Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That appears to be where he Trump defense is headed.
Your thoughts?
Been there, done that. Trump defense will fail miserably.
Feel free to provide a Trump quote that resembles that in any way.
.
Giuliani is saying that a President cannot be subpoenaed. That is patently false.
Really, name one president that ever testified to a grand jury because of a subpoena.
.
Why would Mueller want to interview Trump? He has said Trump is not a target of investigation. Also, this will be no Watergate. Keep up the wishful thinking. Be sure to watch Trump 2020 victory speech.That appears to be where he Trump defense is headed.
Your thoughts?
Been there, done that. Trump defense will fail miserably.
Feel free to provide a Trump quote that resembles that in any way.
.
Giuliani is saying that a President cannot be subpoenaed. That is patently false.
Really, name one president that ever testified to a grand jury because of a subpoena.
.
The Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit against Clinton to go forward. That included a deposition by the opposing lawyers. Any subpoena issued by Mueller would presumably for Trump to be interviewed by Mueller himself.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...l-hack-lawyer-who-donated-to-hillary-clinton/No. Neither are special prosecutors when they go off track and turn the investigation into a political vendetta like Starr did and Mueller has done.That appears to be where he Trump defense is headed.
Your thoughts?
Mueller has shown he has no political vendetta. only sick people like you think that.
I served in combat. They are political hacks. Don’t confuse courage and politics.http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...l-hack-lawyer-who-donated-to-hillary-clinton/No. Neither are special prosecutors when they go off track and turn the investigation into a political vendetta like Starr did and Mueller has done.That appears to be where he Trump defense is headed.
Your thoughts?
Mueller has shown he has no political vendetta. only sick people like you think that.
Trump recently hired a attorney who worked for Bill Clinton. DOJ guidelines allow employees to make political contributions. Again nothing to see here except Trump trash smearing people. Some of them have taken on the mob. They have more courage than scum like you and Trump.
Why would Mueller want to interview Trump? He has said Trump is not a target of investigation. Also, this will be no Watergate. Keep up the wishful thinking. Be sure to watch Trump 2020 victory speech.Been there, done that. Trump defense will fail miserably.
Feel free to provide a Trump quote that resembles that in any way.
.
Giuliani is saying that a President cannot be subpoenaed. That is patently false.
Really, name one president that ever testified to a grand jury because of a subpoena.
.
The Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit against Clinton to go forward. That included a deposition by the opposing lawyers. Any subpoena issued by Mueller would presumably for Trump to be interviewed by Mueller himself.
I served in combat. They are political hacks. Don’t confuse courage and politics.http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...l-hack-lawyer-who-donated-to-hillary-clinton/No. Neither are special prosecutors when they go off track and turn the investigation into a political vendetta like Starr did and Mueller has done.That appears to be where he Trump defense is headed.
Your thoughts?
Mueller has shown he has no political vendetta. only sick people like you think that.
Trump recently hired a attorney who worked for Bill Clinton. DOJ guidelines allow employees to make political contributions. Again nothing to see here except Trump trash smearing people. Some of them have taken on the mob. They have more courage than scum like you and Trump.
That appears to be where he Trump defense is headed.
Your thoughts?
Been there, done that. Trump defense will fail miserably.
Feel free to provide a Trump quote that resembles that in any way.
.
Giuliani is saying that a President cannot be subpoenaed. That is patently false.
Really, name one president that ever testified to a grand jury because of a subpoena.
.
The Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit against Clinton to go forward. That included a deposition by the opposing lawyers. Any subpoena issued by Mueller would presumably for Trump to be interviewed by Mueller himself.
The Trump attorney who made the original deal made it clear that this needed to be done before the election because Trump did not want it coming out before the election.
Also the money would have to be reported as a loan to his campaign. Of course Trump could claim he gave $130,000 to Cohen and had no idea what it was uses from. This from someone who has refused to pay legitimate bills that are like a couple of dollars to us.
That dog won't hunt.
That appears to be where he Trump defense is headed.
Your thoughts?
Hillary is.That appears to be where he Trump defense is headed.
Your thoughts?
How about "I could shoot someone on the street and not lose support."?That appears to be where he Trump defense is headed.
Your thoughts?
Been there, done that. Trump defense will fail miserably.
Feel free to provide a Trump quote that resembles that in any way.
.
That was said as a candidate, not as president. Care to try again?
.
No, I effectively made no my point. Trump believes he is above the law, regardless of job title.
No, it's an example of logic. There is a meeting with two people. One of them leaves the meeting and tells multiple people what transpired AND they write it down. The people they told ALSO wrote down what is said. It's called corroborating testimony. Guess which side of the story is more believable?where is the evidence of that? Its just comey's word and we know that Comey is a liar, that is well established.
Now, shall we discuss the obstruction of justice by Obama, lynch, comey, Clinton, McCabe, Holder. No? didn't think so.
Comey kept contemporaneous memos when it happened and shared this with his co-workers. He also TESTIFIED UNDER OATH BEFORE CONGRESS.
On the other side of that we have public denials of pathological liar Trump and dupes like you.
And the contemporaneous notes taken by someone he told, echo Comey's notes taken at the time. Comey would be quite happy if there were tapes of the conversation. That's not the statements of someone who thinks he will be caught lying.
Top ex-DOJ official's notes appear to corroborate James Comey's testimony on Trump
Immediately after that conversation, I called Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, to report the substance of the call from the President, and said I would await his guidance. I did not hear back from him before the President called me again two weeks later," Comey said of the late-March encounter to the Senate Intelligence Committee during a hearing June of 2017. Sessions had already by that point recused himself of all Russia-related investigations.
In the Boente's handwritten notes obtained by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Boente said, "cloud as a result of Russia business. This makes running the country difficult," echoing the exact words Comey had told congressional investigators.
Two stories, same origin. Kind of like Steele giving the dossier to the FBI and then telling the same story to the media. Then the media story was used to bolster the dossier in the FISA application as a separate source.
.
No. It's like you and I having a conversation. When we are done, I immediately write down what you said and tell someone who also writes it down at that time. (That is what contemporaneous means.)
You didn't write anything down or tell anyone at the time. Which side of our conversation is more likely to stand up in court?
A perfect example of circular reasoning, I create a story, tell it to you and you swear to it. For that to have any validity you must first prove the original story was accurate. Considering Comey has proven himself to be a self serving flake, I think you'd have a hard time making any case for its accuracy.
.
No, it's an example of logic. There is a meeting with two people. One of them leaves the meeting and tells multiple people what transpired AND they write it down. The people they told ALSO wrote down what is said. It's called corroborating testimony. Guess which side of the story is more believable?Comey kept contemporaneous memos when it happened and shared this with his co-workers. He also TESTIFIED UNDER OATH BEFORE CONGRESS.
On the other side of that we have public denials of pathological liar Trump and dupes like you.
And the contemporaneous notes taken by someone he told, echo Comey's notes taken at the time. Comey would be quite happy if there were tapes of the conversation. That's not the statements of someone who thinks he will be caught lying.
Top ex-DOJ official's notes appear to corroborate James Comey's testimony on Trump
Immediately after that conversation, I called Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, to report the substance of the call from the President, and said I would await his guidance. I did not hear back from him before the President called me again two weeks later," Comey said of the late-March encounter to the Senate Intelligence Committee during a hearing June of 2017. Sessions had already by that point recused himself of all Russia-related investigations.
In the Boente's handwritten notes obtained by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Boente said, "cloud as a result of Russia business. This makes running the country difficult," echoing the exact words Comey had told congressional investigators.
Two stories, same origin. Kind of like Steele giving the dossier to the FBI and then telling the same story to the media. Then the media story was used to bolster the dossier in the FISA application as a separate source.
.
No. It's like you and I having a conversation. When we are done, I immediately write down what you said and tell someone who also writes it down at that time. (That is what contemporaneous means.)
You didn't write anything down or tell anyone at the time. Which side of our conversation is more likely to stand up in court?
A perfect example of circular reasoning, I create a story, tell it to you and you swear to it. For that to have any validity you must first prove the original story was accurate. Considering Comey has proven himself to be a self serving flake, I think you'd have a hard time making any case for its accuracy.
.
Obstruction of justice 18 U.S.C. § 1503
whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)."
By asking Comey to drop Flynn's case while knowing full well that Flynn commited perjury Trump has clearly endeavored to corruptly influence an officer of the law.
P.S. STFU
where is the evidence of that? Its just comey's word and we know that Comey is a liar, that is well established.
Now, shall we discuss the obstruction of justice by Obama, lynch, comey, Clinton, McCabe, Holder. No? didn't think so.
Comey kept contemporaneous memos when it happened and shared this with his co-workers. He also TESTIFIED UNDER OATH BEFORE CONGRESS.
On the other side of that we have public denials of pathological liar Trump and dupes like you.
And the contemporaneous notes taken by someone he told, echo Comey's notes taken at the time. Comey would be quite happy if there were tapes of the conversation. That's not the statements of someone who thinks he will be caught lying.
Top ex-DOJ official's notes appear to corroborate James Comey's testimony on Trump
Immediately after that conversation, I called Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, to report the substance of the call from the President, and said I would await his guidance. I did not hear back from him before the President called me again two weeks later," Comey said of the late-March encounter to the Senate Intelligence Committee during a hearing June of 2017. Sessions had already by that point recused himself of all Russia-related investigations.
In the Boente's handwritten notes obtained by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Boente said, "cloud as a result of Russia business. This makes running the country difficult," echoing the exact words Comey had told congressional investigators.
Two stories, same origin. Kind of like Steele giving the dossier to the FBI and then telling the same story to the media. Then the media story was used to bolster the dossier in the FISA application as a separate source.
.
No. It's like you and I having a conversation. When we are done, I immediately write down what you said and tell someone who also writes it down at that time. (That is what contemporaneous means.)
You didn't write anything down or tell anyone at the time. Which side of our conversation is more likely to stand up in court?
Wrong. Contemporaneous notes and corroborating testimony are admissible. There is also the credibility thing. Donald Trump is a known liar. A liar who borders on pathological.No, it's an example of logic. There is a meeting with two people. One of them leaves the meeting and tells multiple people what transpired AND they write it down. The people they told ALSO wrote down what is said. It's called corroborating testimony. Guess which side of the story is more believable?And the contemporaneous notes taken by someone he told, echo Comey's notes taken at the time. Comey would be quite happy if there were tapes of the conversation. That's not the statements of someone who thinks he will be caught lying.
Top ex-DOJ official's notes appear to corroborate James Comey's testimony on Trump
Immediately after that conversation, I called Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, to report the substance of the call from the President, and said I would await his guidance. I did not hear back from him before the President called me again two weeks later," Comey said of the late-March encounter to the Senate Intelligence Committee during a hearing June of 2017. Sessions had already by that point recused himself of all Russia-related investigations.
In the Boente's handwritten notes obtained by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Boente said, "cloud as a result of Russia business. This makes running the country difficult," echoing the exact words Comey had told congressional investigators.
Two stories, same origin. Kind of like Steele giving the dossier to the FBI and then telling the same story to the media. Then the media story was used to bolster the dossier in the FISA application as a separate source.
.
No. It's like you and I having a conversation. When we are done, I immediately write down what you said and tell someone who also writes it down at that time. (That is what contemporaneous means.)
You didn't write anything down or tell anyone at the time. Which side of our conversation is more likely to stand up in court?
A perfect example of circular reasoning, I create a story, tell it to you and you swear to it. For that to have any validity you must first prove the original story was accurate. Considering Comey has proven himself to be a self serving flake, I think you'd have a hard time making any case for its accuracy.
.
No, it's still a case of conflicting stories by the two individuals who were actually involved in the conversation. In a court of law the rest is hearsay and hearsay isn't admissible.
.
where is the evidence of that? Its just comey's word and we know that Comey is a liar, that is well established.
Now, shall we discuss the obstruction of justice by Obama, lynch, comey, Clinton, McCabe, Holder. No? didn't think so.
Comey kept contemporaneous memos when it happened and shared this with his co-workers. He also TESTIFIED UNDER OATH BEFORE CONGRESS.
On the other side of that we have public denials of pathological liar Trump and dupes like you.
And the contemporaneous notes taken by someone he told, echo Comey's notes taken at the time. Comey would be quite happy if there were tapes of the conversation. That's not the statements of someone who thinks he will be caught lying.
Top ex-DOJ official's notes appear to corroborate James Comey's testimony on Trump
Immediately after that conversation, I called Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, to report the substance of the call from the President, and said I would await his guidance. I did not hear back from him before the President called me again two weeks later," Comey said of the late-March encounter to the Senate Intelligence Committee during a hearing June of 2017. Sessions had already by that point recused himself of all Russia-related investigations.
In the Boente's handwritten notes obtained by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Boente said, "cloud as a result of Russia business. This makes running the country difficult," echoing the exact words Comey had told congressional investigators.
Two stories, same origin. Kind of like Steele giving the dossier to the FBI and then telling the same story to the media. Then the media story was used to bolster the dossier in the FISA application as a separate source.
.
No. It's like you and I having a conversation. When we are done, I immediately write down what you said and tell someone who also writes it down at that time. (That is what contemporaneous means.)
You didn't write anything down or tell anyone at the time. Which side of our conversation is more likely to stand up in court?
The thing is, Steele didn't give that dossier to the FBI.
John McCain did.
John McCain passes dossier alleging secret Trump-Russia contacts to FBI
Wrong. Contemporaneous notes and corroborating testimony are admissible. There is also the credibility thing. Donald Trump is a known liar. A liar who borders on pathological.No, it's an example of logic. There is a meeting with two people. One of them leaves the meeting and tells multiple people what transpired AND they write it down. The people they told ALSO wrote down what is said. It's called corroborating testimony. Guess which side of the story is more believable?Two stories, same origin. Kind of like Steele giving the dossier to the FBI and then telling the same story to the media. Then the media story was used to bolster the dossier in the FISA application as a separate source.
.
No. It's like you and I having a conversation. When we are done, I immediately write down what you said and tell someone who also writes it down at that time. (That is what contemporaneous means.)
You didn't write anything down or tell anyone at the time. Which side of our conversation is more likely to stand up in court?
A perfect example of circular reasoning, I create a story, tell it to you and you swear to it. For that to have any validity you must first prove the original story was accurate. Considering Comey has proven himself to be a self serving flake, I think you'd have a hard time making any case for its accuracy.
.
No, it's still a case of conflicting stories by the two individuals who were actually involved in the conversation. In a court of law the rest is hearsay and hearsay isn't admissible.
.
