Donald Trump under investigation for potential obstruction of justice – reports

As someone said as far as waiting for the other shoe to drop, this president is like a centipede.  


Donald Trump is reportedly being investigated for obstruction of justice by the special counsel looking into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. This marks the first time that the ongoing investigation, which has hung over Trump since his inauguration, has potentially implicated the president himself.

The Washington Post reported on Wednesday night that the federal probe into the Trump campaign’s ties with Russia during the 2016 campaign, being overseen by Robert Mueller, has now expanded into whether the president attempted to thwart that investigation.

........

In addition to his alleged attempts to influence Comey, Trump reportedly intervened with Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, in an attempt to ask him to persuade Comey to back off the FBI investigation of Flynn, a close Trump ally. In addition, Trump allegedly asked both Coats and Adm Mike Rogers, the head of the National Security Agency, to issue statements denying evidence that his campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 campaign. Both men reportedly declined to do so.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/14/donald-trump-obstruction-of-justice-investigation-fbi-mueller

Trump fired Comey to stop a witch hunt, but he wasn't under investigation...until he fired Comey.
The legal term for this is a Latin expression: "Steppingas on uronus dickus

NBM

polecat wrote:Trump fired Comey to stop a witch hunt, but he wasn't under investigation...until he fired Comey.
The legal term for this is a Latin expression: "Steppingas on uronus dickus

NBM

Trump’s Tweets Must Now Be Taken Seriously

The 9th Circuit’s travel ban ruling declares the president’s Twitter feed is a legally binding stream of consciousness.

By Dahlia Lithwick

Dahlia Lithwick writes about the courts and the law for Slate, and hosts the podcast Amicus.

"Buried in a footnote in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ unanimous opinion upholding the bulk of the injunction blocking Donald Trump’s travel ban, there is a moment of reckoning in which the panel addresses whether the president’s tweets constitute binding statements of executive intent.

In making a determination that the second version of the executive order exceeds the statutory authority granted to the president, the panel finds that the order “does not provide a rationale explaining why permitting entry of nationals from the six designated countries under current protocols would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The panel then drops a footnote to add the following observation about the president’s actual intentions in enacting the order:

Indeed, the President recently confirmed his assessment that it is the “countries” that are inherently dangerous, rather than the 180 million individual nationals of those countries who are barred from entry under the President’s “travel ban.” See Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (June 5, 2017, 6:20 PM), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871899511525961728 (“That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won’t help us protect our people!”) (emphasis in original).

Put aside for a second the legal glory that lies in that “emphasis in original,” a parenthetical that does so much work while doing nothing at all. What’s really vital is that the footnote also does away with the claim that such tweets should be ignored or swept aside, noting a CNN piece that reported “the White House Press Secretary’s confirmation that the President’s tweets are ‘considered official statements by the President of the United States.’ ”..."



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/06/the_9th_circuit_just_decreed_that_trump_s_twitter_feed_must_be_taken_seriously.html

President Donald Trump on Thursday dismissed reports that he was being investigated for obstruction of justice, suggesting online that such allegations have been cooked-up to replace accusations that his presidential campaign colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 election.

“They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice,” Trump wrote on Twitter Thursday morning. In a subsequent post, Trump attacked those investigating him, calling them "very bad an conflicted people," although he did not specify if he was referring to the Congressional probes into hit 2016 campaign or the special prosecutor's.

"You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history - led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA," Trump wrote.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/15/trump-obstruction-of-justice-239583

So much for all that "we do well to remember that everyone who serves in our nation's capital is here because they love our country" bullshit.

It's highly unlikely that a legitimate leak is coming from mueller's investigation.

PkrBum wrote:It's highly unlikely that a legitimate leak is coming from mueller's investigation.

As usual, you've missed the entire point of the thread.

Imagine that.

del.capslock wrote:

PkrBum wrote:It's highly unlikely that a legitimate leak is coming from mueller's investigation.

As usual, you've missed the entire point of the thread.

Imagine that.

The thread is based on an article... that's based on an article... that's based on supposed leaks.

Nice job... lol. Btw... coats and rogers already spoke in a hearing that NO obstruction occurred.

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

Five people briefed on the interview requests, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said that Daniel Coats, the current director of national intelligence, Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, and Rogers’s recently departed deputy, Richard Ledgett, agreed to be interviewed by Mueller’s investigators as early as this week. The investigation has been cloaked in secrecy, and it is unclear how many others have been questioned by the FBI.

PkrBum wrote:

The thread is based on an article... that's based on an article... that's based on supposed leaks.

Nice, more disinformation and misdirection. Your Russian masters have taught you well.

Speaking at the Kremlin in December 2014, Vladimir Putin explained that bears might prefer a quiet life, eating berries and honey instead of chasing piglets, but no self-respecting bear should let its enemies rip out its claws and fangs. Among the bears for which the Russian president’s remarks were sure to have held singular resonance was Fancy Bear.

Fancy Bear is a Russian cyber­ espionage group that the World Anti-Doping Agency holds responsible for hacking into its computer systems and publishing the confidential medical data of US and European athletes. Another tech-savvy denizen of the Russian forest that likes to show its claws is Cozy Bear.

According to CrowdStrike, a California-based cyber security company, the two bears were responsible for separate attacks on Democratic National Committee servers that disrupted this year’s US presidential race.

Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear are almost certainly examples of a rich and highly distinctive tradition of Russian subversion that dates to before the first world war. This includes forged documents, false news stories planted in foreign media, front organisations and, in our times, government-backed social media trolls and fake websites.

As for forgeries, a notorious 20th century case, the Zinoviev letter of 1924, had nothing to do with Soviet intelligence. The document purported to be a letter to the UK Communist party from Grigory Zinoviev, the Soviet international propaganda chief, encouraging subversive acts. British intelligence passed it to the Conservative party, from where it arrived at the Daily Mail. The Mail published it on the eve of the 1924 election, which the Tories proceeded to win by a landslide — although their victory owed little to the scandal.
https://www.ft.com/content/d8495c86-7b47-11e6-b837-eb4b4333ee43?mhq5j=e3

No wonder you call everyone comrade.  Feel the love.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-24/what-crowdstrike-firm-hired-dnc-has-ties-hillary-clinton-ukrainian-billionaire-and-g

PkrBum wrote:http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-24/what-crowdstrike-firm-hired-dnc-has-ties-hillary-clinton-ukrainian-billionaire-and-g

You post a Zero Hedge article to refute a Financial Times article?

Zero Hedge is a batshit insane Austrian school finance blog run by two pseudonymous founders who post articles under the name "Tyler Durden," after the character from Fight Club. It's essentially apocalypse porn. It has accurately predicted 200 of the last 2 recessions.

Tyler claims to be a "believer in a sweeping conspiracy that casts the alumni of Goldman Sachs as a powerful cabal at the helm of U.S. policy, with the Treasury and the Federal Reserve colluding to preserve the status quo." While this is not an entirely unreasonable statement of the problem, his solution actually mirrors the antagonist in Fight Club: Tyler wants, per Austrian school ideas, to lead a catastrophic market crash in order to destroy banking institutions and bring back "real" free market capitalism.

The site posts nearly indecipherable analyses of multiple seemingly unrelated subjects to point towards a consistent theme of economic collapse any day now. Tyler seems to repeat The Economic Collapse Blog's idea of posting blog articles many times a day and encouraging people to post it as far and wide as humanly possible. Tyler moves away from the format of long lists to write insanely dense volumes filled with (often contradicting) jargon that makes one wonder if the writers even know what the words actually mean. The site first appeared in early 2009, meaning that (given Tyler's habit of taking a shit on each and every positive data point), anyone listening to him from the beginning missed the entire 2009-2014 rally in the equities market.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

Get real. Or maybe get a tinfoil hat.

It's the background for crowdstrike... the central pin of the Russian collusion conspiracy theory.

But yes... i can't think of any reason that would interest you. Carry on... lol.

PkrBum wrote:http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-24/what-crowdstrike-firm-hired-dnc-has-ties-hillary-clinton-ukrainian-billionaire-and-g

Zero Hedge is 3 former Wall Street traders blogging from mommy's basement...wait...I think one defected and ratted out the other 2.

Probably a good thing that Drumpf didn't try to fire Mueller (for him):

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-trump.html?_r=1

Trump Stews, Staff Steps In, and Mueller Is Safe for Now

PkrBum wrote:It's the background for crowdstrike... the central pin of the Russian collusion conspiracy theory.

But yes... i can't think of any reason that would interest you. Carry on... lol.

You ignorant fucker! It's fake news from a discredited conspiracy blog and you're too fucking stupid to tell the difference.

Your attempt to use that crap is right out of the KGB disinformation playbook. Why don't you go try to sell that bullshit down at your local bar to some angry, drunk, unemployed sanitation worker.

Bad luck for Trump that he's facing these fake news Russia allegations while keeping his personal finances secret for different reasons.

I do not need article, or media hoopla, and I certainly do not need half witted legal talking heads who mostly are clueless as holding themselves out as experts on anything legal on TV. First, most do not have actual trial experience and a volume of experience to fall back on when answering a question. Second, they give incredibly wrong answers and then the next day correct themselves after reading statute and case law, or having those who do understand issues correct them off air.

I am 100% certain that Donald Trump obstructed justice such that a grand jury can sign a bill of indictment. The elements were met. The admissions are not ambiguous. If this was a County administrator obstructing an investigation which may have involved that administrator tangentially, the grand jury would have already convened. I understand there will be delays with the President, but make no mistake about it.....Alan D, and judge Neopolitan ice cream will not be able to talk chit to get around the facts in evidence. The Prima facia case is made, and let Alan represent President Trump if he is so certain about things which he is clueless in his old age.

Cue the firing music for Mueller, and then the only question is has congress sold their soul to the devil.

2seaoat wrote:I do not need article, or media hoopla, and I certainly do not need half witted legal talking heads who mostly are clueless as holding themselves out as experts on anything legal on TV.  First, most do not have actual trial experience and a volume of experience to fall back on when answering a question.  Second, they give incredibly wrong answers and then the next day correct themselves after reading statute and case law, or having those who do understand issues correct them off air.

I am 100% certain that Donald Trump obstructed justice such that a grand jury can sign a bill of indictment.   The elements were met.  The admissions are not ambiguous.   If this was a County administrator obstructing an investigation which may have involved that administrator tangentially, the grand jury would have already convened.   I understand there will be delays with the President, but make no mistake about it.....Alan D, and judge Neopolitan ice cream will not be able to talk chit to get around the facts in evidence.  The Prima facia case is made, and let Alan represent President Trump if he is so certain about things which he is clueless in his old age.

Cue the firing music for Mueller, and then the only question is has congress sold their soul to the devil.

If he's indicted then he can't be impeached. That would be double jeopardy. He can either be indicted or impeached but not both.

del.capslock wrote:

PkrBum wrote:It's the background for crowdstrike... the central pin of the Russian collusion conspiracy theory.

But yes... i can't think of any reason that would interest you. Carry on... lol.

You ignorant fucker! It's fake news from a discredited conspiracy blog and you're too fucking stupid to tell the difference.

Your attempt to use that crap is right out of the KGB disinformation playbook. Why don't you go try to sell that bullshit down at your local bar to some angry, drunk, unemployed sanitation worker.

You're too stupid to keep talking to. Read this... it's apparently from a trusted leftist site? They don't go into the nefarious ties of crowdstrike... but that's out there too. But what's sad is your wilful ignorance.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/05/09/the_fbi_is_harder_to_trust_on_the_dnc_hack_because_it_relied_on_crowdstrike.html

“When will the Fake Media ask about the Dems dealings with Russia & why the DNC wouldn't allow the FBI to check their server or investigate?” President Trump tweeted on Sunday at 4:15 a.m. How invigorating to discover that, like me, the president also lies awake at night wondering about the mechanics of major data-breach investigations!

