There Is Now Reason To Believe That Mueller Is Going To File A Report Indicating That Donald Trump Obstructed Justice
‘Mueller would then likely send a confidential report to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is overseeing the Russia investigation. Rosenstein could decide whether to make the report public and send its findings to congress. From there, congress would then decide whether to begin impeachment proceedings against the president, ’
There is an inherent implication in this paragraph that the Mueller report could be used as a basis for impeachment proceedings, AND that possible impeachment proceedings play a role in the timing of the release of the report.
===============================================================================
related
A team of NBC News reporters broke two major news scoops about special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation on MSNBC’s Deadline: White House on Thursday.
“Breaking news in the Mueller investigation into Trump/Russia collusion and potential Obstruction of Justice,” anchor Nicolle Wallace reported. “NBC News breaking the story this hour that talks over a presidential interview with Mueller’s investigators — which were much further along than had been previously reported — have now largely broken down, with both sides proceeding as though a presidential interview is no longer in the cards.”
“The other big headline and potentially more consequential one for this White House,” Wallace continued. “NBC News breaking the news that the timetable for delivering a report on Obstruction of Justice may now be sped up, absent a presidential interview by the Mueller team.”
“NBC News also reporting, ‘Mueller would then likely send a confidential report to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is overseeing the Russia investigation. Rosenstein could decide whether to make the report public and send its findings to congress. From there, congress would then decide whether to begin impeachment proceedings against the president,’ that is according to two sources,” the host continued.
Tags
Who is online
70 visitors
"the timetable for delivering a report on Obstruction of Justice may now be sped up.... From there, congress would then decide whether to begin impeachment proceedings against the president,"
I suspect this all has to do with why Paul Ryan is stepping down. He would surely ruin any future electoral prospects with the gop if he leads the House to impeach Trump but he knows when all the evidence he has already seen comes out he would ruin his future electoral prospects with everyone if he fails to lead impeachment proceeding given the breadth and the magnitude of evidence. Many gop Senators will likely vote to convict Trump since most of them hate him...
Exactly. Paul Ryan is 48 years old, says he is, "retiring"?
I realize that the 500k the koch bros gave him was a nice chunk of change, (to push the tax scam), but I am guessing it's not enough to keep Ryan in office to ride the trumptanic to the bottom of the ocean. He knows when to cut ties and run. Add to that, a liberal in Wisconsin is REALLY gaining a lot of ground and will like beat Ryan anyway.
Good points.
" I realize that the 500k the koch bros gave him was a nice chunk of change, (to push the tax scam), but I am guessing it's not enough to keep Ryan in office to ride the trumptanic to the bottom of the ocean. "
I read that Ryan will be making millions with his intended new gig once he is free of the confines of the US Congress.
Paul Ryan Is Poised to Earn Millions When He Retires Next Year:
This should be interesting to see which entity he is willing to sell what is left of his soul to after he leaves.
I was unaware Raven, thanks so much for the info.
We must not assume anything with this case, yes, NBC is reporting that Mueller will make some of his findings known to Congress and, the DOJ, it might be nothing of importance then again, it could be like when Nixon was in office or, somewhere in between, so, don't count them chickens yet.
" I was unaware Raven, thanks so much for the info"
YW
He has some left?
" He has some left?'
I was just trying to be nice.
Did the Kochs Contribute $500,000 to Paul Ryan After the GOP Tax Plan Was Passed?
CLAIM
Charles and Elizabeth Koch contributed nearly $500,000 to Paul Ryan’s fundraising committee after successfully passing the GOP tax plan in the United States House of Representatives.
RATING
Impeached for what crime(s)? Can you be less vague?
For Trump and Trump's campaign having explicit knowledge about the Russians hacking of the Democratic National Committee and for not reporting it to the proper authorities. There now appear to have been over twenty persons including Donald Trump who were given explicit information about the the Russian efforts to hack not just the DNC and candidate Clinton but also state's election systems and to otherwise interfere in our US National Election. Conspiring with a foreign entity to game our US election laws is a big ass crime. Having lots of people involved makes it a conspiracy...
He did ?
You mean the Democrats didn't know they were hacked, but Trump did ?
it's know wonder Democrats lost......Everything. They really don't know shit about what goes on in their own rank and file !
Yeah, I believe he did but I am willing to wait and see if Mr Mueller thinks so, too...
On many many now documented occasions numerous official members of the Trump campaign discussed with known Russian operatives the Russian's multi-pronged efforts to undermine our US national election and not a one of them did what was legally required in such circumstances which is to report such activity to the law enforcement authorities immediately. Since not a one of them did there is also the cover up to consider...
Yeah, I believe he did but I am willing to wait and see if Mr Mueller thinks so, too...
On many many now documented occasions numerous official members of the Trump campaign discussed with known Russian operatives the Russian's multi-pronged efforts to undermine our US national election and not a one of them did what was legally required in such circumstances which is to report such activity to the law enforcement authorities immediately. Since not a one of them did there is also the cover up to consider...
The LWMSM is doing a good job then.
"You Believe" !
So would it be correct to think that you believe that Obama and people in his administration should be prosecuted? The hacking took place on his watch and he was informed about it and still did nothing about it. Maybe that was one of the things Putin wanted him to do that he was going to be "more flexible" on.
You are sadly misinformed. Perhaps some research not Fox News or AM radio is called for...
Are you now going to try and tell me the hacking did not take place during Obama's watch?
They know it. They just us Fox News to deflect and cover up for Obama.
But then again....maybe they don't know anything.
I think you meant to type Obama, not Trump
If you are going to try to ridicule and insult a group of people, you should at least know the difference between 'know' and 'no' and how to use them, so that you don't look less credible than the ones you are trying to denigrate.
Any real proof of any of this or, is it just more FOX Noise?
You might as well be a dog saying, "SQUIRREL" with this.
That "Group of People" as you say.....were political "grunts" and "politicians" I was talking about. Are "You" in that "Group ?
Lol, The illusive part of that 'article" is the total lack of substance! Where is the act of obstruction???? The Mueller team is going to do this or that, but as usual no mention of what the act that constitutes obstruction actually is.
Is it a major secret?
Funny how everything gets leaked except for the actual "crimes"
Would you want your attorney leaking information out that would convict your opponent in a court case or, would you want him to keep it to himself until it was actually needed? I have been amazed at the professionalism shown by Mueller and, his team, very little has been leaked as to their findings and, only things have been leaked which address people which we already know are involved or, have plead guilty. As far as actual crimes, several have come to light, money laundering, failure to disclose working for a foreign government, tax fraud, hacking into a political party's computers, conspiracy to alter an election result, intimidating witness's, obstruction, bribery, campaign finance fraud. The question you aren't asking is, "What did Trump know and, when did he know it?".
I wouldn't want ANY leaks. Why would I be ok with the false accusations, especially from people like the deputy director of the FBI?
I have been amazed at the professionalism shown by Mueller
You see, that's part of the problem right there - the accolades heaped on Mueller by the left. I'm starting to think that Mueller staged the raid on Trump's attorney the way he did because he wanted Trump to fire him. How on earth is Mueller gonna ultimately face people like you and say "I couldn't find anything"?
Look, I'll admit that I don't like Trump, it's not personal it's just that I don't see him as being fit for the job and, I do think that he had something to do with Russia, maybe not the election thing but, I do think he is Putin's bitch. Now, the question is "How on earth will you handle it if Mueller comes out with evidence that Trump obstructed justice and, seeks impeachment from Congress but, the Republicans refuse to sign off on it for political reasons?"
If there is evidence of Collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, I will accept that. Right now I doubt that is even part of the investigation any more. How about the fact that this investigation began with virtually nothing? Does that bother you at all?
seeks impeachment from Congress but, the Republicans refuse to sign off on it for political reasons
And that is now the democratic strategy. They have decided that if they win the House, they will vote to impeach, with or without any evidence of wrongdoing. The problem will be getting two thirds of the Senate to convict. So let's start putting pressure on Senate Republicans to convict Trump. Sorry, but democrats stood firm to exonerate Bill Clinton and while I don't think he should of even been in that position, YOU meaning democrats, started the partisan precedent so you can expect the same come the November impeachment
Where in my posts did I say that Mueller was looking for collusion. Conspiracy or, obstruction, yes, but I never said collusion. As far as nothing starting the investigation you need to rethink that, 17 intelligence agency's saying that Russia interfered in our elections isn't "nothing", once the investigation started, with the evidence presented by the 17 intelligence agency's it became clear that someone in the Trump campaign was involved. Now, I have asked this before and, it is the same thing asked of Nixon during Watergate, "What did the president know and, when did he know it?"
No, they feel that the evidence would have presented itself if the Republicans hadn't shut down the House committee early, Nunes did everything he could to hamper and, hinder the investigation, he snuck into the White House to slip Trump messages of what was going on in the committee and, to get his marching orders from Trump, you know, I know it and, the whole House knows it as well. This is why House Democrats want to reopen the investigation in the House with a new chairman overseeing it. Besides, if the House votes to impeach, they want to make sure they have all the REAL evidence they need to insure a conviction in the Senate, they don't want any questions raised about how it was done.
Good luck removing a President for "obstructing" what he believes was a witch hunt. If there was no underlying collusion and collusion was simply a made up excuse to sick a federal prosecutor on him, then it's hard to show he acted to obstruct justice. Obstructing a witch hunt is not going to make him sufficiently unpopular with Republicans to remove him.
It doesn't sound like Mueller is going to exonerate Trump.
Whatever...but there is no evidence, and none has been leaked.
Clinton was impeached for it.
And stayed in office thanks to Democrats who didn't care if he did.
He was impeached for lying under oath about something that had no relation to his doing the job he was elected to do. He lied about a personal matter that did not effect anything outside of his personal relations.
If you cannot understand the difference between these 2 cases, you are either lying to yourself, being willfully ignorant, or a paid shill.
But if trump lies, you are ok with it, got it.
Except for the very big exception that what you call "obstruction of justice" was Trump doing the job he was elected to do. He had every right to fire Comey and has been proven justified again and again. The only people who think Trump obstructed justice are the kool aid drinking left.
The difference is bill Clinton lied under oath.
If you can understand that, you are a fool.
Trump should just quit. He can start his right wing tv channel and play king from now until the day he dies.
If he tries to stay in office it will only get worse. Investigative reporters are starting to smell blood in the water and finally beginning to do their jobs. There is no way that Trump can withstand constant investigation by competent journalists. He's a lifelong cheat and crook. Sure, he's hardly the only white collar criminal around, but once in that bulls eye its all downhill from here. Plus he's an asshole and that sticks out like a sore thumb.
I doubt he’d ever voluntarily give up being the president. He’ll never get that kind of attention doing anything else.
And yet he did not commit perjury, thus the Senate acquitted him.
No, Trump will not be going anywhere. These loony conspiracy theories are products of deluded minds. But we enjoy reading all the enthusiastic rantings for impeachment. Such hatred is not healthy and shows us what the lunatic left is really about. The voters are watching.
Yes Gregger, and now Trump is facing a loony obstruction of justice charge, and the deluded FBI have already charged and turned many people close to Trump. But don't worry, it's all just deluded and loony conspiracy theory.
Like the one about Flynn pleading guilty? Gates, Manafort, popadopalous and poppy's lawyer in federal prison? The 15 indicted russian's that were trying to throw the election to trumpy? THOSE conspiracy theories?
Really, that is the reason he had to settle out of court with Paula Jones for perjury; and had to plea deal suspending his law license to avoid being disbarred.
Damn, what short memories.
They didn't call him "Slick Willier" for nothing. Seems that Clintonite revisionist history is still running rampant.
Apparently you are unable to read even the very 1st sentence in my comment...
Sorry JR, but they have given him their best shots and none of them has hit the target.
Clinton was impeached for lying to congress. And the impeachment did not result ina conviction, though he managed to lose his law license over it
Along party lines was the vote. Hmmmm.....what could be wrong with that?
LOL. That's a rather profoundly ignorant comment. Clinton's settlement with Jones had nothing whatsoever to do with perjury. And while the court did punish Clinton for misleading the court about a fact which was irrelevant to the outcome of the case, the court noted that Clinton did not commit perjury. In fact it's probably not even possible to commit perjury by lying about an event which happened years after the events of the case and which didn't even involve the plaintiff.
It's rather amusing that no right winger seems to have any clue what perjury is. They seem just as completely illiterate on that legal issue as they are on the US constitution.
I hate to break it to this oh so intelligent group, BUT THIS ISN"T ABOUT CLINTON. No, not even HILLIARY. It's not even about the other one, "slick willie". Nope.
Let's talk about "tricky dick" instead.
Or how about "Darth" Chaney?
Whattabout bush II?
Actually the more ethical Republicans voted against conviction, but the fact that 45 GOP Senators voted to convict when no perjury actually occurred (as a legal fact) shows just how extreme the GOP has become.
However I do love your moronic attempt at whataboutism.
I know you are trying to be clever, but this is funny stuff.
The idea that he gave up his law license and paid a substantial fine to avoid being indicted once he left office somehow means he didn't perjure himself is just classic Clinton.
???? That comment makes no sense whatsoever, particularly since the trial court judge who fined him said that Clinton didn't commit perjury. Clearly you don't even understand what the word perjury means.
Moreover what do you fantasize Clinton would have been "indicted" for? Sounds like you have an overactive and profoundly ignorant imagination.
I thought you were being too clever by half, but now I realize you are probably a foreigner unfamiliar with the basic tenants of the American legal system. Simply put, most Americans learn in grammer school that Judges do not have the unilateral power to declare someone guilty of a felony, which perjury is, without a trial. Any American with a GED should understand that a Judge in a civil lawsuit can't unilaterally declare that someone perjured themselves and sentence them to jail.
I'll make this simple. Bill Clinton was sued for sexual harassment. That's called a civil suit since the aggrieved party seeks damages from the defendant, not to put him in jail. Perjury is a serious crime, called a felony. To be found guilty of perjury, a criminal defendant must be found by a jury or judge to have lied intentionally under oath. A judge in a civil trial cannot find a party guilty of perjury. Understand so far? So Judge Wright, bound by the rules of civil procedure, had no power to say whether Bill Clinton perjured himself or not. So your claim that the Judge in his case "s aid that Clinton didn't commit perjury" is not only false, it's laughable to anyone who understands the first thing about the American legal system. Judge Wright not only lacked the power to declare CLinton innocent of perjuring himself, she said nothing of the sort.
Judges in a civil case do, however, have the power to hold someone in civil contempt of Court when a party willfully flaunts the Court's authority. Judge Wright wrote in finding Clinton guilty of contempt:
"Given the President's admission that he was misleading with regard to the questions being posed to him and the clarity with which his falsehoods are revealed by the record, [15] there is no need to engage in an extended analysis of the President's sworn statements in this lawsuit. Simply put, the President's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false ,...
She goes on at great length detailing Clinton's dishonesty. Read the whole thing here.
THe US Code defines perjury as : "having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person , in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true;"
He was under oath, the Judge found his testimony intentionally false. See?If you can put two and two together, you'll see that Judge Wright expressly found that Clinton's lies satisfy the statutory definition of perjury. But since a civil judge has no power to summarily find someone guilty of perjury, she sanctioned him with the powers available to her. She also noted that she wanted to avoid any criminal contempt findings for fear that it might interfere with the ongoing criminal investigation by the independent Counsel, and the IC would address Clinton's perjury.
Do you now understand why your claim that the Judge said Clinton didn't perjure himself is so laughable?
Moreover what do you fantasize Clinton would have been "indicted" for?
Perjury, duh. This was all widely reported. How did you miss it? Well after the impeachment issue was resolved, Clinton still faced criminal liability once he was no longer protected by the office of President for perjuring himself during his deposition. On his last day in office:
"On Jan. 19, the last full day of his presidency, Mr. Clinton reached an agreement on the fine and suspension with Robert W. Ray, the independent counsel. Mr. Ray had been investigating whether to charge Mr. Clinton with crimes like perjury and obstruction of justice because of his sworn testimony about his relationship with a White House intern.
The agreement ended any criminal liability for Mr. Clinton in the collective matters known as Whitewater..."
Your last sentence there proves your ignorance since the judge explicitly stated that Clinton did not commit perjury. And you apparently have trouble understanding the English language........do you understand what the phrase "material matter" means, and do you understand why something that happened years after the events at issue in the Paula Jones case could not be material to the outcome of the case? All she did was find Clinton in contempt of court.
Also note that the judge tossed out the lawsuit before trial since Jones' claims had no merit and said that even if Clinton did what Jones claimed it might be "offensive and boorish" but it was not sexual assault. So even on that technical level there couldn't have been perjury since no reviewable legal dispute existed.
All this focus on Bill Clinton is a flag waving of desperation. His administration ended 18 years ago.
What else do you have ?
Why do you say things that aren't true? She never said that. You really don't understand what she wrote, do you?
Since you can't follow the Judge's decision , let's make it easy. If Clinton didn't face legal jeopardy for perjuring himself (as reported in the New York Times article I linked) why did he agree to pay a substantial fine and surrender his law license? Do you think he wanted the Special Counsel to feel good about himself? Or do you imagine that he thought admitting that he mislead a court of law would look good for his historical record? Maybe he had too much money?
This is common fucking sense. If Clinton faced no legal danger once out of office, he wouldn't have stained his reputation by admitting wrongdoing on his last day as President. How can you possibly argue otherwise?
Bingo. It's both a rather desperate whataboutism and it's also astonishingly ignorant of the law. I'm beginning to think that Trump supporters really are the dumbest people on the planet.
Because he was in contempt of court. That's all it was. Perjury is a technical legal term and its meaning is obviously far over your head.
I didn't bring him up, a liberal did. Are only liberals allowed to discuss him? Funny how uptight liberals get about him.
But really, is that hard to see why Clinton might be relevant when the topic is impeachment?
You think a judge in a civil law suit can declare someone guilty of perjury.
Glass houses and all.
Again. You seem to have trouble reading. I'll break it down very simply.
Judge Wright found him in civil contempt of court and she ordered Clinton to pay Jones legal fees and her travel expenses. . That case ended in 1999. In January 2001, he reached an agreement with the Special Prosecutor to avoid Criminal charges and agreed to pay a fine of 25,000 and relinquish his law license.
Which part is giving your problems? The temporal difference between the civil contempt finding in 1999 and the 2001 agreement with the Special Prosecutor? Or do you not understand the Special prosecutor and Judge Wright are two different people with different baliwicks? The Special counsel could charge Clinton with Perjury, the Judge could not. See the difference?
Help me help you by telling me what basic facts you can't grasp.
And your point is what exactly? Judges have no problem calling perjury what it is when it occurs, yet Judge Wright never used that term in regards to Clinton's conduct. Perjury isn't the same as a lie under oath - it has to be a lie which is material to the outcome of the case. Funny that you can't grasp such a simple concept.
Again. Do you understand that perjury is a felony? Judges in civil cases don't have the power to convict someone of a felony so no, judges don't just call out "perjury!" when it occurs. This is a basic concept of American jurisprudence. Judges don't just convict people of felonies without criminal trials.
et Judge Wright never used that term in regards to Clinton's conduct.
Of course she didn't. Just like a judge in a civil lawsuit wouldn't call someone a murderer without a criminal trial. Why would you ever think a Judge would label behavior as felonious without a trial? That would violate every principle of American law.
Not only is the idea that a Judge in a civil suit would label a person a felon without a trial nonsensical, you also claimed the d Judge Wright "explicitly stated that Clinton did not commit perjury". So where is it? Where did she explicitly say Bill Clinton did commit perjury in her ruling? Unless you just made that up, where did she state it?
And your point is what exactly
You claimed that Bill Clinton faced no criminal liability when he left office. I proved you wrong. Rather than admit Bill Clinton faced the possibility of criminal prosecution when he left office, you tried to conflate the punishment Judge Wright decried for his false testimony with the agreement he reached years later to avoid said criminal prosecution.
You've made a number of patently false statements and keep trying to cover them up with even more hyperbolic falsehoods. I suggest you stop it.
These facts are undisputed:
Judge Wright found Clinton's testimony under oath was intentionally false. She did not opine whether Bill Clinton did or did not perjure himself because Judges don't adjudicate felonies on a whim in civil lawsuits as you seem to think.
He settled with the Special prosecutors office in 2001 to avoid being charged with perjury and obstruction of justice.
Obama? Benghazi? Do they really have to lave a reason to continue to beat a dead horse long after the all the worms have left? Does not look like it.
Darn, he still lied. If it was so insignificant, then, why lie?
Indeed, why are all of trumps staff still lying about meeting with the russians, if there was nothing illegal going on?
Really, when did Mueller come out and say that?
What Trump believes and what Trump says, often have no basis in reality.
Does Trump really believe he had the largest inauguration crowd ever? Does Trump really believe he signed the most bills into law in his first year? Of course not, he just said that to boost his own ego and to hear the adulation of his base that will believe anything he says.
The 2 items are mutually exclusive. The investigation into collusion does not have to come to an indictment for Trump to be guilty of obstruction. Believe that, is equivalent to using as a defense for armed robbery, the fact that the robber did not succeed in taking any money.
And there you have it, the one grain of truth in your entire comment.
Failing to impeach Trump, should the report come out that he did collude and/or obstruct, will be decided on a purely partisan basis irregardless of whether the crimes call for that impeachment.
Trump is not going to be removed from office (which is what matters) because he thought about firing Mueller, or lied to the press or whatever Mueller can cobble together for his report. Democrats will impeach him on a party line vote no matter what Mueller reports.
The 2 items are mutually exclusive.
Not to the jury that matters. The only way he will be removed with a 2/3 vote is if Mueller and the Democrats can convince Republicans that Trump either colluded with Russia (i.e. hack Hillary and I'll remove sanctions), or something similarly blatantly illegal. Given the Clinton precedent, even lying under oath should he submit to an interview is not a removable offense. The purported evidence of obstruction that has been leaked thus far is a joke. Good luck arguing an election should be overturned because Trump thought bad things and considered firing people over a politically motivated investigation.
Sure Democrats can impeach him for having bad hair or anything else, but there is zero chance he will be removed, based on what's public.
My main beef with Trump at this point is that he will try and hold on in a hopeless position.
Trump's biggest problem is that he is an asshole. When it was him or Hillary, evidently a lot of people chose the asshole. Ok. But now Hillary is out of the picture and Trump is being compared to expectations of his own behavior and not Hillary any longer. And a lot of people who voted for him are saying to themselves "this guy is an asshole". That is why he can't get his approval up over 40 or 42%. And it's not going to get better because he's not going to stop being an asshole. In fact, with all his troubles, it's very likely he's going to get worse.
Trump is completely flawed. He is not redeemable. He should resign and let the GOP and the conservatives try their luck with Pence.
No big deal Obama's average approval rating for the entire time he was in office was only six points higher.
1. Obama was not an asshole. Trump has character flaws that cannot be redeemed. In order to improve his approval ratings he would have to stop doing what he has been doing for the past 15 months in office, and he can't.
2. Obama was not under FBI investigation for the first 15 months in office.
His staying in office is a waste of everyone's time, except his own. By the way, when we do get a Democratic president again, most likely in the start of 2021, that person will reverse all of Trump's executive orders.
that's a matter of personal opinion .....
And that's with Trump getting up to 93% negative coverage while Obama couldn't do anything wrong. I looked at MSMBC for awhile tonight. These people are desensitizing people to anything they say and they don't even realize it. That's the funny part. They're just building Trump's base. It's 24/7, never ending. I don't see how they're able to do it. It has to be driving them nuts. Sorry, I wasn't thinking.
Key words here... ENTIRE TIME IN OFFICE. Average. What is trumps average so far?
Feb. 3, 2017....he was at 46.0%. The highest he has been since he has been in office. It's been, for the most part, a steady decline since then. Also, you are aware that CNS news is a far right wing news site, correct?
Here are some more accurate numbers, not skewed by right wing rags..
Low
average [26]
per year
Link for above post.
Oh it doesn't have to be collusion or obstruction! No there is American bank fraud, international bank fraud and loan fraud and real estate fraud and wire fraud and money laundering and state tax fraud and federal tax fraud and international tax fraud and tax evasion and state tax evasion and federal tax evasion and well, you get the picture...
To say nothing of loans and financial dealings with Italian and Russian crime families and you can't put up a big building in NY or NJ (Kushners) without them. Our FBI and IRS RICO Departments sort of frown on that a bit.
Yes, it will be decided on a purely partisan basis, so the Democrats are screwed since it is high unlikely they will win the House.
Possibly, but it will also eliminate the Republican party. As it is now, Republicans are losing election after election because even people that voted for him are watching him make a mockery of this country, and watching their Republican party bend over backwards to cover for him.
Them failing to impeach, will just cause even more of their base to either vote for a different party, or not vote at all.
Right. As liberal Ed Kilgore of NY Magazine reported just yesterday:
"Unlike most previous presidents facing toxic midterms (e.g., Bill Clinton in 1994, George W. Bush in 2006, and Barack Obama in 2010) Donald Trump is wildly popular among members of his “base.”" As things stand now, voting to impeach Trump will end the career of any Republican who does it. There's a reason republicans are using the threat of impeachment to raise money and get the base to turn out.
Thanks, it's nice to see someone verify their facts once in a while.
So, should we believe someone's OPINION, or the FACTUAL results of special elections in Republican strongholds?
Posting facts? Must really piss you off.
Cons spent 4 YEARS investigating benghazi 9 times and still want more investigations....But you whine about 14 months? Please, save the phony outrage.
Funny thing is....the only "Witches" that have been found thus far are those from his own Coven.
What your Fuhrer "believes" is completely irrelevant.
You must be mistaking him for the other guy. Trump has followed every word of the law in doing everything he has done by the laws of the Constitution.
In 2013 this is what the other guy did.
And by the way, one of them was rejecting 501Cs that had the word Israel in their description. Trump hasn't done anything like that and he wasn't the one who not only gave Israel's enemy the money to finance nuclear weapons and terrorism, but did it in the dark of night without letting the American Citizens know about it. They found out months later and Trump didn't stab Israel in the back at the UN while telling them he was their greatest ally.
Cool, so don't vote for Obama in the last presidential election.
That's right and the next Obama who is going to run for President is going to be in...well...at least 20 years or so...
LOL.
I know it's not going to happen, but I would vote for Michelle if she were on the ballot in 2020. Now there was a first lady with strength, class and determination to make our nation stronger, healthier and place all Americans can be proud of including those who have historically been left behind by the bigots and theocrats.
That following the letter of the law stuff is kind of tricky, you can follow the letter of the law and still completely ignore the intent of the law. Billionaires spend a lot of money to hire lawyer to look for loopholes they can stick their hand through and grab hand-fulls of cash or to get away with something. They hire lobbyists to make sure there are loopholes in any important new laws or regs.
If someone says they followed the word of law it's almost admitting that they pushed the boundaries of that law as close as they could and took advantage of any and all loopholes. Sort of breaking the law without (technically) breaking the law.
And I don't really care what "the other guys" did, I'm thinking what people are doing or trying to do NOW.
I agree. I would vote for Michelle for 2020! With Joaquin Phoenix as her running mate!
Richard Nixon called the Watergate affair a witch hunt and, this is what happened to him.
The only thing that saved Nixon from impeachment was that he resigned before he could be impeached.
I read a few months back that if impeachment hearings were called for trump, he will resign. Most likely because if he resigns, he can say, "I quit, I wasn't fired!". Then spend the rest of his pathetic life screaming that it was a big hoax to get rid of him. Anything to protect that paper thin ego of his.
I don't think his ego will let him. The difference between Trump and, Nixon is that Nixon was a lawyer, he knew the writing was on the wall.
Yes he did and he knew to respect a subpoena. If Trump were to be served with a subpoena to appear in front of the Grand Jury he would likely refuse. Then it would go up to the SCOTUS who would order him to appear. If he still refused to go that would bring about a confrontation never before seen in the United States of America. Supreme Court ordered Federal Marshal's going into the White House to forcibly compel the President to go over to the Federal Courthouse to testify. Of course if Trump still refused to go that would leave the Secret Service in a unique position. Personally I believe that the Secret Service would not stop the Federal Marshals, but would accompany Trump to the Courthouse, even if against his will. Of course once there Trump could plead the 5th.
And, this would be a whole new can of worms.
Please tell us again just how he impeded justice.
This has been discussed ad nauseam over the last year. One can see examples of obstruction from mere observation. But if you really don't get or understand it, you can wait for Mueller's full report, which will clear things up for everybody. Of course, one has to suspend belief in that fringe Trumpian reality that so many cling to. The investigations are still ongoing so just wait til they are complete. It isn't just Mueller's investigation, it also goes to NY, which is out of Trumps pardon range. Patience, patience, patience. Then, BOOM!
Yeah, Nixon obstructed justice by destroying evidence and used the FBI and CIA to cover up a crime.
Trump said mean things about Mueller and lied to the press.
Totally the same thing.
Impeachment, which many seem to be missing, is a political act. It's not criminal. The Democrats will impeach him if they win a comfortable majority in the House no matter what Mueller reports. If Mueller stretches the concept of "obstruction of justice," to include what he's leaked to the Press so much the better for them. The point is there is no chance Republicans will remove Trump based on the leaked allegations of "obstruction." There's simply zero chance of removal, if the Democrats impeach him on a party line vote in the House.
Nixon resigned because he was going to be removed from office with bipartisan agreement that he committed real crimes. There is no such agreement that exists today based on the information leaked so far. The comparison is Clinton, where Democrats stuck by him by and large even though he was caught lying under oath and charged with obstructing justice. Fitting, because good friends Trump and Clinton are similar personalities. Like Clinton, Trump will define victory as avoiding removal in the Senate and dismiss his impeachment as just another partisan attack.
So if the Dems win the House, get ready for the Clinton impeachment redux. Democrats will huff and puff exert all sorts of energy over the next year to impeach him, and come next summer he will still be in office and nothing will have changed. One party can't remove a President. And based on the leaked information so far, there is no where enough evidence of wrongdoing to get Republicans to over turn an election.
No this follows what happened to Nixon and, what Nixon did to try to stop the investigation. Trump fired Comey because he wouldn't stop investigating Russia's meddling in our elections, Trump said as much to Lester Holt in an interview and, the White House admitted that was the reason that Comey was fired, that is obstruction all by itself. He badgered McCabe and, then had the DOJ fire him 24 hours before he was due to retire, McCabe was Mueller's direct supervisor, he is promising pardons to any one involved in the Russia investigation if they keep their mouths shut, the White House admits that Trump is considering firing Rosenstein, (now the direct supervisor of Mueller) and, replacing him with someone who will put Mueller on a leash or, fire him. Trump was pissed off that Sessions had to recuse himself from the Russia investigation because he was involved in the Trump campaign, he has even said that Sessions should have stayed involved so that Sessions could "protect Trump from the investigation". All of this is an attempt to obstruct justice, which is an impeachable crime.
Literally none of that is true. Talk about fake news.....
I like how a House Republican put it in a private conversation recently:
The Trump administration's rhetoric around the president's decision to fire FBI director James Comey keeps changing, and it has led to one of the most tumultuous weeks in Trump's young presidency so far.
First, the White House said Trump fired Comey because the attorney general and deputy attorney general recommended it.
Later, the president said he had been considering firing Comey for a while, and Rosenstein's recommendation sealed the deal.
After that, the president said he had already decided to fire Comey and that he was going to do it regardless of whether or not Rosenstein recommended it.
Comey was heading up an FBI investigation into the Trump campaign's potential ties to Russia when he was fired, and the timing of Trump's decision led many to speculate over whether Trump fired Comey because he was upset about the Russia investigation.
The White House initially said the investigation was not a factor in Trump's decision. On Tuesday, the White House's official explanation was that Trump had acted based on the recommendation of deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein and attorney general Jeff Sessions. In a memo to Sessions, Rosenstein criticized Comey's handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server when she was Secretary of State. Rosenstein did not specifically recommend firing Comey in his memo.
