After his last "testimony" before Congress, Cohen requested coming before the House again. He said he had more gossip he could toss out there. The Dems turned him down. Even the Dems didn't want any more of this guy's stories.
Other Presidents avoided similar problems by keeping their pie hole shut about pardons. He put his foot in it by raising the possibility.
LOL. Why keep trying to push the nonsense that it's not a hoax? Oh wait, it's a dead hoax. C'mon. It's over. I know that you don't want to concede, but you're just making your argument look all the more ridiculous. It's over. Give up.
The number of Trump campaign officials having extensive contacts with Russia justified an investigation. Period.
Why? What about contacts with foreign putative representatives should require the assumption of nefarious intent? The guy was about to become the most powerful human on Earth. Why in the heck would he not try to establish some connections with the second, or third, most powerful guy on the planet?
Because Russia was taking out ads on Facebook, planting fake news stories, and stealing private emails in a covert effort to influence our election. Using similar reasoning, I calculated Mueller would find no collusion. But it was only a guess.
Yeah I agree he often speaks when he shouldn't. But when the press is pressing him he was damned if he didn't say anything, and damned if he did. I could just hear the accusations - "by refusing to answer he is holding out the possibility of pardons: obstruction!" .
They badgered the crap out of him about Flynn, Manafort, and Cohen. It wasn't like he was putting it out there. Trump, the master troller he is gave the media some crack for their pipe. I laughed quite a bit over that.
Me-"What about contacts with foreign putative representatives should require the assumption of nefarious intent?" You-"Because Russia was taking out ads on Facebook, planting fake news stories, and stealing private emails in a covert effort to influence our election." Show your work! Let's see the steps that you took. How does my question lead to your conclusion? How did you go about eliminating all other possible, even the most likely of, alternatives. I think that your answer is a non-sequitur. I think that you are opposed to Trump, and that you don't care about logic or reason. I think that you have a bias and will use whatever argument that you can, to further the damage to our President. How far are you willing to go? You say that you're not one of those deranged leftists; why are you joined with them? Look, you, me, and leftist nutjobs can all agree that Trump is not the ideal human. Why is that your most important criteria for judging him? Why not look at his agenda? He truly has a great agenda. Why can't you join me? Just hold your nose and support the (mostly) great things that he is trying to accomplish.
Apparently the only difference between us is I actually read the report. It neither charged criminal conspiracy or exonerated it but presented what evidence they found and gave numerous examples of issues that prevented a finding among which were lying and withholding of evidence by Trump's people, people knowledgable being unavailable, our genius President some how having memory failure thirty times, etc,etc.
Amazing you know what Trump would have said in person had he had the guts to actually testify. Must be sitting under your copper pyramid again or is the knowledge coming through your fillings?
But then y'all like our idiot leader thought Russian interference with our election was a hoax. At least Trump has for the moment stopped denying it occurred but then he doesn't seem to be doing anything to stop it from occuring in the next election. Probably he is hoping for more Russian help. And nothing in the Mueller report exonerates Trump from obstruction of justice or collusion or criminal conspiracy.
That has nothing to do with what you stated earlier. You said "And it said the lack of evidence was to a great extent due to lying and obstruction of the members of the Trump team as well as Trump himself." That there is just made up bullshit on your part or whoever's whispering in your ear.
"the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election." - Vol. I, P. 9 You'll find it someday.
He did actually testify...the written replies, sometimes called, interrogatories, in the US justice system, is testimony.
It is testimony basically by Trump's lawyers. Trump despite repeatedly claiming a willingness to testify in person was obviously afraid of being caught lying which was almost a certainty given his record. Mueller should have subpoenaed him. And then there are the thirty I can't remember answers.
All testimony is essentially testimony by ones lawyers....you think someone with a lawyer just walks in and takes the stand without having numerous meetings with their attorneys for prep??? He can't recall is a great answer, some of this stuff that's being questioned happened a long time ago, and quite a lot has happened since....that's being honest. Mueller didn't feel the need obviously...by then they knew there was no conspiracy.....
No it didn't. There were no "extensive" contacts. The Obama Administration lied and made up fake stories that they fed to the media, then used those fake stories to justify a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. There were no "extensive" contacts with Russia at all.
only a jury could do that...but frankly, if the presumption is he is innocent, and they don't even have enough evidence to recommend a charge....guess what? He's innocent!! Sorry your hoax failed!
