HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » BOOM! Trump allegedly ask...

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 08:38 AM

 

BOOM! Trump allegedly asked Director of National Intelligence Coats

to intervene with Comey to get the FBI to "back off" the investigation into Flynn. That, ladies and gentlemen, is obstruction of justice, almost exactly what Nixon did by ordering the CIA to obstruct the FBI's Watergate investigation.

"Coats told associates that Trump had asked him whether Coats could intervene with Comey to get the bureau to back off its focus on former national security adviser Michael Flynn in its Russia probe, according to officials. Coats later told lawmakers that he never felt pressured to intervene."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-counsel-is-investigating-trump-for-possible-obstruction-of-justice/2017/06/14/9ce02506-5131-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.9c1c9d4eb740

HOLY SHIT! Trump asked Coats to obstruct justice.

78 replies, 22380 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 78 replies Author Time Post
Reply BOOM! Trump allegedly asked Director of National Intelligence Coats (Original post)
KingCharlemagne Jun 2017 OP
writes3000 Jun 2017 #1
KingCharlemagne Jun 2017 #44
onit2day Jun 2017 #62
SleeplessinSoCal Jun 2017 #68
Nitram Jun 2017 #75
Maraya1969 Jun 2017 #71
virtualobserver Jun 2017 #2
Tommy_Carcetti Jun 2017 #12
KingCharlemagne Jun 2017 #43
Maeve Jun 2017 #17
Sgent Jun 2017 #18
virtualobserver Jun 2017 #19
mercuryblues Jun 2017 #3
Phoenix61 Jun 2017 #10
WinkyDink Jun 2017 #14
mercuryblues Jun 2017 #30
malaise Jun 2017 #4
Freethinker65 Jun 2017 #5
DefenseLawyer Jun 2017 #6
mopinko Jun 2017 #7
rusty fender Jun 2017 #48
DefenseLawyer Jun 2017 #58
luvMIdog Jun 2017 #8
Still In Wisconsin Jun 2017 #9
DefenseLawyer Jun 2017 #33
Shrike47 Jun 2017 #13
Buns_of_Fire Jun 2017 #15
progressoid Jun 2017 #25
flibbitygiblets Jun 2017 #34
progressoid Jun 2017 #38
NBachers Jun 2017 #64
flibbitygiblets Jun 2017 #72
Eyeball_Kid Jun 2017 #52
klook Jun 2017 #67
KingCharlemagne Jun 2017 #45
writes3000 Jun 2017 #11
WinkyDink Jun 2017 #16
writes3000 Jun 2017 #29
KingCharlemagne Jun 2017 #46
spanone Jun 2017 #20
JudyM Jun 2017 #74
thesquanderer Jun 2017 #21
Honeycombe8 Jun 2017 #23
Pluvious Jun 2017 #37
grantcart Jun 2017 #60
Honeycombe8 Jun 2017 #70
Pluvious Jun 2017 #73
thesquanderer Jun 2017 #57
Saviolo Jun 2017 #28
Eyeball_Kid Jun 2017 #54
alcibiades_mystery Jun 2017 #31
Honeycombe8 Jun 2017 #22
KingCharlemagne Jun 2017 #47
Patterson Jun 2017 #59
Honeycombe8 Jun 2017 #69
liberal N proud Jun 2017 #24
All-In Jun 2017 #27
MGKrebs Jun 2017 #26
Enoki33 Jun 2017 #35
MGKrebs Jun 2017 #39
Eyeball_Kid Jun 2017 #56
onetexan Jun 2017 #36
Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2017 #41
MGKrebs Jun 2017 #61
Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2017 #66
procon Jun 2017 #32
Doitnow Jun 2017 #40
FenwayDonkey Jun 2017 #42
Grammy23 Jun 2017 #49
KingCharlemagne Jun 2017 #50
hughee99 Jun 2017 #53
Tanuki Jun 2017 #76
MFM008 Jun 2017 #51
MedusaX Jun 2017 #55
Justice Jun 2017 #63
KingCharlemagne Jun 2017 #65
Catherine Vincent Jun 2017 #77
KingCharlemagne Jun 2017 #78

Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 08:40 AM

1. Of course, he did! He asked Rogers as well. Trump knows the deeper they dig, the more he's...

F&cked!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to writes3000 (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 11:52 AM

44. Trump couldnt get Coats or Rogers (or Comey) to do his bidding. So

 

next step is to fire Comey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to writes3000 (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 02:39 PM

62. But he didn't 'pressure' him.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onit2day (Reply #62)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 06:39 PM

68. which proves he knew what he was asking would be wrong

and illegal. Not the neophyte some reps are claiming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SleeplessinSoCal (Reply #68)

Fri Jun 16, 2017, 07:08 AM

75. I'm sure Trump has extensive experience in making threats and illegal suggestions

using fairly neutral language.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onit2day (Reply #62)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 08:52 PM

71. Who can judge what "pressure" is? Pressure in this case is asking while being the POTUS!

That alone is pressure and he knew it! And pressure is asking while everyone knows about all your contacts with the Russians who routinely poison anyone who doesn't do their bidding.