Sessions forwarded Rosenstein's memo to Trump and recommended that he remove Comey from his role. "Based on my evaluation, and for the reasons expressed by the Deputy Attorney General in the attached memorandum, I have concluded that a fresh start is needed at the leadership of the FBI," Sessions' letter said.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer also reiterated during a news briefing that night that the decision to fire Comey was driven entirely by the Department of Justice and Rosenstein.
U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland Rod J. Rosenstein speaks at a news conference in Baltimore, Wednesday, March 1, 2017, to announce that seven Baltimore police officers who worked on a firearms crime task force are facing charges of stealing money, property and narcotics from people over two years.
"As Spicer tells it, Rosenstein was confirmed about two weeks ago and independently took on this issue so the president was not aware of the probe until he received a memo from Rosenstein on Tuesday, along with a letter from Attorney General Jeff Sessions recommending that Comey be fired," The Washington Post reported.
"It was all him," Spicer said, referring to Rosenstein. "No one from the White House. That was a DOJ decision."
The next day, Vice President Pence told reporters that Rosenstein had independently reviewed and recommended that Comey be fired.
Later, however, deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that Trump had actually been considering firing Comey for months, and that he had asked Sessions and Rosenstein for their recommendations.
"Isn't it true that the president had already decided to fire James Comey and he asked the Justice Department to put together the rationale for that firing?" a reporter asked Huckabee on Wednesday. He was referring to a New York Times report that said White House and Justice Department officials had been tasked with "building a case" against Comey since at least last week, according to administration officials, and that Sessions had been tasked with coming up with reasons to fire him.
"No. … The final decision to move forward with it was yesterday. But I know that he's been contemplating it for a while," Sanders replied.
Trump, speaking to reporters that day, said that he fired Comey because Comey "wasn't doing a good job. Very simple. He wasn't doing a good job."
The White House also released a timeline of the president's decision-making process around Comey's firing. Here's what it said:
"The President, over the last several months, lost confidence in Director Comey.
After watching Director Comey's testimony last Wednesday [May 3, 2017], the President was strongly inclined to remove him.
On Monday [May 8, 2017], the President met with the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General and they discussed reasons for removing the Director.
The next day, Tuesday May 9, the Deputy Attorney General sent his written recommendation to the Attorney General and the Attorney General sent his written recommendation to the President."
The timeline directly contradicted the White House's assertion that the president had acted solely based on the recommendations of Rosenstein and Sessions.
In this May 10, 2017 file photo, President Donald Trump talks to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. Associated Press/Evan Vucci
On Thursday, Trump told NBC News' Lester Holt during an interview that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the DOJ's recommendations. He added that the Russia investigation had been a factor in his decision.
When Holt asked Trump whether he'd asked Rosenstein for his recommendation the day before firing Comey, Trump replied: "What I did was, I was going to fire. My decision."
"You'd made the decision before they came into the room?" Holt asked.
"I was going to fire Comey. There's no good time to do it," Trump said.
"In your letter, you said, 'I accept their recommendation,'" Holt said.
"Oh, I was going to fire, regardless of recommendation," Trump said. "He made a recommendation, he's highly respected — very good guy, very smart guy. And the Democrats like him, Republicans like him. He made a recommendation, but regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey."
Later in the interview, Trump pointed to the Russia probe as a catalyst for his decision.
"In fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, 'You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won,'" Trump told Holt.
In a press briefing that took place that day, Sanders diverged from her earlier statements and said that Trump's meeting with Sessions and Rosenstein on Monday had "reaffirmed" his decision to fire Comey.
Again, not one word of that interview supports your claims that "Trump fired Comey because he wouldn't stop investigating Russia's meddling in our elections". You've proven that Trump knew firing Comey would extend the Russian investigation. Where did Trump say he ordered Comey to stop investigating and Comey refused, or any thing remotely like that?
You've made the allegation, why can't you show a single quote where Trump said "I fired him because he wouldn't stop his investigation,"?
Very true, Randy. But then he would have to explain why he said, "anyone who pleads the 5th is guilty!!".
If Nixon had said "when I decided to fire Archibald Cox, I said to myself, I said, 'You know, this Watergate thing with me and some so-called plumbers is a made up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won", would you not see that as proof of obstruction?
The proof of obstruction was that Nixon knew a break in had been committed and fired Cox in an attempt to stop the investigation. If Nixon actually believed the Plumbers story was made up, then that statement certainly wouldn't be proof of obstruction.
All Trump said was that he was aware of the Russian investigation (he would be lying if he said otherwise) when he decided to fire Comey. He never said he wanted it stopped. In fact, he said the opposite saying he wanted the investigation to continue after he fired Comey and that firing Comey would prolong (not end) the investigation.
So yes, if you can show Trump colluded with Russia then maybe firing Comey could rise to the level of obstruction. But, without the underlying crime, obstruction will not play outside of the dedicated hate Trump fanatics. .
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
Why would he believe he was under "great pressure" because of the investigation if he truly believed it to be "made up"?
And then he will be DOA in more ways than one, and so would most of his cabinet and the GOP. And....they all know it. Why else would so many be jumping the GOP ship in the middle of a hurricane? Impending Tsunami maybe?
Rachel Maddow is also reporting tonight that Mueller has concluded that Trump obstructed justice.
The same Maddow who got all giddy over one of Trumps tax returns that blew up in her face when she read it aloud?
No she didn't.
I guess you didnt watch the show.
Lol! That's it Gregger, denial ain't just a river in Egypt! Donut?
Apr 12, 2018 · Rachel Maddow MSNBC @ maddow . Scoop here from NBC: Mueller likely to report at least four "findings" on Trump and obstruction of justice, .. .
Made you pull up some "evidence", didn't I?
So the only value your comments have is as an attempt to pull other people's strings? Good to know.....where's the ignore button the NT users have requested?
Skirting the CoC [ph]
What they call "evidence". Likely, perhaps, maybe seem to be "evidence" these days.
Of course he obstructed justice. Why else would trump want to shut down an investigation? Seriously, trumps, "The FBI is corrupt!!!", (all 33,000 of them, apparently), is nothing more than trump lying, yet again, to put the focus on someone else. He does it constantly. Trump is a very mentally ill person who is guilty as sin. Lock his stupid orange ass up.
Sure trump, all 33,000 people at the FBI are corrupt liars, (apparently forgetting that fox fake news said that 98% of all LEO's are conservatives). YOU are the innocent one.. Yea, it's everyone else donny, not you. What a fucking moron.
If you paid attention you'd know that only a a small number at the top of the FBI are corrupt. Unless you consider it normal for FBI officials to suppress information about Weiners laptop, have their spouses take money from Clinton cronies and text with their mistresses about how the candidate they're investigating is their "insurance policy".
