Nothing to see here folks.
Not sure which I would like to see more – Mueller publicly revealing and delivering to Congress strong evidence of Obstruction of Justice before this year’s elections (while also putting Manafort and Gates on trial and continuing his investigation into Russian meddling and Trump campaign collusion and everything else he’s uncovered, including likely Trump Organization money-laundering), or Mueller presenting everything to a newly-sworn-in Democratic Congress in 2019. I would be very happy with either scenario.
Obstruction of Justice has such a nice ring to it…
I’ll take the first option. Presenting everything before the midterms could help swing the House, and maybe the Senate, to the Dems. Presenting everything after the midterms would not have any direct effect on the elections and will not do anything to remove DT from the White House because regardless of the election outcome there will not be the required 2/3 vote in the Senate.
Can’t wait for the news cycles as we approach the midterms.
I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a hoax that has been so well fleshed out, so vivid with details, so captivating, engaging and which seems to evolved on a daily basis.
The writers behind this hoax definitely deserve some major recognition!
I like Roger Stone’s advice at the end of the WaPo piece:
Roger Stone, a longtime informal adviser to Trump, said he should try to avoid an interview at all costs, saying agreeing to such a session would be a “suicide mission.”
“I find it to be a death wish. Why would you walk into a perjury trap?” Stone said. “The president would be very poorly advised to give Mueller an interview.”
Seems like we got a live one here.
ROFLMAO
A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding or pending proceeding before Congress or a federal agency. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.
Hmm.
Not to worry. I have been informed by Comrade Nunes that when it’s the president that does it, it’s not illegal.
Probably true, as far as removal from office. Although depending on how badly the GOP gets slaughtered in November, and how damning Mueller’s case against Trump, it’s possible that GOP Senators will be looking for an escape hatch for what’s left of their party.
And there’s also the fact that as long as Dems win a majority in the House, they can go through the impeachment process, even if the Senate does not eventually convict. Which means months of hearings airing all the administration’s Russia-related dirty laundry. (Not that they couldn’t do this in 2019 even if Mueller reports to them in 2018…but will play better if it’s in response to facts freshly brought to their attention, as opposed to a case delivered to Congress the previous year and re-opened due to change of partisan control.)
Again, I’ll happily take either timing.
Stone also called it a “perjury trap.”
Hey, just tell the truth, Donnie. You’ll be fi…
Oh, wait.
Obstruction of justice, as deadly serious as that crime is, is probably the easier one to prove. While it’ll probably move voters, I can easily see a Republican Congress collectively shrugging their shoulders, and I’m sure Mueller sees that too.
Could Mueller possibly be using this charge or threat of indictment to flip Sessions, maybe Pence, among others, to get to the meat of the Russian conspiracy?
Sounds like Michael Flynn very well could be the undoing of Trumpski and minions.
“The negotiations over a Trump interview with Mueller are being spearheaded by Jay Sekulow and John Dowd, his personal attorneys…”
“…from the firm Dunning & Kruger.”
Citing two people familiar with Mueller’s intentions, the Post reports that the special counsel would like to ask Trump about the ousting of former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn and ex-FBI Director James Comey. […] And, according to one Post source familiar with Mueller’s probe, the special counsel also is examining the pressure campaign Trump led last summer when he publicly bashed Attorney General Jeff Sessions
Not to mention the pressure applied to remove others at DOJ.
And this part, too, is key:
The White House said at the time that Flynn was fired because he lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his contacts with Kislyak. But in December Trump tweeted that he fired Flynn for lying to the FBI, as well as to Pence. (Dowd later claimed he had written the tweet.)
As was discussed here at the time of that tweet, its precise meaning and authorship are … not uninteresting.
That’s precisely why Mueller would have to think long and hard before doing it.
I am sure the Donald’s natural charisma will convert the interviewers into true believers.
(cough)
Optics?
Did that stop Comey from sending a letter to Congress that he was investigating more of the Clinton emails?
There was nothing there. Is there something here, or are smear jobs only okay when it involves people who are looking into republican malfeasance?
(not sure how that turned into mis, but whatever)
Things seems stagnant, then a week like this comes along and you can feel new continents quietly forming beneath your feet. And for some, continents dissolving beneath their feet. Tectonic Tuesdays are always fun.