I have proof that the Muller report found no collusion

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What lies do I tell Popeye?

The ones you post in here!

Here’s one, is there evidence against trump to impeach?

The fact that you and others here have your heads so far up your ass that you think that T-Rump has been exonerated doesn't make me a liar. And the fact that you are not bright enough to understand why the house Democrats are going slow on impeachment speaks volumes to your intellectual challenges.

Why didn’t you answer the question? Hmm that’s what makes you a liar.

Not answering a question makes me a liar? That is beyond fucking stupid. The answer is yes I do as any others. There is a good deal of evidence, as outlined by Mueller that he engaged in obstruction. But what you dim wits can't seem to grasp is that the Constitution does not require that he be found guilty of a crime to be impeached. He is incompetent, erratic wannabee dictators who alienates our allies and kisses up to tyrants -weakening and undermining the US and that in itself is enough.

See you lie, you’re trying to say you have evidence when mueller said he didn’t! That’s incredible. Name your evidence

If you actually believe that Mueller said that he had no evidence of obstruction you are a bigger fucking moron than I thought.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Or obstruction

The proof is that the demp are not impeaching

It's that simple.

Talk is cheap

GOP attorneys release a devastating video that lays out the case for Trump’s prosecution

So why no hearing?

No hearing? What the fuck do you think that those committees in the house are doing right now?

I’m not around tv , what are they doing?

Your not "around TV? Apparently you have internet service. Do you read news papers? I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you. I'm not a special ed. teacher.

 

[jc456]

The ones you post in here!

Here’s one, is there evidence against trump to impeach?

The fact that you and others here have your heads so far up your ass that you think that T-Rump has been exonerated doesn't make me a liar. And the fact that you are not bright enough to understand why the house Democrats are going slow on impeachment speaks volumes to your intellectual challenges.

Why didn’t you answer the question? Hmm that’s what makes you a liar.

Not answering a question makes me a liar? That is beyond fucking stupid. The answer is yes I do as any others. There is a good deal of evidence, as outlined by Mueller that he engaged in obstruction. But what you dim wits can't seem to grasp is that the Constitution does not require that he be found guilty of a crime to be impeached. He is incompetent, erratic wannabee dictators who alienates our allies and kisses up to tyrants -weakening and undermining the US and that in itself is enough.

See you lie, you’re trying to say you have evidence when mueller said he didn’t! That’s incredible. Name your evidence

If you actually believe that Mueller said that he had no evidence of obstruction you are a bigger fucking moron than I thought.

He didn’t say he did! So, lie again and tell us your evidence! No walk, all talk

 

[jc456]

Or obstruction

The proof is that the demp are not impeaching

It's that simple.

Talk is cheap

GOP attorneys release a devastating video that lays out the case for Trump’s prosecution

So why no hearing?

No hearing? What the fuck do you think that those committees in the house are doing right now?

I’m not around tv , what are they doing?

Your not "around TV? Apparently you have internet service. Do you read news papers? I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you. I'm not a special ed. teacher.

I’m at my cottage! I have no tv

 

[jc456]

Or obstruction

The proof is that the demp are not impeaching

It's that simple.

Talk is cheap

GOP attorneys release a devastating video that lays out the case for Trump’s prosecution

So why no hearing?

No hearing? What the fuck do you think that those committees in the house are doing right now?

I’m not around tv , what are they doing?

Your not "around TV? Apparently you have internet service. Do you read news papers? I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you. I'm not a special ed. teacher.

On my mobile, yep

 

[jc456]

Or obstruction

The proof is that the demp are not impeaching

It's that simple.

Talk is cheap

GOP attorneys release a devastating video that lays out the case for Trump’s prosecution

So why no hearing?

No hearing? What the fuck do you think that those committees in the house are doing right now?

I still haven’t seen anything on the internet?

 

[jc456]

What lies do I tell Popeye?

The ones you post in here!

Here’s one, is there evidence against trump to impeach?

The fact that you and others here have your heads so far up your ass that you think that T-Rump has been exonerated doesn't make me a liar. And the fact that you are not bright enough to understand why the house Democrats are going slow on impeachment speaks volumes to your intellectual challenges.

Why didn’t you answer the question? Hmm that’s what makes you a liar.

Not answering a question makes me a liar? That is beyond fucking stupid. The answer is yes I do as any others. There is a good deal of evidence, as outlined by Mueller that he engaged in obstruction. But what you dim wits can't seem to grasp is that the Constitution does not require that he be found guilty of a crime to be impeached. He is incompetent, erratic wannabee dictators who alienates our allies and kisses up to tyrants -weakening and undermining the US and that in itself is enough.

See you lie, you’re trying to say you have evidence when mueller said he didn’t! That’s incredible. Name your evidence

TheProgressivePatriot where’s your evidence big guy?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The ones you post in here!

Here’s one, is there evidence against trump to impeach?

The fact that you and others here have your heads so far up your ass that you think that T-Rump has been exonerated doesn't make me a liar. And the fact that you are not bright enough to understand why the house Democrats are going slow on impeachment speaks volumes to your intellectual challenges.

Why didn’t you answer the question? Hmm that’s what makes you a liar.

Not answering a question makes me a liar? That is beyond fucking stupid. The answer is yes I do as any others. There is a good deal of evidence, as outlined by Mueller that he engaged in obstruction. But what you dim wits can't seem to grasp is that the Constitution does not require that he be found guilty of a crime to be impeached. He is incompetent, erratic wannabee dictators who alienates our allies and kisses up to tyrants -weakening and undermining the US and that in itself is enough.

See you lie, you’re trying to say you have evidence when mueller said he didn’t! That’s incredible. Name your evidence

TheProgressivePatriot where’s your evidence big guy?

Trump Would Have Been Charged With Obstruction If He Weren't President, Former U.S. Prosecutors Say | HuffPost

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf

Spend more time reading and less time prattling on about that which you know little

In analyzing the President 's efforts to have McGahn deny that he had been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice:
a. Obstructive act. The President's repeated efforts to get McGahn to create a record denying that the President had directed him to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness ifhe testified consistently with his memory, rather than with what the record said.
There is some evidence that at the time the New York Times and Washington Post stories were published in late January 2018, the President believed the stories were wrong and that he had never told McGahn to have Rosenstein remove the Special Counsel. The President correctly understood that McGahn had not told the President directly that he planned to resign. Tn addition , the President told Priebus and Porter that he had not sought to terminate the Special Counsel , and in the Oval Office meeting with McGahn , the President said, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire."' That evidence could indicate that the President was not attempting to persuade McGahn to change his story but was instead offering his own-but different-recollection of the substance of his June 2017 conversations with McGahn and McGahn 's reaction to them.
Other evidence cuts against that understanding of the President 's conduct. As previously described, see Volume IT, Section ILE, supra, substantial evidence supports McGahn's account that the President had directed him to have the Special Counsel removed, including the timing and context of the President's directive ; the manner in which McGahn reacted; and the fact that the President had been told the conflicts were insubstantial, were being considered by the Department of Justice , and should be raised with the President's personal counsel rather than brought to McGahn. In addition, the President's subsequent denials that he had told McGahn to have the Specia l Counsel removed were carefully worded. When first asked about the New York Times story, the President said, "Fake news, folks. Fake news. A typical New York Times fake story." And when the President spoke with McGahn in the Oval Office, he focused on whether he had used the word "fire, " saying, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire"' and "Did T say the word 'fire'?" The President's assertion in the Oval Office meeting that he had never directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed thus runs counter to the evidence .
Tn addition, even if the President sincerely disagreed with McGahn's memory of the June 17, 2017 events, the evidence indicates that the President knew by the time of the Oval Office
828 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5. Kelly did not recall discussing the Oval Office meeting with the President after the fact. Kelly 8/2/18 302, at 2. Handwritten notes taken by Kelly state, "Don[:] Mueller discussion in June. - Bannon Priebus - came out okay." WH0000l7685 (Kelly 2/6/18 Notes).
829 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5 (agent note).
118
U.S. Department of Justice At:tarttey '.Varlc Pr01hiet // May Catttaitt Material Preteetea Uttaer Fea. R. Criffl. P. 6Ee)
meeting that McGahn's account differed and that McGahn was firm in his views . Shortly after the story broke, the President's counsel told McGahn 's counsel that the President wanted McGahn to make a statement denying he had been asked to fire the Special Counsel, but McGahn responded through his counsel that that aspect of the story was accurate and he therefore could not comply with the President's request. The President then directed Sanders to tell McGahn to correct the story, but McGahn told her he would not do so because the story was accurate in reporting on the President's order . Consistent with that position, McGahn never issued a correction. More than a week later, the President brought up the issue again with Porter, made comments indicating the President thought McGahn had leaked the story, and directed Porter to have McGahn create a record denying that the President had tried to fire the Special Counsel. At that point, the President said he might "have to get rid of' McGahn ifMcGahn did not comply. McGahn again refused and told Porter, as he had told Sanders and as his counsel had told the President 's counsel , that the President had in fact ordered him to have Rosenstein remove the Special Counsel. That evidence indicates that by the time of the Oval Office meeting the President was aware that McGahn did not think the story was false and did not want to issue a statement or create a written record denying facts that McGahn believed to be true . The President nevertheless persisted and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate.
b

 

[jc456]

The fact that you and others here have your heads so far up your ass that you think that T-Rump has been exonerated doesn't make me a liar. And the fact that you are not bright enough to understand why the house Democrats are going slow on impeachment speaks volumes to your intellectual challenges.

Why didn’t you answer the question? Hmm that’s what makes you a liar.

Not answering a question makes me a liar? That is beyond fucking stupid. The answer is yes I do as any others. There is a good deal of evidence, as outlined by Mueller that he engaged in obstruction. But what you dim wits can't seem to grasp is that the Constitution does not require that he be found guilty of a crime to be impeached. He is incompetent, erratic wannabee dictators who alienates our allies and kisses up to tyrants -weakening and undermining the US and that in itself is enough.

See you lie, you’re trying to say you have evidence when mueller said he didn’t! That’s incredible. Name your evidence

TheProgressivePatriot where’s your evidence big guy?

Trump Would Have Been Charged With Obstruction If He Weren't President, Former U.S. Prosecutors Say | HuffPost

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf

Spend more time reading and less time prattling on about that which you know little

In analyzing the President 's efforts to have McGahn deny that he had been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice:
a. Obstructive act. The President's repeated efforts to get McGahn to create a record denying that the President had directed him to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness ifhe testified consistently with his memory, rather than with what the record said.
There is some evidence that at the time the New York Times and Washington Post stories were published in late January 2018, the President believed the stories were wrong and that he had never told McGahn to have Rosenstein remove the Special Counsel. The President correctly understood that McGahn had not told the President directly that he planned to resign. Tn addition , the President told Priebus and Porter that he had not sought to terminate the Special Counsel , and in the Oval Office meeting with McGahn , the President said, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire."' That evidence could indicate that the President was not attempting to persuade McGahn to change his story but was instead offering his own-but different-recollection of the substance of his June 2017 conversations with McGahn and McGahn 's reaction to them.
Other evidence cuts against that understanding of the President 's conduct. As previously described, see Volume IT, Section ILE, supra, substantial evidence supports McGahn's account that the President had directed him to have the Special Counsel removed, including the timing and context of the President's directive ; the manner in which McGahn reacted; and the fact that the President had been told the conflicts were insubstantial, were being considered by the Department of Justice , and should be raised with the President's personal counsel rather than brought to McGahn. In addition, the President's subsequent denials that he had told McGahn to have the Specia l Counsel removed were carefully worded. When first asked about the New York Times story, the President said, "Fake news, folks. Fake news. A typical New York Times fake story." And when the President spoke with McGahn in the Oval Office, he focused on whether he had used the word "fire, " saying, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire"' and "Did T say the word 'fire'?" The President's assertion in the Oval Office meeting that he had never directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed thus runs counter to the evidence .
Tn addition, even if the President sincerely disagreed with McGahn's memory of the June 17, 2017 events, the evidence indicates that the President knew by the time of the Oval Office
828 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5. Kelly did not recall discussing the Oval Office meeting with the President after the fact. Kelly 8/2/18 302, at 2. Handwritten notes taken by Kelly state, "Don[:] Mueller discussion in June. - Bannon Priebus - came out okay." WH0000l7685 (Kelly 2/6/18 Notes).
829 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5 (agent note).
118
U.S. Department of Justice At:tarttey '.Varlc Pr01hiet // May Catttaitt Material Preteetea Uttaer Fea. R. Criffl. P. 6Ee)
meeting that McGahn's account differed and that McGahn was firm in his views . Shortly after the story broke, the President's counsel told McGahn 's counsel that the President wanted McGahn to make a statement denying he had been asked to fire the Special Counsel, but McGahn responded through his counsel that that aspect of the story was accurate and he therefore could not comply with the President's request. The President then directed Sanders to tell McGahn to correct the story, but McGahn told her he would not do so because the story was accurate in reporting on the President's order . Consistent with that position, McGahn never issued a correction. More than a week later, the President brought up the issue again with Porter, made comments indicating the President thought McGahn had leaked the story, and directed Porter to have McGahn create a record denying that the President had tried to fire the Special Counsel. At that point, the President said he might "have to get rid of' McGahn ifMcGahn did not comply. McGahn again refused and told Porter, as he had told Sanders and as his counsel had told the President 's counsel , that the President had in fact ordered him to have Rosenstein remove the Special Counsel. That evidence indicates that by the time of the Oval Office meeting the President was aware that McGahn did not think the story was false and did not want to issue a statement or create a written record denying facts that McGahn believed to be true . The President nevertheless persisted and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate.
b

Where’s your evidence fk boi?

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Mueller is hiding like a dirty rat


Mueller lies about keeping the investigation private. It was him leaking him having all prosecutors as Hillary supporters ..

Mueller could not keep this private because he was trying to scare trump not to go after the real criminals .. The deep state

A non crook would never have all prosecutors the opposite of the targets party ... But had to to try to cover up the deep state treason crimes
as Hillary supporters ..

Mueller could not keep this private because he was trying to scare trump not to go after the real criminals .. The deep state

A non crook would never have all prosecutors the opposite of the targets party ... But had to to try to cover up the deep state treason crimes

A totally corrupt person and big time liar. Robert Mueller !!!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why didn’t you answer the question? Hmm that’s what makes you a liar.

Not answering a question makes me a liar? That is beyond fucking stupid. The answer is yes I do as any others. There is a good deal of evidence, as outlined by Mueller that he engaged in obstruction. But what you dim wits can't seem to grasp is that the Constitution does not require that he be found guilty of a crime to be impeached. He is incompetent, erratic wannabee dictators who alienates our allies and kisses up to tyrants -weakening and undermining the US and that in itself is enough.

See you lie, you’re trying to say you have evidence when mueller said he didn’t! That’s incredible. Name your evidence

TheProgressivePatriot where’s your evidence big guy?

Trump Would Have Been Charged With Obstruction If He Weren't President, Former U.S. Prosecutors Say | HuffPost

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf

Spend more time reading and less time prattling on about that which you know little

In analyzing the President 's efforts to have McGahn deny that he had been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice:
a. Obstructive act. The President's repeated efforts to get McGahn to create a record denying that the President had directed him to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness ifhe testified consistently with his memory, rather than with what the record said.
There is some evidence that at the time the New York Times and Washington Post stories were published in late January 2018, the President believed the stories were wrong and that he had never told McGahn to have Rosenstein remove the Special Counsel. The President correctly understood that McGahn had not told the President directly that he planned to resign. Tn addition , the President told Priebus and Porter that he had not sought to terminate the Special Counsel , and in the Oval Office meeting with McGahn , the President said, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire."' That evidence could indicate that the President was not attempting to persuade McGahn to change his story but was instead offering his own-but different-recollection of the substance of his June 2017 conversations with McGahn and McGahn 's reaction to them.
Other evidence cuts against that understanding of the President 's conduct. As previously described, see Volume IT, Section ILE, supra, substantial evidence supports McGahn's account that the President had directed him to have the Special Counsel removed, including the timing and context of the President's directive ; the manner in which McGahn reacted; and the fact that the President had been told the conflicts were insubstantial, were being considered by the Department of Justice , and should be raised with the President's personal counsel rather than brought to McGahn. In addition, the President's subsequent denials that he had told McGahn to have the Specia l Counsel removed were carefully worded. When first asked about the New York Times story, the President said, "Fake news, folks. Fake news. A typical New York Times fake story." And when the President spoke with McGahn in the Oval Office, he focused on whether he had used the word "fire, " saying, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire"' and "Did T say the word 'fire'?" The President's assertion in the Oval Office meeting that he had never directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed thus runs counter to the evidence .
Tn addition, even if the President sincerely disagreed with McGahn's memory of the June 17, 2017 events, the evidence indicates that the President knew by the time of the Oval Office
828 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5. Kelly did not recall discussing the Oval Office meeting with the President after the fact. Kelly 8/2/18 302, at 2. Handwritten notes taken by Kelly state, "Don[:] Mueller discussion in June. - Bannon Priebus - came out okay." WH0000l7685 (Kelly 2/6/18 Notes).
829 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5 (agent note).
118
U.S. Department of Justice At:tarttey '.Varlc Pr01hiet // May Catttaitt Material Preteetea Uttaer Fea. R. Criffl. P. 6Ee)
meeting that McGahn's account differed and that McGahn was firm in his views . Shortly after the story broke, the President's counsel told McGahn 's counsel that the President wanted McGahn to make a statement denying he had been asked to fire the Special Counsel, but McGahn responded through his counsel that that aspect of the story was accurate and he therefore could not comply with the President's request. The President then directed Sanders to tell McGahn to correct the story, but McGahn told her he would not do so because the story was accurate in reporting on the President's order . Consistent with that position, McGahn never issued a correction. More than a week later, the President brought up the issue again with Porter, made comments indicating the President thought McGahn had leaked the story, and directed Porter to have McGahn create a record denying that the President had tried to fire the Special Counsel. At that point, the President said he might "have to get rid of' McGahn ifMcGahn did not comply. McGahn again refused and told Porter, as he had told Sanders and as his counsel had told the President 's counsel , that the President had in fact ordered him to have Rosenstein remove the Special Counsel. That evidence indicates that by the time of the Oval Office meeting the President was aware that McGahn did not think the story was false and did not want to issue a statement or create a written record denying facts that McGahn believed to be true . The President nevertheless persisted and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate.
b

Where’s your evidence fk boi?

Thank you for admitting that you are an illiterate fuck. I don't have time for your stupidity. You are apparent not bright enough to understand the difference between evidence and proof.

 

[jc456]

Not answering a question makes me a liar? That is beyond fucking stupid. The answer is yes I do as any others. There is a good deal of evidence, as outlined by Mueller that he engaged in obstruction. But what you dim wits can't seem to grasp is that the Constitution does not require that he be found guilty of a crime to be impeached. He is incompetent, erratic wannabee dictators who alienates our allies and kisses up to tyrants -weakening and undermining the US and that in itself is enough.

See you lie, you’re trying to say you have evidence when mueller said he didn’t! That’s incredible. Name your evidence

TheProgressivePatriot where’s your evidence big guy?

Trump Would Have Been Charged With Obstruction If He Weren't President, Former U.S. Prosecutors Say | HuffPost

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf

Spend more time reading and less time prattling on about that which you know little

In analyzing the President 's efforts to have McGahn deny that he had been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice:
a. Obstructive act. The President's repeated efforts to get McGahn to create a record denying that the President had directed him to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness ifhe testified consistently with his memory, rather than with what the record said.
There is some evidence that at the time the New York Times and Washington Post stories were published in late January 2018, the President believed the stories were wrong and that he had never told McGahn to have Rosenstein remove the Special Counsel. The President correctly understood that McGahn had not told the President directly that he planned to resign. Tn addition , the President told Priebus and Porter that he had not sought to terminate the Special Counsel , and in the Oval Office meeting with McGahn , the President said, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire."' That evidence could indicate that the President was not attempting to persuade McGahn to change his story but was instead offering his own-but different-recollection of the substance of his June 2017 conversations with McGahn and McGahn 's reaction to them.
Other evidence cuts against that understanding of the President 's conduct. As previously described, see Volume IT, Section ILE, supra, substantial evidence supports McGahn's account that the President had directed him to have the Special Counsel removed, including the timing and context of the President's directive ; the manner in which McGahn reacted; and the fact that the President had been told the conflicts were insubstantial, were being considered by the Department of Justice , and should be raised with the President's personal counsel rather than brought to McGahn. In addition, the President's subsequent denials that he had told McGahn to have the Specia l Counsel removed were carefully worded. When first asked about the New York Times story, the President said, "Fake news, folks. Fake news. A typical New York Times fake story." And when the President spoke with McGahn in the Oval Office, he focused on whether he had used the word "fire, " saying, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire"' and "Did T say the word 'fire'?" The President's assertion in the Oval Office meeting that he had never directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed thus runs counter to the evidence .
Tn addition, even if the President sincerely disagreed with McGahn's memory of the June 17, 2017 events, the evidence indicates that the President knew by the time of the Oval Office
828 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5. Kelly did not recall discussing the Oval Office meeting with the President after the fact. Kelly 8/2/18 302, at 2. Handwritten notes taken by Kelly state, "Don[:] Mueller discussion in June. - Bannon Priebus - came out okay." WH0000l7685 (Kelly 2/6/18 Notes).
829 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5 (agent note).
118
U.S. Department of Justice At:tarttey '.Varlc Pr01hiet // May Catttaitt Material Preteetea Uttaer Fea. R. Criffl. P. 6Ee)
meeting that McGahn's account differed and that McGahn was firm in his views . Shortly after the story broke, the President's counsel told McGahn 's counsel that the President wanted McGahn to make a statement denying he had been asked to fire the Special Counsel, but McGahn responded through his counsel that that aspect of the story was accurate and he therefore could not comply with the President's request. The President then directed Sanders to tell McGahn to correct the story, but McGahn told her he would not do so because the story was accurate in reporting on the President's order . Consistent with that position, McGahn never issued a correction. More than a week later, the President brought up the issue again with Porter, made comments indicating the President thought McGahn had leaked the story, and directed Porter to have McGahn create a record denying that the President had tried to fire the Special Counsel. At that point, the President said he might "have to get rid of' McGahn ifMcGahn did not comply. McGahn again refused and told Porter, as he had told Sanders and as his counsel had told the President 's counsel , that the President had in fact ordered him to have Rosenstein remove the Special Counsel. That evidence indicates that by the time of the Oval Office meeting the President was aware that McGahn did not think the story was false and did not want to issue a statement or create a written record denying facts that McGahn believed to be true . The President nevertheless persisted and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate.
b

Where’s your evidence fk boi?

Thank you for admitting that you are an illiterate fuck. I don't have time for your stupidity

So no evidence, liar

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

See you lie, you’re trying to say you have evidence when mueller said he didn’t! That’s incredible. Name your evidence

TheProgressivePatriot where’s your evidence big guy?

Trump Would Have Been Charged With Obstruction If He Weren't President, Former U.S. Prosecutors Say | HuffPost

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf

Spend more time reading and less time prattling on about that which you know little

In analyzing the President 's efforts to have McGahn deny that he had been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice:
a. Obstructive act. The President's repeated efforts to get McGahn to create a record denying that the President had directed him to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness ifhe testified consistently with his memory, rather than with what the record said.
There is some evidence that at the time the New York Times and Washington Post stories were published in late January 2018, the President believed the stories were wrong and that he had never told McGahn to have Rosenstein remove the Special Counsel. The President correctly understood that McGahn had not told the President directly that he planned to resign. Tn addition , the President told Priebus and Porter that he had not sought to terminate the Special Counsel , and in the Oval Office meeting with McGahn , the President said, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire."' That evidence could indicate that the President was not attempting to persuade McGahn to change his story but was instead offering his own-but different-recollection of the substance of his June 2017 conversations with McGahn and McGahn 's reaction to them.
Other evidence cuts against that understanding of the President 's conduct. As previously described, see Volume IT, Section ILE, supra, substantial evidence supports McGahn's account that the President had directed him to have the Special Counsel removed, including the timing and context of the President's directive ; the manner in which McGahn reacted; and the fact that the President had been told the conflicts were insubstantial, were being considered by the Department of Justice , and should be raised with the President's personal counsel rather than brought to McGahn. In addition, the President's subsequent denials that he had told McGahn to have the Specia l Counsel removed were carefully worded. When first asked about the New York Times story, the President said, "Fake news, folks. Fake news. A typical New York Times fake story." And when the President spoke with McGahn in the Oval Office, he focused on whether he had used the word "fire, " saying, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire"' and "Did T say the word 'fire'?" The President's assertion in the Oval Office meeting that he had never directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed thus runs counter to the evidence .
Tn addition, even if the President sincerely disagreed with McGahn's memory of the June 17, 2017 events, the evidence indicates that the President knew by the time of the Oval Office
828 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5. Kelly did not recall discussing the Oval Office meeting with the President after the fact. Kelly 8/2/18 302, at 2. Handwritten notes taken by Kelly state, "Don[:] Mueller discussion in June. - Bannon Priebus - came out okay." WH0000l7685 (Kelly 2/6/18 Notes).
829 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5 (agent note).
118
U.S. Department of Justice At:tarttey '.Varlc Pr01hiet // May Catttaitt Material Preteetea Uttaer Fea. R. Criffl. P. 6Ee)
meeting that McGahn's account differed and that McGahn was firm in his views . Shortly after the story broke, the President's counsel told McGahn 's counsel that the President wanted McGahn to make a statement denying he had been asked to fire the Special Counsel, but McGahn responded through his counsel that that aspect of the story was accurate and he therefore could not comply with the President's request. The President then directed Sanders to tell McGahn to correct the story, but McGahn told her he would not do so because the story was accurate in reporting on the President's order . Consistent with that position, McGahn never issued a correction. More than a week later, the President brought up the issue again with Porter, made comments indicating the President thought McGahn had leaked the story, and directed Porter to have McGahn create a record denying that the President had tried to fire the Special Counsel. At that point, the President said he might "have to get rid of' McGahn ifMcGahn did not comply. McGahn again refused and told Porter, as he had told Sanders and as his counsel had told the President 's counsel , that the President had in fact ordered him to have Rosenstein remove the Special Counsel. That evidence indicates that by the time of the Oval Office meeting the President was aware that McGahn did not think the story was false and did not want to issue a statement or create a written record denying facts that McGahn believed to be true . The President nevertheless persisted and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate.
b

Where’s your evidence fk boi?

Thank you for admitting that you are an illiterate fuck. I don't have time for your stupidity

So no evidence, liar

 

[jc456]

TheProgressivePatriot where’s your evidence big guy?

Trump Would Have Been Charged With Obstruction If He Weren't President, Former U.S. Prosecutors Say | HuffPost

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf

Spend more time reading and less time prattling on about that which you know little

In analyzing the President 's efforts to have McGahn deny that he had been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice:
a. Obstructive act. The President's repeated efforts to get McGahn to create a record denying that the President had directed him to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness ifhe testified consistently with his memory, rather than with what the record said.
There is some evidence that at the time the New York Times and Washington Post stories were published in late January 2018, the President believed the stories were wrong and that he had never told McGahn to have Rosenstein remove the Special Counsel. The President correctly understood that McGahn had not told the President directly that he planned to resign. Tn addition , the President told Priebus and Porter that he had not sought to terminate the Special Counsel , and in the Oval Office meeting with McGahn , the President said, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire."' That evidence could indicate that the President was not attempting to persuade McGahn to change his story but was instead offering his own-but different-recollection of the substance of his June 2017 conversations with McGahn and McGahn 's reaction to them.
Other evidence cuts against that understanding of the President 's conduct. As previously described, see Volume IT, Section ILE, supra, substantial evidence supports McGahn's account that the President had directed him to have the Special Counsel removed, including the timing and context of the President's directive ; the manner in which McGahn reacted; and the fact that the President had been told the conflicts were insubstantial, were being considered by the Department of Justice , and should be raised with the President's personal counsel rather than brought to McGahn. In addition, the President's subsequent denials that he had told McGahn to have the Specia l Counsel removed were carefully worded. When first asked about the New York Times story, the President said, "Fake news, folks. Fake news. A typical New York Times fake story." And when the President spoke with McGahn in the Oval Office, he focused on whether he had used the word "fire, " saying, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire"' and "Did T say the word 'fire'?" The President's assertion in the Oval Office meeting that he had never directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed thus runs counter to the evidence .
Tn addition, even if the President sincerely disagreed with McGahn's memory of the June 17, 2017 events, the evidence indicates that the President knew by the time of the Oval Office
828 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5. Kelly did not recall discussing the Oval Office meeting with the President after the fact. Kelly 8/2/18 302, at 2. Handwritten notes taken by Kelly state, "Don[:] Mueller discussion in June. - Bannon Priebus - came out okay." WH0000l7685 (Kelly 2/6/18 Notes).
829 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5 (agent note).
118
U.S. Department of Justice At:tarttey '.Varlc Pr01hiet // May Catttaitt Material Preteetea Uttaer Fea. R. Criffl. P. 6Ee)
meeting that McGahn's account differed and that McGahn was firm in his views . Shortly after the story broke, the President's counsel told McGahn 's counsel that the President wanted McGahn to make a statement denying he had been asked to fire the Special Counsel, but McGahn responded through his counsel that that aspect of the story was accurate and he therefore could not comply with the President's request. The President then directed Sanders to tell McGahn to correct the story, but McGahn told her he would not do so because the story was accurate in reporting on the President's order . Consistent with that position, McGahn never issued a correction. More than a week later, the President brought up the issue again with Porter, made comments indicating the President thought McGahn had leaked the story, and directed Porter to have McGahn create a record denying that the President had tried to fire the Special Counsel. At that point, the President said he might "have to get rid of' McGahn ifMcGahn did not comply. McGahn again refused and told Porter, as he had told Sanders and as his counsel had told the President 's counsel , that the President had in fact ordered him to have Rosenstein remove the Special Counsel. That evidence indicates that by the time of the Oval Office meeting the President was aware that McGahn did not think the story was false and did not want to issue a statement or create a written record denying facts that McGahn believed to be true . The President nevertheless persisted and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate.
b

Where’s your evidence fk boi?

Thank you for admitting that you are an illiterate fuck. I don't have time for your stupidity

So no evidence, liar

That certainly isn’t evidence! Ain’t got any, liar liar

 

[Zorro!]

Or obstruction

The proof is that the demp are not impeaching

It's that simple.

Talk is cheap

The Dems will impeach the instant a SCOTUS seat is vacant and then claim that a President under impeachment proceedings should not appoint a replacement Justice and then they will tie it up in the House so that the Senate can't vote on it an lift the cloud from Trump.

It will be interesting so see what the AG and IC investigations uncover.

Federal Rats Are Fleeing the Sinking Collusion Ship

They thought they controlled the Capitol.

As far as alleged Russian collusion goes, Hillary Clinton used three firewalls -- the Democratic National Committee, the Perkins Coie law firm and the Fusion GPS strategic intelligence firm -- to hide her campaign's payments to British national Christopher Steele to find dirt on Trump and his campaign; in other words, to collude. Steele in turn collected his purchased Russian sources to aggregate unverified allegations against Trump. He then spread the gossip within government agencies to ensure that the smears were leaked to the media -- and with a government seal of approval.

Robert Mueller's partisan team spent 22 months and $34 million only to conclude the obvious: that Trump did not collude with Russia.

Mueller's failure to find collusion prompts an important question. If the Steele dossier -- the basis for unfounded charges that Trump colluded with Russia -- was fraudulent, then how and why did the Clinton campaign, hand in glove with top Obama administration officials, use such silly trash and smears to unleash the powers of government against Trump's campaign, transition team and early presidency?

The question is not an idle one.

There may well have occurred a near coup attempt by high-ranking officials to destroy a campaign and then to remove an elected president. Likewise, top officials may have engaged in serial lying to federal investigators, perjury, the misleading of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the illegal insertion of informants into a political campaign, the leaking of classified documents and the obstruction of justice.

So, how can we tell that the former accusers are now terrified of becoming the accused? Because suddenly the usual band of former Obama officials and Trump accusers have largely given up on their allegations that Trump was or is a Russian asset.

Instead, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe and Rod Rosenstein are now beginning to accuse each other of wrongdoing.

Even their progressive media handlers are starting to sense the desperation in their new yarns -- and the possibility that these hired-gun analysts or guests were themselves guilty of crimes and were using their media platforms to fashion their own defense.

Federal Rats Are Fleeing the Sinking Collusion Ship

 

[Frannie]

Or obstruction

The proof is that the demp are not impeaching

It's that simple.

Talk is cheap

The Dems will impeach the instant a SCOTUS seat is vacant and then claim that a President under impeachment proceedings should not appoint a replacement Justice and then they will tie it up in the House so that the Senate can't vote on it an lift the cloud from Trump.

It will be interesting so see what the AG and IC investigations uncover.

Federal Rats Are Fleeing the Sinking Collusion Ship

They thought they controlled the Capitol.

As far as alleged Russian collusion goes, Hillary Clinton used three firewalls -- the Democratic National Committee, the Perkins Coie law firm and the Fusion GPS strategic intelligence firm -- to hide her campaign's payments to British national Christopher Steele to find dirt on Trump and his campaign; in other words, to collude. Steele in turn collected his purchased Russian sources to aggregate unverified allegations against Trump. He then spread the gossip within government agencies to ensure that the smears were leaked to the media -- and with a government seal of approval.

Robert Mueller's partisan team spent 22 months and $34 million only to conclude the obvious: that Trump did not collude with Russia.

Mueller's failure to find collusion prompts an important question. If the Steele dossier -- the basis for unfounded charges that Trump colluded with Russia -- was fraudulent, then how and why did the Clinton campaign, hand in glove with top Obama administration officials, use such silly trash and smears to unleash the powers of government against Trump's campaign, transition team and early presidency?

The question is not an idle one.

There may well have occurred a near coup attempt by high-ranking officials to destroy a campaign and then to remove an elected president. Likewise, top officials may have engaged in serial lying to federal investigators, perjury, the misleading of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the illegal insertion of informants into a political campaign, the leaking of classified documents and the obstruction of justice.

So, how can we tell that the former accusers are now terrified of becoming the accused? Because suddenly the usual band of former Obama officials and Trump accusers have largely given up on their allegations that Trump was or is a Russian asset.

Instead, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe and Rod Rosenstein are now beginning to accuse each other of wrongdoing.

Even their progressive media handlers are starting to sense the desperation in their new yarns -- and the possibility that these hired-gun analysts or guests were themselves guilty of crimes and were using their media platforms to fashion their own defense.

Federal Rats Are Fleeing the Sinking Collusion Ship

The house does not have the power to impeach, even if the vote is unanimous

 

[Zorro!]

Or obstruction

The proof is that the demp are not impeaching

It's that simple.

Talk is cheap

The Dems will impeach the instant a SCOTUS seat is vacant and then claim that a President under impeachment proceedings should not appoint a replacement Justice and then they will tie it up in the House so that the Senate can't vote on it an lift the cloud from Trump.

It will be interesting so see what the AG and IC investigations uncover.

Federal Rats Are Fleeing the Sinking Collusion Ship

They thought they controlled the Capitol.

As far as alleged Russian collusion goes, Hillary Clinton used three firewalls -- the Democratic National Committee, the Perkins Coie law firm and the Fusion GPS strategic intelligence firm -- to hide her campaign's payments to British national Christopher Steele to find dirt on Trump and his campaign; in other words, to collude. Steele in turn collected his purchased Russian sources to aggregate unverified allegations against Trump. He then spread the gossip within government agencies to ensure that the smears were leaked to the media -- and with a government seal of approval.

Robert Mueller's partisan team spent 22 months and $34 million only to conclude the obvious: that Trump did not collude with Russia.

Mueller's failure to find collusion prompts an important question. If the Steele dossier -- the basis for unfounded charges that Trump colluded with Russia -- was fraudulent, then how and why did the Clinton campaign, hand in glove with top Obama administration officials, use such silly trash and smears to unleash the powers of government against Trump's campaign, transition team and early presidency?

The question is not an idle one.

There may well have occurred a near coup attempt by high-ranking officials to destroy a campaign and then to remove an elected president. Likewise, top officials may have engaged in serial lying to federal investigators, perjury, the misleading of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the illegal insertion of informants into a political campaign, the leaking of classified documents and the obstruction of justice.

So, how can we tell that the former accusers are now terrified of becoming the accused? Because suddenly the usual band of former Obama officials and Trump accusers have largely given up on their allegations that Trump was or is a Russian asset.

Instead, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe and Rod Rosenstein are now beginning to accuse each other of wrongdoing.

Even their progressive media handlers are starting to sense the desperation in their new yarns -- and the possibility that these hired-gun analysts or guests were themselves guilty of crimes and were using their media platforms to fashion their own defense.

Federal Rats Are Fleeing the Sinking Collusion Ship

The house does not have the power to impeach, even if the vote is unanimous

Yes they do. The articles of impeachment are tried in the Senate and with a 2/3rds vote, results in removal from office.

 

[The Original Tree]

QUOTE="The Original Tree, post: 22473702, member: 60550"]So anyone with a brain can see that Mueller and his team WERE NEVER HIRED TO GET TO THE TRUTH.

They completely avoided all Russian Connections that went through Podesta, Obama, Clinton, and The Russian Dossier.

The Mueller Team was formed as Political Assassins to destroy The President.

They failed because its extremely hard to frame an innocent man that has the resources and will to fight you.

ahh shit tree, you did it again....EXACTLY^^^^^^

If you want to run an HONEST INVESTIGATION

Why did half of Moscow Mueller's Team have to get fired for Bias and Misconduct and are under criminal investigation?

Why did the other half have shady histories, such as Working Directly for The Clintons, being engaged in Prosecutorial Misconduct; Having Obvious Conflicts of Interest?

These people were put in the team because they were shady, because they were biased, because they had conflicts of interest. There was not ONE UPSTANDING PERSON of CHARACTER AMONG THEM.

Even Preet Bahara was a Vocal Trump Hater who was hired by Mueller immediately after Trump Fired him for misconduct in the New York Office. Scally wags and Ambulance Chasers and Dirty Lawyers, every single one.

An Honest Investigation had no chance of railroading The President, and an Honest Investigation would have investigated The Origin and Financing and Propagation of The Dirty Russian Dossier.

The Evidence is Right in Front of Everyone's Face.

This was a Political Assassination that failed

This was a Political COUP that failed.

why were there no GOP prosecutors hired? you and I and 63 million knew this was a hoax. it is still a hoax and still active. fk them. come and get me you bunch of fks!!! i'm right here. you don't have the balls.

Pure garbage propaganda all of it, brainwashed functional moron.[/QUOTE]

Kinda cowardly of you to not answer his question.

Why did Mueller hire people that have a history of lying in court, tampering with witness statements, Manufacturing Evidence, Putting Innocent men in jail they knew were innocent?

Why did half of Mueller's team have to be fired for bias and corruption and are now under criminal investigation for things they said and did during the Fake Russia Investigation?

Why aren't you engaging in honest discussion about any of this?

 

[jc456]

Or obstruction

The proof is that the demp are not impeaching

It's that simple.

Talk is cheap

GOP attorneys release a devastating video that lays out the case for Trump’s prosecution

So why no hearing?

No hearing? What the fuck do you think that those committees in the house are doing right now?

I still haven’t seen anything on the internet?

TheProgressivePatriot yo, dude, where's this hearing you stated was ongoing on Saturday? I've still not seen one thread about it in here, nor have I seen any mention of it on the internet or tv since I got back to my primary house. Well?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Or obstruction

The proof is that the demp are not impeaching

It's that simple.

Talk is cheap

GOP attorneys release a devastating video that lays out the case for Trump’s prosecution

So why no hearing?

No hearing? What the fuck do you think that those committees in the house are doing right now?

I still haven’t seen anything on the internet?

TheProgressivePatriot yo, dude, where's this hearing you stated was ongoing on Saturday? I've still not seen one thread about it in here, nor have I seen any mention of it on the internet or tv since I got back to my primary house. Well?

Don McGahn, former White House counsel, defies House subpoena and skips hearing on Russia probe

Notes From the House Select Intelligence Hearing on Russia

Hearing on “Examining the Failures of the Trump Administration’s Inhumane Family Separation Policy”

The Administration’s War on a Merit Based Civil Service