I am going to meet with the Special Prosecutor to explain this is very unfair and let the Special Prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections so that nothing can happen in future elections.10

Share Pin Download More

mueller report donald trump jeff sessions

Origin Entry: Mueller Report

File type: jpg

Resolution: (1200px x 582px)

File size: 89 KB

NBC News NEWS @NBCNews JUST IN: House Judiciary Cmte Chairman Nadler on Mueller statement "Given that Special Counsel Mueller was unable to pursue criminal charges against the President, it falls to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies and other wrongdoing of President Trump-and we will do so." Washington, D.C. -Today, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) delivered the following statement in response to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's press conference on the conclusion of his investigation into President Trump and his associates "We would like to thank Special Counsel Robert Mueller for his service to our nation over the past two years. In his statement this morning, Special Counsel Mueller reaffirmed his report, which found substantial evidence that Russia attacked our political system and that the President sought to obstruct Mueller's investigation over and over again. He also confirmed three central points: he did not exonerate the President of the United States of obstruction of justice, obstruction of justice is a serious crime that strikes at the core of our justice system, and the Constitution points to Congress to take action to hold the President accountable Although Department of Justice policy prevented the Special Counsel from bringing criminal charges against the President, the Special Counsel has clearly demonstrated that President Trump is lying about the Special Counsel's findings, lying about the testimony of key witnesses in the Special Counsel's report, and is lying in saying that the Special Counsel found no obstruction and no collusion. Given that Special Counsel Mueller was unable to pursue criminal charges against the President, it falls to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies and other wrongdoing of President Trump - and we will do so. No one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law." 11:41 AM - 29 May 2019

As things stand, obstruction laws do not criminalize just any act that can influence a "proceeding." Rather they are concerned with acts intended to have a particular kind of impact. A "proceeding" is a formalized process for finding the truth. In general, obstruction laws are meant to protect proceedings from actions designed subvert the integrity of their truth-finding function through compromising the honesty of decision-makers (e.g., judge, jury) or impairing the integrity or availability of evidence- testimonial, documentary, or physical. Thus, obstruction laws prohibit a range of "bad acts" such as tampering with a witness or juror; or destroying, altering, or falsifying evidence -all of which are inherently wrongful because, by their very nature, they are directed at depriving the proceeding of honest decision-makers or access to full and accurate evidence. In general, then, the actus reus of an obstruction offense is the inherently subversive "bad act" of impairing the integrity of a decision-maker or evidence. The requisite mens rea is simply intending the wrongful impairment that inexorably flows from the act Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding's truth-finding function. Thus, for example, if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suboms perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction. Indeed, the acts of obstruction alleged against Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective impeachments were all such "bad acts" involving the impairment of evidence. Enforcing these laws against the President in no way infringes on the President's plenary power over law enforcement because exercising this discretion - such as his complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding does not involve commission of any of these inherently wrongful, subversive acts.

OH MY GOD. THIS IS TERRIBLE. THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESIDENCY IM、F----- THE DAILY SHOw WITH TREVOR NOAH

View All 47 Images

More:

The president obstructing justice isn't part of his authority

As things stand, obstruction laws do not criminalize just any act that can influence a "proceeding." Rather they are concerned with acts intended to have a particular kind of impact. A "proceeding" is a formalized process for finding the truth. In general, obstruction laws are meant to protect proceedings from actions designed subvert the integrity of their truth-finding function through compromising the honesty of decision-makers (e.g., judge, jury) or impairing the integrity or availability of evidence- testimonial, documentary, or physical. Thus, obstruction laws prohibit a range of "bad acts" such as tampering with a witness or juror; or destroying, altering, or falsifying evidence -all of which are inherently wrongful because, by their very nature, they are directed at depriving the proceeding of honest decision-makers or access to full and accurate evidence. In general, then, the actus reus of an obstruction offense is the inherently subversive "bad act" of impairing the integrity of a decision-maker or evidence. The requisite mens rea is simply intending the wrongful impairment that inexorably flows from the act Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding's truth-finding function. Thus, for example, if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suboms perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction. Indeed, the acts of obstruction alleged against Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective impeachments were all such "bad acts" involving the impairment of evidence. Enforcing these laws against the President in no way infringes on the President's plenary power over law enforcement because exercising this discretion - such as his complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding does not involve commission of any of these inherently wrongful, subversive acts.

Pin

If the President didn't obstruct justice, they would've said so!

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. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him

Pin

Senator Richard Burr gave the White House information about the ongoing FBI investigation

to Russia."308 The week after Comey's briefing, the White House Counsel's Office was in contact with SSCI Chairman Senator Richard Burr about the Russia investigations and appears to have received information about the status of the FBI investigation.309

Pin

Separation of Powers

Page 382: "Under [the Office of Legal Counsel's] analysis, Congress can permissibly criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the President, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence, because those prohibitions raise no separation-of-powers questions. The Constitution does not authorize the President to engage in such conduct, and those actions would transgress the President's duty to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Pin

Oh lordy, the tapes exist!

12 Comey 1/7/17 Memorandum, at 1-2; Comey 11/15/17 302, at 3. Comey's briefing included the Steele reporting's unverified allegation that the Russians had compromising tapes of the President involving conduct when he was a private citizen during a 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe Pageant. During the 2016 presidential campaign, a similar claim may have reached candidate Trump. On October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, "Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there's anything else. Just so you know" 10/30/16 Text Message, Rtskhiladze to Cohen. Rtskhiladze said "tapes" referred to compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped host

Pin

Manafort and Kilimnick exchange polling data

Separately, on August 2,2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel's Office was a "backdoor" way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump's assent to succeed (were he to be elected President). They also discussed the status of the Why was Manafort still transmitting Trump polling data AFTER he resigned from Trump's campaign? And who aave Manafort that polling data? U.S. Department of Justice Trump Campaign and Manafort's strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting.

Pin

Trump and Putin communications

a. Outreach from the Russian Government At approximately 3 a.m. on election night, Trump Campaign press secretary Hope Hicks received a telephone call on her personal cell phone from a person who sounded foreign but was calling from a number with a DC area code.964 Although Hicks had a hard time understanding the person, she could make out the words "Putin call."965 Hicks told the caller to send her an email.966 The following morning, on November 9,2016, Sergey Kuznetsov, an official at the Russian Embassy to the United States, emailed Hicks from his Gmail address with the subject line, Message from Putin."967 Attached to the email was a message from Putin, in both English and Russian, which Kuznetsov asked Hicks to convey to the President-Elect.968 In the message, Putin offered his congratulations to Trump for his electoral victory, stating he "look[ed] forward to 969 working with [Trump] on leading Russian-American relations out of crisis." Hicks forwarded the email to Kushner, asking, "Can you look into this? Don't want to get duped but don't want to blow off Putin!"970 Kushner stated in Congressional testimony that he

Pin

Akhmetshin, Trump Jr., and Manafort

Akhmetshin then spoke about U.S. sanctions imposed under the Magnitsky Act and Russia's response prohibiting U.S. adoption of Russian children. Several participants recalled that Trump Jr. commented that Trump is a private citizen, and there was nothing they could do at that time.732 Trump Jr. also said that they could revisit the issue if and when they were in government. Notes that Manafort took on his phone reflect the general flow of the conversation, although not all of its details.74

Pin

Michael Flynn, Barbara Ledeen, and Peter Smith

Barbara Ledeen and Peter Smith were among the people contacted by Flynn. Ledeen, a long-time Senate staffer who had previously sought the Clinton emails, provided updates to Flynn about her efforts throughout the summer of 2016.266 Smith, an investment advisor who was active in Republican politics, also attempted to locate and obtain the deleted Clinton emails.267 Ledeen began her efforts to obtain the Clinton emails before Flynn's request, as early as December 2015.268 On December 3, 2015, she emailed Smith a proposal to obtain the emails, stating, "Here is the proposal I briefly mentioned to you. The person I described to you would be happy to talk with you either in person or over the phone. The person can get the emails which 1 Were classified and 2. Were purloined by our enemies. That would demonstrate what needs to be demonstrated."259 Attached to the email was a 25-page proposal stating that the "Clinton email server was, in all likelihood, breached long ago," and that the Chinese, Russian, and Iranian intelligence services could "re-assemble the server's email content."270 The proposal called for a three-phase approach. The first two phases consisted of open-source analysis. The third phase consisted of checking with certain intelligence sources "that have access through liaison work with various foreign services" to determine if any of those services had gotten to the server. The proposal noted, "Even if a single email was recovered and the providence [sic] of that email was a foreign service, it would be catastrophic to the Clinton campaign[.]" Smith forwarded the email to two colleagues and

Pin

A thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally

As described in Volume l, the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active- measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had any unlawful relationship with any Russian official. But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal or political concerns. Volume II, p. 76

Pin

Another count of obstruction

b. Nexs to an official proceeding. As described above, by the time of the President's initial one-on-one meeting wi Lewandowski on June 19, 2017, the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by e Special Counsel was public knowledge. By the time of the President's follow-up meetig with Lewandowski, Grand Jury ee Volume II, Section II.G, infra. To satisty the nexus requirement, it would be necessary to show that limiting the Special Counsel's investigation would have the natural and probable effeet of impeding that grand iurv proceeding Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the President's effort to have Sessions c. limit the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President's and his campaign's conduct. As previously described, see Volu Section II.B, supra, the resiaent knew tna me and he perceived allegations of Russian The President further knew that the Russia investigation was focused in part on his interference to cast doubt on the legitimacy of investigation had broadened to include his own conduct and whether he had obstructed justice. Those investigations would not proceed if the Special Counsel's jurisdiction were limited to future election interference only

Pin

William Barr Trump

THE MUELLER REPORT SAYS WHATEVER TRUMP WANTS IT TO SAY

Pin

+1

Mueller Report - Donald Trump wanted Jeff Sessions to say this

PROTIP: Press the ← and → keys to navigate the gallery, 'g' to view the gallery, or 'r' to view a random image.

The President directed that Sessions should give a speech publicly announcing: I know that I recused myself from certain things having to do with specific areas. But our POTUS.. is being treated very unfairly. He shouldn't have a Special Prosecutor/Counsel b/c he hasn't done anything wrong. I was on the campaign w/ him for nine months, there were no Russians involved with him. I know it for a fact b/c I was there. He didn't do anything wrong except he ran the greatest campaign in American history. 609 The dictated message went on to state that Sessions would meet with the Special Counsel to limit his jurisdiction to future election interference Now a group of people want to subvert the Constitution of the United States. I am going to meet with the Special Prosecutor to explain this is very unfair and let the Special Prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections so that nothing can happen in future elections.10

View Gallery Random Image

+ Add a Comment

Comments (0)

There are no comments currently available.

Display Comments

Image Details

33 views (21 from today)

Uploaded May 03, 2019 at 12:29PM EDT

Origin Entry

Tags

Claim Authorship Edit History

About the Uploader

BrentD15

Treasurer & Elocutionist & Media Maid

Textile Embed

!https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/488/802/ea3.jpg!

Today's Top Image Galleries

Assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson depicting an image of the CEO and the gunman.

Assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO

Squirrel Girl

Artificial Intelligence depiction.

AI / Artificial Intelligence

Team Fortress 2