If that scumbag had said those things to me I would have been afraid, to say the least. And that is pressure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 08:48 AM

2. that is why Coats discussed how he "felt"....

 

He didn't say that Trump didn't ask him.....just that he never "felt" pressured to intervene.....

He didn't want to go to jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 09:22 AM

12. What one "feels" is subjective....

.....the facts surrounding those feelings most definitely aren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #12)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 11:50 AM

43. Good point. - nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 09:33 AM

17. Nor does he wish to lose his job

tRump like to fire disloyal poeple

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 09:34 AM

18. He wouldn't go to jail

if he was just asked. Now if he acted on the request...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 09:36 AM

19. that was what I meant to imply

 

Coats was trying to thread the needle with his response.

He won't be able to get away with that with the special counsel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 08:52 AM

3. has Comey

ever testified if Coats tried to get him to back off on Flynn?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 09:15 AM

10. Yes he did

He said that Coats and Rogers never asked him to back off Flynn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phoenix61 (Reply #10)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 09:30 AM

14. They might not have done Trump's bidding, but they were in contempt of

 

Congress, and Trump obstructed justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phoenix61 (Reply #10)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 10:28 AM

30. Thank you

I tried googling it, but could not come up with the answer. All the hits were about trump asking Coats, Rogers and Comey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 08:52 AM

4. From Coats wouldn't answer this in public we knew the answer

Lock up the Con

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 08:52 AM

5. Prepare for the now famous "locker room talk" defense

Boys will be boys. It was just a joke. IOKIYAT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 08:56 AM

6. The spin:

 

When he asked if he "could" intervene, he wasn't suggesting that he should intervene. No, he was literally just asking, in the abstract, if he "could". Because you know, he's a novice and doesn't really understand what everyone in the government actually does. Insert eye roll here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DefenseLawyer (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 08:58 AM

7. he was just asking for his friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 12:10 PM

48. Hahaha


Asking for lil' Jeffie Beau.

What a rube!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 01:12 PM

58. Say Dan, Bannon and I have a bet, maybe you can settle it for us. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DefenseLawyer (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 08:59 AM

8. hahahahaa Kellyanne's eyeballs might pop right out of her head from the pressure on this one *grin*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DefenseLawyer (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 09:12 AM

9. That dog won't hunt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Still In Wisconsin (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 10:36 AM

33. Oh I'm not saying it will hunt

 

I'm just saying it may very well be his dog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DefenseLawyer (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 09:28 AM

13. It was a hypothetical question. Info for the screenplay he's writing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DefenseLawyer (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 09:30 AM

15. And once again, Ryan will probably ask us to believe that Comrade Fatass

isn't really malicious or evil or crooked -- he's just STUPID!

What a glowing endorsement!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DefenseLawyer (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 10:10 AM

25. Yup. That's already what one of the sons said after Comey's testimony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #25)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 10:38 AM

34. Was that Uday or Qusay?

I can't wait for those smug a-holes to get their comeuppance as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flibbitygiblets (Reply #34)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 10:46 AM

38. Beats me. I can't tell the difference.

They both have that blank, lack of emotion, look. Kind of creeps me out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #38)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 05:14 PM

64. They always look to me like home invaders with stockings pulled over their head.

Last edited Fri Jun 16, 2017, 01:42 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NBachers (Reply #64)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 10:15 PM

72. LOL, I never realized that before.

Like Nick Cage in Raising Arizona: "Son, you got a panty on your head"



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flibbitygiblets (Reply #34)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 12:35 PM

52. RICO! RICO!

Oh.. and let's not forget emoluments. The kiddies are caught up in both. They'll need to get newspaper routes after the feds are done with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eyeball_Kid (Reply #52)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 06:16 PM

67. Hope they'll be putting copies of Prison Times through cell bars. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DefenseLawyer (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 11:57 AM

45. LOL Ah, the infamous "hypothetically speaking" defense! :) -nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 09:18 AM

11. Do we know if Coats or Rogers actually asked Comey to back off? Does that make them guilty as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to writes3000 (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 09:31 AM

16. I believe Comey.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 10:27 AM

29. Did Comey testify that Coats or Rogers told him to back off?

I'm trying to assess whether they followed through with Trump's request.

If so, they could be in legal jeopardy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to writes3000 (Reply #29)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 12:01 PM

46. I believe Comey testified they did not. Cant swear to it, though - nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 09:39 AM

20. so that's the head of the FBI and the head of the DNI are asked to derail an investigation....

i wonder what would ensue had a democrat done the same?

well, i really don't wonder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #20)

Fri Jun 16, 2017, 06:59 AM

74. Simply the *appearance* of that happening cost HRC the presidency.

If in fact Comey's announcement of taking up the case again is what threw the election to tRump... seeing as Comey essentially stated that Bill's tarmac meeting with Lynch was the turning point for his decision to make that announcement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 09:42 AM

21. re: "HOLY SHIT! Trump asked Coats to obstruct justice."

It sounds like he asked, but they did not comply... therefore no obstruction occurred (in this particular case). I think maybe the most important part of this is that it is further evidence of Trump's state of mind, helping to prove the intent behind telling Comey he "hoped" he could let the Flynn thing go. As if that weren't obvious enough already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #21)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 09:46 AM

23. Obstruction does not require that the obstruction was successful, I believe.

It's just that the head honcho did actions TO obstruct justice. The fact that the underling he was pressuring didn't succumb, or didn't catch on, or didn't get an opportunity to follow the "suggestions" of the head honcho is immaterial, I believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #23)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 10:44 AM

37. Is there ambiguity in firing Comey, as being obstruction ?

And all the "could" questions just put the act of firing in context ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pluvious (Reply #37)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 01:16 PM

60. There was ambiguity right up to the point that the idiot told Lester Holt why he fired him.


That kind of settled it but if you were in doubt he confirmed it to the Russians in the WH the next day.

The only thing we are missing is "Of course I fired him, I didn't want to get caught".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pluvious (Reply #37)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 07:47 PM

70. This thread is not about Comey. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #70)

Fri Jun 16, 2017, 12:27 AM

73. This thread is about obstruction, firing Comey was defiantly obstruction of justice

Think about it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #23)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 12:53 PM

57. Good point. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #21)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 10:26 AM

28. Makes no different if an investigation was actually obstructed

Here's some information from a lawyer on the meaning of the term:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029175368

It doesn't matter if Coats "felt" pressured or if there was anything actually obstructed. If Trump asked them to intervene, it is obstruction of justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Saviolo (Reply #28)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 12:37 PM

54. Correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #21)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 10:31 AM

31. "therefore no obstruction occurred"

 

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 09:44 AM

22. Old news. Coats has already testified about it before Congress.

He takes the position that he was not pressured to do anything, and he didn't feel pressured, and he did in fact not do anything.

The other intel officer or advisor who also testified at the same time about the same thing, also said what Coats said.

As I recall, they wouldn't confirm or deny or talk about what Trump had said to them. Same thing Sessions did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #22)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 12:04 PM

47. If Trump asked Coats to intervene, Trump was obstructing

 

justice. Whether that is old news lies, I suppose, in the eye of the beholder. The WaPo story is dated yesterday, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #22)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 01:15 PM

59. I doubt if it matters what Coates "felt" or did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Patterson (Reply #59)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 07:46 PM

69. True enough. But he wouldn't confirm or deny what Trump had said to him.

Neither would the other guy.

The point being...they don't want to get involved in an obstruction of justice issue. Also, they were not fired when they didn't do whatever it was that Trump asked them to do, like Comey was.

Odd...that they don't want to call Trump on trying to influence the investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 10:09 AM

24. How can the fucking republicans continue to ignore this?

Not without being in violation of their oath to the constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #24)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 10:24 AM

27. Their Oath Is To Billionaires

 

Who write them checks.

And fund the 100 conservative organizations that push them forward.

All the way to hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 10:23 AM

26. Trump probably really didn't understand that he was breaking the law,

BECAUSE HE DIDN'T PAY ATTENTION IN HIS ETHICS BRIEFINGS.
Dumbass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MGKrebs (Reply #26)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 10:40 AM

35. He knew exactly what he was doing. It is what he has done

his entire life. His miscalculation was based on the fact that he has always dealt with less principled individuals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enoki33 (Reply #35)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 10:52 AM

39. That's what I mean though. In the business world the boss "leaning on" a subordinate

is normal day to day behavior. An idiot who wasn't prepared to operate in this arena just wouldn't understand it was wrong. Or at least no wrong enough to warrant more than a warning from somebody.
In the business world you do something wrong and you usually get a letter first, and then a fine and then you move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enoki33 (Reply #35)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 12:41 PM

56. Trumpy's always had enough money to buy off anyone. Except for now.

America's Grifters. The best of the best, in the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MGKrebs (Reply #26)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 10:41 AM

36. oh yes he was well aware

and deliberately did so thinking because he is so bold GOPs will leave him alone and what he did won't have any consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MGKrebs (Reply #26)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 11:31 AM

41. The White House REFUSED ethics briefings. He didn't even give himself the chance to pay attention.


Willful carelessness.

Rank amateurishness.

Arrogant ignorance.

Republican President Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #41)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 01:20 PM

61. Oh jeez, that's right. And now he'll claim ignorance

since he didn't get the briefings.
He's a slippery one, that Trumpy.
A life of scamming and eventually it just becomes intuitive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MGKrebs (Reply #61)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 05:21 PM

66. His scamming has gone beyond intuitive. It is now reflexive. He can't help himself. . . . . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 10:35 AM

32. Did Flynn give Trump an ultimatum?

Picture something like this: "You better get me outta this, Donald, or I'm gonna tell all and take you down with me!"

That would sure explain why Trump is so frantic to quash the investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #32)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 11:06 AM

40. Gang members stick together-----until they don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 11:40 AM

42. Coats is not a career Intelligence person he's a career GOPer.

 

If anyone will lie under oath it will be him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 12:12 PM

49. Honest question here.

If tRump asked any of them (Coats, Comey, etc) to make the investigation go away, even if he asked nicely/sweetly, isn't that still an attempt at obstruction of justice? If a guy goes in a bank, attempts a robbery but ultimately leaves empty handed, isn't he still guilty of attempted bank robbery? Success at the crime is not a prerequisite to being charged with a crime.

Is my logic flawed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grammy23 (Reply #49)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 12:18 PM

50. Thinking back to Watergate, once Nixon ordered Haldeman and Ehrlichman to

 

tell the CIA to obstruct the FBI, obstruction occurred whether the CIA actually obstructed the FBI or refused to obey. John Dean made the allegation, Nixon denied it, but the tapes corroborated Dean's allegations and were the final evidentiary nail in Tricky Dick's coffin.

IANAL, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grammy23 (Reply #49)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 12:36 PM

53. Doesn't it depend on the crime and what was actually done?

You don't get charged with Murder if no one died, but there are other charges you may be subject to. If you walk into the bank with the intention to rob it, chicken out, and leave, are you still guilty of attempted bank robbery? If Trump had asked a Mall Santa to make the investigation go away, would that be obstruction of justice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grammy23 (Reply #49)

Fri Jun 16, 2017, 07:45 AM

76. It seems comparable to when someone tries to hire a "hit man" to commit a murder.

It's still a serious crime, even if the presumed hit man is an undercover FBI agent and nobody got killed. Interesting discussion here:

https://www.quora.com/If-someone-hired-a-hitman-to-kill-someone-who-goes-to-prison-the-hitman-or-the-person-who-hired-them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 12:28 PM

51. And the maggot

And his minions are busy undermining the special council so when they release their finding his idiot supporters will ignore it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 12:39 PM

55. Mueller allowed Coates & Rogers to GLOMAR to support comey's testimony...but kgop sat on their hands

And played tiddlywinks instead of taking action to impeach
So now we have the drip drip of more supporting evidence -
clearly stated
rather than implied...

Telling house KGOP to wake the fuck up & do their job!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 04:00 PM

63. Did he think Trump was joking? Seriously not believable that never felt pressured.



Why would you tell associates about it if it were no big deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Justice (Reply #63)

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 05:16 PM

65. If you start by assuming that every word that leaves a Republican's

 

lips is a flat-out lie, things that don't make sense at first quickly snap into focus. To wit, Coats actually DID feel pressured. Survival in Trumpland means you lie to protect your boss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Fri Jun 16, 2017, 08:28 AM

77. Coates

it sounds like Coates is trying to protect Trump saying he wasn't pressured and it was no big deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherine Vincent (Reply #77)

Fri Jun 16, 2017, 09:24 AM

78. I agree. - nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread