Press "Enter" to skip to content

Mueller Report cheat sheet shows how Trump obstructed Justice

Never mind what Bill Barr and Fox News has to say, use this handy chart with your conservative Pro-Trump friends.

Mueller Report cheat sheet; clip and save

18 Comments

  1. Bill “Moobs” Barr Bill “Moobs” Barr April 24, 2019

    Traitor Trump’s flabbergasting incompetence is ridiculously remarkable. He thinks the Supreme Court is going to protect him from Impeachment? What a dumbass disgrace! Fire that fascist freak!

    #JaredKushnerRegisteredToVoteAsFemaleInN.Y.

  2. Miss Jared Kushner Miss Jared Kushner April 26, 2019

    Maria Butina just got 18 months in prison for “a couple of Facebook ads”, according to Miss Jared Kushner.

  3. Bob m Bob m May 9, 2019

    This cheat sheet isn’t worth one sheet of toilet paper. None of these even come close to being obstruction. If you presented this in a court of law, you would be laughed out of the courtroom. Take my advice and get over charging Trump with a crime and concentrate on 2020. None of the current lineup of dem candidates will beat Trump. You may need someone like Joe Manchin or Jim Webb to beat Trump. They are not like the current cadre of radical leftists and have much more appeal to most Americans.

    • Jerry Falwell, Junior’s Pool Boy Jerry Falwell, Junior’s Pool Boy May 11, 2019

      Hey, “Bob m”, does the “m” stand for moron? Misogynist? MRGA (Make Russia Great Again)?

      #DevinNunes’Cow

  4. Bob m Bob m May 24, 2019

    You deficrats make me laugh. When you can’t argue a case with facts, you resort to juvenile name calling. When the conversation ends, you are just as uninformed as you were prior to being educated by someone like me. I guess you folks have an immunity to knowledge.

    • Dan Chmielewski Dan Chmielewski Post author | May 25, 2019

      I think you have an immunity to the truth; just like our president

  5. Bob m Bob m May 25, 2019

    By the way, the “m” stands for more-on, as in: I know more-on this subject than you do!

    • Dan Chmielewski Dan Chmielewski Post author | May 25, 2019

      I think it must stand for “moronic” because your argument is

  6. Bob m Bob m May 25, 2019

    Dan, so you are now discounting the conclusion of the Mueller report that there was no conspiracy/collusion by anyone on the Trump team and regarding obstruction, there was no crime that Trump could have obstructed, so its a moot point on that issue. The crime here is the manufactured collusion in the dossier and that rests squarely on Hillary and her accomplices. It’s really not looking for your side once the origins of the investigation have been declassified and made public. There is just too much evidence implicating the DNC and it’s allies.

    • Dan Chmielewski Dan Chmielewski Post author | May 25, 2019

      You don’t need an underlying crime to obstruct justice. Mueller cited 11 instances that fit the bill

  7. Bob m. Bob m. May 26, 2019

    Jerry, you must be one of the lower life forms that frequent this site. I would expect a response like yours from an amoeba!

  8. Bob m Bob m May 26, 2019

    Dan,
    The point is that since there was no crime, Trump would have no reason to obstruct the investigation. Besides, You may believe that Mueller cited 11 instances of obstruction but this is by no means the final decision of a court. I have read Muellers outline and your cheat sheet and come to a different conclusion. I have heard many legal scholars, including well known liberal Alan Dershowitz who believe as I do that no obstruction occurred. However, there is growing evidence that Mueller knew in early 2018 that the investigation into Trump was based on fake evidence and that Mueller ignored that fact and pursued the investigation anyway. This, I believe will all come out in the wash as the origins of the investigation are pursued.

  9. Bob m Bob m May 26, 2019

    What is there to obstruct if there is no underlying crime?

  10. W Spaulding W Spaulding May 26, 2019

    There are currently 947 former federal prosecutors and senior DoJ officials who have signed a letter that says, in summary, that anyone who is *not* the sitting president would have been charged with obstruction. These are people who in some cases have levied obstruction charges with less evidence than that contained in the Mueller Report.

    https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1

  11. Bob M. Bob M. May 27, 2019

    I am familiar with the letter signed by these former federal prosecutors. These are only 947 (undoubtedly staunch democrats) out of thousands more (current and former prosecutors) who take the opposite view or have expressed no judgement on the matter. This letter does not add much if any weight to the obstruction allegation. Additionally, as I had mentioned before, it is now indisputable that the predicate for the investigation was based on false information obtained by Hillary’s campaign and the DNC of whom, the Russians were used as a source. Further, the justification to the courts for the FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign and administration were doctored to exclude exculpatory information that would have likely resulted in a denial of the FISA warrants. In short, this whole circus was a deliberate attempt by some Republican and many Democrats to overthrow a duly elected president. If you think obstruction is something to pursue, go right ahead. However, in the final analysis, any obstruction alleged by Trump will pale compared to the bigger picture of the attempted presidential overthrow which indeed is a treasonous act.

    • Dan Chmielewski Dan Chmielewski Post author | May 27, 2019

      Everything you reference happened before the election. The obstruction happened after the inauguration

    • W Spaulding W Spaulding May 28, 2019

      Well, this is interesting. If indeed that letter was a partisan exercise, then where is the rebuttal? I apologize. I missed the memo that says only Democratic presidents appoint partisans to be federal prosecutors.

      If you’ve read the letter and reviewed or even skimmed the list of signers, you would know that they served under or were appointed by Eisenhower (4 signers), Nixon (133), Ford (173), Reagan (455), Bush (557), Bush (390), and Trump (63) as well as Kennedy (23), Johnson (50), Carter (309), Clinton (471), and Obama (272). Are you suggesting that Republican presidents, especially Reagan and Bush II, appointed or tolerated partisan Democrats? In a million years neither Ed Meese nor Karl Rove would permit such apostasy.

      So, with respect, I must disagree with your assertion.

      NB – Many signers served multiple administrations. Figures for Democratic administrations are included not so much to make a point but rather in the interest of full disclosure.

      Oh, and there need not be an underlying crime to obstruct an investigation. If there’s no underlying crime, then why not help rather than hinder the investigation? There’s nothing to hide.

Comments are closed.