Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mueller report at Vol. II, p. 157-158:

[T]he evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the President's conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events- such as advance notice of WikiLeaks's release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family.
. . .
Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in
which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.

Are any of the DCUM Rs OK with this?

Anonymous wrote:Mueller report at Vol. II, p. 157-158:

[T]he evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the President's conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events- such as advance notice of WikiLeaks's release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family.
. . .
Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in
which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.

RUSSIAN CONTACTS WITH THE CAMPAIGN
The social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government. The Office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring or coordinating with Russia in its election-interference activities. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cons continue to look away from the dumpster fire. They don't care that Trump pressured his staff numerous times to break the law.

Think about that. They don't GAF that the president of the United States broke his oath of office to uphold the laws of the country.

Break what law?

He repeatedly asked his staff to break the law. They held firm and did not.

What law? Be specific.

18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(c)(2).

Hey PP, you got your answer. Now what do you say? Or are you too shy to respond?

[T]he evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the President's conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events- such as advance notice of WikiLeaks's release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family.
. . .
Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in
which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is still quite a bit pending with a Grand Jury.

The Grand Jury was disband at the end of March.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cons continue to look away from the dumpster fire. They don't care that Trump pressured his staff numerous times to break the law.

Think about that. They don't GAF that the president of the United States broke his oath of office to uphold the laws of the country.

Break what law?

He repeatedly asked his staff to break the law. They held firm and did not.

What law? Be specific.

18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(c)(2).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cons continue to look away from the dumpster fire. They don't care that Trump pressured his staff numerous times to break the law.

Think about that. They don't GAF that the president of the United States broke his oath of office to uphold the laws of the country.

Break what law?

He repeatedly asked his staff to break the law. They held firm and did not.

What law? Be specific.

Anonymous wrote:There is still quite a bit pending with a Grand Jury.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cons continue to look away from the dumpster fire. They don't care that Trump pressured his staff numerous times to break the law.

Think about that. They don't GAF that the president of the United States broke his oath of office to uphold the laws of the country.

Break what law?

He repeatedly asked his staff to break the law. They held firm and did not.

What law? Be specific.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assange is in there somewhere, in the redactions.

He is mention in it. A lot!!

Huh. I hadn’t spotted it yet nor done a direct search for his name. He’s on my list now.

First of my search terms were Comey
Ivanka
Kushner
Jr.
Sanders (Sarah)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cons continue to look away from the dumpster fire. They don't care that Trump pressured his staff numerous times to break the law.

Think about that. They don't GAF that the president of the United States broke his oath of office to uphold the laws of the country.

Break what law?

He repeatedly asked his staff to break the law. They held firm and did not.

What law? Be specific.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not much on fake dossier in this report. Can't wait until the FISA IG report is released.

Much of the dossier has been proven true. There is nothing in the Mueller report that undermines the Steel dossier.

My prediction is that there will be plenty in the IG's report and future investigations that undermines the Steele dossier.

Oh, and by the way..........Cohen was never in Prague.