Drip.....Drip.....Drip...the Russians are coming

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And Twittler didn't send Giuliani to Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Bidens. Until he admitted it. And he didn't know Lev Parnas, although a dozen photos show he did. And then there was this meeting in the WH with Rohrabacher.
Agolf didn’t know Lev Parnas but so many pictures, meals shared, etc. If I was going to bet, there are likely pictures here too with Rohrabacher.. let’s wait and see if this is the standard gaslighting Twittler operation.
Yes it exists, it is Dana Rohrabacher with Lev Parnas at the inaugural ball.
And Rohrabacher at the WH.
Amazing, how many coincidences there are with Agolf and Russian operatives........

Originally Posted by detbuch

There you go scurrying to all your suppositions and conspiracy theories.

Show me a supposition, I see plenty of Twittler's typical obstruction.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Show me a supposition, I see plenty of Twittler's typical obstruction.

With Agolf, it’s impossible to discount an allegation of criminality that, against anyone else, would seem absurd.

Any proof of that, or are you just supposing so.

And to get Assange to deny Russian involvement. Yeah, sure.

Do you have proof that Rohrabacher was lying when he said that he only wanted “truthful” information from Assange, or are you supposing that he merely wanted Assange to deny Russian involvement.

To be fair, dementia plays havoc with one’s memory. This might account for why he can’t remember Dana Rohrabacher, Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman and a multitude of other criminal co-conspirators. Just sayin...

Do you have proof that Trump has dementia?

and he didn't know Lev Parnas, although a dozen photos show he did. And then there was this meeting in the WH with Rohrabacher.
Agolf didn’t know Lev Parnas but so many pictures, meals shared, etc. If I was going to bet, there are likely pictures here too with Rohrabacher.. let’s wait and see if this is the standard gaslighting Twittler operation.
Yes it exists, it is Dana Rohrabacher with Lev Parnas at the inaugural ball.
And Rohrabacher at the WH.

Do you have proof that Trump actually "knew" these people on a personal basis rather than just appearing with them in photos, and that he knew Rohrabacher more than barely as his press secretary said.

I see plenty of Twittler's typical obstruction.[QUOTE]

Are you saying, do you have proof, that all the above is actual obstruction, or just assuming, supposing so.

[Pete F.]

[QUOTE=detbuch;1186541]With Agolf, it’s impossible to discount an allegation of criminality that, against anyone else, would seem absurd.

Any proof of that, or are you just supposing so.

And to get Assange to deny Russian involvement. Yeah, sure.

Do you have proof that Rohrabacher was lying when he said that he only wanted “truthful” information from Assange, or are you supposing that he merely wanted Assange to deny Russian involvement.

To be fair, dementia plays havoc with one’s memory. This might account for why he can’t remember Dana Rohrabacher, Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman and a multitude of other criminal co-conspirators. Just sayin...

Do you have proof that Trump has dementia?

and he didn't know Lev Parnas, although a dozen photos show he did. And then there was this meeting in the WH with Rohrabacher.
Agolf didn’t know Lev Parnas but so many pictures, meals shared, etc. If I was going to bet, there are likely pictures here too with Rohrabacher.. let’s wait and see if this is the standard gaslighting Twittler operation.
Yes it exists, it is Dana Rohrabacher with Lev Parnas at the inaugural ball.
And Rohrabacher at the WH.

Do you have proof that Trump actually "knew" these people on a personal basis rather than just appearing with them in photos, and that he knew Rohrabacher more than barely as his press secretary said.

I see plenty of Twittler's typical obstruction.

Are you saying, do you have proof, that all the above is actual obstruction, or just assuming, supposing so.

Are you trying for a position on the Twittler Team?

There is plenty of evidence that Twittler coordinated with the Russians in the prior election, enough for thirty something indictments.

Does the fact that the Fifth no longer applies after you are pardoned have anything to do with why Manafort has not been pardoned and how long Stone will have to wait?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Are you trying for a position on the Twittler Team?

Nope. Are you assuming, suggesting, supposing, guessing, conspiring, that there is such a thing as the Twittler Team. I haven't heard of such a team. Then, you do make up a lot of stuff.

There is plenty of evidence that Twittler coordinated with the Russians in the prior election, enough for thirty something indictments.

Was anybody indicted for conspiring with this Twittler person to influence the prior election? Mueller claimed there was not enough to indict Trump for such a thing. But maybe Mueller should have investigated this Twittler character. You seem to have a whole lot of irrefutable information and evidence against him. Perhaps you should write a note to Congress or the DOJ about him.

Does the fact that the Fifth no longer applies after you are pardoned have anything to do with why Manafort has not been pardoned and how long Stone will have to wait?

Geeze, Pete, I haven't thought about that. Good suppositions, inferences, assumptions are no doubt inherent in those questions. No doubt, you will keep informing us about it.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Geeze, Pete, I haven't thought about that. Good suppositions, inferences, assumptions are no doubt inherent in those questions. No doubt, you will keep informing us about it.

Mueller said he would not indict a sitting President.

"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Mueller said he would not indict a sitting President.

So what was the point of the investigation?

"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

Because there was not sufficient evidence to do so.

That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Old news. BTW, that was in part II, the so-called obstruction bit, not the conspiracy with Russia bit, part I. Nice trick.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Old news. BTW, that was in part II, the so-called obstruction bit, not the conspiracy with Russia bit, part I. Nice trick.

No trick, the only reason it ended up there is because of obstruction of the investigation of the conspiracy.

Firing FBI Director James Comey: Trump repeatedly pressured Comey to tell the public Trump wasn’t under investigation and to go easy on Michael Flynn. When Comey wouldn’t, Trump fired him—then bragged on national television and to Russian officials that he’d done it to stop the Russia investigation.
Dangling pardons: Trump has publicly alluded to the possibility of pardoning campaign officials indicted of collusion-related crimes, and his lawyers reportedly suggested it to theirs behind closed doors. That wouldn’t just be obstruction of justice—it would also be furthering the initial conspiracy to collude with Russia.
Tampering with witnesses: Key witnesses—and even indicted campaign officials like campaign chairman Paul Manafort—were reportedly in contact with the White House before and after they testified to Special Counsel Robert Mueller or Congress. Trump has also praised witnesses like Roger Stone who refused to testify against Trump and called Cohen a “rat” for cooperating with investigators.
Forcing out Attorney General Jeff Sessions: Trump’s only criticism of Sessions was that he had recused himself from overseeing Mueller’s investigation rather than run interference for Trump. When Sessions finally stepped down, Trump went outside the Justice Department’s explicit chain of command to illegally appoint an acting attorney general who’d openly attacked Mueller and even outlined how Trump could sideline the special counsel.
Trying to fire Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein: Along with his running commentary bashing Mueller’s investigation, Trump has reportedly tried to fire Mueller at least twice. He also reportedly considered forcing out Rosenstein, who has overseen the investigation since Sessions’s recusal in early 2017.
Directing the coverup of the June 9 meeting: When The New York Times first reported that Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Manafort met with suspected Russian operatives in Trump Tower, the president personally dictated his son’s misleading response. That response just so happened to dismiss the June 9 meeting as having been about adoptions—a topic Trump said he had recently discussed with Russian President Vladimir Putin at G20.