Donald Trump under investigation for potential obstruction of justice – reports

RealLindaL wrote:

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.

“In my time of service … I have never been pressured, I have never felt pressure, to intervene or interfere in any way, with shaping intelligence in a political way or in relationship to an ongoing investigation,” Coats testified Wednesday.

“In the three-plus years that I have been the director of the National Security Agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything that I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate. And to the best of my collection … I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so,” NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers

look Mueller and his team are going to look for facts not the stupid questions of the senators about feelings. When did conversations happen. Who was present. What did he say. What did you say. From the tapestry of facts will reveal the truth. Not asking silly questions without factual context. To assume without real investigations that a persons feelings are what is important is absurd. undue influence is not a feeling. It is a fact or not a fact. The fact gathering has only just began, and to hang one's position on some quasi defensive executive privilege exchange is not fact finding, but horrible sophomoric questions. Senator Harris seemed to be the only one with proper training on revealing facts in an investigatory hearing.

The concept of corruption does not rely on the policeman putting the money in his pocket when he stops a motorist, rather the facts which show that the motorists was attempting to impede the issuance of a lawful citation. That fact finding journey is not dependent on the officer's legal conclusion or perception, rather independent facts and witness testimony which can prove the attempt to impede the proper issuance of a citation independent of anybody's perception or failure to see the entire obstruction in its totality. Who, what, where, when,and how will require many interviews and lots of fact gathering.

2seaoat wrote:To assume without real investigations that a persons feelings are what is important is absurd.  undue influence is not a feeling.   It is a fact or not a fact.

EXACTLY so.

Trump's spent his whole life getting away with whatever he wanted to do, and nobody stopping him. In his old job it didn't matter as much, but now, he's less likely to get away with it. And it's frustrating the hell out of him. He screams "unfair" like a kid who's surprised to get a spanking from a teacher when he never got one at home.

His real danger is that other crimes are going to be turned up in this investigation. Like money laundering. Start poking around in one area, things in other areas come to light.

I'm still waiting to see if he actually tries to fire Mueller. I know it'd be an insanely stupid thing to do, and he's being strongly advised against it, but Trump's not a sane person. I wouldn't put anything past him at this point. He's desperate, because he's got a lot to hide. If he didn't, he'd welcome an investigation that could clear him.

RealLindaL wrote:

2seaoat wrote:To assume without real investigations that a persons feelings are what is important is absurd.  undue influence is not a feeling.   It is a fact or not a fact.

EXACTLY so.

I disagree (imagine that!). Lawyers argue about facts all the time--about their meaning, their context, their interpretation, even what is or isn't a fact. Just recall the OJ case or maybe all the exonerations that have come out of the Innocence Project despite solid eye-witness testimony.

Fact are perceived by human beings and are always subject to variable interpretations. No two people see the same event or "fact" in the same way. Just think about the controversy regarding the reliability of eye-witness testimony. Judges, lawyers and advocates, witnesses, they're all human beings and all the flawed products of their past experiences.

Hey @realdonaldtrump
Why don't you save Bob Mueller and his staff some time and label your tweets with "exhibit numbers".