Reply With Quote
Whine Hole, you got it all wrong. It was all Obama's fault, with assist from Hillary
Didn't your hear TSA? That's all Mueller's fault.
Whine Hole, you got it all wrong. It was all Obama's fault, with assist from Hillary
No - silly -
The judge - who - let Manafort off with a slap on the wrist and some encouraging comments -
is now
DEEEEEP STATE!!!!!
and he is just the same as Comey/Strock/Page!!!!
All of them just jealous of the historic 2016 election!!!!
House to begin Mueller hearings on June 10
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/house-to-begin-mueller-hearings-on-june-10/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=281
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-03-2019 at 03:29 PM.
Explain how Trump isn't guilty of multiple felonies. All three elements of felony obstruction are right there, multiple times. Doesn't matter what the underlying investigation was about.Obstructing an investigation based on manufactured fake evidence
Good luck with that
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 scrutiny 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.”
Are multiple counts of obstruction of justice impeachable?
Trump Voters Who Heard Mueller Decline To Clear Trump Still Think His Report Clears Trump
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/muell...b0e346ce82be81
stupid, ignorant s
The CULT
Ex-Trump aide Hicks agrees to hand over campaign do ents to Congress
Former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, once a close aide to President Donald Trump,
has agreed to turn over do ents related to his 2016 election campaign to congressional investigators, a top Democratic lawmaker said on Tuesday.
The agreement marks a step forward for House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler in investigations of Republican Trump and his inner circle, digging into the campaign, his turbulent presidency and business interests.
Hicks, Trump’s former campaign press secretary, agreed to supply the do ents from the campaign,
despite a White House directive advising her not to provide the committee with material from her subsequent time at the White House.
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/06/05/ex-trump-aide-hicks-agrees-to-hand-over-campaign-do ents-to-congress.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Po liticus+USA+%29
How will Trash/Barr tweet-trash Hicks?
We asked every Texan in Congress: Have you read the Mueller report?
We also asked the 38 members of the Texas delegation how Congress should respond to the Mueller report.
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/06...port-we-asked/
Did you miss his Carter Page thread?
Read the whole thing. Make sure you eat all that , TSA.
CROFL
He'll ignore it because it doesn't line up with his priors.
Goldsmith is nobody's lib , btw.
Congrats. You found someone willing to take on the obstruction of justice charges.
Interesting read, and still impeachable, in fact his analysis makes it more imperative, an irony that probably escapes you.
Nothing will come of this.
TSA is the shambling personification of confirmation bias. It is like watching an icky bug.
Nothing will come of this.
Goldsmith was actually illustrating how unlikely any or all of those possibilities are and TSA goes all in.
That's the one.
You think it backs you up?
I never compared the surveillance of Page to MLK so I’m not even sure what the you’re going on about.
Says one of the sites top 3 Russian collusion pushers
MAYBE THERE WAS A CLERICAL ERROR
So, what's your take on the Goldsmith thread?
MAYBE THERE'S A PEANUT BUTTER SMUDGE ON ONE OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
I’m still waiting to hear how a comparison I never made didn’t line up with my priors.
Jesus, you dolt -- Goldsmith says everything about the Page warrants and surveillance looks proper.
That's it.
That's all.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
