Trump clearly obstructed justice, hundreds of former federal prosecutors say

[Rightguide]

There's over 300 federal prosecutors in the New York District alone and over ten thousand former federal prosecutors, 5000 presently in service. So they found 370 out of all of those who would have prosecuted the President on obstruction. 370 out of about 10,000, probably as many people per thousand who believe in aliens and UFOs as well.

 

[RobDownSouth]

There's over 300 federal prosecutors in the New York District alone....

Actually 220.

But hai, if NotAJ can insist one dollar one quarter and one nickel is "92 cents"... and Que can insist 2/5 is "more than half", I guess you can claim "220 is more than 300".

#MathsIsHard

https://pics.me.me/all-these-calculators-but-your-shit-still-doesnt-add-up-23859038.png

 

[VeraBad]

Breaking News: "The Biggest Loser's" tax returns.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html

New York Times just released 10 years of IL DOUCHE's business returns. It's good he had daddy's money and could go bankrupt so many times.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Lolol

Mr Successful Businessman...not so successful

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html

New York Times just released 10 years of IL DOUCHE's business returns. It's good he had daddy's money and could go bankrupt so many times.

 

[someoneyouknow]

The reason Mueller didn't want the Comey memos released publicly is because it would have allowed the con artist, and others, to change their stories.

Dreeben also tells the judge, according to the transcript, that Mueller's office was primarily concerned with Trump's behavior in the obstruction of justice investigation.

"In this instance, a person whose conduct is within the scope of the investigation is the President of the United States," Dreeben said in court.

Dreeben also told the judge about how the FBI had opened the obstruction investigation before Mueller's appointment.

"A witness who knows that a contemporaneous record was made of particular statements is aware that the reliability of that account is enhanced merely by virtue of the fact that it was recorded, and an individual who is seeking to shape or mold his own statements around those of others thereby acquires an advantage in doing so that he would not otherwise have," Dreeben added. "The more that other witnesses are aware of the details of what is in the memoranda and is not in the memoranda, the greater the risk that they're providing information that will assist the Special Counsel in completing the investigation and getting to the truth would be frustrated or impeded."​

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/07/politics/mueller-comey-memos/index.html

 

[bigsly]

Fake News right out of the box. Big surprise. They're not Trump's "returns" ("business" or personal), the info is simply from printouts of data from IRS tax transcripts from the years 1985-1994 that The New York Times somehow managed to "obtain" to obviously create another smear job.

Keep in mind, no matter what this 25-35 year old transcript data suggest, the IRS has never found that Trump's ever done anything illegal as far as his ACTUAL tax returns are concerned.

The two partisan points Trump's enemies seem most eager to promote out of this legally meaningless info is:

1. Trump is a loser, not the most successful businessman in the world as he loves to boast as being (wow, another big surprise Zzzzzz).

2. I've already heard some of the rapid malcontents gush over how this info is going to prove that Trump doesn't donate any $$ to charities, relatively speaking. Wow.

No conspiracy with the Russians.

Now no illegality with tax "returns".

And, still, the socialists are too chickenshit to impeach the bum on the only grounds they possibly - logically - can: obstruction of justice charges only the political system, not the legal system, has any chance of selling to enough partisans to impeach.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

LOLOLOLOL

Biggest #LOSER of his time. Over a billion. Six bankruptcies.

I love this factoid: the only time Trump Sr. ever posted a loss on his taxes was the one time he went in on a "deal" with #loser Donald lmao

Ha ha ha

He is literally the #biggest loser in the US. A TERRIBLE businessman. His whole image a lie. An incompetent. Pissed a billion dollars away. Failure after failure.

LOLOLOLOL

Fake News right out of the box. Big surprise. They're not Trump's "returns" ("business" or personal), the info is simply from printouts of data from IRS tax transcripts from the years 1985-1994 that The New York Times somehow managed to "obtain" to obviously create another smear job.

Keep in mind, no matter what this 25-35 year old transcript data suggest, the IRS has never found that Trump's ever done anything illegal as far as his ACTUAL tax returns are concerned.

The two partisan points Trump's enemies seem most eager to promote out of this legally meaningless info is:

1. Trump is a loser, not the most successful businessman in the world as he loves to boast as being (wow, another big surprise Zzzzzz).

2. I've already heard some of the rapid malcontents gush over how this info is going to prove that Trump doesn't donate any $$ to charities, relatively speaking. Wow.

No conspiracy with the Russians.

Now no illegality with tax "returns".

And, still, the socialists are too chickenshit to impeach the bum on the only grounds they possibly - logically - can: obstruction of justice charges only the political system, not the legal system, has any chance of selling to enough partisans to impeach.

 

[adrina]

Poor Donald. Always the victim. Truly a pity.

 

[Que]

Still waiting for Rory to start his "Impeachment Results Thread" along with the promise to "leave" when his hopes are dashed, as they were in the "Mueller Report Results" thread, which he has abandoned, as he does all his prognosticative failures.

 

[heathergives]

Still waiting for Rory to start his "Impeachment Results Thread" along with the promise to "leave" when his hopes are dashed, as they were in the "Mueller Report Results" thread, which he has abandoned, as he does all his prognosticative failures.

I know i'm new here, however I'm beginning to see who are the winners and who are the losers..

 

[Rightguide]

Actually 220.

But hai, if NotAJ can insist one dollar one quarter and one nickel is "92 cents"... and Que can insist 2/5 is "more than half", I guess you can claim "220 is more than 300".

#MathsIsHard

Did you count the Eastern and Northern Districts as well? How about the Western District?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Poor Donald. Always the victim. Truly a pity.

Like most White Nationalists, he has two modes: "winner" and "victim".

Not unlike our little White Nationalist contingent here.

 

[heathergives]

Like most White Nationalists, he has two modes: "winner" and "victim".

Not unlike our little White Nationalist contingent here.

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/123/d/b/rainbows_and_unicorns_by_surrenderdammit-d3fhuyc.png

 

[butters]

about time - first republican congressman to call for trump's impeachment
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/18/poli...nduct/index.html?cid=web-alerts&nsid=67383318

trump's gonna have a cow

Michigan GOP Rep. Justin Amash said Saturday he had concluded President Donald Trump committed "impeachable conduct" and accused Attorney General William Barr of intentionally misleading the public.

Amash's comments recommending Congress pursue obstruction of justice charges against Trump were the first instance of a sitting Republican in Congress calling for Trump's impeachment.

Amash is a rare GOP critic of Trump and previously said Trump's conduct in pressuring then-FBI Director James Comey could merit impeachment. In a Twitter thread on Saturday, Amash said he believed "few members of Congress even read" special counsel Robert Mueller's report and that the report itself established "multiple examples" of Trump committing obstruction of justice.
"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," Amash said in a string of messages on Twitter.

Justin Amash
✔
@justinamash
Here are my principal conclusions:
1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.
2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.
3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.
4. Few members of Congress have read the report.

 

[Kantarii]

I know i'm new here, however I'm beginning to see who are the winners and who are the losers..

That didn’t take too long.

 

[heathergives]

about time - first republican congressman to call for trump's impeachment
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/18/poli...nduct/index.html?cid=web-alerts&nsid=67383318

trump's gonna have a cow

I've said previously that I voted for Gary Johnson, as I felt that neither big-party candidate was worthy. Get over it though, 2016 is done, Trump is president for 4 years, for better or worse, so get over it. As conservative woman, I can deal with it, at least until 2020; at which time I'll vote for the candidate(s) that I feel are best for my interests; the (R) or (D) after their name(s) being relatively inconsequential.

That being said, I must say that the TDS has reached truly schizophrenic proportions. Trump, IMHO was (and is) a far better choice than the totally corrupt Billary, and I can hope that only both major parties get off of their indecisive asses and support SOMEONE that can work with Congress, unify the country and eliminate this horrid devisiveness.

 

[butters]

if you are prepared to ignore the divisive & probably more corrupt behaviour of a man you call your president when your system is designed to protect the populace from the kinds of actions of a man like him, then there's really no point in having that system. just toss it out and let him name himself king.

didn't you guys fight against a monarchy system? seems i recall something....

 

[heathergives]

That didn’t take too long.

I'm still learning, lol.

 

[butters]

personally, i believe the ballot boxes will have to do their job in 20. i find it encouraging, if very belated, that a republican congressman is actually standing up and speaking out in the interests of truth. it would be nice if the other, gutless (let's-wait-to-see-who-else-will stand-up-first-because-our-jobs, yanno) republicans would put country before party. i guess while a lot of those still play country at their parties, we've a long bloody wait.

 

[Que]

Somebody lost the link to his Mueller Report Results Thread where embarrassingly for Rory, the report "concluded" no such thing.

 

[butters]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/20/politics/mazars-trump-records/index.html?cid=web-alerts&nsid=31279966

"History has shown that congressionally-exposed criminal conduct by the President or a high-ranking Executive Branch official can lead to legislation," Mehta wrote, citing the Watergate investigation by the Senate.
"It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct -- past or present -- even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry," he added.
Mazars has seven days until it will have to comply with the subpoena, Mehta said in his opinion Monday, but the judge refused to halt the subpoena after that. Another court would have to do so. Trump's team has not yet appealed the ruling.


"The court is well aware that this case involves records concerning the private and business affairs of the President of the United States. But on the question of whether to grant a stay pending appeal, the President is subject to the same legal standard as any other litigant that does not prevail," Mehta wrote.

 

[cowslinger64]

Somebody lost the link to his Mueller Report Results Thread where embarrassingly for Rory, the report "concluded" no such thing.

You've got your giant head shoved so far up trumps ass, it'd be impossible for you to see anything...

 

[cowslinger64]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/20/politics/mazars-trump-records/index.html?cid=web-alerts&nsid=31279966

"History has shown that congressionally-exposed criminal conduct by the President or a high-ranking Executive Branch official can lead to legislation," Mehta wrote, citing the Watergate investigation by the Senate.
"It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct -- past or present -- even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry," he added.
Mazars has seven days until it will have to comply with the subpoena, Mehta said in his opinion Monday, but the judge refused to halt the subpoena after that. Another court would have to do so. Trump's team has not yet appealed the ruling.


"The court is well aware that this case involves records concerning the private and business affairs of the President of the United States. But on the question of whether to grant a stay pending appeal, the President is subject to the same legal standard as any other litigant that does not prevail," Mehta wrote.

Funny how the rwcj claims to revere the Constitution but has no problem with this administration taking a whiz on it.

 

[Aglaopheme]

personally, i believe the ballot boxes will have to do their job in 20. i find it encouraging, if very belated, that a republican congressman is actually standing up and speaking out in the interests of truth. it would be nice if the other, gutless (let's-wait-to-see-who-else-will stand-up-first-because-our-jobs, yanno) republicans would put country before party. i guess while a lot of those still play country at their parties, we've a long bloody wait.

Sobering thought

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-whit...-of-democracy-59996229813?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma

Jeff Daniels: 'If the big gamble is to go all the way to 2020… and lose, it’s the end of democracy’

 

[Rightguide]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/20/politics/mazars-trump-records/index.html?cid=web-alerts&nsid=31279966

"History has shown that congressionally-exposed criminal conduct by the President or a high-ranking Executive Branch official can lead to legislation," Mehta wrote, citing the Watergate investigation by the Senate.
"It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct -- past or present -- even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry," he added.
Mazars has seven days until it will have to comply with the subpoena, Mehta said in his opinion Monday, but the judge refused to halt the subpoena after that. Another court would have to do so. Trump's team has not yet appealed the ruling.

That Obama apparatchik will be overturned in appeal.


"The court is well aware that this case involves records concerning the private and business affairs of the President of the United States. But on the question of whether to grant a stay pending appeal, the President is subject to the same legal standard as any other litigant that does not prevail," Mehta wrote.

That Obama stooge will be overturned in appeal.