Page 84 of 119 FirstFirst ... 347480818283848586878894 ... LastLast
Results 2,076 to 2,100 of 2970
  1. #2076
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    22,596
    Naturally the FOX News guy on Darrin's feed leaves out the other part of the exchange, which makes it clear that it's a (confusingly) friendly exchange between two people instead of a one line, drop-the-mic zinger from Barr.



    Imagine thinking any of this is funny.
    You’re right it isn’t funny, it’s ing hilarious. Barr and Pelosi both know the subpoena/contempt vote is a joke.


  2. #2077
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Paul Rosenzweig, Former Starr Prosecutor, Shreds Trump’s Obstruction

    Trump’s attempts to stonewall Congress and block the legislative branch from conducting oversight are

    blatant acts of obstruction of justice and are in violation of the Cons ution —

    according to conservative Republican lawyer Paul Rosenzweig,

    who served as a senior counsel on the team led by Kenneth Starr that investigated former President Bill Clinton back in the 1990s.

    Trump has been doing so by

    banning current and former administration officials from complying with congressional subpoenas, and

    asserting executive privilege when no executive privilege is warranted.

    “Adherence to the rule of law means that rules have to be applied even-handedly, regardless of whether a political party or other interest is immediately benefited,”

    “It means not invoking privileges to conceal wrongdoing; and

    it means not invoking them to frustrate legitimate congressional inquiry.”


    he believes Trump’s attempts to assert executive privilege, such as

    trying to
    retroactively declare special counsel Robert Mueller’s report to be secret, are uncons utional.

    his actions appear unable to distinguish between the public interests that undergird the privilege and his own personal and political interests.”

    https://www.nationalmemo.com/paul-ro...s-obstruction/

  3. #2078
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    The meltdown continues.

    FIRST FELONY
    E. Efforts to fire Mueller

    Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

    Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

    Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

    SECOND FELONY
    F. Efforts to curtail Mueller

    Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

    Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.

    Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

    THIRD FELONY
    I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller

    Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.

    Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.

    Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

    FOURTH FELONY
    J. Conduct toward... Manafort

    Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”

    Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”

    Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government,” though “there are alternative explanations” for Trump’s comments during the Manafort trial.

  4. #2079
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    Please impeach him. Please do it now.

    Felonies are OK with you, as long as Republicans do it. Understood.


    FIRST FELONY
    E. Efforts to fire Mueller

    Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

    Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

    Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

    SECOND FELONY
    F. Efforts to curtail Mueller

    Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

    Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.

    Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

    THIRD FELONY
    I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller

    Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.

    Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.

    Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

    FOURTH FELONY
    J. Conduct toward... Manafort

    Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”

    Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”

    Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government,” though “there are alternative explanations” for Trump’s comments during the Manafort trial.

  5. #2080
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121



    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job (as president) in this cons utional republic if this body determines your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role,”

    “Because impeachment is not about punishment,” he said. “Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

  6. #2081
    Veteran LkrFan's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Post Count
    40,807


    Now all they have to do is get Mueller on the stand to cross examine him.

  7. #2082
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    CNN Contributor Insists It’s ‘Natural’ for Trump to Think He’s Above the Law: He ‘Believes in Genetic Superiority’

    “Does the president believe he’s above the law?”

    D’Antonio replied, “He was raised to think that.”

    The Trump biographer continued:

    “So the president’s father would repeat to him when he was growing up

    you’re a killer,

    you’re a king.

    So this idea of some people being elevated,

    some people being above all others,

    in this case above the law,

    I don’t think is foreign to him.”


    “I think it feels natural.

    He’s someone who believes in genetic superiority.

    He told me

    I don’t respect most people because they’re not worthy of respect.

    Why would he respect the separation of powers, checks and balances,

    any system that is inconvenient for him.”

    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-contributor-insists-its-natural-for-trump-to-think-hes-above-the-law-he-believes-in-genetic-superiority/



  8. #2083
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    Now highlight all the qualifiers
    I'll do that when you put in the paragraphs about the limitations of the investigation.

    What are you trying to hide?

  9. #2084
    LMAO koriwhat's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Post Count
    41,641


    Now all they have to do is get Mueller on the stand to cross examine him.
    funny how you cheer these losers on but if you watched even one minute of their dribble on the hill you'd probably rip up your honorary democrat voting card and resign from the party altogether. they're a bunch of ing re s on the hill!

  10. #2085
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    I No Longer Believe House Democrats Will Uphold Their Cons utional Duty

    And, as a result, the president*'s chances of reelection are better than anyone thinks

    “It depends on what comes out,” Nadler said.

    “It depends where the American people are, enforcing the Cons ution is a popularity contest?
    whether they want to go that way or not.

    I don’t want to make it sound as if we’re heading for impeachment.

    Probably we’re not.”

    Will the Democrats ever learn

    a) how to message and

    b) that the press, no matter what conservatives say, is not their friend?

    Right now, the Republicans are moving implacably on all fronts to discredit any official account of both how the Russian rat ing helped the president* win and

    also to discredit (and stop) any further investigation into how big a crook the Russians helped install in the White House.

    The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is advising the president*'s son to ignore congressional subpoenas and, just yesterday,

    in federal court, the president*'s lawyers essentially argued that Congress has no right to investigate the president* over anything.

    Spectacularly, it gets worse.

    Nadler said that in his view, Trump can be impeached for only two things:

    “misuse of presidential power while president or

    for cheating in the election that gave him the presidency.”

    “Other than that, if he did something terrible before he was president,

    he robbed the bank, that’s not impeachable,
    ” Nadler said.

    “It’s a crime, but it’s not impeachable.”

    Nadler also said he considers

    Trump a “con man” but argued that that is not grounds for impeachment either.

    “He is thoroughly dishonest.

    He lies all the time. We know that.

    None of those are grounds for impeachment,” Nadler said.

    “They’re grounds for defeating him for reelection.”

    Nadler's argument doesn't even make sense, and

    that's in addition to the fact that

    he narrowed the grounds on which he might wield his considerable clout unnecessarily and voluntarily.

    For the first time, I find myself siding with those people who believe that, ultimately,

    the House will chicken out of its cons utional duty and, because of that,

    I find myself siding with people who believe that

    the president*'s re-election chances are better than anyone thinks.

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/05/16/i-no-longer-believe-house-democrats-will-uphold-their-cons utional-duty

    Is there anybody in the Dem Congress who will stand up, revolt against the chicken , intimidated, Repug-compliant Dem leadership, and call for impeachment?



  11. #2086
    LMAO koriwhat's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Post Count
    41,641
    I No Longer Believe House Democrats Will Uphold Their Cons utional Duty

    And, as a result, the president*'s chances of reelection are better than anyone thinks

    “It depends on what comes out,” Nadler said.

    “It depends where the American people are, enforcing the Cons ution is a popularity contest?
    whether they want to go that way or not.

    I don’t want to make it sound as if we’re heading for impeachment.

    Probably we’re not.”

    Will the Democrats ever learn

    a) how to message and

    b) that the press, no matter what conservatives say, is not their friend?

    Right now, the Republicans are moving implacably on all fronts to discredit any official account of both how the Russian rat ing helped the president* win and

    also to discredit (and stop) any further investigation into how big a crook the Russians helped install in the White House.

    The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is advising the president*'s son to ignore congressional subpoenas and, just yesterday,

    in federal court, the president*'s lawyers essentially argued that Congress has no right to investigate the president* over anything.

    Spectacularly, it gets worse.

    Nadler said that in his view, Trump can be impeached for only two things:

    “misuse of presidential power while president or

    for cheating in the election that gave him the presidency.”

    “Other than that, if he did something terrible before he was president,

    he robbed the bank, that’s not impeachable,
    ” Nadler said.

    “It’s a crime, but it’s not impeachable.”

    Nadler also said he considers

    Trump a “con man” but argued that that is not grounds for impeachment either.

    “He is thoroughly dishonest.

    He lies all the time. We know that.

    None of those are grounds for impeachment,” Nadler said.

    “They’re grounds for defeating him for reelection.”

    Nadler's argument doesn't even make sense, and

    that's in addition to the fact that

    he narrowed the grounds on which he might wield his considerable clout unnecessarily and voluntarily.

    For the first time, I find myself siding with those people who believe that, ultimately,

    the House will chicken out of its cons utional duty and, because of that,

    I find myself siding with people who believe that

    the president*'s re-election chances are better than anyone thinks.

