Pelosi's pocket veto

The first would be Obstruction of Justice for three separate incidents described in Volume ll of the Mueller report. Don Mcghan has firsthand knowledge of those incidents and his testimony could support a new charge.


You mean testimony Mueller didn't get in 30 hours of questioning?


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia/white-house-counsel-interviewed-for-30-hours-in-russia-probe-new-york-times-idUSKBN1L30Q1



The White House’s top lawyer has cooperated extensively with the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, sharing detailed accounts about the episodes at the heart of the inquiry into whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice, the New York Times reported on Saturday.






https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/u...stigation.html



White House Counsel, Don McGahn, Has Cooperated Extensively in Mueller Inquiry



The second would be perjury. The fat lying bastard claimed he knew nothing about contacts with Russians or Wikileaks. The testimony from Roger Stone’s trial indicates he lied in his written response to the Mueller questionnaire. Bottom line, he knew his good buddy was working with Wikileaks. Originally Posted by Jaxson66

The testimony from Roger Stone’s trial indicates he lied in his written response to the Mueller questionnaire.

Now where have I heard that charge before? Oh! I know, Cohen's testimony was going to prove Trump lied. How'd that work out? Testimony without corroboration is not proof, documents are proof. Did Stone offer any documentary evidence?

What’s with you trumpsters?

You post an article 17 months old like time has stood still. Mcghan cooperated with team Mueller but at no time was he under oath. He sat for interviews not depositions, big difference.

In regards to Stone, there are emails, texts and phone calls that convicted Stone and Despot Don’s campaign associates received many of them.

Bottom line, more information and less redactions are on the way. Just because you choose to ignore current facts doesn’t mean the judiciary committee staff will. They’re working, not golfing or going on Christmas break. Lots more coming, all the way to Election Day. Bank on it.

Kind of near sighted with this excitement over the McGahn ruling. Have you forgotten about the Durham report, grand jury findings, the eminent Carter Page lawsuit, probable overturning of Flynn's conviction, and the emotional exhaustion of the left? That's a lot of balls for Nancy to juggle or should I say chainsaws.

What’s with you trumpsters?

You post an article 17 months old like time has stood still. Mcghan cooperated with team Mueller but at no time was he under oath. He sat for interviews not depositions, big difference.


No, actually, there isn't. You can not lie to a federal official whether under oath or not and if you do, you can be prosecuted. Was General Flynn under oath when he sat with FBI agents in the White House? No, he was not.


In regards to Stone, there are emails, texts and phone calls that convicted Stone and Despot Don’s campaign associates received many of them.



So you think you can tie Trump to documents sent to his campaign associates? GFG!


Bottom line, more information and less redactions are on the way. Just because you choose to ignore current facts



I never ignore facts just suppositions which is what you are providing and you know how I know this?

are on the way

On the way is supposition, not facts in evidence.



doesn’t mean the judiciary committee staff will.



Doesn't mean they won't either if they have nothing to work with that is considered actual evidence like you do constantly.


They’re working, not golfing or going on Christmas break. Lots more coming, all the way to Election Day. Bank on it. Originally Posted by Jaxson66

but at no time was he under oath. He sat for interviews not depositions, big difference.

And once again ( it seems like every post you make ) you do not understand the law.


https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/cr...t-agents-41015


Many people are surprised to find out that it is a crime to lie to an officer of the federal government. While many people understand that they can be punished for lying under oath, it is not necessary to make a statement under oath in order to be prosecuted for lying to the federal government.

And once again ( it seems like every post you make ) you do not understand the law.


https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/cr...t-agents-41015


Many people are surprised to find out that it is a crime to lie to an officer of the federal government. While many people understand that they can be punished for lying under oath, it is not necessary to make a statement under oath in order to be prosecuted for lying to the federal government. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Here's a suggestion. If you are going to say something "is" or "isn't" the law, take just a moment to look it up and you'll make my job here ( kidding ) easier.