OH! So you mean the ones trump appointed. Got ya.
I don't recall Trump appointing Strzok, McCabe, Comey or Page.
I don't recall any of them being corrupt.
Trump erstwhile lackey Jeff Sessions has already said he is not going to appoint a second special counsel to look into the fantasies you mention.
In other words, the loyal Republican conservative attorney general appointed by and dominated by Trump has more or less told people like you to forget about it.
Take his advice.
So the FBI and their own ethics office recommended firing McCabe for no good reason?
Actually Sessions did appoint somebody to look into it. A federal prosecutor from Utah who will actually be able to do things Mueller can't.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions : No second special counsel
Mar 29, 2018 · Attorney General Jeff Sessions says he won't appoint a second special counsel . Attorney General Jeff Sessions will not appoint a second special counsel to review a host of politically charged …
I don't expect Sessions to be around after the coming election.
A lot of the right wing true believers are obsessed with the notion that the "real" investigation will indict Hillary, Obama, Comey and Mueller. The right wingers are fed this nonsense by their own version of "media" which is generally founded in crackpot conspiracy theories. 'Alternative facts' indeed.
John, these morons believed that the Clinton's were running a child sex ring out of a PIZZA parlor BASEMENT in downtown Manhattan....and the pizza parlor in question didn't even have a basement. Some of these morons will believe ANYTHING.
It is hard to explain. "Conservative media" has never policed itself and is rife with conspiracy nuts and yes, morons.
And the same can be said of the liberal media...right?
I ask again, how and when did he obstruct justice?
Yates, Bahara, Comey.. All led the trump russia investigation at some point in some way...all fired by trump. Weird huh? Almost like he was trying to get the investigation to stop or something..
"Would likely", "could decide", "would then decide".....
Thats a whole lot of hypothetical scenarios and no facts.
BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Off topic.
Members should refrain from disciplining other members. If someone is violating the CoC, members should make no comment but rather use the flagging system to report it to the moderators.
Flagging for "Off Topic" can only be made by the seeder/ author.
{SP}
" hypothetical scenarios and no facts.'
Yeppers.......that would be the Beghazi lost cause by the right for .....ummm.....for.....eh.....how many years now? ??
This is not your article....is it? I thought it was John Russell's. So who are YOU to determine what/who is "Off topic"?
That is only determined by the seeder/author of the article/seed. Please do educate yourself about the NT CoC so that you know what you are talking about.
It used to be that way but now it looks like the mods remove comments as off topic without the seeders permission. One example is linked below.
While that may be. However, for a Mod to remove a comment or moderate it the comment would likely have been flagged.
But, it is not the right of any commenter to declare a comment off topic if it is not their own seed or article. I don't believe that has been changed in the new CoC.
There is one thing I have to admit with you on Dean, the NT mods are removing comments at an obscene amount of level and for a very minor level of offense. This is quickly becoming one of the most over over-moderated sites since the new CoC rules went into effect.
All the proof anyone needs that you don't know what you are talking about. Thanks.
That's like saying that Bush II murdered 5,000+ American's on 9/11.
I can't wait to turn in to Fox News and see what Bill O'Re.......oh wait.
OReilly is hanging out with liberal NBC host Matt Lauer and liberal PBS host Charlie Rose. Oh, sorry.... former hosts.
We learned this week of additional hush money payments both Trump and O'Reilly paid out to women they had harassed or had affairs with. Coincidence?
None at all.
Charlie Rose is a Conservative commentator.
If he were conservative CBS and PBS wouldn't haven't let him in the door.
OReilly is hanging out with liberal NBC host Matt Lauer and liberal PBS host Charlie Rose.
And Roger Ailes and Eric Bolling.
This kind of argument can go back and forth all day long. What's the point ?
Huh? You mean...they need to have one to make a fool of themselves? ??
Trump openly and publicly admitted to obstruction of justice, more than once. His guilt is obvious.
No he didn't.
Yes he did,
Greg is stonewalling. lol
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall........
He did when he told Lester Holt why he fired Comey. That was Obstruction of Justice defined. That alone was an impeachable offense.
Sorry, but firing Comey was not obstruction of justice, just getting rid of a corrupt and lying POS.
And no Randy, as he could have replaced him as soon as he was sworn in. He didn't find out Comey was dirty and complicit in illegalities in the Obama administration, including Hillary's illegal use of government emails, until later. Trump has done nothing that is impeachable. You wish otherwise, but you know I'm right.
This is the reason Comey was fired. Incompetence, period. Now Mueller is using Soviet Style Justice like he has done throughout his government employment. Schumer said don't mess with the KGB, because they would get you.
Did you know Comey is not the FBI? Firing Comey didn't "obstruct" anyone's work. If you actually watched the Holt interview, he said wanted the Russia investigation to continue. He never tried to stop or interfere with the actual work of the investigation.
Trump told Holt:
The president also said he supports a full investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election last year, saying he wants the probe to be done "absolutely properly."...
Trump said he never tried to pressure Comey into dropping the FBI probe of the Trump campaign and insisted, "I want to find out if there was a problem in the election having to do with Russia."
"As far as I'm concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly," Trump said. "Maybe I'll expand that, you know, lengthen the time (of the Russia probe) because it should be over with, in my opinion, should have been over with a long time ago. 'Cause all it is, is an excuse but I said to myself, I might even lengthen out the investigation, but I have to do the right thing for the American people."
Trump added of the investigation, "I want that to be so strong and so good. And I want it to happen."
Asked by Holt if by firing Comey he was trying to send a "lay off" message to his successor, Trump said, "I'm not."
"If Russia did anything, I want to know that," he said.
His statements, in context, are the opposite of obstruction.
Then listen to his statements, in context, this is a case for obstruction,
You don't seem to understand what "obstruction" means or what Trump said. You've already made up quotes and attributed them to Trump. So unless you can find specific quotes that back up your point, I have no choice but to believe you have no idea what you are talking about.
Skirting the CoC, taunting. [ph]
First I understand obstruction of justice.
You might not, so, here's the definition of Obstruction of Justice.
Second, in order to "make up quotes" I would have to have doctored the video of the Lester Holt interview with Trump and, anyone can go onto their computer and, pull up that interview and, find the part were Trump admits why he fired Comey. "It was the whole Russia thing", comes out of Trumps mouth as plain as day.
Yes, he wanted someone who he believed competent and not a showboat to lead it. That's not obstruction. Again, if you've watched the interview or read the transcript you'd know Trump repeatedly says he wants to the investigation to move forward and to be done properly.
But by all means, find a quote to support your claim that Trump admitted firing Comey because Comey wouldn't stop the investigation.
Trump admitted firing Comey because he thought it WOULD stop the Russia investigation. He said that on national TV to Lester Holt. That is the definition of Obstruction of Justice.
His statements, in context, are the very definition of obstruction of justice.
No, what I said was he admitted to firing Comey "over this whole Russia thing", in other words, "I fired Comey because he wouldn't stop investigating Russia and, what I and, my campaign might have had to do with it".
Really? My interpretation is the more obvious one - that James Comey, who admitted to the President on multiple occasions that Trump was not being investigated, refused to tell the American people the same thing. That's really all Comey had to do. Instead he called on deep state revenge after his well deserved firing. As a matter of fact, Mr Comey should never have been appointed. His ego always got the better of him, not to mention he politicized the top level of the FBI.
First, if you're prosecuting a case you don't tell the subject of an investigation that he is under investigation, maybe someone like Cohen does that but, we know he's an idiot of a lawyer. If the subject of an investigation came to me and, I was head of the investigation and, he asked me if he were under investigation, I'd lie like a rug to him and, tell him no he wasn't.
Second, if you know you are innocent of a crime you don't have to ask an investigator if you are being investigated, Trump from the beginning of this investigation has asked if he is under investigation.
Now, let's look at what Trump said during Lester Holts interview and, see if we can find any holes in his story.
Trump does not say he asked for a recommendation from Rosenstein.
Trump was going to fire Comey no matter what Rosenstein said.
Here Trump admits no matter what he was going to fire Comey.
Here Trump admits it was because of the Russia investigation that he was going to fire Comey.
In the bolded part here Trump says he'll lengthen the investigation, earlier he said he loved the FBI but, recent events proves this isn't true. He wants and, has wanted the investigation over before anything has really been found. He has said that the FBI is part of a "deep state" conspiracy to end his presidency. Do you really believe that? Really deep in your heart? Shouldn't we, the American people know everything about what happened during the election concerning Russia and, the Trump campaign?
Trump says this and, then he starts to back peddle for a moment.
Then he starts back up trying to move forward.
According to Comey and, others, Trump wanted to have dinner with Comey, not the other way around.
After Trump asked him if he was under investigation, (reference now the first point I made above)
Another back peddle. His lawyers have been giving all kinds of documents to the Mueller investigation and, they were under Comey.
Again, more back peddling. Documents prove that Trump is a subject in the investigation, he's just not the TARGET at the moment.
"He's not my man", Comey said that Trump wanted him to pledge loyalty to him, Comey said he didn't do that. Trump has been known to ask for loyalty from staff members to him and, not to the country or, the Constitution. So, ask yourself, does Trump want the truth or, does he want someone who is going to bury this investigation and, the truth to be "loyal" to Trump.
LOL, I'll tell ya what, I'll admit that as soon as you and, the rest of the Rightwingers on her come out and, admit that you all lied about Obama for eight years running.
Do you really think he would openly admit to committing a crime like that? Really? LMFAO!!! "I didn't see anyone build he Statue of Liberty, so that means no one built it!!!".
I still don't know who this Barry is that you keep talking about.
I have stated what Trump said, if you can't look at that and, see where he admitted to obstruction then you are more blind than Helen Keller.
Barack who? Obama? Barack Obama has never been called Barry, you've got him mixed up with someone else.
Considering your commenting history, I'd hope so.
Hey, that's SO UNFAIR to keep repeating The Dump's confession to obstruction of justice like that.
Yeah, I know, it's not like the Right on here have been repeating lies about Obama and, Hillary for the past ten years, I really shouldn't put facts on here about The Dumpster, that just confuses them.
I don't understand, you are talking about some guy named Barry, I've been talking about Trump. Who is this Barry guy?
Good question....who is this Barry guy? Seems he has gone to great lengths to hide who he is.
I'll make a deal with you Norman and, Texan, you start calling Barack Obama either Obama or, Barack and, I'll won't call Trump the Dumpster, how's that?
As far as i know the Washington Examiner is a decent source but, I don't remember any other media sources telling this story the same way and, since the DOJ didn't pick this up and, investigate nor did the Republican controlled Congress at the time, I have to call BS that is was souly because of the mayor that he was fired.
It's funny enough that some people's "facts" are learned from a comedy show, but it's doubly funny when their "facts" come from Trevor Noah, a so-called comedian. They might as well rely on Joy Behar and Kathy Griffin for their "news facts" as well!
Norman, I regularly get private communications asking me to warn you about off topic and non sensical comments on my seeds. Consider yourself warned. No more off topic or ridiculous comments, or I will ask the moderator to remove them.
The moderators have locked my seeds in the past because they say I allow people like Norman to rant and rave and be ridiculous too much. So I am trying to be conscientious.
There simply must come a time for a test of the Constitutional question of if a sitting President can be indicted on Criminal Charges and if Mueller has the evidence for the Grand Jury to produce Criminal Indictments against Trump, then this is the time to test that legal theory. I am not an attorney, but it seems to me that there are as many Constitutional scholars who are saying that it can not be done as there are saying that it can. Let's find out once and for all.
All they can is impeach him....and then prosecute him....if there is real and credible evidence. Which there isn't. Getting rid of Comey is no different than any other staff change.
The FBI Director has a ten year term. It was HIGHLY unusual for the FBI Director to be fired , particularly by a president in the first 4 months in office. It was highly unusual for trump to ask for a pledge of loyalty from the FBI Director.
Greg, you don't know what you are talking about, and rarely do. One would think that would more discourage you from saying anything.
Any real proof of any of this or, is it just more FOX Noise?
TO HELL WITH IT! NONE OF IT FUCKING MATTERS ANYWAY!
And, that's the truth.
Maybe, Mueller, has already sent his secret message and it was not well received.
Either indict him or get off the pot.
You must understand that competent investigators do not release their conclusions until all relevant information is accumulated, verified and validated. It is unwise and ill-conceived to believe that a lengthy investigation implies that it has gone nowhere, Maggie.
True Randy. The large majority of the American people are bored and tired of this ongoing left wing clown show. More important things going on in world.
These investigations will go on despite all the cries from the right. The truth WILL come out sooner or later. Americans aren't bored, they are in the middle of this clusterfuck and it is NOT easy to live in constant stress from the chaos coming from the top. And that includes republicans who voted for Trump. People who used to defend him are not able to even watch the news half the time. I don't know if conservatives really believe their bs or are just desperate to change the narrative, neither is good.
Do you even know a clown when you see one?
If this isn't stress, then, what is!