Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence effects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct.
The term "corruptly" sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty...
In other words, it's Mueller (not just Barr) who is arguing that you need to show concrete evidence of corrupt intent, not just entertain a charge because of the possibility (or the allegation) allows for it.
_______
Secondly there is quite literally no bombshells in the report. As has been pointed out by many already today (from both sides) the public reporting of events and the events within the report are fairly inclusive. To the degree that there might be some differences it would be that there were reports of things that might be in the report, that were not actually found in the report.
_______
Lastly, many of the things listed as possible areas of obstruction can actually be seen more specifically as an effort to control the public perception of the investigation rather than actually trying to obstruct the investigation.
- Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence
- Publicly questioning whether Russia was responsible
- Denying publicly that he had business ties to Russia
- President criticizing investigation on social media
- Publicly criticizing Session's recusal
- Telling McGahn to tell media that he had not been told to fire Mueller
- Criticizing potential witnesses such as Cohen
- While saying good things about Manafort and others
Not sure why the Special Counsel report would even include these events in this report. None of these things are issues of law or issues of obstruction of an investigation. They are openly political manners in which elected officials use their bully pulpit to control a narrative. Anyone charged with any sort of crime is free (again, unless there is a gag order issued by a judge) to criticize the investigation, criticize the potential witnesses, and attempt to take their case to the public. It might be frowned upon by many, but it's not illegal.
97 comments:
This was never really about Russian election interference.
It was about trying to bring down Trump.
Payback is going to be a bitch, and rightly so.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders admitted that she misled the press after Trump fired former FBI Director James Comey
At a press conference immediately following Comey’s firing, Sanders told a reporter that “countless members of the FBI” had expressed a loss of faith in the FBI director prior to his termination. When questioned by Mueller’s team, she reportedly said that it was a “slip of the tongue” comment she made in the “heat of the moment” and was factually baseless.
Impeachment hearings are going to happen.
Nothing in this is good news for the President.
Your talking points are very appalling.
Trump personally discussed WikiLeaks email dump
Ed Pilkington Ed Pilkington
Mueller floats evidence in his report that Trump was personally involved in discussions over the WikiLeaks dumps of Democratic emails hacked by Russia.
The report says that when WikiLeaks began publishing emails stolen from the Democratic National Convention in July 2016, Trump’s campaign aides “reacted with enthusiasm to reports of the hacks”.
“[REDACTED] discussed with campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release the hacked material. Some witnesses said that Trump himself discussed the upcoming releases.”
Rick Gates, Trump’s former deputy campaign manager, told Mueller that in the summer of 2016, a few months before the presidential election: “The campaign was planning a communications strategy based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks”.
Updated at 12.46pm EDT
Facebook Twitter
12.43pm
In Fox News land, there is nothing which damages Trump in this slew of disclosures, says Guardian fellow Lauren Aratani, who has been watching the right-wing news channel.
Roger...
There is literally nothing in this report of substance that we didn't already know... other than Team Mueller finding no evidence of conspiracy or coordination between Russians and Trump.
As far as obstruction, again. Mueller's report is nothing more than a synopsis of what we already knew, without any acknowledgement one way or the other that it could be proven.
But hey, Democrats want to play this game? Impeach a President over obstruction of a probe that found no underlying crime... when such an act was not recommended by Special Counsel and flat out Rejected by the DOJ?
Good luck!!!
Best chance Trump has of winning reelection.
Roger
So what your little story is "really" arguing:
New reports that Wikileaks was going to publish emails
+
Trump talks about it.
=
Trump committed a crime
So how does that work, Roger? Nobody can talk about the fact that Wikileaks was going to release emails?
Roger AmickApril 18, 2019 at 1:02 PM
Impeachment hearings are going to happen"
I really hope that for the first time you get this one right.
Get the popcorn and watch the Democrats self-immolate on national TV.
Barr admitted that he differed with Muller.
At WH, @KellyannePolls says Pres Trump in a "great mood" and it's time to move on to important issues. Says the 22-month Mueller investigation was a political proctology exam and we emerged with a clean bill of health. "It's over folks," she says of "big lie" accusations.
I think the people will believe the president more and the media less since the president was right all along and the media lied to the public for the last 2 1/2 years.
New reports that Wikileaks was going to publish emails
+
Trump talks about it.
= I don't know anything about Wikileaks.
Legally speaking it's not a crime.
Politically motivated support for an illegal hacking of the DNC is not good news for the President.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Barr admitted that he differed with Muller.
Yes but in evaluating evidence for obstruction they assumed Mueller legal theory was correct.
They still couldn't find evidence of obstruction.
Politically motivated support for an illegal hacking of the DNC is not good news for the President.
After the Democrats lied for 2 1/2 years I don't think the DNC will get much sympathy.
With the report out, more calls for Adam Schiff to resign, given his constant claim that he has evidence of collusion. Robert Mueller disagrees.
Special counsel Robert Mueller's report lays out in great detail how President Donald Trump repeatedly tried to interfere in the Russia probe and states that investigators could not confidently conclude that Trump did not obstruct justice. Muller's investigation and in his opinion, that he did obstruct justice, but that he could not indict a sitting President.
Far from the “complete and total exoneration” the president has claimed in recent weeks, the report describes unflattering behavior that is likely to fuel Democratic investigations and shape the 2020 campaign narrative. It recounts Trump's repeated attempts to fire Mueller and his anger when those efforts became public, details an effort to pressure staffers to send an email exonerating him, notes that the president had more knowledge of an aide’s potentially criminal behavior than he may have let on and stresses that the president seemed fearful that FBI investigators may uncover crimes — even if they weren’t related to Russian collusion.
His own lawyers told him that he would be breaking the law and they would resign if he fired Muller.
So now we impeach people for "unflattering behavior". Good luck with that.
I want stroke, McCabe, Muller , Comey and others in an open Congressional Q & A.
Mueller Report. "Orange Man Not Bad".
It paints a picture of a president being justifiable outraged and angry by being unjustly accused of a crime he did not commit based on rumor and innuendo that originated from his political opponents.
This moment the dossier show up it should have been put in the round circular file and should have never started an investigation.
Trump was right to call it a witch hunt.
During his morning press conference, Attorney General William Barr explicitly said that special counsel Robert Mueller had not left it to Congress to determine whether Donald Trump was guilty of obstruction. Barr lied.
He fired Comey because he would not stop the investigation into the Russian government intervention into the election.
He tried to fire Muller many times, and his own lawyers threatened to resign.
The house of representatives has the right to investigate and determine if he committed high crime and misdemeanors.
Once again Scott, Muller tried to get Trump to submit to questions. He kept saying that he would testify under oath, in public, in private he declined to testify under oath.
Barr admitted that he differed with Muller.
And he is ultimately Mueller's boss.
If Mueller wanted to make a call, then Mueller should have made a call. The fact is that he didn't. He clearly explains why making the obstruction claim in this situation is dependent on "corrupt intent" and specifically explains that this is a very high standard and difficult to prove.
I suspect that Mueller might have been leaning that way, but ultimately he might have been the one seen as responsible for actually trying to "charge" him with that crime if he were to be impeached or once he was out of office.
I think the idea of "saying" in a report that he committed obstruction and knowing that he could be made to try to prove the claim in court are two different things.
Fact is that nobody has EVER in history brought this sort of obstruction case to court. An obstruction that basically is a bunch of legal activities that prosecutors are going to try to prove were done with "corrupt intent".
If I was calling for impeachment if I disagreed with him, I would be wrong.
He kept saying that he would testify under oath, in public, in private he declined to testify under oath.
He tried to stop all of the investigations for personal reasons, and with criminal intent.
Cuckoo Cuckoo for cocoa puffs
Once again Scott, Muller tried to get Trump to submit to questions.
Then he should have subpoenaed him. But as much as they claim they had a right to, I think the idea of going to court and quite possibly losing wasn't something that Mueller wanted to do.
Again... obstruction that relies "solely" on intent over an investigation that was basically a 22 month witch hunt (by all reasonable accounts) is not a very good criminal case for a grown up prosecutor to pursue.
An man innocent of the charges leveled at him, who did nothing technically illegal, should be charged because people believe he had "corrupt" intent.
The only "corrupt intent" here was starting the investigation in the first place.
Trump's personal political agenda, to try and stop the investigation, he had "corrupt intent", that is not a crime. But to stop the investigation had criminal intent.
He tried to stop all of the investigations for personal reasons, and with criminal intent.
Actually Roger. Had he wanted to stop it. He could have legally stopped it. It was in his power to stop it. He just needed to fire a person or two and then hire someone to do that bidding.