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/05/16/i-no-longer-believe-house-democrats-will-uphold-their-cons utional-duty

    Is there anybody in the Dem Congress who will stand up, revolt against the chicken , intimidated, Repug-compliant Dem leadership, and call for impeachment?


    lmao keep crying cry baby

  12. #2087
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Jeff Sessions’s Grave Conflict of Interest

    Last year, in March 2018, then Attorney General Jeff Sessions enlisted his subordinates to lie on his behalf

    that he did not know he was under federal investigation when he fired then Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe

    Sessions and his allies succeeded in shutting down a major controversy.

    If it had been made public that the attorney general had knowingly fired the deputy FBI director (and later, acting director) who’d opened and supervised that criminal investigation,

    the resulting scandal would have engulfed Sessions and

    would likely have even more seriously threatened his already tumultuous tenure as attorney general.


    A government official with first-hand knowledge of the matter told me that the attorney general therefore instructed aides to make false statements in briefings to the press.

    corroborated in part by a mass of evidence in the Mueller Report detailing the special counsel’s investigation of the former attorney general.

    In addition to firing McCabe, Sessions, while under investigation, played a leading role in more broadly carrying out President Trump’s relentless campaign to undermine and discredit the FBI

    Sessions had claimed that he had not known he’d been investigated for perjury until sometime during March 2018, the month he fired McCabe,

    At issue were statements

    Sessions had made at his confirmation hearing, claiming that he’d had no contacts with Russian diplomats

    during the 2016 presidential election when he was advising Trump.

    Sessions, in fact, had twice met with Kislyak.

    It was after
    TheWashington Post disclosed details of these meetings that Sessions recused himself from overseeing the DOJ and FBI investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

    https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/0...t-of-interest/
    Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-16-2019 at 04:49 PM.

  13. #2088
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Barr Claims He’s Not Barring Mueller from Testifying

    “It’s Bob’s call whether he wants to testify.”

    — “Attorney General William Barr denied he is standing in the way of special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony before Congress,

    after the chairman of the House panel seeking his appearance accused the Justice Department of being unwilling to set a date,”

    the
    Wall Street Journal reports.



    http://www.pensitoreview.com/2019/05/17/barr-claims-hes-not-barring-mueller-from-testifying/

  14. #2089
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin Blasts Bill Barr:

    ‘Sean Hannity Is the Attorney General!’


    Toobin said in response,

    “I was amazed by that interview and the one in the Wall Street Journal.”


    “It turns out,” he continued,

    “the attorney general is Sean Hannity, and

    Sean Hannity is the attorney general!

    I mean, every talking point from Fox News gets repeated!…

    I just found it an absolutely astonishing couple of interviews.”


    https://www.mediaite.com/trump/cnns-jeffrey-toobin-blasts-bill-barr-sean-hannity-is-the-attorney-general/

  15. #2090
    bandwagoner fans suck ducks's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Post Count
    74,377
    Mueller’s House testimony likely off until at least June

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...y-june-1331704

  16. #2091
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Some Republicans unsettled by Trump’s sweeping claims of immunity

    Veteran lawmakers are increasingly alarmed over the president's claim that Congress can't police him.

    That view, advanced by Trump’s personal attorney and White House counsel late last week, would upend long-held understandings about Congress’ ability to scrutinize presidential conduct —especially alleged criminal activity.

    “I’m in Congress. I’m aligned with Congress. I’m not aligned with the executive branch. And I think we have oversight authority over the administration,”

    “And if the president has acted illegally, then I think we have oversight authority.”

    “Obviously there is such a thing as congressional oversight,”

    Ins utionalist-minded Republicans are increasingly uncomfortable with the far-reaching arguments Trump and his lawyers are using to make their case, amid fears the claims of near-immunity from congressional scrutiny will set dangerous precedents.

    But these lawmakers also are not preparing to act in any way that constrains Trump.

    They roundly support the president’s rejection of House Democrats’ investigations and subpoenas

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/20/congress-donald-trump-investigations-1331677



  17. #2092
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Adam Schiff Releases Michael Cohen Evidence

    In a statement provided to PoliticusUSA, Chairman Schiff said:

    With the completion of Special Counsel Mueller’s work and the release of his report, it is critically important that the Committee, and the Congress, make public as much information as possible that bears on Mueller’s findings, explain the evidence he uncovered, and expose the obstructive actions taken by this President and those who surround him.

    It is in this light that the Committee today releases the transcripts of two days of interviews of Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen.

    Cohen’s February and March 2019 testimony corroborate information previously received by the Committee, including the Trump Tower Moscow deal under negotiation throughout the 2016 election season by then-candidate Donald Trump.

    Cohen also presented significant and troubling new detail regarding the false statement that he provided to our Committee in August 2017 and for which, in part, he is now in prison.

    Since Cohen’s testimony, the Committee has already begun to follow up on information that Cohen provided related to attorneys for others involved in a joint defense agreement – including Jared Kushner and Donald Jr. and Ivanka Trump – to determine whether they aided in Cohen’s obstruction of the Committee’s investigation.


    Cohen also testified that throughout the 2016 election, candidate Trump was actively kept apprised of a potential licensing agreement on a building to be erected in the heart of Moscow —

    a deal for which Mr. Trump and his family would have personally earned millions and would have required active participation by the Kremlin to get final approval.

    Cohen testified that while Trump continued to falsely claim that he had no business deals with Russia, Cohen was actively pursuing the deal through summer 2016.


    Trump and his associates sought to ensure that false narrative continued.

    Cohen testified Trump urged him to ‘stay on message, which is there’s no Russia, there’s no collusion, there’s no business deals.’

    Cohen also said that the president’s personal attorney, Jay Sekulow, also directed him to ‘stay on message,’

    in part by encouraging Mr. Cohen to falsely claim to Congress that the Trump Tower Moscow deal ended in January 2016, before the Iowa caucuses.

    According to Mr. Cohen, attorneys for Kushner, Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and the Trump Organization also reviewed the statement before it was provided to Congress and raised no concerns with its false content.


    The obstructive acts did not stop there.

    After the raid of Cohen’s hotel and office, Trump’s legal team, according to Cohen, again interjected –

    this time coaxing Cohen not to cooperate with authorities through implicit promises of a future pardon.

    Cohen testified that he had several conversations with Sekulow through July 2018 about pardons,

    and with an intermediary for the president’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

    When Cohen no longer chose to toe the party line on President Trump’s relationship with Russia,

    the president and his allies trained their fire on Cohen and his family through

    a campaign of public intimidation to silence his testimony before several congressional committees – quintessential witness intimidation.

    The public should judge for themselves both the evidence released today in conjunction with

    Cohen’s testimony related to Trump,

    his troubling relationship with Russia, and

    the efforts by Trump and those close to him to hide the relationship and potential business deals.

    The public also deserves the chance to judge Cohen’s credibility for themselves, including by examining some of the evidence he provided to the Committee.


    The Committee will continue its investigation, continue to pursue additional evidence related to Cohen’s testimony, and present to the American people what we find.


    But make no mistake, any attempt by the President, his associates or Administration to suborn perjury, obstruct our investigation or mislead the public will not be tolerated – and will be exposed.


    You can read Cohen’s February testimony
    here, and his March tesimony here


    Michael Cohen is just one witness,

    but the evidence against Trump is extensive.

    Trump lied about doing business in Russia.

    He lied about the Trump Tower Moscow project,

    and he actively tried to obstruct the investigation.

    https://www.politicususa.com/2019/05/20/adam-schiff-michael-cohen-evidence.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=fee d&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Poli ticus+USA+%29

  18. #2093
    I needs six for my fix. UnWantedTheory's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    2,101
    Adam Schiff Releases Michael Cohen Evidence

    In a statement provided to PoliticusUSA, Chairman Schiff said:

    With the completion of Special Counsel Mueller’s work and the release of his report, it is critically important that the Committee, and the Congress, make public as much information as possible that bears on Mueller’s findings, explain the evidence he uncovered, and expose the obstructive actions taken by this President and those who surround him.

    It is in this light that the Committee today releases the transcripts of two days of interviews of Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen.

    Cohen’s February and March 2019 testimony corroborate information previously received by the Committee, including the Trump Tower Moscow deal under negotiation throughout the 2016 election season by then-candidate Donald Trump.

    Cohen also presented significant and troubling new detail regarding the false statement that he provided to our Committee in August 2017 and for which, in part, he is now in prison.

    Since Cohen’s testimony, the Committee has already begun to follow up on information that Cohen provided related to attorneys for others involved in a joint defense agreement – including Jared Kushner and Donald Jr. and Ivanka Trump – to determine whether they aided in Cohen’s obstruction of the Committee’s investigation.


    Cohen also testified that throughout the 2016 election, candidate Trump was actively kept apprised of a potential licensing agreement on a building to be erected in the heart of Moscow —

    a deal for which Mr. Trump and his family would have personally earned millions and would have required active participation by the Kremlin to get final approval.

    Cohen testified that while Trump continued to falsely claim that he had no business deals with Russia, Cohen was actively pursuing the deal through summer 2016.


    Trump and his associates sought to ensure that false narrative continued.

    Cohen testified Trump urged him to ‘stay on message, which is there’s no Russia, there’s no collusion, there’s no business deals.’

    Cohen also said that the president’s personal attorney, Jay Sekulow, also directed him to ‘stay on message,’

    in part by encouraging Mr. Cohen to falsely claim to Congress that the Trump Tower Moscow deal ended in January 2016, before the Iowa caucuses.

    According to Mr. Cohen, attorneys for Kushner, Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and the Trump Organization also reviewed the statement before it was provided to Congress and raised no concerns with its false content.


    The obstructive acts did not stop there.

    After the raid of Cohen’s hotel and office, Trump’s legal team, according to Cohen, again interjected –

    this time coaxing Cohen not to cooperate with authorities through implicit promises of a future pardon.

    Cohen testified that he had several conversations with Sekulow through July 2018 about pardons,

    and with an intermediary for the president’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

    When Cohen no longer chose to toe the party line on President Trump’s relationship with Russia,

    the president and his allies trained their fire on Cohen and his family through

    a campaign of public intimidation to silence his testimony before several congressional committees – quintessential witness intimidation.

    The public should judge for themselves both the evidence released today in conjunction with

    Cohen’s testimony related to Trump,

    his troubling relationship with Russia, and

    the efforts by Trump and those close to him to hide the relationship and potential business deals.

    The public also deserves the chance to judge Cohen’s credibility for themselves, including by examining some of the evidence he provided to the Committee.


    The Committee will continue its investigation, continue to pursue additional evidence related to Cohen’s testimony, and present to the American people what we find.


    But make no mistake, any attempt by the President, his associates or Administration to suborn perjury, obstruct our investigation or mislead the public will not be tolerated – and will be exposed.


    You can read Cohen’s February testimony
    here, and his March tesimony here


    Michael Cohen is just one witness,

    but the evidence against Trump is extensive.

    Trump lied about doing business in Russia.

    He lied about the Trump Tower Moscow project,

    and he actively tried to obstruct the investigation.

    https://www.politicususa.com/2019/05/20/adam-schiff-michael-cohen-evidence.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=fee d&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Poli ticus+USA+%29
    They really don't care man. Jesus could appear saying as much and they would just label him a JINO. They put all their chips on Trump, and after Bush, they don't want to look like fools again, so they will forever double down. American politics is a sporting event and they need their team to win.

  19. #2094
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    44,136
    They really don't care man. Jesus could appear saying as much and they would just label him a JINO. They put all their chips on Trump, and after Bush, they don't want to look like fools again, so they will forever double down. American politics is a sporting event and they need their team to win.
    I don't think Schiff realizes the backlash if he goes after the family. It's a bridge way too far.

  20. #2095
    Believe. Pavlov's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    41,752
    I don't think Schiff realizes the backlash if he goes after the family. It's a bridge way too far.
    You mean Trump supporters won't like it?

    wow

  21. #2096
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    44,136
    You mean Trump supporters won't like it?

    wow
    Not really. I'm saying if he goes after Ivanka on some obscure collusion charge the independent backlash will be larger than you think.

  22. #2097
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Not really. I'm saying if he goes after Ivanka on some obscure collusion charge the independent backlash will be larger than you think.
    If there is evidence that Kushner, Ivanka, Jr broke the law, then 'EM.

  23. #2098
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    44,136
    If there is evidence that Kushner, Ivanka, Jr broke the law, then 'EM.
    I'm sure the whackos like you would approve, but living your bitter life in your mamma's single wide has sheltered you from mainstream views.

  24. #2099
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    44,136
    If you don't like Trump and think you have a case then go after Trump. Going after the family on obscure bull will be a huge turnoff to moderates.

  25. #2100
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    12,591
    If you don't like Trump and think you have a case then go after Trump. Going after the family on obscure bull will be a huge turnoff to moderates.
    the entire criminal family should be prosecuted - no exceptions

    wgaf who is turned off

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •