Former Trump Legal Team Spox To Tell Mueller Hope Hicks Hinted At Possible Obstruction

a reply to: RadioRobert


So in other words, another empty bucket of chicken?

I keep waiting for the murder accusations to start.

Like that poor guy in the trash truck.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I saw it on tv. Not the internet.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Still isn't gonna help trump.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Still isn't gonna help trump.

lol

The ante anti trump threads keep coming,,, used to be one a week...getting up to one every other day.


The smell of fear is refreshing in the morning.



Same crap, different day.


Most people with common sense realize that Trump is a narcissistic ass hat and a ego maniac... but they don't feel the overwhelming need to confirm their fears by posting bi-weekly threads.

Wait for the DOJ's IG report and get back to us.

I have just spent the past 2 years listening to the media and the democrats pulling a Fred Sanford on a daily basis.... and once again I am seeing them put their hands over their hearts, look up at the sky and yelling "This the big one Elisabeth".

a reply to: theantediluvian

So he shared privileged information

originally posted by: RickinVa
The ante anti trump threads keep coming,,, used to be one a week...getting up to one every other day.


The smell of fear is refreshing in the morning.



Same crap, different day.


Most people with common sense realize that Trump is a narcissistic ass hat and a ego maniac... but they don't feel the overwhelming need to confirm their fears by posting bi-weekly threads.

Wait for the DOJ's IG report and get back to us.

It was a bot boring with only pro Trump threads, the last weeks and months, up to 10 or 15 pro Trump threads a day.

This investigation into Russian collusion which started as a straight line to trump has morphed into a honeycomb of tangents leading nowhere.

Same as this memo buisness, if there was anything that was damaging to Trump - it would have been leaked by now. The outright hatred of the president by the left has destroyed any shred of honesty they had left, and they appear to be fine with that as long as they get their way.

This is not justice at work, this is a clique of bought and paid for stooges that bet on the wrong horse. Ever since they've lost the election they have been covering up 8 years worth of sinister sh#t they did for their almighty Obama, with hopes of being able to continue unchecked had Clinton won.
All the games and abuses that were flaunted in the faces of honest hardworking citizens is going to be exposed, and the price is going to be high.
When the level of corruption and abysmal behaviors are brought to light of day, it will be flabbergasting.

This is exactly what the media and left is hoping for. That the average person probably can't possibly process the volume of crimes been committed, and that many of the players will slip through the cracks.

Good luck, and go get some pepto-bismal, your gonna be sick when you really see how bad it is.

a reply to: underwerks

Sounds more like you ignorance,allowing the Democrats to cover up crimes they committed your hardly a person to listen to,no common sense,must be a new ager

originally posted by: theantediluvian
This broke earlier in the NYT. I'll summarize as briefly as possible.

Mark Corallo was a spokesperson for Donald Trump's legal team. He resigned in July. When the NYT initially approached the White House about the Trump Tower meeting with Veselnitskaya, they responded with a completely bogus statement, the writing of which was directed by Donald Trump aboard Air Force One.

The NYT published their story with the statement and shortly thereafter, an entirely different statement was fed to Circa, which is owned by the very Trump friendly Sinclair Broadcast Group. While also substantially false, that statement was significantly different from the first and slightly closer to reality. That statement was given by Corallo, who was quoted by Circa....

I was just reading about this in another article (the headline rather startled me.)

Mueller appears to be taking a very focused approach to the investigation rather than a scattershot "anything I can get my hands on" path. Hicks' lawyer (didn't we talk about Trump's staff scurrying to retain lawyers?) has said that Corallo's statements are false which is apparently setting off another round of finger-pointing.

Should be interesting. I'll get the popcorn.

All I can say is look at the source of the information anyone can say anything it sells advertising.
a reply to: theantediluvian

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: underwerks

yeah save the bs...

Holder Openly Pledged Loyalty To Obama, And Nobody Seemed To Care

It's comical you believe that affects what is going on with Trump in any way.

Its comical you cant see the same with Obama.

It's ignorance to think I can't.

So since you're ok with Trump wanting to rule like that, I guess you're fine with Obama doing it too?

The hypocrisy door swings both ways here bub.

A person can take an oath to the constitution and still be loyal to their boss. At least thats the double standard excuse the left uses when Obama did it.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: underwerks


Holder Openly Pledged Loyalty To Obama, And Nobody Seemed To Care

Nobody cared, because Obama didn't insist on it, before Holder could get or keep his job.

The hypocrisy runs deep on the left.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Still isn't gonna help trump.

lol, ok

a reply to: theantediluvian

I have asked this before and I still don't think I have a firm grasp on the crime here. A guy who was running for president of the US was offered some dirt on his opponent. (the story is his son was offered this and the actual candidate didn't have knowledge, I don't buy that, but I also don't think it matters) The meeting took place, and apparently, the dirt was never delivered. (this also seems irrelevant, as I just don't see a crime here)

The evil ones who were supposed to have "the dirt" happened to be Russians. But what if they were Guatemalans? Would that change the narrative or the crime?

And for the grand finale of questions, what crime was committed here? (keeping in mind that dirty politics has been the norm since politics was a thing)

And for bonus points, if there was an actual crime committed here, will it be retroactively available if we find perhaps that another candidate for president paid a foreign entity for dirt on her opponent?

a reply to: network dude

I've already explained why I think the Trump Tower meeting is not a big deal but at the time, Trump supporters were eagerly trying to convince one another that the Trump Tower meeting was actually setup by Glenn Simpson as part of a plot to entrap Don Jr.

In short, what Veselnitskaya was offering wasn't from the Russian government. It was all stuff acquired from public records by Fusion GPS in the Prevezon case. Nor was it something that was only being offered to Team Trump. They'd been shopping it around Capitol Hill and elsewhere before then and after.

There's no crime there except perhaps the illegal foreign lobbying by American lobbyists which has nothing to do with Don Jr and friends.

I think it's just the typically stupid scramble from Team Trump. They knew the optics were bad because it does in fact show a willingness by Don Jr to get what he most likely thought was dirt from the Kremlin. I mean, you've read the emails, if they'd been sent to you, what would you think was being offered?

So when the NYT approached them, they did what they have done on a number of other occasions, they lied. In this case, they really didn't have to lie for any legal reasons but they did so because the truth didn't have good optics.

It's not unlike Flynn lying about his communications (though, again, it's pretty clear Flynn is almost certainly guilty of other crimes involving Turkey) to the FBI.

And that brings us to what Hope Hicks reportedly said. The meeting wasn't criminal but sometimes you run afoul of the law in the coverup. If the reporting is accurate, Corallo took what Hicks said as an insinuation that they would deliberately withhold evidence from investigators. As to whether that would constitute obstruction is open for debate but it seems that it didn't sit well with Corallo.

a reply to: theantediluvian


Isn't this old news?

Didn't Jr release his emails last year or so about the meeting, already?

Funny that no one has said hillary wanted a private server to get around FOIA, she actually got caught with one.

Anyway....

a reply to: burgerbuddy

more like last minute desperation by Democrats to cling on to the failed Russia narrative. They even tried to use a second russia dossier put together by a Clinton sycophant.

Testifying today.