Instead
He turned over every bit of information requested of him
He encouraged all of his aids and employees to fully cooperate
He chose not to prevent any of the report from being made public on either issues of privacy or privilege.
What you (and others) don't like is that he worked very hard to undermine the credibility of Special Counsel. That's 100% of what is listed in the 10 possible events of obstruction.
Not acts of "obstruction" but rather acts of "undermining".
The first is determined to be criminal.
The second is not a criminal action at all.
In real lives of real Americans the Economy is much more important.
I still can't believe that someone who claims to be a rational thinking man, will say something like this.
The only "corrupt intent" here was starting the investigation in the first place.
Just a couple days after he fired Comey, the Department of Justice initiated the investigation into the Russian intervention into the election.
They also saw him reveal secret information to the Russian ambassador in the oval office.
The Left is more angry at this Loss.
Roger is moving goal posts again, changing terms.
No Collution .
His own fucking lawyer said that this was illegal.
Had he wanted to stop it. He could have legally stopped it. It was in his power to stop it.
The President is not a dictator, he cannot stop the investigation, or face impeachment for breaking the law.
" They also saw him reveal secret information to the Russian ambassador in the oval office. "
Is that a crime?
Yet, Muller missed it being a crime?
Why?
Collusion is not a crime! It's nothing but a talking point, you keep repeating in an attempt to hide the real crime objection of justice
Objection of justice is a crime.
English error.
Breath slower lace wearing Lynn.
"he cannot stop the investigation, or face impeachment for breaking the law."
" They also saw him reveal secret information to the Russian ambassador in the oval office. "
Is that a crime?
If you give a hostile nation, top secret information is quite likely treason.
He kept saying that he would testify under oath, in public, in private he declined to testify under oath.
His written testimony was under oath.
In this country, you still can't be charge with obstruction of justice by refusing to incriminate yourself.
What investigation did he Stop ? 🎈
If attempting to stop the investigation, is objection of justice, and he may face impeachment for breaking the law."
"If you give a hostile nation, top secret information is quite likely treason."
Nope, wrong on the US Constitution , again.
We have painstakingly explain this to you before.
The President is the keeper of Screts of the US, he can tell whom ever he wants without legal problem.
Just like Obama did.
If ....
Where are you getting your nonsense from Rog.
"real crime objection of justice
Objection of justice is a crime. "
100 % sure there is no crime.
Roger's understanding of the Law and the US Constitution is fatally flawed .
If attempting to stop the investigation,
He didn't even attempt to stop the investigation.
Your hypocrisy has reached epic proportions.
Actually Roger. Had he wanted to stop it. He could have legally stopped it. It was in his power to stop it. He just needed to fire a person or two and then hire someone to do that bidding.
If a Democratic President had fired his Attorney General for not following his illegal directions, you would support impeachment.
His own lawyer said that it is illegal to file Muller. Your saying that he could have legally fired Muller.
WTF is the matter with you?
Actually Roger. Had he wanted to stop it. He could have legally stopped it. It was in his power to stop it. He just needed to fire a person or two and then hire someone to do that bidding.
Nixon did that before, the Saturday night massacre. It lead to people like Barry Goldwater who went to the White House and told him that he would be convicted of impeachment.
Dictators in history have destroyed democracies. Donald Trump has to be stopped.
WTF is the matter with you?
You are seriously asking that about ANYONE? look in the mirror cray cray
The White House council is not the presidents lawyer. And he's wrong. It's certainly within Trump's power for fire the special council. However, such an action could have been impeachable given a hostile Congress.
The fact that Trump didn't met cooler heads prevail. One of them being the president himself after he calmed down.
CH is right. If Trump really wanted to he could have had is own Saturday night massacre to do it,
he cannot stop the investigation
Yes, legally and constitutionally he could have stopped it.
Sorry Roger...
No collusion.
No obstruction.
Everyone's opinion
My opinion echoed by the DOJ opinion.
WASHINGTON (REUTERS) - U.S. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said after the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on Thursday that impeachment of President Donald Trump was not worthwhile with an election coming up in 18 months.
"Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point. Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months and the American people will make a judgment,” Hoyer told CNN.
(Reporting by Doina Chiacu; Editing by David Alexander)
If you really want to be seen as honest, you need to quit using the collusion spin. It's not a crime.
