Reply With Quote
Gee, no comment on the obstruction of justice.There are four pretty solid instances of obstruction of justice, with arguably about 4 more that could be put forth out of the 12 odd that were considered.
I'm shocked, shocked I say.
You're welcome.
LOL, derp just logged in and already getting skull ed.
Welcome to spurtacular's mind. He "hears about things" then "knows".
Gee, no comment on the obstruction of justice.There are four pretty solid instances of obstruction of justice, with arguably about 4 more that could be put forth out of the 12 odd that were considered.
I'm shocked, shocked I say.
Yup. Been hearing about it all the time. Just heard Mueller's press conference. He confirmed it was a nothing burger.You fail so hard.
"heard about it".
You're such a pube.
What are those four pretty solid instances of obstruction in your opinion?
Jesus, go look something up.
RG must've posted that particular list a dozen times already.
Still haven't read the report, but you "heard about it".Yup. Been hearing about it all the time. Just heard Mueller's press conference. He confirmed it was a nothing burger.
Jodorowsky, THE HOLY MOUNTAIN.
(Conquest of the New World by Hernan Cortes, as performed by liveried frogs and lizards)
Still haven't read the report, but you "heard about it".
Um, okay.. that is what it was, but why?
(going for hte twilight zone bizarro theme?)
Didn't read the report, but "heard about" what's in it.
FIRST FELONY OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
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 OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
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 OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
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 OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
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.
Nuthing to say either about Trumps felonies detailed in the report. Chicken .
The ones based on ifs and even then spurious?
The ones based on ifs and even then spurious?
Find the "IF" in that statement.“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[.]
Like derp could even read a sentence....
He does have a thesaurus though.
He's very peristeronic.
for you conservatives
https://www.amazon.com/Mueller-Repor...y&sr=8-1-fkmr0
very odd to assume Mueller stans have read it either, present company naturally excepted.
This was some dry reading, I can see how many won't bother. I read dry, long, legalistic do ents for a living, and I found it a slog. All the more impressive that Warren read it, IMO.
Red it yet, smoochy?The ones based on ifs and even then spurious?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
