Trump may have just accidentally admitted to obstruction of justice via a Tweet - Polidicks

[media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/937007006526959618[/media] [quote]In his first tweet on the subject since Flynn's plea, Trump argued that Flynn had no reason to lie about his actions because they weren't unlawful. But it's the first part of the tweet that caught plenty of people's attention. “I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI,” Trump began. Except when Trump fired Flynn on Feb. 13, he mentioned only Flynn's comments to Vice President Pence -- not the FBI. In fact, Flynn's contradictory comments to the FBI on his meeting with the Russian ambassador weren't public knowledge at the time. And the current timeline as we understand it does not suggest the White House had direct knowledge of what Flynn told the FBI at the time. Flynn's comments to the FBI didn't come into the public domain until three days after his dismissal, on Feb. 16, when The Washington Post's Sari Horwitz and Adam Entous reported that Flynn had wrongly denied discussing sanctions with the Russian ambassador: [...] Some see a problematic admission in Trump's tweet on Saturday -- possibly even something that could be construed as an admission to obstruction of justice. Here's why: The day after Trump fired Flynn, on Feb. 14, Trump urged then-FBI Director James B. Comey to be lenient with Flynn, according to Comey's notes at the time, saying, "I hope you can let this go.” If Trump knew at that time that Flynn had lied to the FBI and was under investigation, the argument goes, it may constitute an attempt to obstruct that investigation. Walter Shaub, the former head of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, suggested the tweet could prove a major misstep for the president and even that [b]it might have cost any other president his job.[/b][/quote] [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/12/02/trumps-first-tweet-about-michael-flynns-guilty-plea-could-be-a-problem-for-him/]Source: The Washington Post[/url] Original headline: [b]Did Trump’s tweet about Michael Flynn’s guilty plea just admit something it shouldn’t have?[/b] I changed the headline to remove the question from the headline and get the point of the article across better. Mods, let me know if that's too radical of a change.

The joke about this being "Watergate but stupid" is becoming more true by the day.

Please let this lead to something. Please. It's all I want this Christmas.

Can someone give me a quick explanation as to why this can be considered obstruction of justice?

[QUOTE=_Maverick_;52942031]Can someone give me a quick explanation as to why this can be considered obstruction of justice?[/QUOTE] He knew a crime was committed but tried to use his position prevent the crime from being investigated.

[QUOTE=_Maverick_;52942031]Can someone give me a quick explanation as to why this can be considered obstruction of justice?[/QUOTE] I am British, but I know that America was founded on the principle that powers be separated - you have the Executive Branch, Judicial Branch and Legislative. No branch is supposed to be able to influence the other. Here, the Executive Branch was trying to influence the Judicial, a BIG no no.

but he believed flynn did nothing wrong, just that he did something wrong, and then the FBI was doing something wrong so he got rid of the FBI

[QUOTE=_Maverick_;52942031]Can someone give me a quick explanation as to why this can be considered obstruction of justice?[/QUOTE] When Trump announced he was firing Flynn, it was publicly justified because he lied to Mike Pence about his contacts with Russians. Trump made no mention of the FBI. The next day, he pressured Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn and demanded a pledge of loyalty. Trump has seemingly acknowledged for the first time that he knew Flynn lied to the FBI - a felony punishable by up to five years in prison - before he fired him and then pressured the head of the FBI to drop the case. And then he fired James Comey because he wouldn't drop the investigation into the "fake" Russia-Trump connection...that he is now admitting Comey was [I]entirely justified to execute[/I] at the times he both pressured Comey to drop the investigation and when he fired him. This is obstruction of justice by the book and the Republicans themselves established that this is an impeachable offense when they tried Bill Clinton for it. [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/12/02/trump-on-michael-flynns-guilty-plea-theres-been-absolutely-no-collusion/"]The damage control, according to unnamed sources who spoke to the Washington Post, is that Trump's lawyer wrote it, not him, so it's not self-incrimination.[/URL] [media]https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/937094314240376832[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/937096601994219520[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/937097961913438208[/media]

Trump admits he knew Flynn lied, told Comey to let him go despite that and when Comey started digging deeper, Trump got rid of him from the investigation. That's some self-incrimination right there.

so, when he mentions flynn lying to the [I]vice president[/I] alongside the FBI, wouldn't this technically implicate pence too? well, maybe not under the "obstruction of justice" category, since pence hasn't also been pushing comey to end the investigation (afaik), but him knowing about this kinda thing going on in the background and staying silent can't be kosher for someone in his position

This is why I disagree with the "Ban Trump's Twitter" argument. He's doing Mueller a big help.

[QUOTE=cebceb44;52942086]so, when he mentions flynn lying to the [I]vice president[/I] alongside the FBI, wouldn't this technically implicate pence too?[/QUOTE] Pence isn't known to be connected to Trump's inappropriate interference with Comey's investigation (and subsequent firing), and it would be up to Mueller to prove that Pence knew or should have known about Flynn's false statements to the FBI, and WHEN he would've known because Flynn lied to his face and this wasn't immediately revealed. Pence is likely implicated through other avenues but there's no [I]known[/I] evidence connecting him to Trump's bumbling attempts to derail the FBI investigation into the dirty tracks leading from Moscow to the Trump campaign and the Trump White House.

Trump's lawyer must hate him. What an absolute dolt.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;52942067]Trump admits he knew Flynn lied, told Comey to let him go despite that and when Comey started digging deeper, Trump got rid of him from the investigation. That's some self-incrimination right there.[/QUOTE] Just like when Don't Rump Jr tweeted out his correspondence with the Russians publically on twitter The Collusion apple doesn't fall far from the Obstruction of Justice tree

[QUOTE=Cyan_Husky;52942454]Trump's lawyer must hate him. What an absolute dolt.[/QUOTE] Lawyers Hate Him! Local Orange Man Exposes His Crimes. Find out this one weird trick to implicate yourself in an 'obstruction of justice' criminal charge!

ok so like I can't even process this tweet, like I fully understand what is going on and what he saying, but can someone read it to me like I'm a total dumb idiot I legitimately cannot believe this is a real tweet How can anyone be this stupid????

[QUOTE=J!NX;52942512]ok so like I can't even process this tweet, like I fully understand what is going on and what he saying, but can someone read it to me like I'm a total dumb idiot I legitimately cannot believe this is a real tweet How can anyone be this stupid????[/QUOTE] It's the Dunning-Kruger effect

I don't know a lot about how the white house inner structure works, but I like to imagine that Pence is just chilling, doing nothing, avoiding people, and is just using the orange man as an easy shortcut to become POTUS. I imagine his wife walks in on him practicing inauguration speeches to a mirror in his underwear

I have to wonder if this combined with the news that Trump may be impeached next week means good news for Americans. Or if this is just going to be another example of how political consequences don't exist for the right. Or if impeachment for Trump just means him being replaced by somebody with equally terrible views but higher levels of political competence.

I highly doubt he'll be impeached next week. Impeachment is a process that can take a long time. And with the way things are now, he'll likely just be replaced by another standard Republican. However, impeachment means less ground for Republicans in 2018 and may present an opportunity for Democrats to replace them. It's kind of a long game. The fact that we get excited for ANY news that things may turn around at some point in the future is just kind of evidence as to how far we are in the shit right now.

[QUOTE=Dan The Man;52942055]I am British, but I know that America was founded on the principle that powers be separated - you have the Executive Branch, Judicial Branch and Legislative. No branch is supposed to be able to influence the other. Here, the Executive Branch was trying to influence the Judicial, a BIG no no.[/QUOTE] Not quite. The Judicial Branch is mostly just the Supreme Court, federal court system, and the offices that support it. The FBI here is a bureau of the Executive Branch, and all who work under that branch (including the FBI director, attorney general, and special counsel) derive their power from and serve at the pleasure of the office of the President. However, this does not mean that the obstruction charge is immediately nullified. Elixwhitetail's comment is more or less accurate if the timeline of events described is true. [editline]do not derail[/editline] To say this was an idiotic move by the President is a massive understatement. While I doubt he'll go under for this alone, it will likely be a powerful asset to whoever is building a case for his impeachment.

[QUOTE=Pascall;52942636]I highly doubt he'll be impeached next week. Impeachment is a process that can take a long time. And with the way things are now, he'll likely just be replaced by another standard Republican. However, impeachment means less ground for Republicans in 2018 and may present an opportunity for Democrats to replace them. It's kind of a long game. The fact that we get excited for ANY news that things may turn around at some point in the future is just kind of evidence as to how far we are in the shit right now.[/QUOTE] I doubt he would be impeached at all. Unless Republicans in the Senate and House decide that he is a cancer to the party and join the Democrats in impeaching.

[video]http://twitter.com/MaryRogers212/status/937008487615422466[/video] tinyhandcuffs fucking savage

So, supposedly, Trump's lawyer wrote the tweet, not Trump: [url]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-lawyer-wrote-tweet-implying-trump-knew-flynn-lied-to-fbi/[/url] I don't know if I believe it, though. It seems a little too convenient.

Even if he did if Trump said it was OK for him to post it he's nonetheless culpable for the content of the tweet so it's a weak defense to begin with.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52942979]So, supposedly, Trump's lawyer wrote the tweet, not Trump: [url]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-lawyer-wrote-tweet-implying-trump-knew-flynn-lied-to-fbi/[/url] I don't know if I believe it, though. It seems a little too convenient.[/QUOTE] See [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52942066]When Trump announced he was firing Flynn, it was publicly justified because he lied to Mike Pence about his contacts with Russians. Trump made no mention of the FBI. The next day, he pressured Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn and demanded a pledge of loyalty. Trump has seemingly acknowledged for the first time that he knew Flynn lied to the FBI - a felony punishable by up to five years in prison - before he fired him and then pressured the head of the FBI to drop the case. And then he fired James Comey because he wouldn't drop the investigation into the "fake" Russia-Trump connection...that he is now admitting Comey was [I]entirely justified to execute[/I] at the times he both pressured Comey to drop the investigation and when he fired him. This is obstruction of justice by the book and the Republicans themselves established that this is an impeachable offense when they tried Bill Clinton for it. [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/12/02/trump-on-michael-flynns-guilty-plea-theres-been-absolutely-no-collusion/"]The damage control, according to unnamed sources who spoke to the Washington Post, is that Trump's lawyer wrote it, not him, so it's not self-incrimination.[/URL] [media]https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/937094314240376832[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/937096601994219520[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/937097961913438208[/media][/QUOTE]

My bad, I missed that post entirely. I still don't think I buy it. The tweet sounds too Trumpian to just be his lawyer.

Of course it isn't his lawyer. Why would his lawyer post tweets for him. Review them? Sure. Post them? No.

[QUOTE=GunFox;52943067]Of course it isn't his lawyer. Why would his lawyer post tweets for him. Review them? Sure. Post them? No.[/QUOTE] Hi, J!NX's lawyer talking. this is a normal practice and I post for J!NX about four times a day. Totally normal practice, absolutely fine. Really whose lawyer doesn't post for them?

[QUOTE=J!NX;52943112]Hi, J!NX's lawyer talking. this is a normal practice and I post for J!NX about four times a day. Totally normal practice, absolutely fine. Really whose lawyer doesn't post for them?[/QUOTE] Oh my god This is basically the adult version of saying "I DIDN'T DO THIS, IT WAS MY BROTHER USING MY ACCOUNT, PLZ UNBAN :( "