Barr lied. I'm not a lawyer, neither are any of you. But the actual words matter.
William Barr today
The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Accurate Mueller
The investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office's judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete.
Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign---deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on the events described in the report.
Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
Read it yourself. https://www.scribd.com/document/406729844/Mueller-Report
He tried to collude, but he didn't collude with the Russians.
"The president's efforts to ininfluencthe investigation were mostly unsuccessful but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the present declined to carry out orders or acceded to his request"
He wanted to fire Muller.
He got something else that he wanted, was an Attorney General who would accede to his requests.
Barr will go down in history as the most dangerous and dishonest AJ ever before .
Joe Sudbay
@JoeSudbay
At 08/02/16 cigar bar meeting, Manafort, Gates and Kilimnik discussed the Trump campaign "messaging and its internal polling. According to Gates, it also included discussion of 'battleground" states,' which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota"
Manafort had several meetings with some Russians with polling from several swing states. He was the campaign manager for Trump when he had three meetings.
"AJ" wtf Alky, drink up🍺🍺🍺
Good, because AG Barr is doing his Job.
So is your new spin, or stagger is that Mueller missed information that IF he had it would have proven Collusion ?
If you really want to be seen as honest, you need to quit using the collusion spin. It's not a crime.
There's no obstruction without collusion.
No collusion. Scott you used to be better than now. Collusion is not a crime. It's just political spin, and you just keep spouting the party line.
No obstruction. Only if you believe in the deep state conspiracy theories. Just trying to fire Muller, may have been objection of justice, in impeachment hearings in the house committee on intelligence.
Muller seems to be saying that, the house oversight committee because it does not exonerate the President, should hold hearings on the objection of justice allegations.
No collusion. Scott you used to be better than now. Collusion is not a crime. It's just political spin, and you just keep spouting the party line.
No obstruction. Only if you believe in the deep state conspiracy theories. Just trying to fire Muller, may have been objection of justice, in impeachment hearings in the house committee on intelligence.
Muller seems to be saying that, the house oversight committee because it does not exonerate the President, should hold hearings on the objection of justice allegations.
Your lack of ability to think leads you to state a complete falsehood. (There's no obstruction without collusion.)
Collusion is not a crime!!!!!
Objection of justice, is multiple offenses, and it does not involve collusion.
No obstruction. Only if you believe in the deep state conspiracy theories.
Na, all you have to do is take Mueller's word for,
In order for Trump's actions to be obstruction you have to prove corrupt intent.
In order to prove corrupt intent you have to have an underlying crime that Trump was guilty of that motivates the obstruction.
That underlying crime was suppose to be collusion.
Well there's no crime he was guilty of to provide the corrupt intent.
He was acting like an innocent man wrongfully accused of a non-existent crime.
Which is why Trump wasn't charged with obstruction.
Which is why Trump wasn't charged with obstruction.
Pay attention once again.
Muller didn't believe that the President could be indicted. If he had decided to indict him, it would go to a court. It could take a year or longer. It could have been a political issue in the next election.
Once more. There is evidence of objection of justice. It appears that he wants the house of representatives to investigate further and perhaps even impeachment hearings.
That underlying crime was suppose to be collusion.
That's just more proof that you don't understand the law.
If a Democratic President had fired his Attorney General for not following his illegal directions, you would support impeachment.
His own lawyer said that it is illegal to file Muller. Your saying that he could have legally fired Muller.
Well Trump never fired an AG for not following instructions. And his own counsel did not tell him it was illegal, he told him not to do it as a matter of practicality. So he didn't.
But let's assume for a second that firing of a special counsel is in fact "illegal". If someone told a friend. Hey, let's go rob a bank today, and the friend told him no let's not do that, and so neither of them decided to go rob the bank.
Was a crime committed?
Roger - these are Mueller's own words:
The term "corruptly" sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty...
...Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence effects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct.
To the degree that some argue that there can be no obstruction without a crime, I disagree on fact. See Scooter Libby as an example. That being said, Scooter Libby was accused of Obstruction on the allegations that he lied to Investigators on multiple occasions.
But the potential obstruction charges on Trump were in regards to otherwise "legal" activity that Special Counsel would have to prove was done with corrupt intent. As Mueller (and other legal analysts) suggest, if there are competing possibilities regarding the motive, you are not going to be able to prove that intent to be corrupt (at least not beyond reasonable doubt).
