Trump invokes executive privilege over Mueller report

Voters will remember my coined word - Trumparency - The complete opposite of transparency

 

No, he does not. Mueller implied that. But unfortunately, congress is not, as ruled by the supreme court, a law enforcement body. They could not bring an indictment against anybody if their sorry asses depended on it.

 

That's genuinely funny... that's almost word for word what Mueller said Trump tried to get McGahn to do in Section I



Is it really bliss, like they say??

 

Democrats yea republicans will remember FBI overreach and names like Peter Strzok. The key is like always what will independents think and we can speculate all day but only an election will tell us with certainty

 

He moves rapidly from Total innocence to EP.

 

Because if you read on, the President never asked that...he wanted him to correct the NY Times false report....

 

Are you seriously going to try and pretend that Trump did not make false or misleading public statement for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States?

 

The NY Times report was not false though! Trump DID try to get McGahn to fire Mueller.

 

How many investigative committees did the Republicans craft in order to review Benghazi?

 

No he didn't...the reports are that he asked him to look into Conflicts of Interest...legit concerns he had at the time. That could have lead to his recusal. People are allowed to have concerns over conflicts of interest. That's not obstruction...come on counsel, you of all people should know that

 

Of course he tried to fire him. I don't understand Trump's reasoning. The House is not going to impeach him over obstruction, even when he attempted to obstruct. Does he think anyone's mind will be changed about him if McGahn says "yeah he told me to fire him, but I didn't?" lOl

 

That excuse is both irrational and indefensible. Setting aside the absurd idiocy needed to believe that Mueller was conflicted because he used to be part of Trump's country club, multiple Trump appointed individuals had already reviewed Mueller for conflicts of interest and deemed that he was not conflicted.

 

Mouse? Oh no you don't ... Chris Coumo has the poll numbers fella! ::

 

That makes no sense. The President was very transparent with the Mueller Investigation and Mueller never claimed anything to the contrary. Voters, despite electing BHO twice, are too smart for that silliness.

 

They can investigate, which they did, but they cannot indict. That was up to Loretta Lynch at the time. However you'll see indictments coming down once the investigations are complete and with a new AG in place.

And btw, what was the consequence of those investigation where Americans were actually killed? Are you really comparing Benghazi to not releasing information on a Grand Jury, an act which is illegal?

 

Except when he mentions Trump was a big ***** for not agreeing to a sit down....

Appendix C



I don't want to hear the numerous reasons Trump wouldn't do it, some of them even being valid. But that forever shoots your "very transparent" BS right in the heart.

 

Trump did not have sit down with mueller so he didnt
I

 

And there was no reason for the President to agree to a 'sit down'. Why should he? Mueller was given over a million documents, there were 500 witnesses, over 40 FBI agents, 17 Democrat lawyers and they still could come up with nothing. One of few remaining respected Democrats, Alan Dershowitz, strongly advised Trump not to talk with Mueller or other members of the witch hunt.

"And of course there is precedent. Since the special counsel wrapped up his investigation late last month, a central question facing the Justice Department has been why Mueller's team decided to punt on whether Trump obstructed justice or not. The decision was complicated, the report said, by two key factors: Under decades-old guidelines by the department's Office of Legal Counsel, a sitting president cannot be indicted and put on trial, and a criminal charge against a sitting president would "place burdens on the president's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct."

 

Do you really care about transparency or is that just another political point? If you cared how can you be shocked at the level of transparency currently give the standards in the past?

“over nearly the past eight years, the Society of Professional Journalists and other groups have repeatedly outlined to the administration various ways in which transparency has gotten worse, including:

■ Officials’ blocking requests by reporters to talk to specific staff people.

■ Excessive delays in answering interview requests that stretch past reporters’ deadlines.

■ Conveying information “on background,” and refusing to give reporters what should be public information unless they agree not to say who is speaking.

■ Federal agencies’ blackballing of reporters who write critically of them.

■ Lack of meaningful visual access to the president by an independent press pool.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...-transparent-journalists-fault-obama.amp.html

 

90% of American journalists are scum of the earth

 

You only say that because you've watched CNN and MSNBC. Otherwise it drops down to 40%.

 

Yep that’s why Trump fired McGahn right after McGahn didn’t fire Mueller..... Wait McGahn stayed on for 16 more months. I guess Trump wasn’t too serious in his request after all. I wonder if that was taken out of context too?

 

I’m not a huge fan of them putting cameras in people’s faces during some of their worst tribulations all for some ratings. Parents kids die in a car wreck and a reporter is there asking them how they feel or a tornado wiping out all a family’s stuff and a reporter asking something all for the sake of ratings. That’s pretty yucky to me

 

Don’t you have clients? I do. They are allowed to ask, I can say no, it’s ok.,.but I do have a job to at lest listen. The asking isn’t obstruction..even if the questions are wrong

 

No he didn’t