HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The Guardian has viewed d...

Tue May 28, 2019, 11:31 AM

The Guardian has viewed documents concerning Mueller's shelved obstruction of justice indictment

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/28/mueller-trump-obstruction-charge-michael-wolff-book-siege-under-fire-news

The Guardian obtained a copy of Siege and viewed the documents concerned.

According to a document seen by the Guardian, the first count, under Title 18, United States code, Section 1505, charged the president with corruptly – or by threats of force or threatening communication – influencing, obstructing or impeding a pending proceeding before a department or agency of the United States.

The second count, under section 1512, charged the president with tampering with a witness, victim or informant.

The third count, under section 1513, charged the president with retaliating against a witness, victim or informant.

Wolff writes that the draft indictment he examines says Trump’s attempts to obstruct justice “began on the seventh day of his administration, tracing the line of obstruction from National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s lies to the FBI about his contacts with Russian representative[s], to the president’s efforts to have [FBI director] James Comey protect Flynn, to Comey’s firing, to the president’s efforts to interfere with the special counsel’s investigation, to his attempt to cover up his son and son-in-law’s meeting with Russian governmental agents, to his moves to interfere with Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe’s testimony …”

26 replies, 9057 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 26 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Guardian has viewed documents concerning Mueller's shelved obstruction of justice indictment (Original post)
.99center May 2019 OP
enough May 2019 #1
uponit7771 May 2019 #2
gldstwmn May 2019 #3
BadgerMom May 2019 #13
Grasswire2 May 2019 #4
Grasswire2 May 2019 #5
ewagner May 2019 #20
usaf-vet May 2019 #23
Grasswire2 May 2019 #25
EveHammond13 May 2019 #6
Pepsidog May 2019 #7
Fiendish Thingy May 2019 #8
Laura PourMeADrink May 2019 #24
medyhar May 2019 #9
Lonestarblue May 2019 #10
calimary May 2019 #11
Progressive Jones May 2019 #18
charliea May 2019 #12
lagomorph777 May 2019 #15
Nevermypresident May 2019 #26
BadgerMom May 2019 #14
Curtis May 2019 #16
debsy May 2019 #17
Progressive Jones May 2019 #19
tymorial May 2019 #22
UTUSN May 2019 #21

Response to .99center (Original post)

Tue May 28, 2019, 11:37 AM

1. Hope the Guardian doesn't get burned on this the way they did on the Manafort/Assange

story last year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to enough (Reply #1)

Tue May 28, 2019, 11:56 AM

2. Unnnnn, I'm starting to believe the outlets ... the Cohen story was true but the Mueller team ...

... sent out some double speak to make it seem like it wasn't in jist and substance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #2)

Tue May 28, 2019, 12:02 PM

3. I don't think that guy represented Mueller.

I think he took his marching orders from Barr.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gldstwmn (Reply #3)

Tue May 28, 2019, 01:57 PM

13. Bingo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to .99center (Original post)

Tue May 28, 2019, 12:24 PM

4. Let's hope this is legit and hope the leak forces more.

Good to keep the perfidy in the spotlight EVERY FREAKING DAY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to .99center (Original post)

Tue May 28, 2019, 12:25 PM

5. Keep Dan Rather in mind, though..... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grasswire2 (Reply #5)

Tue May 28, 2019, 04:55 PM

20. Good Advice....

I still believe that Roger Stone and his dirty tricksters had something to do with setting Rather up...

There is also the slime-bag at "Project Veritis" to watch out for....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grasswire2 (Reply #5)

Wed May 29, 2019, 07:24 AM

23. I have always believed Dan Rather's words were the truth. They vilified him with the document.

A document that was fed to him. So they could put his reporting into question based on a document without answering to the content of the document.

I was an air force medic when GWB was in the reserves. I believe Bush knew he couldn't pass the flight physical because of illicit substances in his system. It was not uncommon to order pilots to pee in the cup without warning. ESPECIALLY with air national guard troops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to usaf-vet (Reply #23)

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:41 AM

25. exactly. Karl Rove got him with a bamboozle.

Rove was excellent at that kind of trick, from the time he worked for Bush Sr. in TX where he did something similar to win an election.

There was plenty of talk throughout his rise to power about W and cocaine. He did some unexplained community service. Lots of strings to pull, but the stories never made it to the national conversation.

Regarding George and the draft, I did some research in the runup to the election to identify the poor fellow from Midland TX who went to Vietnam in W's place. The person most likely to have replaced him was killed in a rice paddy on his first day there. I have the name tucked away somewhere.

In addition to avoiding Vietnam by getting into the Texas Air National Guard by his daddy's privilege, W went AWOL from his duties. He simply stopped showing up. In wartime. THAT info should have kept him from winning an election. Plenty of citizen investigators put the proof together. A pig farmer in Iowa did the deep dive reseasch and found his records. Dozens of us did everything we could to break that story in the national press. On the Friday before Election Day, Senator Bob Kerrey called a press conference where he planned to ask George W. to explain his absence from duty to the American people. On that day, A FOX affiliate reporter in New England broke the story of W's old DUI. And that obliterated the AWOL story. Karl Rove was a master at obliterating bad news with other news. It's unsettling that Rove is now working with Brad Parscale on the Trump campaign.

There we are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to .99center (Original post)

Tue May 28, 2019, 12:51 PM

6. Rec 100 times

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to .99center (Original post)

Tue May 28, 2019, 12:58 PM

7. Holy shit! We all know it happened but to see it written like this is still startling.

And yes let us hope it is true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to .99center (Original post)

Tue May 28, 2019, 01:10 PM

8. Cowardly Defeatists cautioning we need to move slowly to build a convincing case, in 3,2,1...

If Meuller drafted actual indictments, what more proof is need for impeachment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #8)

Wed May 29, 2019, 09:09 AM

24. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to .99center (Original post)

Tue May 28, 2019, 01:18 PM

9. I'll be watching this story closely

 

And Mueller needs to testify under oath about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to medyhar (Reply #9)

Tue May 28, 2019, 01:35 PM

10. If this story is true, Mueller also needs to provide the House with a copy of his draft indictment.

If the draft indictment exists, the next question is why it was not released with the report—or was it and then hidden by Barr?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lonestarblue (Reply #10)

Tue May 28, 2019, 01:45 PM

11. Very worthy questions. They deserve to be asked AND answered under oath.

Sure seems like it’s high time we started an impeachment inquiry! As I understand it, such an formal inquiry sets the table for all that foot-dragging and refusal to testify and defying subpoenas to be knocked down and cleared away. Puts more teeth into House investigations.

And we all need this!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #11)

Tue May 28, 2019, 04:42 PM

18. It would also force the GOP to deal with it one way, or another. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lonestarblue (Reply #10)

Tue May 28, 2019, 01:51 PM

12. Not Hidden -- just Redacted

Since Mueller specifically didn't include an indictment in the final report, there was no need to release any proposed indictment filing. Why clutter the airwaves with irrelevant material?

#RESIST

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to charliea (Reply #12)

Tue May 28, 2019, 02:03 PM

15. Welcome to DU. Irrelevant? Hardly!

If we discover that Mueller actually did intend to indict, but Barr blocked him, that is a big deal. The exact opposite of irrelevant in a Barr impeachment inquiry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lonestarblue (Reply #10)

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:51 AM

26. Problem is Mueller clearly said today that under the DOJ memo, revealing a sealed indictment would

be prohibited . He stated he has and will continue to follow the DOJ memo, therefore, I do not think he would confirm or provide the House with such.

From his press conference today (snipped):

"It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president can not be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited."

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/29/727889232/read-special-counsel-robert-muellers-full-statement?utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=nprnews

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to medyhar (Reply #9)

Tue May 28, 2019, 01:58 PM

14. Under oath and in public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to .99center (Original post)

Tue May 28, 2019, 02:19 PM

16. My bet is Barr

I bet Barr not only shut down the entire Mueller probe but also didn't include the indictments and told Mueller it isn't his job to indict a sitting president because of the standing DOJ policy to not do so.

Of course we need to have the testimony under oath, and I bet that's why Mueller wants to have it behind closed doors. He knows he isn't allowed to make those statements in public and knows what kind of public uproar it would cause. Of course to do so behind closed doors would continue to he said/he said between the Democrats and the lying GOP, which would get us no where.

In my most humble opinion, beginning an impeachment process with Mueller and his team as the first witnesses walking the entire nation through what happened would be the best thing to happen. Have Mueller testify for a week or so and play out the movie for the world to watch on their television so there's no more hiding behind closed doors or transcripts or ignoring subpoenas. Just do it and get it over with already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to .99center (Original post)

Tue May 28, 2019, 04:07 PM

17. It is all tittilating marketing for the new book.

My bet is there is no "there" there. Just an attempt to inflate book sales. Corporate America at its finest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to .99center (Original post)

Tue May 28, 2019, 04:44 PM

19. Wouldn't all of Mueller's electronic files be property of the US Congress? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive Jones (Reply #19)

Wed May 29, 2019, 06:23 AM

22. Not under the current law. They belong to the DOJ

Mueller is a special counsel not an independent counsel. The latter reported to Congress. The special counsel reports to the attorney general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to .99center (Original post)

Tue May 28, 2019, 05:10 PM

21. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread