Volume II pgs 3-6

transporter

Active Member
Wow...so psyops and spitbubble's grasping for straws by insinuating that Trump was just some neophyte who was told not to do something and then didn't most certainly is not correct.

Trump is a 70+ year old man. He knows right from wrong. He famously proclaims how many lawsuits he has been involved in. He just a famously has lied constantly about the outcome of those lawsuits. Trump knows what is legal and what is not. It is obvious from these pages that he believes the law does not apply to him. Put another way, Donald Trump is the quintessential elite who has spent his life sh*tting on the little guy, the same 35% that still believe this man has any redeeming qualities.

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION
The key issues and events we examined include the following:

The Campaign's response to reports about Russian support for Trump. During the 2016 presidential campaign, questions arose about the Russian government's apparent support for candidate Trump. After WikiLeaks released politically damaging Democratic Party emails that were reported to have been hacked by Russia, Trump publicly expressed skepticism that Russia was responsible for the hacks at the same time that he and other Campaign officials privately sought information Harm to Ongoing Matter about any further planned WikiLeaks releases. Trump also denied having any business in or connections to Russia, even though as late as June 2016 the Trump Organization had been pursuing a licensing deal for a skyscraper to be built in Russia called Trump Tower Moscow. After the election, the President expressed concerns to advisors that reports of Russia's election interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election.
There are enough instances showing Trump's lying to the 35%...his lying goes WAY beyond what any other politician does. What is amazing is that you people still support this man.

Trump's pattern, Trump's MO, is as an habitual liar.

Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn.
In mid-January 2017, incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn falsely denied to the Vice President, other administration officials, and FBI agents that he had talked to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about Russia's response to U.S. sanctions on Russia for its election interference. On January 27, the day after the President was told that Flynn had lied to the Vice President and had made similar statements to the FBI, the President invited FBI Director Comey to a private dinner at the White House and told Comey that he needed loyalty. On February 14, the day after the President requested Flynn's resignation, the President told an outside advisor, "Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over." The advisor disagreed and said the investigations would continue.

Later that afternoon, the President cleared the Oval Office to have a one-on-one meeting with Comey. Referring to the FBI's investigation of Flynn, the President said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." Shortly after requesting Flynn's resignation and speaking privately to Comey, the President sought to have Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland draft an internal letter stating that the President had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. McFarland declined because she did not know whether that was true, and a White House Counsel's Office attorney thought that the request would look like a quid pro quo for an ambassadorship she had been offered.
Go ahead...rationalize the bold text away. This is not a man who didn't know the nuances of complex federal law. This is an employer who instructed an employee to make a false statement.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Go ahead...rationalize the bold text away. This is not a man who didn't know the nuances of complex federal law. This is an employer who instructed an employee to make a false statement.
The only straw I'm grasping at is the factual straw that Mueller found no collusion by the president, his campaign, or any American; and that he could not make a definitive conclusion on obstruction. Last I check, we are in the USA and not North Korea, where a person is innocent until proven guilty.

As I stated... Mueller had the opportunity to definitively say that Trump obstructed justice. He didn't. The man is innocent until proven otherwise. Mueller did not prove this; not even remotely.
 

transporter

Active Member
The President's reaction to the continuing Russia investigation.
In February 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions began to assess whether he had to recuse himself from campaign-related investigations because of his role in the Trump Campaign. In early March, the President told White House Counsel Donald McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing. And after Sessions announced his recusal on March 2, the President expressed anger at the decision and told advisors that he should have an Attorney General who would protect him. That weekend, the President took Sessions aside at an event and urged him to "unrecuse." Later in March, Comey publicly disclosed at a congressional hearing that the FBI was investigating "the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election," including any links or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. In the following days, the President reached out to the Director of National Intelligence and the leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) to ask them what they could do to publicly dispel the suggestion that the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort. The President also twice called Comey directly, notwithstanding guidance from McGahn to avoid direct contacts with the Department of Justice. Comey had previously assured the President that the FBI was not investigating him personally, and the President asked Comey to "lift the cloud" of the Russia investigation by saying that publicly.
So no the President wasn't told he could not do something then he stopped. The President was told not to contact the DOJ, but he called Comey anyway. That is a conscious decision to ignore sound legal advice.

Note: this is not how an innocent man acts.

The President's termination of Comey.
On May 3, 2017, Comey testified in a congressional hearing, but declined to answer questions about whether the President was personally under investigation. Within days, the President decided to terminate Comey. The President insisted that the termination letter, which was written for public release, state that Comey had informed the President that he was not under investigation. The day of the firing, the White House maintained that Comey's termination resulted from independent recommendations from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General that Comey should be discharged for mishandling the Hillary Clinton email investigation. But the President had decided to fire Comey before hearing from the Department of Justice. The day after firing Comey, the President told Russian officials that he had "faced great pressure because of Russia," which had been "taken off" by Comey's firing. The next day, the President acknowledged in a television interview that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the Department of Justice's recommendation and that when he "decided to just do it," he was thinking that "this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story." In response to a question about whether he was angry with Comey about the Russia investigation, the President said, "As far as I'm concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly," adding that firing Comey "might even lengthen out the investigation."
Here again...the same pattern...for those who don't understand Donald Trump believes the Federal Government exists to protect him from investigation. The AG is supposed to protect him. The head of the FBI is supposed to be loyal and sweep investigations under the rug. His staff exists to draft and carry letters that order others to lie to protect Trump.
 

transporter

Active Member
The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him.
On May 17, 2017, the Acting Attorney General for the Russia investigation appointed a Special Counsel to conduct the investigation and related matters. The President reacted to news that a Special Counsel had been appointed by telling advisors that it was "the end of his presidency" and demanding that Sessions resign. Sessions submitted his resignation, but the President ultimately did not accept it. The President told aides that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and suggested that the Special Counsel therefore could not serve. The President's advisors told him the asserted conflicts were meritless and had already been considered by the Department of Justice.
Why would Trump demand Sessions resignation then refuse to accept it? Was this just political expediency? Sessions role for the next 18 months was to serve as punching bag for an obviously ethically and morally bankrupt President?

Huh...to this day Hijinx and comrade GURPS continually post about the conflicts of interest of the Mueller team. Here the President's own advisors tell him that claim is meritless. True to form Trump ignores their advice and spends 2 years tweeting about conflicts of interest. True to form the 35% believe him.

On June 14, 2017, the media reported that the Special Counsel's Office was investigating whether the President had obstructed justice. Press reports called this "a major turning point" in the investigation: while Comey had told the President he was not under investigation, following Comey's firing, the President now was under investigation. The President reacted to this news with a series of tweets criticizing the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel's investigation. On June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre.
Donald Trump proclaims that he always finished at the top of every class or school he attended (Note he has never offered any proof of this and has sicked his attorneys on those schools threatening lawsuits if his transcripts were ever released.)...

...if true and given Trumps age (he lived thru Watergate)...he knew that firing a special counsel would ignite a firestorm. Better stated, he should have known.

Trump is no "babe in the woods". No, he is acting like a caged animal or guilty man...doing everything he can think of to escape.
 

transporter

Active Member
Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's investigation.
Two days after directing McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President made another attempt to affect the course of the Russia investigation. On June 19, 2017, the President met one-on-one in the Oval Office with his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, a trusted advisor outside the government, and dictated a message for Lewandowski to deliver to Sessions. The message said that Sessions should publicly announce that, notwithstanding his recusal from the Russia investigation, the investigation was "very unfair" to the President, the President had done nothing wrong, and Sessions planned to meet with the Special Counsel and "let [him] move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections." Lewandowski said he understood what the President wanted Sessions to do.
Now he is going outside of govt employees to do his dirty work....to impact the investigation. An innocent man doesn't do this. This part has a Tony Soprano feel to it.

One month later, in another private meeting with Lewandowski on July 19, 2017, the President asked about the status of his message for Sessions to limit the Special Counsel investigation to future election interference. Lewandowski told the President that the message would be delivered soon. Hours after that meeting, the President publicly criticized Sessions in an interview with the New York Times, and then issued a series of tweets making it clear that Sessions's job was in jeopardy. Lewandowski did not want to deliver the President's message personally, so he asked senior White House official Rick Dearborn to deliver it to Sessions. Dearborn was uncomfortable with the task and did not follow through.
 

transporter

Active Member
Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence.
In the summer of 2017, the President learned that media outlets were asking questions about the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between senior campaign officials, including Donald Trump Jr., and a Russian lawyer who was said to be offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." On several occasions, the President directed aides not to publicly disclose the emails setting up the June 9 meeting, suggesting that the emails would not leak and that the number of lawyers with access to them should be limited. Before the emails became public, the President edited a press statement for Trump Jr. by deleting a line that acknowledged that the meeting was with "an individual who [Trump Jr.] was told might have information helpful to the campaign" and instead said only that the meeting was about adoptions of Russian children. When the press asked questions about the President's involvement in Trump Jr.'s statement, the President's personal lawyer repeatedly denied the President had played any role.
Trump wanted all of Hillary's emails disclosed. Trump's lawyers did a yoeman's job in that the prevented Trump from testifying before the Special Counsel. Based on all this so far...a Trump interview would have been a complete CF. Of course, all this might also be over already.

Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation.
In early summer 2017, the President called Sessions at home and again asked him to reverse his recusal from the Russia investigation. Sessions did not reverse his recusal. In October 2017, the President met privately with Sessions in the Oval Office and asked him to "take [a] look" at investigating Clinton. In December 2017, shortly after Flynn pleaded guilty pursuant to a cooperation agreement, the President met with Sessions in the Oval Office and suggested, according to notes taken by a senior advisor, that if Sessions unrecused and took back supervision of the Russia investigation, he would be a "hero." The President told Sessions, "I'm not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly." In response, Sessions volunteered that he had never seen anything "improper" on the campaign and told the President there was a "whole new leadership team" in place. He did not unrecuse.
So here you go again. McGhan advised Trump not to have contact with DOJ...yet here is Trump, again, trying to interfere by twisting the arm of the AG.

A President instructing the AG to begin an investigation into a political foe? Yeah...that is how our justice system is supposed to work.
 

transporter

Active Member
Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed.
In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. The President reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed. The President then met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the reports. In the same meeting, the President also asked McGahn why he had told the Special Counsel about the President's effort to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the President. McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the President to be testing his mettle.
Same story...instructing others to lie in order to impede an investigation...now what is the legal term for that??????

Conduct towards Flynn, Manafort,
After Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with the President and began cooperating with the government, the President's personal counsel left a message for Flynn's attorneys reminding them of the President's warm feelings towards Flynn, which he said "still remains," and asking for a "heads up" if Flynn knew "information that implicates the President." When Flynn's counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information pursuant to a joint defense agreement, the President's personal counsel said he would make sure that the President knew that Flynn's actions reflected "hostility" towards the President. During Manafort's prosecution and when the jury in his criminal trial was deliberating, the President praised Manafort in public, said that Manafort was being treated unfairly, and declined to rule out a pardon. After Manafort was convicted, the President called Manafort "a brave man" for refusing to "break" and said that "flipping" "almost ought to be outlawed." Harm to Ongoing Matter


Threatening a witness...nice. Exactly what the Founding Fathers envisioned.
 

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
A President instructing the AG to begin an investigation into a political foe? Yeah...that is how our justice system is supposed to work.
Is that like Obama allowing (or ordering) Clapper, Comey, and Brennan to go after Trump during 2016 after Lynch hosed up her secret meeting with Billy Jeff??
 

transporter

Active Member
Conduct involving Michael Cohen.
The President's conduct towards Michael Cohen, a former Trump Organization executive, changed from praise for Cohen when he falsely minimized the President's involvement in the Trump Tower Moscow project, to castigation of Cohen when he became a cooperating witness. From September 2015 to June 2016, Cohen had pursued the Trump Tower Moscow project on behalf of the Trump Organization and had briefed candidate Trump on the project numerous times, including discussing whether Trump should travel to Russia to advance the deal. In 2017, Cohen provided false testimony to Congress about the project, including stating that he had only briefed Trump on the project three times and never discussed travel to Russia with him, in an effort to adhere to a "party line" that Cohen said was developed to minimize the President's connections to Russia. While preparing for his congressional testimony, Cohen had extensive discussions with the President's personal counsel, who, according to Cohen, said that Cohen should "stay on message" and not contradict the President. After the FBI searched Cohen's home and office in April 2018, the President publicly asserted that Cohen would not "flip," contacted him directly to tell him to "stay strong," and privately passed messages of support to him. Cohen also discussed pardons with the President's personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message he would be taken care of. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, the President publicly criticized him, called him a "rat," and suggested that his family members had committed crimes.
And another instance of witness tampering.

Yeah...that President of ours is a CLASS A, stand up kinda guy!!

So there you have it...10 summarized timelines that highlight the President's attempts to interfere with the investigation. He repeatedly acted against the advice of those around him. He repeatedly acted in a manner that shows he believes he is above the law.

IF he was innocent, IF he actually did not do anything wrong as it relates to Russian interference in our 2016 elections, then none of this should have occurred. None of it. Yeah...I can get where Trump, because he obviously isn't very bright, might be mad when Sessions recused himself. But, if he were 1/10th the manager he claims to be, if he were 1//10th as smart as he claims to be, he would have listened to the advice of those around him. If he actually was an innocent man, he should have acted like it and just let the investigation play its course.


This paints a terrible picture of President Donald Trump. The 35% won't care. SAD!!!!!!!!!!!
 

transporter

Active Member
Is this the new narrative? He looks guilty, therefore he is? Can't get him on real crimes, so make up your own. Pathetic fool.
1. No narrative. Is this how you think someone who is innocent acts? I am making up no crimes (I am posting in English...try learning it some time). Just pointing out the obvious.

2. Did you bother to read the opening pages of the report in which Mueller explains, in pretty good detail, why he didn't indict the President?

3. Read the report...dumbass.
 

transporter

Active Member
Is that like Obama allowing (or ordering) Clapper, Comey, and Brennan to go after Trump during 2016 after Lynch hosed up her secret meeting with Billy Jeff??
Really? The Russians are attacking and interfering in our election process and it is your opinion that what this country should do is pull down it pants and stick its ass up in the air??

You do understand that the Russians, not illegal immigrants or dead people, interfered in the 2016 election?

You understand that right??
 

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
Really? The Russians are attacking and interfering in our election process and it is your opinion that what this country should do is pull down it pants and stick its ass up in the air??

You do understand that the Russians, not illegal immigrants or dead people, interfered in the 2016 election?

You understand that right??
That response was pretty pathetic, even with your standards.
 

Yooper

Socket 1, Intel 80486
PREMO Member
Really? The Russians are attacking and interfering in our election process and it is your opinion that what this country should do is pull down it pants and stick its ass up in the air??

You do understand that the Russians, not illegal immigrants or dead people, interfered in the 2016 election?

You understand that right??
Agitated, aren't we?

Look, you have absolutely nothing. And we know that by the deluge of irrelevant crap you seem compelled to keep trying to peddle.

I'll let Scott Adams make some salient points in rebuttal to your drivel (a more complete screenshot of this was posted in another thread; with a link to the blogcast).

136556


Enjoy your wretched evening. 👍

--- End of line (MCP)
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
1. No narrative. Is this how you think someone who is innocent acts? I am making up no crimes (I am posting in English...try learning it some time). Just pointing out the obvious.

2. Did you bother to read the opening pages of the report in which Mueller explains, in pretty good detail, why he didn't indict the President?

3. Read the report...dumbass.
You find reason to disparage my comprehension of English while exercising your own ignorance thereof.

Mueller could find no criminality in anything Trump did. There is no law that would indict someone for looking guilty. But you go on and believe otherwise :dork:
 
Top