Is Trump guilty of suborning perjury?

Why do you refuse to accept what the Mueller team said?

 

Regardless of the twisting and turning in beating a round peg into a square hole in trying your best to make Muller's words fit the narrative you and other left wingers – and yes, I know you've identified as a conservative, but I no longer buy this – have constructed, Mueller said "BuzzFeed's description of specific statements of the special counsel’s office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate."

Are not accurate.

What's absurd is all the tea-leaf reading you and other's who suffer from TDS do in attempting to shape a narrative that fits your fantasy.

Be patient; if Muller's report shows Trump is as evil as all of you have said, hat's off to you. But if his report comes back clearing Trump of collusion with Russia I expect that you TDS sufferers will also accept his findings...

 

Now you got it. You said, "Mueller said "BuzzFeed's description of specific statements of the special counsel’s office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate.'" Mueller was concerned about premature disclosure of evidence "obtained by this office"

Mueller never said that BuzzFeed's accusation that Trump told Cohen to lie before Congress was not accurate.

When all else fails, mischaracterize a fact you don't like. You call that "beating a round peg into a square hole." I call it a fact.

 

Of course, but you are dreaming.

Is Trump now guilty of witness intimidation?

Giuliani asserted on CNN that Cohen’s father-in-law “may have ties to something called organized crime.”

"He makes up stories to get a GREAT & ALREADY reduced deal for himself, and get his wife and father-in-law (who has the money?) off Scott Free," Trump tweeted.

"But he should give information maybe on his father-in-law, because that’s the one that people want to look at. Because where does that money — that’s the money in the family. And I guess he didn’t want to talk about his father-in-law. He’s trying to get his sentence reduced. So it’s pretty sad. You know, it’s weak. And it’s very sad to watch a thing like that. I couldn’t care less," Trump told Fox's Pirro.

"Watch father-in-law!" Trump tweeted on Jan. 18.

Imagine the President of the United States and his lawyer saying these things. We don't have to imagine it. They said them.

Cohen’s testimony before the House Oversight Committee next month was supposed to be the first bombshell hearing from the new Democratic House of Representatives.

But on Wednesday, Cohen announced that he was withdrawing his commitment to appear — because, his lawyer said, of “threats against his family” from President Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

 

I noticed you didn't put quotation marks around this: Mueller was concerned about premature disclosure of evidence; how come? Did he say this? Or did an anonymous source provide this information?

So sources that agree with your narrative are accurate and sources that dismiss your narrative are unreliable?

Got it...

 

It is really quite simple. I wasn't quoting anyone.

"So sources that agree with your narrative are accurate and sources that dismiss your narrative are unreliable?" Huh?

You really should quit imagining what I said. The infantile tactic makes you look foolish.

I got an idea. If you want to critique me, go by what I say, not what you wish I had said.

I guess you didn't want to deal with the intimidation thing, post 354. That's okay. Most of Trump's fans will avoid it, too.

 

Try to read and understand Mueller's statement.

and then watch this:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...osi-trump-sensitive-to-powerful-women.549754/

 

He won't get it.

 

Why do you refuse to accept what the Mueller team said?

 

Why do you refuse to accept what the Mueller team said?

 

Why do you refuse to accept what the Mueller team said?

 

Exactly!

Who said Mueller was concerned about premature disclosure of evidence?

Where did you obtain this? Or is it something you simply said? If so, based on what?

 

This is quite the stretch, even for you Margo.

I'll take Muller's statement on face value without adding my own biases, thanks...

 

I did.

What Mueller said.

 

Margo is only pointing out Trump is no negotiator. He never was. He father set him up with billions and extremely capable people so the empire his father created would not collapse under Donald's leadership.

What do I base that on? Trump's record as President. He hasn't negotiated a thing.

 

Why do you refuse to accept what the Mueller team said?

 

No, it's not what Muller said. It's what YOU said.

 

I'm basing it on virtually every time a Republican president makes a deal with a Democratic congress, where the Dems promise to later address the issue and fail to do so.

They did it to Reagan with amnesty and Bush I with taxes, among other issues.

<Rule 3>

 

Considering Trump's record of a chaotic government (even the SOTU was postponed), the many charges against him, his 5,000 lies, the fact that we can't trust anything he says, <Rule 2>

In that spirit, let me ask you question. <Rule 2>

First some background. We know from Trump's lawyer, Giuliani, that negotiations with the Russian government continued until November 2016. In other words, the whole time Trump was campaigning for the Presidency. We know that Cohen lied to Congress. We know he is going to prison for lying. We know he told Congress negotiations with the Russian government ended in January 2016. We know from Trump's lawyer that Trump spoke to Cohen about his testimony before Congress.

We know that, if it became known to American voters that Trump was negotiating with the Russian government the whole time he was running for President, that would have been the death knell of his campaign. He would not be our President today.

Taking all these facts into consideration, do you really believe Trump and Giuliani when they deny Trump asked Cohen by suggestion or innuendo to lie to Congress?

 

Why do you refuse to accept what the Mueller team said?

 

It seems most leftists believe if you don't hate Trump, if you don't want him immediately impeached, you're an avid supporter of him. This is not true.

I didn't vote for Trump. But there are some aspects of his administration so far that I do support; his judicial appointments, his elimination of many of the Obama era regulations, his tax cuts, etc.

But I could care less about his character and his lies. Know why? Leftists have shown us with their support for Obama (winner of the Politico Lie of the Year) and Bill Clinton that they firmly believe behavior and character doesn't matter when it comes to a president.

They made the rules, but in their partisan zeal they ignore them if the target isn't a member of Team Blue.

Obama, along with Eric Holder, were among the most corrupt president/attorney general teams we've seen in decades. Clinton took advantage of a young intern, then lied under oath about it. But leftists have declared this was OK.

If a strong viable Republican took on Trump during the primaries, I'd more than likely support him or her.

But I'm certainly not going to go nuts because Trump has violated the rules leftists have deemed to be OK...

 

You evaded the question by pretending you don't give a shyt, and this isn't about Obama, Clinton, and Holder. This isn't about five years ago or ten years ago or 20 years ago. This is about today and today's President. Not answering the question is a sign of weakness. I'll give you a second chance.

We know that, if it became known to American voters that Trump was negotiating with the Russian government the whole time he was running for President, that would have been the death knell of his campaign. He would not be our President today.

Taking all these facts into consideration, do you really believe Trump and Giuliani when they deny Trump asked Cohen by suggestion or innuendo to lie to Congress?

 

In addition, the sixth close associate to Trump and a senior advisor to him on the campaign was arrested and indicted. The other five are convicted felons and facing jail time.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders was heard saying, "This has nothing to do with the President and certainly nothing to do with the White house." I have to hand it to her. You got to have balls to say something like that.

The indictment contains this ominous statement. "After the July 22, 2016, release of stolen (Democratic National Committee) emails by Organization 1 [WikiLeaks], a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other damaging information Organization 1 had regarding the Clinton Campaign. STONE thereafter told the Trump Campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by Organization 1."

Who had the authority to direct a "senior Trump Campaign official?

 

Roger Stone's hero is Richard Nixon.

Similar to Paul Manafort, Mike Flynn, George Papadopulous, Rick Gates, and Michael Cohen, Stone showed defiance at his arrest, imitating Nixon's salute.





Well, we all know what happened to Nixon and the others.

 

Look at yourself, Sandy, discarding the rules that leftists made regarding corrupt Democratic Party politicians so you can obsess about a Republican.

History matters, my friend. You can't selectively apply principles to feed your obsession and expect to keep your credibility with normal Americas.

If it became known? That's the point, Sandy, and I'm glad you're finally able to see this. Was the Trump administration colluding with Russia? I supposed when Mueller is finally done with his investigation we'll discover if this is true, but for now we have a cavalcade of Democratic Party operatives posing as journalists spewing fake news from anonymous sources on almost a daily basis that TDS sufferers suck up with an almost religious zeal.

We do know that Hillary and the corrupt Clinton Foundation was negotiating with Russia for payoffs when she was SecState, but leftists don't seem to care about this...