So when Mueller suggests that Trump being innocent of the underlying charges (which he freely admits in this statement - so keep a note on that), Mueller suggests that you have to take that into consideration when you attempt to prove corrupt intent.
I think that some people in the Special Counsel were desperate to come up with something, and that obstruction was the closest thing that they had. Mueller couldn't justifiably pull the trigger, so he did the next worse thing, by implying a criminal act that he was unwilling to actually accuse him of.
Volume 1 page 63
[ Papadopoulos is the origin of the Russia investigation. When the FBI got wind of the overtures he was receiving from Russian agents, it kicked off the events that brought us to today. What this section establishes is that although the Russians whom Papadopoulos met were offering him dirt on Hillary Clinton, no one involved recalls discussing that. Papadopoulos and others, including Trump advisers Sam Clovis and Stephen Miller, now say they don't recall discussing the Russian offers at the time Papadopoulos was receiving them.
There goes the deep state conspiracy theories.
https://media.npr.org/assets/news/2019/04/muellerreport.pdf#page=Volume%20I%20page%2093
In your opinion again
Mueller couldn't justifiably pull the trigger,
https://media.npr.org/assets/news/2019/04/muellerreport.pdf
Objection of justice
Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
[ The special counsel's office acknowledges that President Trump may have obstructed justice but that it can't make that determination with the evidence it has. It left the matter unresolved, and ultimately Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein decided that Trump had not broken the law and will not face prosecution.
And the dilemma. Obstruction is hard to prove.
This is why, imho he wants the house of representatives committee needs to dig deeper.
The obstruction dilemma
In the report: Page Volume II, page 7
Several features of the conduct we investigated distinguish it from typical obstruction-of-justice cases. First, the investigation concerned the President, and some of his actions, such as firing the FBI director, involved facially lawful acts within his Article II authority, which raises constitutional issues discussed below. At the same time, the President's position as the head of the Executive Branch provided him with unique and powerful means of influencing official proceedings, subordinate officers, and potential witnesses-all of which is relevant to a potential obstruction-of-justice analysis. Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct. Third, many of the President's acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, took place in public view. That circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the obstruction laws. If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony, the harm to the justice system's integrity is the same..
The bottom line is that he is not out of the woods yet.
Just one more time. Please send the conspiracy theories out of your head.. This is just f+++++g crazy.
I think that some people in the Special Counsel were desperate to come up with something, and that obstruction was the closest thing that they had. Mueller couldn't justifiably pull the trigger, so he did the next worse thing, by implying a criminal act that he was unwilling to actually accuse him of.
Muller was in charge. He would not have allowed any one to pursue a political agenda. He dismissed the two people who were exchanging email attacks on the President.
@dbongino
If you’re really interested in what obstruction of justice looks like then check out Hillary’s team deleting those thousands of emails and electronically wiping their servers clean.
and funny that if the Russians actually hacked Hillary's server the FBI and Mueller were never given access to it to investigate ...
Objection of justice
Seriously Roger...
It's obstruction, not objection.
This is not me. From the report
..a criminal accusation against a sitting President would .. potentially preempt constitutional process for addressing presidential misconduct.
I have been telling you this all damn day.
https://media.npr.org/assets/news/2019/04/muellerreport.pdf
obstruction
Orange
Origin
Auto fill sometimes catches me.
You know that I have a large vocabulary and I spell better than rrb.
Muller was in charge.
Mueller not Muller...
And it's not a conspiracy theory, it's just a theory. I stand behind what I said. 22 months, 30 million, and no evidence of the underlying crime.
You think they wanted to end things empty handed?
They had people who wanted a pound of Trump flesh.
Obstruction.
You happy now?
it's just a theory, you have used to stand behind a pathological liar, who has lied more than any other President in history.
You used to be a free trade believer.
You used to understand that Russia is not our friend or ally.
The Popodopolis meeting was the reason for the investigation. It is in the report. You still believe that the dossier was the first and primary reason for the investigation.
Look, it was initiated to investigate the Russians intervention in the last election. Not to delegitimize him. Trump is always afraid of being seen as an illegitimate President.
You have turned 180° on a dozen issues, for reasons I just don't understand.
You choose to be the Coldheartedtruth, a moderate conservative, who used to look at things with a wider perspective. Not anymore.
Obstruction.
You happy now?
Nope...
It's "no obstruction"
Hehehehehe!
If the Democrats pursue impeachment hearings, they have to be very careful.
Trump is a survivor, like him or not.
He did get help from the Russians. Clinton was a terrible candidate. The Democrats have to chose a likable candidate.
Younger than me, and very careful about giving Trump someone he cant demonize.
The Popodopolis meeting was the reason for the investigation. It is in the report.
You mean Papadopoulos?
Papadopoulos met with Joseph Mifsud, who contrary to popular belief had more ties to British intelligence than Russian intelligence. Mifsud was a member of the European Council on Foreign relations as well as claiming to be a member of the Clinton Foundation.
Papadopoulos told Mueller that he was encouraged to meet with Mifsud by a person who later was identified as either a former (or current) FBI informant.
Btw... Mifsud has now "disappeared". So we will probably never actually know the truth about that meeting.
Good luck with "no obstruction"
Exonerate
You better understand why that word is going to resonate through history.
This is a spelling bee!
Disappeared: 6 November 2017
Whitewater!!!!@
Someone I know, actually from my family reunion, has a long list of people who were associated with the Clinton family, have disappeared or dead.
You still believe that Whitewater was a criminal enterprise?
Put down the PBR
Orange
Origin
Orange
Origin
Orange
Origin
Alzheimer's
If the Democrats pursue impeachment hearings, they have to be very careful.
With Steny Hoyer already coming out against the idea of impeachment, and Pelosi previously stating that she would only support a bipartisan call for impeachment... it looks like your two top Democrats in the House are going to shy away from that.
Here is my advice for you. Take a deep breath. Get a good night sleep. Enjoy your Easter weekend. By Monday, you will realize that once you toss aside the spin, the rhetoric, and the wishful punditry...
What you have is a 22 month, $30 million Special Counsel investigation complete with a staff of legal bulldogs, and they came up completely 100% short in the quest that they were given... to find Trump/Russia conspiracy and then haul away Trump's inner circle in handcuffs.
You lost. For most of the past two years you thought they would find collusion. They didn't. Plain and simple. You lost.
The booby prize is that Mueller decided "not" to make a conclusion about the portion of the investigation that would not have even had existed if it wasn't for the silly investigation into a conspiracy theory.
It's like the old Gordon Lightfoot song...
Sometimes you think it's a sin... when you feel like you're winning, when you're losing again!
Trump said he couldn’t remember 36 times in response to special counsel Robert Mueller’s questions
In written responses under oath, the president said his memory of crucial questions was hazy.
Sometimes you think it's a sin... when you feel like you're winning, when you're losing again!
Sometimes you think it's a sin... when you feel like you're winning, when you're losing again!
That's clever. Where did you come up with that?
https://www.trumpstore.com/collections/home-candles
Get your wife a gift from the Trumpstore
I enjoy using your words against you.
It's quite easy.
White House counsel John Dean famously told Nixon that there was a cancer within the presidency and that it was growing. What the Mueller report disturbingly shows, with crystal clarity, is that today there is a cancer in the presidency: President Donald J. Trump.
Congress now bears the solemn constitutional duty to excise that cancer without delay.
Actually the cancer started in the Obama administration and grew to where it threatened the Trump presidency. It's beginning needs to be exposed and the sources removed. This is now starting.
Doctor Barr has began that operation and the left-wing media and democrats will be shamed for their coup attempt.
President Trump is amazing to have survived such an evil force.
The Constitution commands the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It requires him to affirm that he will “faithfully execute the Office of President” and to promise to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” And as a result, by taking the presidential oath of office, a president assumes the duty not simply to obey the laws, civil and criminal, that all citizens must obey, but also to be subjected to higher duties — what some excellent recent legal scholarship has termed the “fiduciary obligations of the president.”
He has not done anything correctly and has violated his sworn in I do.
Fiduciaries are people who hold legal obligations of trust, like a trustee of a trust. A trustee must act in the beneficiary’s best interests and not his own. If the trustee fails to do that, the trustee can be removed, even if what the trustee has done is not a crime.
So too with a president. The Constitution provides for impeachment and removal from office for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” But the history and context of the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” makes clear that not every statutory crime is impeachable, and not every impeachable offense need be criminal. As Charles L. Black Jr. put it in a seminal pamphlet on impeachment in 1974, “assaults on the integrity of the processes of government” count as impeachable, even if they are not criminal.
Post a Comment