What Crime Exactly Is Trump Guilty of 4 Impeachment?

[Faun]

Fine, I'll take this bet. If Mueller didn't say he didn't write the Mueller report during last Wednesday's hearing, then you can't post here for the next 6 months. Deal?

OK, I'm glad you are finally taking the bet. Did I tell you that Mueller also admitted that he didn't even write his little speech of a few weeks ago where he stood up and said he'd have nothing further to add and that he was retired and didn't want to testify? That someone else wrote that as well but he won't say who? So we are clear then, you are taking the bet that Mueller didn't say that he didn't write the Mueller Report and that I never cited any bills, not even one, and that if proven wrong, you'll be banned for six months.

Now prove to us that Mueller actually wrote the report or didn't say he didn't write the report. I'm waiting. I have the full hearing on my DVR, boy.

Does this mean you're taking the bet? If Mueller didn't say he didn't write the Mueller report during last Wednesday's hearing, then you can't post here for the next 6 months.

Toolbrain, I don't take bets, I MADE the bet. It is yours to take. This is getting boring. You do nothing but waste people's time. You've done nothing but derail this thread to hide from the fact that you're a shitfaced liar. You must be a democrat. I've grown tired of wasting words with you. You need to pay me for my time to keep it interesting. You don't even have the integrity to admit you were wrong even when it is in black and white with you caught red handed with your pants around your ankles.

It's not my bet to prove you right. That's your job. One which you failed miserably.

But thanks for confirming you were lying, just as I said.

That's right. It's not your bet. It was mine. Now prove me wrong. I've already proven you a liar. Prove I never cited any bill. Prove I never posted a bill number. Prove they didn't derail the economy. I've had better conversations with the village Moron.

I already tried educating you that I was speaking about Frank's bills that you falsely claimed crashed the economy.

It's not my fault you're ineducable.

 

[playtime]

10 times Trump may have obstructed justice, according to Mueller

Key words MAY HAVE.

which is congress' job to take up since the OLC is the only thing preventing mueller from doing... otherwise YES.

HE



DID.


according to mueller & 1000 current & former (D) AND (R) DOJ federal prosecutors.


DOJ Alumni Statement
May 6 · 4 min read

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

Opinions of former federal prosecutors mean nothing Mueller himself came back and said the OCL did not stop him in his testimony. Despite how badly you on the left want to think your wanting to believe something makes it true it doesn’t.

nobody said the OLC stopped him from testifying. try to actually comprehend what you read... the OLC policy states that a ' sitting prez cannot be indicted '( & therefore cannot be prosecuted whilst still in office) is what prevented mueller from going any further than his report.

Mueller said Trump could be indicted once he leaves office
One of the biggest moments from the Mueller hearing — and a Republican own goal.
By Zack Beauchamp@zackbeauchamp Jul 24, 2019, 11:19am EDT

During Robert Mueller’s testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) asked Mueller if he could indict the president on obstruction charges.

The former special counsel’s answer was simple: “Yes.”

It was a rare striking moment in a hearing that has, so far, been largely unenlightening. Mueller’s position is that he didn’t consider indicting Trump solely because of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) ruling saying sitting presidents can’t be indicted. But Trump won’t be president forever, and Mueller’s view is that once Trump is out of office, prosecutors could charge him with obstruction if they believe the facts laid out in the report warrant it.
[...]

Mueller said Trump could be indicted once he leaves office

 

[playtime]

10 times Trump may have obstructed justice, according to Mueller
By Will Rahn
July 23, 2019 / 6:56 PM / CBS News

10 times Trump may have obstructed justice, according to Mueller

Trump’s latest tweets cross clear lines, experts say: Obstruction of justice and witness tampering
Deanna Paul
04/12/2018

Trump’s latest tweets cross clear lines, experts say: Obstruction of justice and witness tampering


If the latest report is true, which crimes might Trump have committed?
[...]

The two main perjury statutes are 18 USC § 1621, and § 1623. The first, Section 1621, criminalizes material false statements, under oath, in federal official proceedings. Section 1621 really contains two offenses, one for testimony, which requires an oath, and the other for written statements made under penalty of perjury.

