Barr opens an investigation into the FBI Trump Russia investigation without the results of the TR investigation even being publiclally known...

[pcgeek11]

You do realize that the point of all these subpoenas from the House Judiciary Cmte. and other committees is to get the underlying evidence from the Mueller report, right? How can they impeach without the evidence??

Many Dems have said they already have all they need...

 

[pcgeek11]

Did you read the Muller report? The Cohen plea with Trump as individual 1? What elements of a crime are missing to bring a case to trial? Keep in mind that impeachment proceedings are akin to that. If started, they would get testimony and other evidence and present it to the House to decide whether the President ought to face the Senate for a vote of removal.

I just am not convinced of anything from Cohen....

 

[Victorian Gray]

Many Dems have said they already have all they need...

Can we have some of the names of these "many"?

 

[pcgeek11]

I think they are all known since the news and all, but here are a few off the top of my head.

Al Green
Maxine Waters
Brad Sherman
Steve Cohen
Adam Schiff
Rashida Tlaib
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

 

[Victorian Gray]

I think they are all known since the news and all, but here are a few off the top of my head.

Al Green
Maxine Waters
Brad Sherman
Steve Cohen
Adam Schiff
Rashida Tlaib
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Cool. Links to said statements please.

 

[fskimospy]

I have not seen any High Crimes or Misdemeanors proven yet. Lots of suspicion but not solid.

Here’s a piece from lawfare, basically the preeminent nonpartisan legal blog on the Internet, analyzing the Mueller report:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mueller-found-russia-and-obstruction-first-analysis

Each episode includes a detailed set of factual findings and then analyzes how the evidence maps onto the criminal charge of obstruction, which requires (1) an obstructive act; (2) a nexus with an official proceeding; and (3) a corrupt intent. We have summarized all of the episodes and Mueller’s analysis of them under the obstruction statutes here.

For present purposes, the critical point is that in six of these episodes, the special counsel’s office suggests that all of the elements of obstruction are satisfied: Trump’s conduct regarding the investigation into Michael Flynn, his firing of Comey, his efforts to remove Mueller and then to curtail Mueller’s investigation, his campaign to have Sessions take back control over the investigation and an order he gave to White House Counsel Don McGahn to both lie to the press about Trump’s past attempt to fire Mueller and create a false record “for our files.”

So from the perspective of experts in the field in no fewer than six cases the Mueller report indicates that all the elements of felony obstruction of justice have been satisfied.

With that in mind do you want to change your opinion about high crimes and misdemeanors? If not, what specifically would you require to do so?

 

[pcgeek11]

Cool. Links to said statements please.

Look at a few news cast and you will see for yourself. I'm not your research assistant. All of these have called for immediate impeachment even before the Mueller Investigation.

 

[pcgeek11]

Here’s a piece from lawfare, basically the preeminent nonpartisan legal blog on the Internet, analyzing the Mueller report:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mueller-found-russia-and-obstruction-first-analysis



So from the perspective of experts in the field in no fewer than six cases the Mueller report indicates that all the elements of felony obstruction of justice have been satisfied.

With that in mind do you want to change your opinion about high crimes and misdemeanors? If not, what specifically would you require to do so?

No.

But if it is as "air tight" as claimed why don't the House go ahead and make it happen?

 

[fskimospy]

No.

But if it is as "air tight" as claimed why don't the House go ahead and make it happen?

Okay then, what additional information do you need, specifically, to change your mind?

 

[pcgeek11]

Okay then, what additional information do you need, specifically, to change your mind?

I don't have a specific list for you. When I change my mind I'll send you a PM.

Why are you so concerned about changing my mind. It doesn't matter what I think. Not that I care, but as far as many on here think I'm an idiot anyway. Meh

 

[fskimospy]

I don't have a specific list for you. When I change my mind I'll send you a PM.

Why are you so concerned about changing my mind. It doesn't matter what I think. Not that I care, but as far as many on here think I'm an idiot anyway. Meh

Okay then, let’s get a bit more general. Since you consider the case on high crimes to be unproven there must be at least a general sense of what you think the case is lacking at this time. What sorts of additional information are you looking for?

 

[pcgeek11]

Okay then, let’s get a bit more general. Since you consider the case on high crimes to be unproven there must be at least a general sense of what you think the case is lacking at this time. What sorts of additional information are you looking for?

LOL. What are you a wanna be lawyer.

"I'll keep asking the same questions in a different format to see if I can trip you up."

This is what I believe:

Trump is not a politician.
Trump is not the most moral person either.
Trump exaggerates and isn't always the most truthful.
Trump tweets way too much and it makes me cringe.
I do not believe for an instant he colluded or conspired with Russians.
I do not believe he attempted to obstruct the investigation. Maybe to defend himself, but not obstruct.

Most of the career politicians in DC were out to get Trump from the very beginning if not before. Such as the FBI spying, surveillance or whatever you would like to call it. He probably should have and could have done things very differently but didn't involving this Russian farce investigation. There is some very shady things that took place by the DOJ during the campaign and after the election. Smells a lot like fish. I do think he is honestly trying to accomplish what he promised to the American people when he was elected.

That is what I think.

Better?

 

[fskimospy]

LOL. What are you a wanna be lawyer.

"I'll keep asking the same questions in a different format to see if I can trip you up."

This is what I believe:

Trump is not a politician.
Trump is not the most moral person either.
Trump exaggerates and isn't always the most truthful.
Trump tweets way too much and it makes me cringe.
I do not believe for an instant he colluded or conspired with Russians.
I do not believe he attempted to obstruct the investigation. Maybe to defend himself, but not obstruct.

Most of the career politicians in DC were out to get Trump from the very beginning if not before. Such as the FBI spying, surveillance or whatever you would like to call it. He probably should have and could have done things very differently but didn't involving this Russian farce investigation. There is some very shady things that took place by the DOJ during the campaign and after the election. Smells a lot like fish. I do think he is honestly trying to accomplish what he promised to the American people when he was elected.

That is what I think.

Better?

Not really as you are simply reiterating you don’t think Trump is guilty without providing any reason for why. I don’t care if you think Trump tweets too much.

Back to the matter at hand - so you say you don’t think he attempted to obstruct justice. As stated above obstruction of justice requires three things:

1) an obstructive act.
2) nexus to an official proceeding.
3) corrupt intent.

Let’s look at Trump’s interactions with McGahn where he instructed him to create false records stating Trump did not ask him to fire Mueller. (McGahn, to his credit, refused)

1) obstructive act: creating false records is an obstructive act, surely you agree?

2) nexus to an official proceeding: the false document was about Trump’s attempts to influence an official investigation. Pretty clear there.

3) corrupt intent - can you provide me with a non-corrupt reason why Trump would want McGahn to create fraudulent records?

If all three elements are satisfied, that’s a felony. If you don’t think all three elements are satisfied can you tell me which one and why?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Look at a few news cast and you will see for yourself. I'm not your research assistant. All of these have called for immediate impeachment even before the Mueller Investigation.

You made the claim. Not willing to back it up?

 

[mikeymikec]

LOL. What are you a wanna be lawyer.

"I'll keep asking the same questions in a different format to see if I can trip you up."

This is what I believe:

Trump is not a politician.
Trump is not the most moral person either.
Trump exaggerates and isn't always the most truthful.
Trump tweets way too much and it makes me cringe.
I do not believe for an instant he colluded or conspired with Russians.
I do not believe he attempted to obstruct the investigation. Maybe to defend himself, but not obstruct.

Most of the career politicians in DC were out to get Trump from the very beginning if not before. Such as the FBI spying, surveillance or whatever you would like to call it. He probably should have and could have done things very differently but didn't involving this Russian farce investigation. There is some very shady things that took place by the DOJ during the campaign and after the election. Smells a lot like fish. I do think he is honestly trying to accomplish what he promised to the American people when he was elected.

That is what I think.

Better?

I've love to know the actual, honest answer to this question:

Because describing Trump as "not the most honest / truthful" with a straight face is beyond mind-boggling.

 

[pcgeek11]

You made the claim. Not willing to back it up?

I don't believe you are helpless, a 5 minute Google search will show you more than I am willing to. It has nothing to do with willingness.

All of these people have made public statements on video and in writing. I know at least one of them Al Green of Houston filed articles of impeachment in October of 2017. The rest are just as bad if you look instead of attempting to make me your researcher.

https://www.houstonpress.com/news/r...ticles-against-president-donald-trump-9867296

"On Wednesday Green introduced articles of impeachment on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, livening up a session that was otherwise focused on whistleblower protection — and then quickly missed his chance to force an up-or-down vote in the House."

 

[Victorian Gray]

I don't believe you are helpless, a 5 minute Google search will show you more than I am willing to. It has nothing to do with willingness.

All of these people have made public statements on video and in writing. I know at least one of them Al Green of Houston filed articles of impeachment in October of 2017. The rest are just as bad if you look instead of attempting to make me your researcher.

https://www.houstonpress.com/news/r...ticles-against-president-donald-trump-9867296

"On Wednesday Green introduced articles of impeachment on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, livening up a session that was otherwise focused on whistleblower protection — and then quickly missed his chance to force an up-or-down vote in the House."

Thanks for the link. It's what you, as claimant, should provide as a matter of course rather than whinge.

Now, that's one. You mentioned "many". Ball is in your court.

 

[pcgeek11]

Thanks for the link. It's what you, as claimant, should provide as a matter of course rather than whinge.

Now, that's one. You mentioned "many". Ball is in your court.

You shouldn't be so lazy... LOL

It is common knowledge that these people I listed have called for immediate impeachment...

If you really cared you would already know what I'm saying is true. At a minimum all of those that I listed were asking for impeachment long before the investigation was completed and some even before it started.

I think you already know anyway, you're just yanking my chain for fun. I'm not playing your silly game anymore.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You shouldn't be so lazy... LOL

If you really cared you would already know what I'm saying is true. At a minimum all of those that I listed were asking for impeachment long before the investigation was completed and some even before it started.

I think you already know anyway, you're just yanking my chain for fun. I'm not playing your silly game anymore.

It's not about being lazy or playing games and you know it. You've been around the web long enough to know how these things work. If you can't or won't back it up, don't bother making the claim.

 

[pcgeek11]

It's not about being lazy or playing games and you know it. You've been around the web long enough to know how these things work. If you can't or won't back it up, don't bother making the claim.

LOL yeah right... You had no idea. Got it.

I did edit my post above that this is all common knowledge if you have watched any news program or read a paper...

 

[Victorian Gray]

LOL yeah right... You had no idea. Got it.

I did edit my post above that this is all common knowledge if you have watched any news program or read a paper...

Ok, your choice to be an ass.

 

[pcgeek11]

Ok, your choice to be an ass.

I'm not being an ass.

You are being obtuse and pretending you don't know these people were calling for impeachment ASAP. The one I pointed out was only months into his administration.

Whatever, I expected no less of you than to look for an excuse to call names like a child. That is your choice.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Lol all the typing because of the letter "R"

 

[interchange]

LOL. What are you a wanna be lawyer.

"I'll keep asking the same questions in a different format to see if I can trip you up."

This is what I believe:

Trump is not a politician.
Trump is not the most moral person either.
Trump exaggerates and isn't always the most truthful.
Trump tweets way too much and it makes me cringe.
I do not believe for an instant he colluded or conspired with Russians.
I do not believe he attempted to obstruct the investigation. Maybe to defend himself, but not obstruct.

Most of the career politicians in DC were out to get Trump from the very beginning if not before. Such as the FBI spying, surveillance or whatever you would like to call it. He probably should have and could have done things very differently but didn't involving this Russian farce investigation. There is some very shady things that took place by the DOJ during the campaign and after the election. Smells a lot like fish. I do think he is honestly trying to accomplish what he promised to the American people when he was elected.

That is what I think.

Better?

No this is not better. You have provided no justification for your position, and you refuse to reconcile it with the underlying evidence provided. I am truly wanting to understand if there is any actual argument to be had in support of Trump, but it seems you are just burying your head in the sand.

As to your criticism of Democrats, fine, but I don't see it as a partisan issue. The evidence exists for all to see. The reason why Democrats have not acted is because Republicans refuse to examine the actual evidence. I don't think that should stop them, but your criticism still amounts to throwing stones from a very fragile glass house.

 

[UNCjigga]

Pcgeek, here’s your airtight case for obstruction. Yes, there are tapes:
—
https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-court-unseals-documents-flynn-case

Prosecutors have unsealed new details in the case involving former national security adviser Michael Flynn, revealing that he provided information to special counsel Robert Mueller relevant to his obstruction inquiry.

“The defendant informed the government of multiple instances, both before and after his guilty plea, where either he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could have affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation,” the filing states.

“The defendant even provided a voicemail recording of one such communication.In some of those instances, the SCO was unaware of the outreach until being alerted to it by the defendant,” the document continues.
Flynn also provided information to prosecutors about discussions within President Trump’s campaign about WikiLeaks, the organization that released hacked Democratic emails tied to a Russian plot to interfere in the 2016 election, according to the new filing.

Based on what’s in the Mueller report, the voicemail likely lines up with this description:

Want to read the unredacted Mueller report sections concerning Flynn’s testimony and hear the voicemail? A judge just ordered that they be released.