Trump Adopts Nixonian Stonewall Tactic
Nixon knew he was guilty, so he told his underlings to "stonewall" congressional demands for information and testimony. Likewise, Trump has instructed his underlings to stonewall, the latest being his justice depts. revelation that former White House counsel Don McGhan has been advised to defy a congressional subpoena to testify about his interactions with Trump relating to possible obstruction of justice.
The obvious question is, if Trump is innocent, why is he "stonewalling"? Innocent people don't need to stonewall.
Trump is like the little boy holding his finger in the dike. The question is, does he have enough fingers?
People know that the Mueller report did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice, it implicated him in it. This will have to be resolved. Mueller needs to make a public statement before anyone can "move on". Further silence is a disservice to the nation.
Tags
Who is online
114 visitors
Sometime between now and election day all the truth is going tom come out. Trump would be better off getting it out in the open now rather than waiting for a time when damaging information against him will leave him with no time to recover.
Maybe they should appoint a special prosecutor and give him unlimited resources, unlimited time, and no restrictions on what to investigate.
Think that would work?
Why? I haven't seen anything about the US AG, the Utah AG or the CT AG or the DOJ IG having any kind of a budget limit or restriction on what to investigate.
"Innocent people don't need to stonewall."
Innocent people don't even need to show up if they haven't been charged with a crime.
If the Muller witch hunt didn't turn up anything illegal or criminal conduct, it simply is not there
All those supposed 10 instances of obstruction simply don't amount of add up to anything the proverbial bucket of warm spit.
But let's hope the left pursues this insane quest up to the election and alienate even more of their "supporters"
Meanwhile, the Barr investigations will start ramping up.
Why ? Provide full detail for each instance.
Caught a LOT of witches.....
Will likely be difficult for someone who's never read the report. When Republicans actually read the report you get this:
" On Saturday, Representative Justin Amash became the first Republican member of Congress to suggest that President Donald Trump should be impeached for his misdeeds"
His principal conclusions:
About those claims, he stressed, “I offer these conclusions only after having read Mueller’s redacted report carefully and completely, having read or watched pertinent statements and testimony, and having discussed this matter with my staff, who thoroughly reviewed materials and provided me with further analysis.”
" In comparing Barr’s principal conclusions, congressional testimony, and other statements to Mueller’s report, it is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s analysis and findings. Barr’s misrepresentations are significant but often subtle, frequently taking the form of sleight-of-hand qualifications or logical fallacies, which he hopes people will not notice."
"Under our Constitution, the president “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
While “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined, the context implies conduct that violates the public trust. Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment. In fact, Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence.
Impeachment, which is a special form of indictment, does not even require probable cause that a crime (e.g., obstruction of justice) has been committed; it simply requires a finding that an official has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise dishonorable conduct. While impeachment should be undertaken only in extraordinary circumstances, the risk we face in an environment of extreme partisanship is not that Congress will employ it as a remedy too often but rather that Congress will employ it so rarely that it cannot deter misconduct."
Well, that's totally wrong. Witnesses are called to testify all the time and hostile witnesses can be subpoenaed and forced to show up or pay big fines, maybe even do jail time.
No, he can simply follow Obama's lead and obstruct to kingdom come. Only allow people to testify if they are full blown liars like Hillary Clinton; of course that would take Clinton like power to get away with, and very few have that. Or simply declare the 5th, and be granted full benefits as they make an exit from the federal government.
The Dems in the House can suffer the same fate as the Republicans did with Obama. Endless investigations that lead absolutely no where thanks to obstruction from the WH.
The left had their special council full of Hillary and Obama sycophants; and came up empty. Now, they expect the rest of us to sit by idly for the House' tantrum investigations.
Another rightwing installment of "Things That Never Happened."
underlings to "stonewall" congressional demands for information and testimony.
That would be the Clinton playbook.
Next chapter, make it personal against the investigators.
Then say time to "move on"
I'd recommend Trump start an advocacy group called "move on" to help the campaign, but Clinton, as always, already did it.
But Trump does things differently that CLinton. He actually cooperated first. Call it radical transparency.
He, in a reckless move, let his lawyer testify for 30 hours without restriction. That's a crazy amount of cooperation.
He's already cooperated. Can't do it over and over and over again.
The Mueller report clearly implicates Trump in obstruction of justice. 900 federal prosecutors agree with that assessment.
We are treading again into Alice in Wonderland down the rabbit hole territory. Up is down, in is out. Trump is severely damaged goods. He should resign or at the least say he is not running in 2020. That would be the patriotic thing to do.
Nancy Pelosi needs to demand that Robert Mueller come to congress and testify as to what he concluded. Enough is enough with the rest of this farce.
One would think that with an-over-400-page report, he had plenty of opportunities to cite his conclusions. Wasn't a paper-shortage problem.
so push to have him impeached. This on-going investigation process appears to an outsider as continued party politics and to me turns me away from taking democrats seriously for 2020. Either impeach him or shut up about it. There are so many problems in this country that need resources yet we don't see or hear that the people in charge are doing anything about them. MSM is still constantly harping on how bad Trump is. I would say sorry for being blunt but I'm sick and tired of it all. Either impeach him or shut up about it.
If Trump obstructed somehow, the question is how he obstructed it, since the investigation continued unimpeded and reached an obvious and correct conclusion. If Mueller had found any real obstruction of justice, he would be loudly and gladly sharing it with the Democrats. Are the Dems trying to get him into hearings and try to get him to lie and make stuff up in a perjury trap?
They Democrats need to give up all this so called oversight investigative farce, and start doing the jobs the voters elected them for.
Not. A. Chance. And they would be derelict in their duty to the Constitution and the American people if they did.
Who oversees Congress? They need it more than any other branch.
You seem to be forgetting the fact that Mueller documented multiple instances of obstruction in his report. Those of us [a tiny percentage I admit] who have actually read Volume II of the Mueller report know that for a fact.
The Mueller Report cited 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice by Trump. If you disagree, please list all ten instances and provide details of your objection to each of them.
There are co-equal branches. Try reading the Constitution.
BTW, we can always vote the assholes out too.
You obviously haven't read the report then. That's so far from what Trump did its not even funny.
Far be it from me to speak for DP, but...
Trump said himself that he fired Comey to make the Russia investigation go away... No matter how you slice it, that's obstruction. He actually fired 3 people that were heading up the Russia investigation. Comey, obviously, Preet Bahara and Sally Yates.
Well, I'm not a judge or an attorney, but after reading the report myself, I agree with Judge Napolitano's assesment:
" So when the president asked his former advisor K.T. McFarland… to write an untruthful letter to the file, knowing the government would subpoena it, that’s obstruction of justice .
When the president asked his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to get Mueller fired, that’s obstruction of justice .
When the president asked his then-White House counsel to get Mueller fired and then lie about it, that’s obstruction of justice .
When he told Don McGann to go back to the special prosecutor and change his testimony, that’s obstruction of justice .
When he dangled a pardon in front of Michael Cohen in order to keep Cohen from testifying against him, that’s obstruction of justice
Why not charge him? Because the attorney general of the United States would have blocked such a charge. Because the attorney general is of the view that obstruction of justice can only occur if you’re interfering with a criminal investigation of yourself. But that’s not what the obstruction statute says. And that’s not what law enforcement believes. And that’s not what prosecutors do. Prosecutors prosecute people who interfere with government functions. And that’s what the president did by obstruction ."
Obstruction of justice is a FELONY. And it does not require an underlying crime to occur. Not to mention we aren't even getting into all those Russian connections, which DID occur. Long way from not indicting to innocent.
Yea, this BS came up two days after trump fired Comey and also after he was told that firing Comey is obstruction of justice. Again, you can spin it however you like but, trump said himself he fired Comey to try and get the Russia investigation to stop. Donny isn't as bright as he lets on and he is impulsive, I doubt he realized that firing Comey would be a problem.
Comey? Corrupt? Could be, he did throw the election to trump. If you remember correctly, Comey announced to the country that Hillary was under investigation by the FBI...not once, but twice. At the same time, Trump was also under investigation yet Comey didn't say a word about it. I keep hearing that Comey was helping Hillary, but how is announcing to the country that she is under investigation by the FBI...twice, before the election, "helping"? If anything, Comey cost Hillary the election. So you want to say he is corrupt? Hell, i'll agree with you.
No, Trump did not say that.
And the investigation never stopped or even slowed down.
The 'essence' of the obstruction statute is that all Trump need do is to 'endeavor to obstruct'. In short, he need not be successful.
Rosenstein did not cite corruption in his letter.
What reports are those? Links?
Incoorrect. Comey testified before Congress that he told President Trump that he was not under investigation and that neither Trump nor the DOJ tried to stop the investigation
Comey June 8 2017 Testimony before the Senate
BURR: Director Comey, did the president at any time ask you to stop the FBI investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. elections?
COMEY: Not to my understanding, no.
BURR: Did any individual working for this administration, including the Justice Department, ask you to stop the Russian investigation?
COMEY: No.
RISCH:I — I think, secondly, I gather from all this that you’re willing to say now that, while you were director, the president of the United States was not under investigation. Is that a fair statement?
COMEY: That’s correct.
RISCH: All right. So that’s a fact that we can rely at this...
COMEY: Yes, sir.
RUBIO: But the specific ask was that you would tell the American people what you had already told him, what you had already told the leaders of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans: that he was not personally under investigation.
COMEY: Yes, sir, that’s how I...
RUBIO: In fact (ph), he was asking you to do what you have done here today.
COMEY: ... correct. Yes, sir.
BLUNT: And, six weeks later we’re still telling the — we’re telling the president, on March the 30th, that he was not personally the target of any investigation?
COMEY: Correct. On March the 30th, and I think again on — I think on April 11th as well, I told him we’re not investigating him personally. That was true.
You seem to believe that subpoena's are illegitimate. What lead you to that conclusion?
Which has nothing to do with the legal definition.
Then why did you say "see Rosenstein"?
Bottom line. If one has nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear.
Hey Trump. Show us the Russian money Don Jr. mentioned a few times. It is clean, right?
There was no Russian money.
prove it
Not after it was laundered.
You seem to forget that Jr. himself said that the trump [crime] family used a lot of Russian money because US banks refused to loan donny anymore money.
[deleted]
If I said ( it does ) would it still be deleted?
.
Trump's oldest son said a decade ago that a lot of the family's assets came from Russia
A decade ago? So the F what? That is the Trump business; which has interests across the planet.
Funny how the left doesn't give a shit when Bill and Hillary trot around the world giving paid speeches- that includes to the Russians. And, the Clinton foundation would accept money from any country that could afford it. Yet Hillary and Bill are never questioned by the left if they are on the take; or under the influence of some foreign power.
I can't stand Trump; but the shit show the left is running- including their clown car of candidates- is turning me off again to voting for them. The Dems want to be the grown ups in the room they can start acting like and clean up their own back yard first. Starting with their never ending candidates for POTUS.
If one has nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear.
The motto of tyrants since time immemorial.
Now Donald Trump is a freedom fighter. Hilarious.
And just about every cop you talk to.
So true.
I wonder what all the people who pled the fifth from the Obama administration were hiding?
You know hypocrites won't be able to see or acknowledge that.
They want to have their cake and eat it too ... SOSDD
Do they need to plead the 5th?
Gee, great story about Flynn. Now that he has pled guilty, he can hardly plead the 5th can he...
BTFW, the one pleading the 5th is Trump since he is the one who is stonewalling.
But............but.............but...........OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously?
Remind me again who said the following;
"The only people who plead the 5th are guilty!!!"
A) Trump
B) Trump
C) Trump
D)Trump
or...
E) All of the above.
Show us where Trump has plead the 5th outside of adultry; which the left doesn't give a rats ass about anyways. Pot meet kettle Bill Clinton. Or maybe it is better to perjure yourself? The left doesn't seem to care about that either- unless a Republican does it.
Trump again today proclaimed that he has the most transparent administration in history....Um...
Trump: 'NO OBSTRUCTION!'
Ok, can we see your taxes? NO!
Can we view Deutsche Bank records related to you? NO!
Can members of your Cabinet testify under oath? NO!
Can your WH attorney testify under oath? NO!
Can we see the full Mueller Report? NO!
Yep, clear as Mississippi mud.
Ivanka for pole dancer. That would be transparency.
Why don't you just ask her out--or at least send off for an autographed life-size poster of her?
He learned from the best Barack Obama.
So in your opinion, trump is as bad as Obama? At least you'll admit it. 😁
As far as obstruction, he has a ways to go to be as bad as Obama in that department; but he is catching up fast.
I find it hilarious that the left defended Obama's obstruction; but want to impeach Trump for doing the exact same thing.
"The obvious question is, if Trump is innocent, why is he "stonewalling"? Innocent people don't need to stonewall."
If you’re accused of a crime you didn’t commit, it’s essential for you to know what to do next. Your actions immediately following the charge could make the difference between conviction and acquittal. If you’ve been falsely accused, here’s what you should do.
Hire an Attorney
This should be the very first step you take. Unfortunately, far too many innocent defendants skip this because they believe their innocence will be proved naturally by the investigation.
It’s good to trust the justice system, but it’s safer to recognize that it has its faults. Perhaps evidence could be planted, or a talented prosecutor can make you look guilty, even when you’re not.
You also shouldn’t accept the popular notion that retaining a defense attorney makes you look guilty. In fact, it’s the opposite: Hiring an attorney early in the investigation will mitigate risk and increase your chance of being proven innocent.
Don’t Say Anything
Once you’ve hired a lawyer, this will be his or her very first piece of advice to you, so you might as well be prepared to practice it from the start. If you’re accused of a crime you didn’t commit, don’t give in to the temptation to declaim your innocence and make excuses for why it couldn’t have been you.
Just say, “I need to call a lawyer.”
Again, there’s a misconception that saying those words can make you look more guilty than if you deny committing the crime.
But exercising your right to remain silent will always do more good than harm.
As a human being, your memory and actions are fallible. You might tell your side of the story after being accused, only to remember further details later. Any inconsistencies in your story can make you look guilty, even if it was just your faulty memory.
You’ll get your chance to tell your story after you’ve discussed the details with your lawyer. An attorney will sit down with you, carefully go over the details, and help you remember everything so no inconsistencies arise. It’s the best way to prove your innocence.
What's good for the public, is good for the President !
What an innocent person should do is exactly what Trump is doing
telling his accusers to indict or go to ....
no innocent person should let false accusers simply walk over them or be intimidated by them.
Exactly !
Not one friggin person has proven Trump is guilty of anything relating to treason, bribery, or any other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
All the Congressional Democrats, The Trump hating Media and most of the Liberals walking the streets have is "Conjecture" and "Innuendo", as usual !
So all innocent people should ignore subpoenas. Got you.
Then all Trump needs to do is tell Barr to overturn the OLC policy so he can be indicted.
No innocent person would be intimidated by an investigation into their 'innocent' actions.
Legitimate subpoenas, no. These are political usurpations of power by the Democrats
Trump financial records including tax returns as a private person have no Constitutional relevance to the his actions as president.
that should be fought all the way to the Supreme Court as an invasion of his Constitutional rights
I didn’t say he was intimidated. I said no one should allow it and he isn’t
Who makes that distinction?
Nope. You should read Judge Amit Mehta's ruling which utterly refutes your uninformed posit.
You know this HOW?
That's exactly where it's going and based on precedent, Trump looses.
Neither did I.
Oh I think that there are quite a few people that ARE intimidated.
So when a murderer says he didn't do it, just drop it and move on? 😂
Sure
That's what it meant !
No and no one is saying that. We say indict (impeach) or shut up
every citizen including the president has Constitutional rights that Congress cannot abridge
Congress and the office of the president are co-equal entities. Trump is not a king, he is not a dictator, he is subject to the same laws we are all subject to. Simple as that. The right was screaming impeachment a week after Obama took office, with literally no crime in any way shape or form. Clinton was impeached because he lied about a blowjob. Obviously trump has done FAR worse than Obama and Clinton, so why exactly is the right wing opposed to it?
Exactly.
Clinton perjured himself, which is a far cry from simply "lied about a blowjob". He had that all important D behind his name; so it doesn't matter to the left.
At least they waited until he took office. The left started after Trump won the election. As for no crime: Fast & Furious, IRS scandal, Benghazi, and a host of other things obstructed and covered up by the Obama administration; and not one damn special prosecutor was appointed as the DOJs were both Obama yes people.
Obviously not. A special prosecutor with a host of Hillary and Obama sycophants from the private and federal government couldn't turn up shit on Trump; and they went into every detail of his private life. They brought charges against those associate with Trump on anything they could find; none of which had anything to do with collusion or obstruction. In the end they came up with nothing. Now the left is throwing another hissy fit. They want to investigate everything all over again using their biased narrow view.
Instead of concentrating on finding the best possible candidate and platform to run against Trump; their only goal is to make Trump so toxic no one will vote for him. Didn't work last time; and it won't work this time. All they are doing is showing independents like myself that we are better off voting 3rd party (again); or simply staying silent and voting for the lesser of two evils in Trump; instead of seeing what will come out of the ever increasing insane clown car of Democratic candidates.
Clinton was impeached because he lied about a blowjon
Besides the perjury, I notice you didn't mention the obstruction of justice.
Are you allowed to commit perjury and obstruct justice when accused of sexual harassment? Where is that exception listed in the criminal code?
No accusation of sexual harassment were ever made about Clinton -- at the time at least. Years later, I believe Ms. Lewinsky and only arrived (publicly at least) at that conclusion with the #MeToo movement in the past couple of years. Good for her but shame on you for trying to exploit her even now.
To be fair, there were other claims made, just not in the Lewinski case. So yes, Sean is wrong, the President did not commit perjury and obstruct justice in any of the cases where he was accused of sexual harassment. But we can't say the President was never accused of sexual harassment at the time since there were the accusations made by Paula Jones, Leslie Millwee, Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey.
So factually, Clinton was impeached over lying about a blowjob and asking the blowee to lie about blowing.
Wow!
Yes he did.
Clinton was impeached over lying about a blowjob and asking the blowee to lie about blowing.
He was impeached for perjury and obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case. Look it up.
Nice to see Democrats so cavalier about lying in sexual harassment suits. They don't really matter, right? Sort of like 9/11 was just some people doing some things, sexual harassment is just guys doing things, so perjury and obstructing justice is no big deal when its just women being harassed.
It's nice to see a conservative admitting that a POTUS can be investigated for actions prior to he inauguration. Guess that whole argument should be put to bed and the precedent for investigating Trump's business dealings is clear.
Only by using the technicality that the Paula Jones case tried to use Monica Lewinski's testimony in their sexual harassment case trying to prove a "pattern of abuse" even though Monica was not claiming she was ever abused or harassed.
Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:
Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:
That pretty much sums up to "Clinton was impeached over lying about a blowjob and asking the blowee to lie about blowing."
I was referring just to that case since that was what Sean meant.
Oh, no. You must have misunderstood. Only Dems should be held to standards and punished if they fall short. Republicans get free passes (unlimited). Didn't you know those were the "rulz?"
And since it worked so well for Tricky Dick, moron Shitbag & Co. thought it brilliant to give it another try.