Trump administation hid key document from Mueller which may have proved conspiracy.

[triron]

Link to tweet

[BootinUp]

1. Shocked. /sarcasm

[dalton99a]

2. He has a long history of destroying and hiding documents in defiance of court orders

https://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120.html

Donald Trump's Companies Destroyed Emails in Defiance of Court Orders
By Kurt Eichenwald On 10/31/16 at 7:00 AM EDT

Over the course of decades, Donald Trump's companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders. These tactics—exposed by a Newsweek review of thousands of pages of court filings, judicial orders and affidavits from an array of court cases—have enraged judges, prosecutors, opposing lawyers and the many ordinary citizens entangled in litigation with Trump. In each instance, Trump and entities he controlled also erected numerous hurdles that made lawsuits drag on for years, forcing courtroom opponents to spend huge sums of money in legal fees as they struggled—sometimes in vain—to obtain records.

This behavior is of particular import given Trump's frequent condemnations of Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent, for having deleted more than 30,000 emails from a server she used during her time as secretary of state. While Clinton and her lawyers have said all of those emails were personal, Trump has suggested repeatedly on the campaign trail that they were government documents Clinton was trying to hide and that destroying them constituted a crime. The allegation—which the FBI concluded was not supported by any evidence—is a crowd-pleaser at Trump rallies, often greeted by supporters chanting, "Lock her up!"

Trump's use of deception and untruthful affidavits, as well as the hiding or improper destruction of documents, dates back to at least 1973, when the Republican nominee, his father and their real estate company battled the federal government over civil charges that they refused to rent apartments to African-Americans. The Trump strategy was simple: deny, impede and delay, while destroying documents the court had ordered them to hand over.

....

[dem4decades]

3. Oh great, so Mueller can do jack shit again. Mueller was a waste of justice.

[Hoyt]

8. Exactly. As disappointing as Fitzmas.

[DENVERPOPS]

10. I agree

Mueller did the absolute minimum. His info was correct and documented, but poorly delivered. His life time allegiance to the Republican Party prevented him from doing the job he should have done, worried that doing the proper job would take down the entire Republican Party............

[SCVDem]

12. IF true

Mueller is guilty of aiding crime

Not good.

[Perseus]

38. Wed don't know that. For now I give Muller the benefit of the doubt. Did everyone forget Rosenstein?

I believe the DOJ and the creature may have worked to disrupt the investigation, we now know that Rosenstein was a tool for the creature, and he fooled everyone, so he may have cut the legs of many of the investigations to prevent Muller from doing his job.

Before anyone can doubt Muller, I believe we need to doubt Rosenstein. Let us not forget that he thanked the creature for having their "private conversations", Rosenstein seems to have sold his soul as well.

[dem4decades]

46. Mueller didn't even acknowledge Barr mischaracterized the report. We would have been better off wit

Bobby DeNiro than Bobby Three Duds. At least Bobby D has the balls to tell the truth.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. Nope. Mueller convicted more tRumpers than anybody & found lots of info. Passed ball to House. . nt

[empedocles]

28. Mueller laid a strong foundation, probably the best that could be done under the circumstances,

- for taking down trump.

This is a real life war, not neatly packageable, quickly gratifying, entertainment.

[AllyCat]

33. Yup. Remember, Barr stopped his investigation.

[Perseus]

39. And Rosenstein may have made it difficult for Muller to do the job he intended to do

Rosenstein ended up being a tool.

[DENVERPOPS]

49. Yea

Yea passed a soft ball thrown by a six year old........

[Funtatlaguy]

26. Yep. Mueller loss cognitive skills plus a spine.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

45. I have issues with Mueller

but if Trump hid stuff from him or destroyed stuff that made it difficult/impossible to prove conspiracy, how is that *his* fault?

[triron]

4. Furthermore:

Link to tweet

[UTUSN]

6. K&R

[Hoyt]

7. Mueller would have figured out a way to let them off the hook. He did just that

on all the other allegations — trump tower meeting, Manafort giving polling data to Ruskies, etc.

[Qutzupalotl]

9. It's all going to come out.

Last edited Mon Sep 30, 2019, 12:57 AM - Edit history (1)

Now that we know where to look. Crimes within crimes within crimes. A turdfucken of treason, if you will.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

11. I have been away all weekend. Has it been determined if and

how documents stored on this server can be seen?

[triron]

13. Not that I am aware.

[Qutzupalotl]

17. Not that I have seen,

but I would bet Schiff could subpoena specific things if proper precautions are in place.

The existence of the server was so secret Mueller didn’t catch wind of it. I’m surprised its existence is known now. I’m not suggesting we’ll be able to comb through it, but if we know particulars are there, a proper authority should be able to get a search warrant without compromising things that are classified legitimately. The problem now is there seems to be a ton of stuff on it that doesn’t belong. That’s what I think and hope will come out.

