The Mueller report

[Jaxson66]

And now a public service announcement

Warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader[edit]
Rick Ross's Cult Education Institute lists the following warning signs for followers of a cult:[2]

They are extremely obsessive regarding the group/leader, resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.

Individual identity, the group, the leader, and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused – as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.

Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned, it is characterized as "persecution".

They engage in uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, effectively cloning the group/leader in their personal behavior.

They are dependent upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Hope Hicks testimony will be available in 48 hrs in transcript form so the informed voters can read for themselves the many times trump’s lawyers claimed “Absolute Immunity” and refused to let that sweet thing testify. From the day that fat lying bastard took office till the day she jumped ship, now she’s on her way to court. She must be doing well to afford all those attorneys fees.

The Fake news president claims absolute immunity for his crimes..Pathetic

Actually Trump is claiming Absolute Immunity on the crimes the Left claimed he had committed and can't prove. Now that's pathetic. Trump is having a great time fucking with these idiots, he'll have even a greater time kicking their asses in 2020, lol.

[eccieuser9500]

Former Counsel: Hicks Can’t Claim ‘Absolute Immunity,’ May Invoke Fifth Amendment




https://www.nationalmemo.com/former-...fth-amendment/

. . . attorney Julian Epstein, former Democratic chief counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, stressed during an appearance on CNN on Wednesday that there is no such thing as “absolute immunity” where Hicks is concerned — and that Hicks, having likely waived executive privilege, might want to invoke the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment to protect herself.

[Jaxson66]

And now a public service announcement

warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader.

Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.

Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.

Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".

Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.

Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

here's your cherry to pick.



Absolute immunity is a form of legal immunity for government officials that confers total immunity from criminal prosecution and lawsuits so long as they are acting within the scope of their duties.[1] Absolute immunity contrasts with qualified immunity, which only applies if specified conditions are met.



and LAWSUITS. there is no crime sparky. you can infer legal action by courts to force testimony too .. like the Demtards are doing to all of Trump's staff past and present. or didn't ya thinck of that part?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

And now a public service announcement

warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader.

Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.

Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.

Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".

Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.

Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.

Noticed how your ~analysis~ doesn't accommodate those who are not "followers" but rather independent thinkers who follow their own instincts and fundamentally reject the bullshit spouted by the likes of hildebeest, Odumbo, Bernie, the Hooker, Spartacus, Fauxcahontas, Gropin' Joe, etc.

[Jaxson66]

Volume ll

LEGAL DEFENSES To THE APPLICATION OF OBSTRUCTION-OF-JUSTICE STATUTES To THE
PRESIDENT..................... .............................. .............................. .................. 159

A. Statutory Defenses to the Application ofObstruction-Of-Justice Provisions
to the Conduct Under Investigation .............................. ........................160

1. The Text of Section 1512(c)(2) Prohibits a Broad Range of Obstructive
Acts...... .............................. .............................. .............................. ................160

2. Judicial Decisions Support a Broad Reading o f Section 1512(c)(2) ...........162

3. The Legislative History of Section 1512(c)(2) Does Not Justify Narrowing
Its Text. .............................. .............................. ................;............. ..............164

4. General Principles of Statutory Construction Do Not Suggest That Section
1512(c)(2) is Inapplicable to the Conduct in this Investigation................. ..... 165

5. Other Obstruction Statutes Might Apply to the Conduct in this
Investigation................. .............................. .............................. ................. 167

[oeb11]

Perseveration is also a part of the Denial and Adherence to the Doctrine of the DPST's.
On display here!!
None so blind as those who will not See!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Volume ll

LEGAL DEFENSES To THE APPLICATION OF OBSTRUCTION-OF-JUSTICE STATUTES To THE
PRESIDENT..................... .............................. .............................. .................. 159

A. Statutory Defenses to the Application ofObstruction-Of-Justice Provisions
to the Conduct Under Investigation .............................. ........................160

1. The Text of Section 1512(c)(2) Prohibits a Broad Range of Obstructive
Acts...... .............................. .............................. .............................. ................160

2. Judicial Decisions Support a Broad Reading o f Section 1512(c)(2) ...........162

3. The Legislative History of Section 1512(c)(2) Does Not Justify Narrowing
Its Text. .............................. .............................. ................;............. ..............164

4. General Principles of Statutory Construction Do Not Suggest That Section
1512(c)(2) is Inapplicable to the Conduct in this Investigation................. ..... 165

5. Other Obstruction Statutes Might Apply to the Conduct in this
Investigation................. .............................. .............................. ................. 167

^^^ Hey jaxboy, you're obviously an expert in federal statute interpretation and the law, so how about giving us all the benefit of your keen analysis of 18 USC Section 1512(c)(2) and how it applies to Trump?

Thanks in advance!!

[Hotrod511]

Originally Posted by lustylad

^^^ Hey jaxboy, you're obviously an expert in federal statute interpretation and the law, so how about giving us all the benefit of your keen analysis of 18 USC Section 1512(c)(2) and how it applies to Trump?

Thanks in advance!!

Jaxboy

[Jaxson66]

Volume ll

Although the series of events we investigated involved discrete acts, the overall pattern of the President's conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President's acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent. In particular, the actions we investigated can be divided into two phases, reflecting a possible shift in the President's motives. The first phase covered the period from the President' s first interactions with Corney through the President's firing of Corney. During that time, the President had been repeatedly told he was not personally under investigation. Soon after the firing of Corney and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry. At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the inve~tigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation. Judgments about the nature of the President's motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Volume ll

Although the series of events we investigated involved discrete acts, the overall pattern of the President's conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President's acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent. In particular, the actions we investigated can be divided into two phases, reflecting a possible shift in the President's motives. The first phase covered the period from the President' s first interactions with Corney through the President's firing of Corney. During that time, the President had been repeatedly told he was not personally under investigation. Soon after the firing of Corney and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry. At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the inve~tigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation. Judgments about the nature of the President's motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence.

and yet with all this clear and pervasive evidence Mueller could not bring a case for indictment. you must be so disappointed!!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Volume ll

Although the series of events we investigated involved discrete acts, the overall pattern of the President's conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President's acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent. In particular, the actions we investigated can be divided into two phases, reflecting a possible shift in the President's motives. The first phase covered the period from the President' s first interactions with Corney through the President's firing of Corney. During that time, the President had been repeatedly told he was not personally under investigation. Soon after the firing of Corney and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry. At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the inve~tigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation. Judgments about the nature of the President's motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence ... of which there is none.

FTFY

[Jaxson66]

Hope Hicks transcript page 68
The Freedom caucus wasted no time entering deep state horse shit into the record.


Ms. Hicks. I do not.
Mr. Collins. I have -- probably will have more. At this
time I'm going to pause, and I'm going to yield to the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you.
Before you accepted employment with the Trump White House,
Ms. Hicks, did you have any idea that the Clinton campaign had
helped fund opposition research getting false information from
Russians that would be used against Donald Trump?
Ms. Hicks. No, sir.

[oeb11]

Nadler was deliberately insulting to Ms.hicks - referring to her as "Lewandowski" repeatedly.

Such an Ass!!!


DPST's are getting ver nervous about the inquiries into their mis-conduct.

Actions are coming home to roost.
J666 - Deep State is your best friend - not Hicks' or Gohmerts'