Home | About | Donate

House Impeachment Investigators Probing Whether Trump Lied to Mueller

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/18/house-impeachment-investigators-probing-whether-trump-lied-mueller

1 Like

This is so damnably frustrating–the oath of office Twump swore to includes the phrase “…take care that the laws be faithfully executed…”

So how exactly does ordering his staff to defy lawfully issued subpoenas NOT violate his oath? And, more to the point, WTF are the Ds under Pelosi going to DO about it???

8 Likes
6 Likes

How are they to prove that Trump actually did recall?

4 Likes

60 million voters believed Trump’s lies.

Now, there’s a total of 13,435 confirmed Trump lies since he swore to uphold the Constitution.

More each and every day.

Bless the House Impeachment Investigators that they find, and drop the last shoe on this unending nightmare.

5 Likes

As so many here have pointed out: Trump did “not recall”. Hence, he cannot be presumed to have lied. But this is not ‘End of Story’. If Trump were to repeat “I simply do not recall.”, then one must ask him and some commenters hear: Are you saying then that if a person does not recall raping a woman, that it should be ‘End of Story’? Even if there are witnesses who claim to have seen the rape?

Finally, if a President cannot recall whether or not he engaged in knowable illegal activity, then I would argue that he is TOTALLY unfit to serve as President.

6 Likes

Did Trump lie to Mueller? Given Trump’s record concerning honesty…,hmmmm, does McDonalds have golden arches?

4 Likes

Why would they have to look into whether trump lied?
Is there anything he hasn’t lied about?

5 Likes

Apparently Stone was lying about his contacts with WL. Stone is a dirty trickster seemingly wanting people to believe he was more involved in things than he really was, he is a liar. This appears to be another breathless bombshell that isn’t, there being no evidence that Stone had access to WL at all.

Attorney for Assange:

“If you read through [Stone’s indictment], and it’s only 23 pages long, it’s basically a confirmation that there was no communication between Roger Stone and Julian Assange,” Kristinn says. “Stone claimed that there had been. He was trying to elevate his position. He’s a player in that circle. It’s Roger Stone.” In fact, Kristinn says, “The only communications that arguably took place between them was a direct message on Twitter, where Wikileaks asked Roger Stone to please stop making the claims that you had access to Julian Assange and had communication with him. Because it didn’t exist.”

2 Likes

Except, Aaron, Trump’s statements contradict those of Rick Gates.

So someone is a fuckin liar. My money is on Trump.

And did anyone see today that Trump blustered like a peacock about considering testifying before Schiff’s committee? Sure, that’ll happen. When the sun fails to rise.

4 Likes

Just curious: What does that have to do with Trump claiming he and Stone never discussed potential Wikileaks revelations that could help Trump? Rick Gates, a higher up in the Trump campaign testified that such a chat did take place.

2 Likes

Just background. Aaron made the salient point.

His point about Trump’s using the “I don’t recall” ruse is less salient than you might think.

Under oath on a witness stand, Trump would trip up and admit the chat happened.

4 Likes

I think you nailed it, and it’s not either/or: it’s both/and. And all-of-the-King’s men/women. Sure, #45 lies, B-Rick Gates lies, Indicted Stone lies. The brand for the #45 administration is “Liars-R-Us.” Lying is their job prerequisite. Liars swarm to this Grifter/Grafter-in-Chief like flies to …
BTW, BumbleDrumpf, that 'splains all the LEAKS.

4 Likes

Glad to see the impeachment returning to the Mueller report. It was not the insignificant investigation that Trump and the Lame Stream Media proclaimed it to be.

3 Likes

The dense house dems had the verified evidence handed to them and they were (are) not intelligent enough to utilize the laid out info to impeach. Nancy and her band of nuthers think they can win it all in 2020 without senate conviction. They actually do need a handful of republican senators to vote for guilty after new years, valentines day, easter, memorial day - or whenever the senate takes up the issue.

2 Likes

Regardless, Stone didn’t know anything other than what Wikileaks had already announced. So this is completely bogus.

1 Like

The innuendo is that there was something secret going on, that Trump and Stone and Wikileaks and Russia and yada yada were engaged in some collusion to damage the Democrats. It’s bogus.

1 Like

Well here’s a new impeachable offence for the House attorney to look into.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/possible-pay-to-play-scheme-for-trump-ambassador-post-uncovered/ar-BBWWeTo?ocid=ientp

2 Likes

Guild –

Great point –

President is also responsible for seeing that the legislation passed by our Congress
is carried out as to intent and spirit of the law which Congress intended.

Also – what about shutting down Congress for 35 days so that he could BLACKMAIL
Pelosi into giving him money for his WALL?

2 Likes