Also, there’s blood in the water, the rats are turning on each other, everyone’s trying to stay out of prison. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving crew.

[Lock him up.]

22. Schiff & his Committee must ask the WB to ID those who told him about the server

and interview them one by one until he gets all the transcripts that are covered-up in there.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

29. Yet that would mean those people would have to

Be willing to quote or describe what was really said in a particular meeting, right? So they could describe it, but the transcript wouldn't be seen to corroborate. They could subpoena it, but then it eventually would end up in the SC. Could it even get there before the election?

[Lock him up.]

58. I think it could end up in the SC, but since it's an official ...

... impeachment inquiry, I think it would hasten the hearing of the case.

I think these people would probably have to testify in close hearings first, then in public if classified information wouldn't have to be disclosed. OTOH, informations about that case (pertaining to the Mueller Report) is not immediatly required to complete the actual case for impeachment, which focusses on the Ukraine and the violation of trump's oath of office (and probably multiple counts of obstruction of Congress?): It could be looked into after his impeachment.

[triron]

43. What is the WB?

Whistleblower?

[BigmanPigman]

52. Yes.

[robbob]

35. I have 2 questions:

1) Why would dump and co. keep ANY of these conversations recorded ANYWHERE if they are so incriminating?
2) What’s to stop them from completely destroying this super-secret server before it becomes evidence against them?

[Perseus]

40. By law they have to save the conversations, but yes they could delete them, and that is why

we are depending on honest whistleblowers to come out and provide the stories as well as evidence.

[dchill]

21. Also Russian dolls of treason.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. I don't think Barr has release Mueller's unredacted report to the Gang of 8, let alone committees.nt

[sakabatou]

16. If true, what's the recourse?

[struggle4progress]

18. Efforts to hide evidence of the corpus delicti establishes mens rea

[SergeStorms]

19. I wish they'd stop using the word 'collusion'.....

and use the correct legal term 'conspiracy'. Collusion is from the Trump narrative, and I wouldn't take one word that Trump offers as correct or truthful. There was a conspiracy by Trump and his co-conspirators, and this was all abetted by Congressional Republicans.

Mueller never stood a chance of getting the truth from anyone in the Trump administration, which lead to at least ten counts of obstruction of justice, which republicans think to be perfectly proper. Nothing to see here, move along, citizen.

[Perseus]

41. If you Google the word collusion you get conspiracy

But I agree with you, I said the same thing a long time ago, I even wrote to Rachel Maddow and asked her to stop using the word, and instead use conspiracy.

The administration came up with collusion because their base doesn't understand it and won't look it up, they may not have dictionaries or know hoe to Google it.

[triron]

44. That's exactly why I used it.

[dchill]

20. "May have?" Where's the doubt?

[calimary]

23. That bastard!

[Aussie105]

24. But it's normal

for a gang Boss and friends to cover his illegal activities. Two sets of books, witnesses that get bullied or just disappear, etc.

Once you know Trump runs a criminal enterprise and cares little for the rules of the job, then nothing he does is a surprise. Quite predictable, in fact.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

30. I have been curious why trump even allowed

Records/transcripts tho. Just remember that transcriptionist who quit citing how it was nothing like Obama's WH... respect for records.

If people knew he was doing wrong...enough to hide stuff on secret server...why not just advise that no notes be taken?

[NCLefty]

25. May have AND may have? Well that settles it! :p

So would Barr presumably have to initiate investigation/prosecution of this?

[Ligyron]

56. Or Kamala could after the 2020 election.

[True Blue American]

27. Karma

Taken down by a secret server!

Barr is trying to dredge up Hillary again. Reclassifying 130 employee emails. Have fun with that Barr.

Some one said yesterday how ironic it was that Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions was so honest he had to be replaced with one that wasn’t!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

31. I remember Hillary describing the methods she used

to determine which emails were work and which were personal. She hired lawyers to do this. Have never understood why these lawyers haven't been interviewed to describe this process. Won't convince all people but perhaps the thinking ones.

[bucolic_frolic]

32. Federal felonies should be indictable

That DOJ rule must go

[Nitram]

34. Mueller made it clear in his report that the reason collusion could not be proved is that evidence

was withheld and questions went unanswered. Much like the reason that Cheney was not indicted for the Plame scandal.

[pwb]

36. I hope that dick, miller is in on all this cover up.

They all think they are so clever...

[dlk]

37. Imagine that...

[LiberalLovinLug]

42. And how does this all fit in the "narrow focus" Nancy is adamant about?

So sick of Democrats shooting themselves in the foot. We should be including any and all criminal and treasonous behavour, including this, not just one narrow investigation that must also involve the cooperation of a foreign government that may or may not be compromised themselves. All based on if Trump asked for dirt on Biden or his son, with no smoking gun so far, only implied. Add to that Trump and Fox News has convinced a large part of the country that simply taking help from a foreign player to get information on a candidate SHOULD be okay, especially if by doing so you are actually helping to weed out candidates that deserve it.

[me_not_you]

47. Ex post facto

Friend, hear me out, while I agree Mr. Trump's conduct before holding office is unbecoming, I do believe it wise to separate prior actions and the Ukraine Scandal purely for 'strategic political' reasons.

Speaker Pelosi's decision to withhold calls for impeachment and her use of the word was the greatest political strategy we've seen in some time. Why? Because she didn't scare off them pesky independent voters, who are critical.

Once the facts are laid out, independents are likely to side with Dems on this issue. But only if you make a clear case. Just like in writing, the topic should be tightly focused to make it easy for the reader to follow the narrative. You gotta fight the battles you can win, with the larger goal of winning the war always in mind.

[LiberalLovinLug]

48. Fair enough

Thanks for responding with intelligence and thoughtfulness.

I understand where you are coming from. Its true that if they had gone to formal impeachment as soon as they got the House, the whole of the RW media, including Fox, radio, and social media programs, would have framed it as some kind of purely vindictive unnecessary partisan exercise.

But I still believe that just after Mueller's letter came out, that disagreed with Barr about his conclusions, and armed with all that Mueller did find, and knowing that they could get more of the report by going to impeachment, that independents and Never Trumper Rs would have come around if we'd have taken advantage of that moment to begin. Then when this bombshell happened, it would have only added to the shit pile on top of Trump.

I am just worried that Nancy, being so conservative in her approach, limiting it to the Ukraine story, is painting Democrats into a corner. At least do not proclaim loudly that all you will be looking at is this one tangent of all of his impeachable actions. Sure, start with it. If it looks like McConnell, Graham, and others are STILL licking Donald's golf shoes, then you can move on to a second incident, and then a third.....until the electorate and enough Republican senators have finally had enough of him.

Because if some "Dan Rather" type of curve ball happens. And I have no doubt they'd try it again. ie...release some bogus document(s) that Democrats cheer as the smoking gun, and dutifully Rachel Maddow and others rail on about this final nail. And after its clear that Demlocrats are pinning all their hopes on this document, it is revealed that it is fake, or forged. And it all comes crashing down. Then what? "er....actually, even though we said we would limit it to this, now we are changing our minds and decided to start to look into something else...yeah that's it" How would that go over?

[BlueWI]

55. I agree completely.

All prosecutable actions that meet a reasonable standard of proof should be included in the articles. This process will not be as quick and tidy as moving forward with a single clear charge, independents swayed, and we're done. One charge makes the defense's job easier, and if there's clearly more wrongdoing, why limit it to one charge? I do not get this reasoning.

[TwilightZone]

53. Where does it say that she would exclude it?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Pelosi said. She clearly indicated that additional articles could be added based on further information and issues outside of the Ukraine story.

The assertion that everything but the Ukraine story is off the table is simply false.

"“This has clarity and understanding in the eyes of the American people,” Pelosi told her leadership team, according to a source with knowledge of the meeting. “If we do articles, then we can include other things.”"

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/25/trump-ukraine-memo-1510895

[me_not_you]

54. I submit

But an impeachment inquiry was not necessary to deal previously with those transgressions, because the system was working: The courts were dealing with some charges, and the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, Robert Mueller, with others. Trump lieutenants were going to prison for their crimes, and despite various efforts by the administration to suppress the truth, an aggressive press ensured the American people learned enough about the dark dealings of Mr. Trump and his associates to inform their decisions in the next presidential election.

This board has made clear its own view of Mr. Trump’s unfitness for his office. We have opposed Mr. Trump not only because of his personal transgressions, divisiveness and dishonesty, but also because of the substance of many of his policies — on the environment, immigration, taxes, trade and other matters. But provided Mr. Trump was acting within the law, he had the absolute right to pursue his chosen course and be judged upon it by the electorate, one way or another, in 2020.

The disclosures about the president’s pressure on Ukraine have changed that picture. They have revealed Mr. Trump to be working to subvert the 2020 election, undermining the proper electoral check on presidential misbehavior. The Constitution provides only one fail-safe in such a situation, and that’s why the House was right this week to announce a formal impeachment inquiry, coordinated by the Judiciary Committee.


Should I digest this for you?


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/27/opinion/trump-impeachment-new-york-times.html

[triron]

50. knr

[IcyPeas]

51. who has actually seen the UNREDACTED Mueller Report

what the heck was redacted? who knows?

[struggle4progress]

57. "See? Obstruction is not collusion! No collusion!"