Setting aside the nonsensical first half of the tweet, there’s actually an interesting question worth revisiting buried in the second half. Why wouldn’t the Democratic National Committee allow the FBI to check their servers during the investigation of the DNC breaches during the 2016 election?

The DNC maintains there’s a simple answer to this question: According to the group, the FBI never asked to see their servers. But FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee back in January that the FBI did, in fact, issue “multiple requests at different levels” to the DNC to gain direct access to their computer systems and conduct their own forensic analysis.

Instead, whether because they were denied access or simply never asked for it, the FBI instead used the analysis of the DNC breach conducted by security firm CrowdStrike as the basis for its investigation. Regardless of who is telling the truth about what really happened, perhaps the most astonishing thing about this probe is that a private firm’s investigation and attribution was deemed sufficient by both the DNC and the FBI.

PkrBum wrote:
You're too stupid to keep talking to. Read this... it's apparently from a trusted leftist site? They don't go into the nefarious ties of crowdstrike... but that's out there too. But what's sad is your wilful ignorance.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/05/09/the_fbi_is_harder_to_trust_on_the_dnc_hack_because_it_relied_on_crowdstrike.html

“When will the Fake Media ask about the Dems dealings with Russia & why the DNC wouldn't allow the FBI to check their server or investigate?” President Trump tweeted on Sunday at 4:15 a.m. How invigorating to discover that, like me, the president also lies awake at night wondering about the mechanics of major data-breach investigations!

Setting aside the nonsensical first half of the tweet, there’s actually an interesting question worth revisiting buried in the second half. Why wouldn’t the Democratic National Committee allow the FBI to check their servers during the investigation of the DNC breaches during the 2016 election?

The DNC maintains there’s a simple answer to this question: According to the group, the FBI never asked to see their servers. But FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee back in January that the FBI did, in fact, issue “multiple requests at different levels” to the DNC to gain direct access to their computer systems and conduct their own forensic analysis.

Instead, whether because they were denied access or simply never asked for it, the FBI instead used the analysis of the DNC breach conducted by security firm CrowdStrike as the basis for its investigation. Regardless of who is telling the truth about what really happened, perhaps the most astonishing thing about this probe is that a private firm’s investigation and attribution was deemed sufficient by both the DNC and the FBI.

So what? This has nothing to do with the fact that Trump is under investigation for OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

Crowdstrike's credibility is irrelevant. You're just dragging it into the discussion to avoid the main topic. You're yammering on about it is nothing but more Soviet-style misdirection and disinformation.

Trump clearly thought the entire government would be as gutless and corrupt as the Republican Party is.

PkrBum wrote:Btw... coats and rogers already spoke in a hearing that NO obstruction occurred.

Nice try, but as usual you're wrong -- that's NOT what they said at all. They said they never felt pressured. What they FELT is not the point -- what Trump ATTEMPTED TO DO is the point -- and these men both refused to reveal the contents of conversations with Trump, specifically declining to answer questions as to whether or not Trump tried to get them to back off. Their refusal to say absolutely speaks volumes.

Whether or not they'll reveal more when questioned by Mueller remains to be seen, but the simple truth, sir, is that you are spreading misinformation when you mis-report what they said -- and, again, that's "as usual," par for the course for Pkr.

PkrBum wrote:It's highly unlikely that a legitimate leak is coming from mueller's investigation.

Like I've said all along the leaks are coming either from within the WH or Flynn. Haven't noticed him out in public a while.

trump has already said it doesn't matter where the leaks come from what matters is the content of the leak.
He would never flip flop would he?

If he's indicted then he can't be impeached. That would be double jeopardy. He can either be indicted or impeached but not both.


You really must work hard at being wrong. There is no double jeopardy when an article 3 court indicts and a Article 2 hearing impeaches. You crawl way down the rabbit hole to pull entirely screwed up concepts from that bottomless pit of stupid.

2seaoat wrote:

You really must work hard at being wrong.

It's a gift.

And there's no reason for you to be personally insulting here. I'm just trying to have nice, polite, civil discussion.

You asshole.