The second perjury statute, Section 1623, prohibits material false statements under oath in federal court proceedings.

Subornation of perjury, as that crime is defined in the U.S. Code (18 USC § 1622), criminalizes "(procuring) another to commit any perjury." An underlying perjury is required to convict someone of suborning perjury, under federal law.
(don mcGahn & probably others)
[...]
If the latest report is true, which crimes might Trump have committed?

you're welcome.

Mueller stated under oath to Congress that neither President Trump nor his staff hindered his investigation.

i never said otherwise.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Do people here answer polls any more?

Not that one. Maybe because its ridiculous.

Well Democrats have been claiming Trump was colluding with the Russians without any evidence, so I guess you do have a point.

 

[blackhawk]

10 times Trump may have obstructed justice, according to Mueller

Key words MAY HAVE.

which is congress' job to take up since the OLC is the only thing preventing mueller from doing... otherwise YES.

HE



DID.


according to mueller & 1000 current & former (D) AND (R) DOJ federal prosecutors.


DOJ Alumni Statement
May 6 · 4 min read

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

Opinions of former federal prosecutors mean nothing Mueller himself came back and said the OCL did not stop him in his testimony. Despite how badly you on the left want to think your wanting to believe something makes it true it doesn’t.

nobody said the OLC stopped him from testifying. try to actually comprehend what you read... the OLC policy states that a ' sitting prez cannot be indicted '( & therefore cannot be prosecuted whilst still in office) is what prevented mueller from going any further than his report.

Mueller said Trump could be indicted once he leaves office
One of the biggest moments from the Mueller hearing — and a Republican own goal.
By Zack Beauchamp@zackbeauchamp Jul 24, 2019, 11:19am EDT

During Robert Mueller’s testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) asked Mueller if he could indict the president on obstruction charges.

The former special counsel’s answer was simple: “Yes.”

It was a rare striking moment in a hearing that has, so far, been largely unenlightening. Mueller’s position is that he didn’t consider indicting Trump solely because of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) ruling saying sitting presidents can’t be indicted. But Trump won’t be president forever, and Mueller’s view is that once Trump is out of office, prosecutors could charge him with obstruction if they believe the facts laid out in the report warrant it.
[...]

Mueller said Trump could be indicted once he leaves office

Yet he did not put out a sealed indictement to do so when Trump was out of office your TDS is showing.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yet he did not put out a sealed indictement to do so when Trump was out of office your TDS is showing.

Well he also could have recommended impeachment or asserted plainly that they would indict him if they could

 

[playtime]

10 times Trump may have obstructed justice, according to Mueller

Key words MAY HAVE.

which is congress' job to take up since the OLC is the only thing preventing mueller from doing... otherwise YES.

HE



DID.


according to mueller & 1000 current & former (D) AND (R) DOJ federal prosecutors.


DOJ Alumni Statement
May 6 · 4 min read

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

Opinions of former federal prosecutors mean nothing Mueller himself came back and said the OCL did not stop him in his testimony. Despite how badly you on the left want to think your wanting to believe something makes it true it doesn’t.

nobody said the OLC stopped him from testifying. try to actually comprehend what you read... the OLC policy states that a ' sitting prez cannot be indicted '( & therefore cannot be prosecuted whilst still in office) is what prevented mueller from going any further than his report.

Mueller said Trump could be indicted once he leaves office
One of the biggest moments from the Mueller hearing — and a Republican own goal.
By Zack Beauchamp@zackbeauchamp Jul 24, 2019, 11:19am EDT

During Robert Mueller’s testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) asked Mueller if he could indict the president on obstruction charges.

The former special counsel’s answer was simple: “Yes.”

It was a rare striking moment in a hearing that has, so far, been largely unenlightening. Mueller’s position is that he didn’t consider indicting Trump solely because of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) ruling saying sitting presidents can’t be indicted. But Trump won’t be president forever, and Mueller’s view is that once Trump is out of office, prosecutors could charge him with obstruction if they believe the facts laid out in the report warrant it.
[...]

Mueller said Trump could be indicted once he leaves office

Yet he did not put out a sealed indictement to do so when Trump was out of office your TDS is showing.

he punted to congress to have them do the job they were elected to do.

Report doesn't exonerate Trump, Mueller testifies, and he could be charged after leaving office
Bybenjamin siegel, trish turner and elizabeth thomas
Jul 24, 2019, 4:02 PM ET
[...]


"Director Mueller, at your May 29, 2019, press conference, you explained that, quote, 'The opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,' end quote. That process, other than the criminal justice system for accusing a president of wrongdoing, is that impeachment?", Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, asked.

She was the last Democrat to ask a question.

"I'm not going to comment on that," Mueller answered.

"In your report, you also wrote that you did not want to, quote, 'potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct,' end quote. For the non-lawyers in the room, what did you mean by, quote, 'potentially preempt constitutional processes'?"

"I'm not going to try to explain that," Mueller responded.

"That actually is coming from page 1 of Volume II. In the footnote is the reference to this. What are those constitutional processes?" she pressed.

"I think I heard you mention at least one," Mueller answered.

Report doesn't exonerate Trump, could be charged after leaving office: Mueller

tic toc.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Key words MAY HAVE.

which is congress' job to take up since the OLC is the only thing preventing mueller from doing... otherwise YES.

HE



DID.


according to mueller & 1000 current & former (D) AND (R) DOJ federal prosecutors.


DOJ Alumni Statement
May 6 · 4 min read

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

Opinions of former federal prosecutors mean nothing Mueller himself came back and said the OCL did not stop him in his testimony. Despite how badly you on the left want to think your wanting to believe something makes it true it doesn’t.

nobody said the OLC stopped him from testifying. try to actually comprehend what you read... the OLC policy states that a ' sitting prez cannot be indicted '( & therefore cannot be prosecuted whilst still in office) is what prevented mueller from going any further than his report.

Mueller said Trump could be indicted once he leaves office
One of the biggest moments from the Mueller hearing — and a Republican own goal.
By Zack Beauchamp@zackbeauchamp Jul 24, 2019, 11:19am EDT

During Robert Mueller’s testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) asked Mueller if he could indict the president on obstruction charges.

The former special counsel’s answer was simple: “Yes.”

It was a rare striking moment in a hearing that has, so far, been largely unenlightening. Mueller’s position is that he didn’t consider indicting Trump solely because of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) ruling saying sitting presidents can’t be indicted. But Trump won’t be president forever, and Mueller’s view is that once Trump is out of office, prosecutors could charge him with obstruction if they believe the facts laid out in the report warrant it.
[...]

Mueller said Trump could be indicted once he leaves office

Yet he did not put out a sealed indictement to do so when Trump was out of office your TDS is showing.

he punted to congress to have them do the job they were elected to do.

Report doesn't exonerate Trump, Mueller testifies, and he could be charged after leaving office
Bybenjamin siegel, trish turner and elizabeth thomas
Jul 24, 2019, 4:02 PM ET
[...]


"Director Mueller, at your May 29, 2019, press conference, you explained that, quote, 'The opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,' end quote. That process, other than the criminal justice system for accusing a president of wrongdoing, is that impeachment?", Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, asked.

She was the last Democrat to ask a question.

"I'm not going to comment on that," Mueller answered.

"In your report, you also wrote that you did not want to, quote, 'potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct,' end quote. For the non-lawyers in the room, what did you mean by, quote, 'potentially preempt constitutional processes'?"

"I'm not going to try to explain that," Mueller responded.

"That actually is coming from page 1 of Volume II. In the footnote is the reference to this. What are those constitutional processes?" she pressed.

"I think I heard you mention at least one," Mueller answered.

Report doesn't exonerate Trump, could be charged after leaving office: Mueller

tic toc.

Mueller could not exonerate Trump if he wanted to. That wasn't his job. No prosecutor does that. Learn the law.

GOP lawmaker takes out textbook, tells Mueller he doesn't have 'power to exonerate'

 

[busybee01]

Jesus. After all this time and you still don't get it. Are you unable to use search engines?

Did anyone interfere with your investigation? Mueller...No.
More ironic stupidity, I see.

Mueller said:

- Trump "welcomed and encouraged" Russian interference, and lied about it to cover it up

- Trump instructed McGahn to create a false record of his order to fire Mueller

- Trump didn't answer his questions truthfully

Put that incompetent geriatric case on the stand, subject to cross-examination by Republicans and see how well he holds up. Without Mueller, you have nothing. And Mueller will be destroyed if he has to testify. You know it, we all know it. Do it, and seal your fate as a political party.

Are you a functional moron? The witnesses that testified would testify. People like McGahn who testified that Trump ordered him to fire Mueller. He resigned his White House post because he was afraid he would be pressured to fire Mueller. By the way, I have no political party and believe in justice.

 

[busybee01]

IF Trump obstructed Justice, what crime was it that he was guilty of and is the basis for the obstruction charge?

If you do a fishing expedition to try to find just any crime, that does not warrant obstruction of justice charges as one has a right to not cooperate in their own lynching.

So what crime did Trump obstruct, or did he? And what specific act was it that was obstruction of the investigation of the crime he allegedly committed?

Obstruction does not require a underlying crime. Martha Stewart spent time in jail even though there was no underlying crime.

Insider trading is a crime.

She was not charged with insider trading. She was charged with securities fraud for proclaiming her innocence. The judge threw it out so there was no underlying crime.

 

[airplanemechanic]

IF Trump obstructed Justice, what crime was it that he was guilty of and is the basis for the obstruction charge?

If you do a fishing expedition to try to find just any crime, that does not warrant obstruction of justice charges as one has a right to not cooperate in their own lynching.

So what crime did Trump obstruct, or did he? And what specific act was it that was obstruction of the investigation of the crime he allegedly committed?

Obstruction does not require a underlying crime. Martha Stewart spent time in jail even though there was no underlying crime.

Insider trading is a crime.

She was not charged with insider trading. She was charged with securities fraud for proclaiming her innocence. The judge threw it out so there was no underlying crime.

WTF does that even mean? Securities fraud for proclaiming her innocence? I think you need to look the case up. She was charged with lying to the FBI. She regrets not having donated to the Clinton Foundation as that makes you immune to that crime.

 

[Faun]

which is congress' job to take up since the OLC is the only thing preventing mueller from doing... otherwise YES.

HE



DID.


according to mueller & 1000 current & former (D) AND (R) DOJ federal prosecutors.


DOJ Alumni Statement
May 6 · 4 min read

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

Opinions of former federal prosecutors mean nothing Mueller himself came back and said the OCL did not stop him in his testimony. Despite how badly you on the left want to think your wanting to believe something makes it true it doesn’t.

nobody said the OLC stopped him from testifying. try to actually comprehend what you read... the OLC policy states that a ' sitting prez cannot be indicted '( & therefore cannot be prosecuted whilst still in office) is what prevented mueller from going any further than his report.

Mueller said Trump could be indicted once he leaves office
One of the biggest moments from the Mueller hearing — and a Republican own goal.
By Zack Beauchamp@zackbeauchamp Jul 24, 2019, 11:19am EDT

During Robert Mueller’s testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) asked Mueller if he could indict the president on obstruction charges.

The former special counsel’s answer was simple: “Yes.”

It was a rare striking moment in a hearing that has, so far, been largely unenlightening. Mueller’s position is that he didn’t consider indicting Trump solely because of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) ruling saying sitting presidents can’t be indicted. But Trump won’t be president forever, and Mueller’s view is that once Trump is out of office, prosecutors could charge him with obstruction if they believe the facts laid out in the report warrant it.
[...]

Mueller said Trump could be indicted once he leaves office

Yet he did not put out a sealed indictement to do so when Trump was out of office your TDS is showing.

he punted to congress to have them do the job they were elected to do.

Report doesn't exonerate Trump, Mueller testifies, and he could be charged after leaving office
Bybenjamin siegel, trish turner and elizabeth thomas
Jul 24, 2019, 4:02 PM ET
[...]


"Director Mueller, at your May 29, 2019, press conference, you explained that, quote, 'The opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,' end quote. That process, other than the criminal justice system for accusing a president of wrongdoing, is that impeachment?", Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, asked.

She was the last Democrat to ask a question.

"I'm not going to comment on that," Mueller answered.

"In your report, you also wrote that you did not want to, quote, 'potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct,' end quote. For the non-lawyers in the room, what did you mean by, quote, 'potentially preempt constitutional processes'?"

"I'm not going to try to explain that," Mueller responded.

"That actually is coming from page 1 of Volume II. In the footnote is the reference to this. What are those constitutional processes?" she pressed.

"I think I heard you mention at least one," Mueller answered.

Report doesn't exonerate Trump, could be charged after leaving office: Mueller

tic toc.

Mueller could not exonerate Trump if he wanted to. That wasn't his job. No prosecutor does that. Learn the law.

GOP lawmaker takes out textbook, tells Mueller he doesn't have 'power to exonerate'

And yet Mueller exonerated trump over collusion/conspiracy. So much for your nonsense.

 

[Faun]

IF Trump obstructed Justice, what crime was it that he was guilty of and is the basis for the obstruction charge?

If you do a fishing expedition to try to find just any crime, that does not warrant obstruction of justice charges as one has a right to not cooperate in their own lynching.

So what crime did Trump obstruct, or did he? And what specific act was it that was obstruction of the investigation of the crime he allegedly committed?

Obstruction does not require a underlying crime. Martha Stewart spent time in jail even though there was no underlying crime.

Insider trading is a crime.

She was not charged with insider trading. She was charged with securities fraud for proclaiming her innocence. The judge threw it out so there was no underlying crime.

WTF does that even mean? Securities fraud for proclaiming her innocence? I think you need to look the case up. She was charged with lying to the FBI. She regrets not having donated to the Clinton Foundation as that makes you immune to that crime.

Martha Stewart indicted - Jun. 5, 2003

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Martha Stewart was indicted Wednesday on charges of securities fraud and obstruction of justice arising from her controversial sale of ImClone Systems Inc. stock.



Stewart found guilty on all counts in obstruction trial - Mar. 10, 2004

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - A jury found Martha Stewart guilty Friday on all four counts of obstructing justice and lying to investigators about a well-timed stock sale, and the former stockbroker turned style-setter could face years in jail.

_________​

Securities fraud was the underlying charge and it was thrown out. Despite no underlying crime, she was still convicted on obstruction of justice.

 

[busybee01]

IF Trump obstructed Justice, what crime was it that he was guilty of and is the basis for the obstruction charge?

If you do a fishing expedition to try to find just any crime, that does not warrant obstruction of justice charges as one has a right to not cooperate in their own lynching.

So what crime did Trump obstruct, or did he? And what specific act was it that was obstruction of the investigation of the crime he allegedly committed?

Obstruction does not require a underlying crime. Martha Stewart spent time in jail even though there was no underlying crime.

Insider trading is a crime.

She was not charged with insider trading. She was charged with securities fraud for proclaiming her innocence. The judge threw it out so there was no underlying crime.

WTF does that even mean? Securities fraud for proclaiming her innocence? I think you need to look the case up. She was charged with lying to the FBI. She regrets not having donated to the Clinton Foundation as that makes you immune to that crime.

''The conviction came exactly a week after U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum threw out the most serious charge against Stewart -- securities fraud -- which carried a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine.

The charge -- which the judge had called "novel" during the trial -- accused Stewart of using her own statements that she was innocent as a ploy to mislead investors in her company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. ''

She did not stand trial for any real financial crimes. Only a trumped up one.

Stewart found guilty on all counts in obstruction trial - Mar. 10, 2004

 

[Care4all]

IF Trump obstructed Justice, what crime was it that he was guilty of and is the basis for the obstruction charge?

If you do a fishing expedition to try to find just any crime, that does not warrant obstruction of justice charges as one has a right to not cooperate in their own lynching.

So what crime did Trump obstruct, or did he? And what specific act was it that was obstruction of the investigation of the crime he allegedly committed?

He tried to obstruct an official investigation.... THAT is a crime, the attempt to obstruct an official investigation, even if it was not successful, is a crime....

He also is an unindicted co-conspirator in felonious campaign finance laws...

ABUSES of POWER
And he is ignoring subpoenas, making hit lists of his political enemies to have the DOJ go after, not allowing the Treasury release his taxes which by LAW they are suppose to release it to the Ways and Means committee chairman, using his office to campaign every single day, using the DOJ as his personal lawyers- He is not faithfully executing our laws...

And his dishonorable and disgusting and deplorable Helsinky performance ...

and all of his lies about the Russians not meddling in our election, is aiding and abetting the enemy!

His flippant and dangerous foreign policies... From Rocket man to 'we are in love, Un sends me nice love letters' bull crap....

And he is a pathological LIAR, about EVERYTHING, which also makes the Nation unsafe...

AND he welcomes the help of our enemy, the Russians, in his own election.... which you could NOT get more unAmerican, unPresidential, than that, AND A CRIME.

Oh, and let us NOT forget how he went before the world and us and made excuses for the Crown Prince MURDERER....

this guy in office, truly is below us.... slivering.

 

[Care4all]

Jesus. After all this time and you still don't get it. Are you unable to use search engines?

Did anyone interfere with your investigation? Mueller...No.
More ironic stupidity, I see.

Mueller said:

- Trump "welcomed and encouraged" Russian interference, and lied about it to cover it up

- Trump instructed McGahn to create a false record of his order to fire Mueller

- Trump didn't answer his questions truthfully

Put that incompetent geriatric case on the stand, subject to cross-examination by Republicans and see how well he holds up. Without Mueller, you have nothing. And Mueller will be destroyed if he has to testify. You know it, we all know it. Do it, and seal your fate as a political party.

Were you in a drug induced coma last Wednesday?

Apparently you were. Mueller was by all accounts eviscerated by the Republicans, disemboweled

 

[toobfreak]

OK, I'm glad you are finally taking the bet. Did I tell you that Mueller also admitted that he didn't even write his little speech of a few weeks ago where he stood up and said he'd have nothing further to add and that he was retired and didn't want to testify? That someone else wrote that as well but he won't say who? So we are clear then, you are taking the bet that Mueller didn't say that he didn't write the Mueller Report and that I never cited any bills, not even one, and that if proven wrong, you'll be banned for six months.

Now prove to us that Mueller actually wrote the report or didn't say he didn't write the report. I'm waiting. I have the full hearing on my DVR, boy.

Does this mean you're taking the bet? If Mueller didn't say he didn't write the Mueller report during last Wednesday's hearing, then you can't post here for the next 6 months.

Toolbrain, I don't take bets, I MADE the bet. It is yours to take. This is getting boring. You do nothing but waste people's time. You've done nothing but derail this thread to hide from the fact that you're a shitfaced liar. You must be a democrat. I've grown tired of wasting words with you. You need to pay me for my time to keep it interesting. You don't even have the integrity to admit you were wrong even when it is in black and white with you caught red handed with your pants around your ankles.

It's not my bet to prove you right. That's your job. One which you failed miserably.

But thanks for confirming you were lying, just as I said.

That's right. It's not your bet. It was mine. Now prove me wrong. I've already proven you a liar. Prove I never cited any bill. Prove I never posted a bill number. Prove they didn't derail the economy. I've had better conversations with the village Moron.

I already tried educating you that I was speaking about Frank's bills that you falsely claimed crashed the economy.

It's not my fault you're ineducable.

TROLL. Don't insult our intelligence that you're out to or capable of "educating" anyone. You need mental help. See a doctor. You've trolled these threads now for days out for some insane purpose that at ANY time, you could have simply reasonably produced an article, link or other evidence to support your claim none of the bills I posted here had no effect on derailing and hurting the economy, but we can't even get you to agree that bills were even posted here or their numbers, despite they're being posted in B&W.

 

[toobfreak]

Did anyone interfere with your investigation? Mueller...No.
More ironic stupidity, I see.

Mueller said:

- Trump "welcomed and encouraged" Russian interference, and lied about it to cover it up

- Trump instructed McGahn to create a false record of his order to fire Mueller

- Trump didn't answer his questions truthfully

Put that incompetent geriatric case on the stand, subject to cross-examination by Republicans and see how well he holds up. Without Mueller, you have nothing. And Mueller will be destroyed if he has to testify. You know it, we all know it. Do it, and seal your fate as a political party.

Were you in a drug induced coma last Wednesday?

Apparently you were. Mueller was by all accounts eviscerated by the Republicans, disemboweled

We know what YOU believe! Before the hearing, you claimed wrongly that Comey and Mueller were just business associates! I guess you also missed where Mueller admitted that the two of them were close FRIENDS. Last vid, :45 seconds in.

Trey Gowdy on Mueller: He Said He Didn't Want to Come and Now We Know Why He Didn't Want to Come







Mueller EVISCERATED. Mueller and Comey best buds. Care4all proven wrong again.

 

[JimBowie1958]

IF Trump obstructed Justice, what crime was it that he was guilty of and is the basis for the obstruction charge?

If you do a fishing expedition to try to find just any crime, that does not warrant obstruction of justice charges as one has a right to not cooperate in their own lynching.

So what crime did Trump obstruct, or did he? And what specific act was it that was obstruction of the investigation of the crime he allegedly committed?

He tried to obstruct an official investigation.... THAT is a crime, the attempt to obstruct an official investigation, even if it was not successful, is a crime....

He also is an unindicted co-conspirator in felonious campaign finance laws...

ABUSES of POWER
And he is ignoring subpoenas, making hit lists of his political enemies to have the DOJ go after, not allowing the Treasury release his taxes which by LAW they are suppose to release it to the Ways and Means committee chairman, using his office to campaign every single day, using the DOJ as his personal lawyers- He is not faithfully executing our laws...

And his dishonorable and disgusting and deplorable Helsinky performance ...

and all of his lies about the Russians not meddling in our election, is aiding and abetting the enemy!

His flippant and dangerous foreign policies... From Rocket man to 'we are in love, Un sends me nice love letters' bull crap....

And he is a pathological LIAR, about EVERYTHING, which also makes the Nation unsafe...

AND he welcomes the help of our enemy, the Russians, in his own election.... which you could NOT get more unAmerican, unPresidential, than that, AND A CRIME.

Oh, and let us NOT forget how he went before the world and us and made excuses for the Crown Prince MURDERER....

this guy in office, truly is below us.... slivering.

Insisting that you are innocent is not obstruction, nor is firing a runaway Special Prosecutor who blew off millions in tax payer funding when he already knew there was no collusion.

 

[toobfreak]

IF Trump obstructed Justice, what crime was it that he was guilty of and is the basis for the obstruction charge?

If you do a fishing expedition to try to find just any crime, that does not warrant obstruction of justice charges as one has a right to not cooperate in their own lynching.

So what crime did Trump obstruct, or did he? And what specific act was it that was obstruction of the investigation of the crime he allegedly committed?

He tried to obstruct an official investigation.... THAT is a crime, the attempt to obstruct an official investigation, even if it was not successful, is a crime....

He also is an unindicted co-conspirator in felonious campaign finance laws...

ABUSES of POWER
And he is ignoring subpoenas, making hit lists of his political enemies to have the DOJ go after, not allowing the Treasury release his taxes which by LAW they are suppose to release it to the Ways and Means committee chairman, using his office to campaign every single day, using the DOJ as his personal lawyers- He is not faithfully executing our laws...

And his dishonorable and disgusting and deplorable Helsinky performance ...

and all of his lies about the Russians not meddling in our election, is aiding and abetting the enemy!

His flippant and dangerous foreign policies... From Rocket man to 'we are in love, Un sends me nice love letters' bull crap....

And he is a pathological LIAR, about EVERYTHING, which also makes the Nation unsafe...

AND he welcomes the help of our enemy, the Russians, in his own election.... which you could NOT get more unAmerican, unPresidential, than that, AND A CRIME.

Oh, and let us NOT forget how he went before the world and us and made excuses for the Crown Prince MURDERER....

this guy in office, truly is below us.... slivering.

Insisting that you are innocent is not obstruction, nor is firing a runaway Special Prosecutor who blew off millions in tax payer funding when he already knew there was no collusion.

At one point Jim, someone pointed out that HUNDREDS of Mueller's sources in his report were daily newspapers! Upon which he observed that we paid millions for a report we could have gotten for free by simply reading the New York Times.