Gaetz, paul manafort. The circle goes on. He is surrounded by criminals. Then we hear, well, it cant be Obstruction Of Congress, you could have all just went to court. Well, we are in december. We have an ongoing crime. We have a crime in progress. That is what the 911 call would say from a police officer. We have a crime in progress. And they are saying with a crime in progress, why didnt you just schedule an appointment to call the police . We have an emergency to our National Election going on right now. Our oath to the constitution requires us to take this drastic, solemn, and regrettable step. But it is necessary because if we dont protect americas precious right to vote, it is clear that the other side wont. And so i talked about the courage of yesterday. Today i am reminded of judas. Because judas for 30 pieces of
silver betrayed jesus. For 30 positive tweets for easy reelection, the other side is willing to betray the American People, their precious right to vote and the future
bogus charge to begin with. they re setting perjury traps. thank god don mcgahn didn t fall into one. this is even more outrageous. give us what we demand or we re going to throw you out of office. we can t there s another thing that could have been done besides going to court. could have passed a bill requiring the president to do certain things, turn over certain things and gotten the senate to agree, president vetoes it. you override the veto. which is what happened to andrew johnson. then you could really have a legitimate obstruction of congress. it s not just obstruction of a majority and one-half of the congress. but that wasn t done either. and even if that had been done, either the president or congress would end up having to go to the supreme court to get the courts to say this was a lawful act, but in the case of congress and
charge to begin with. they are setting perjury traps. thank god don mcgahn didn t fall into one. but this is even more outrageous. give us what we demand or we are going to throw you out of office. there is another thing that could have been done besides going to court. could ve passed a bill requiring the president to do certain things, turn over certain things and gotten the senate to agree the president vetoes it, you override the veto. then which is kind of what happened to andrew johnson. then you could really have a legitimate obstruction of congress. it s not just obstruction of a majority in one half of the congress. but that wasn t done either. and even if that had been done, either the president or the congress would end up having to go to the supreme court to get the courts to say this was a lawful act. but in the case of congress and
i think that s exactly right. they re going to want to know what the president knew when he knew it for those issues that occurred prior to him becoming president. no question about that. make no mistake. there has been a characterization of those answers from other witnesses and the prosecutors have those characterization of the answers. they know what other people have said and they haven t shared that with the presidents so that s where it becomes tricky for the president because he doesn t know what characterization, what spin was put on this by others. that s why there s 0.0% chance he wrote those answers by himself and he would be foolish to have done that, anybody who has counsel, for good reason you use your lawyers and you need to, coates, because of people like you because you re setting perjury traps says the president of the united states. you re out to get him. you re tricky and you re sneaky. is that how it works? just shady. shifty.
characterization of the answers. they know what other people have said and they haven t shared that with the presidents so that s where it becomes tricky for the president because he doesn t know what characterization, what spin was put on this by others. that s why there s 0.0% chance he wrote those answers by himself and he would be foolish to have done that, anybody who has counsel, for good reason you use your lawyers and you need to, coates, because of people like you because you re setting perjury traps says the president of the united states. you re out to get him. you re tricky and you re sneaky. is that how it works? just shady. shifty. that s all you can characterize me as. the questions that are being asked are open ended and i think jim was talking about the characterization. it s an important word choice. the president isn t entitled to know what other witnesses have said, whether he is corroborating them or contradicting them.