Thread: 2020
View Single Post
Old 07-24-2019, 12:17 PM   #50
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
He didn't say they obstructed justice. He certainly could have charged them of it. Nor that Trump did. Keep clinging.
"Lies by Trump campaign officials and administration officials impeded your investigation."

Mueller: "I would generally agree with that."

.@RepRichmond: So it's fair to say that president tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation?

MUELLER: "I would say that's generally a summary."

.@RepMcClintock: It's starting to look like, having desperately tried & failed to make a legal case against POTUS, you made a political case instead. You put it in a paper sack, lit it on fire, rang the doorbell, & ran.

MUELLER: I don't think you reviewed the same report as ours

.@RepRaskin on witness tampering: So POTUS used inducements in form of positive messages to get Cohen to not cooperate, & then used attacks & intimidation to deter the provision of information once Cohen began cooperating?

MUELLER: I believe that's accurate.

"You could charge the president of the United States after he has left office"

Mueller: "Yes"

.@RepKarenBass: To be clear, the president is asking his WH counsel, Don McGahn, to create a record that McGahn believed to be untrue, while you're investigating the president for obstruction?

MUELLER: Generally correct

.@RepKenBuck: Was there sufficient evidence to convict president of Trump or anyone else of obstruction of justice?

MUELLER: We did not make that calculation.

BUCK: Why not?

M: Because of the OLC opinion that states the president can't be charged with a crime.


Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline