For the Trump supporter who can't read...

[ecco]

As President, yes...but I doubt he endured such diverting legal woes in private life.

Legal affairs of Donald Trump - Wikipedia
An analysis by USA Today published in June 2016 found that over the previous three decades, United States president Donald Trump and his businesses have been involved in 3,500 legal cases in U.S. federal courts and state court, an unprecedented number for a U.S. presidential candidate.[1] Of the 3,500 suits, Trump or one of his companies were plaintiffs in 1,900; defendants in 1,450; and bankruptcy, third party, or other in 150.[1] Trump was named in at least 169 suits in federal court.[2] Over 150 other cases were in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida (covering Broward County, Florida) since 1983.[3] In about 500 cases, judges dismissed plaintiffs' claims against Trump. In hundreds more, cases ended with the available public record unclear about the resolution.[1] Where there was a clear resolution, Trump won 451 times, and lost 38.[4]

The topics of the legal cases include contract disputes, defamation claims, and allegations of sexual harassment. Trump's companies have been involved in more than 100 tax disputes, and on "at least three dozen" occasions the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has obtained tax liens against Trump properties for nonpayment of taxes.[1] On a number of occasions, Trump has threatened legal action but did not ultimately follow through.[5]​

 

[Revoltingest]

Legal affairs of Donald Trump - Wikipedia
An analysis by USA Today published in June 2016 found that over the previous three decades, United States president Donald Trump and his businesses have been involved in 3,500 legal cases in U.S. federal courts and state court, an unprecedented number for a U.S. presidential candidate.[1] Of the 3,500 suits, Trump or one of his companies were plaintiffs in 1,900; defendants in 1,450; and bankruptcy, third party, or other in 150.[1] Trump was named in at least 169 suits in federal court.[2] Over 150 other cases were in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida (covering Broward County, Florida) since 1983.[3] In about 500 cases, judges dismissed plaintiffs' claims against Trump. In hundreds more, cases ended with the available public record unclear about the resolution.[1] Where there was a clear resolution, Trump won 451 times, and lost 38.[4]

The topics of the legal cases include contract disputes, defamation claims, and allegations of sexual harassment. Trump's companies have been involved in more than 100 tax disputes, and on "at least three dozen" occasions the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has obtained tax liens against Trump properties for nonpayment of taxes.[1] On a number of occasions, Trump has threatened legal action but did not ultimately follow through.[5]​

Perhaps you're thinking of volume of cases, even those against
companies. He might not even be aware of most of those.
I'm thinking his current legal woes are weightier & more personal.
Personal stress is more than ever.

 

[Salvador]

NOW you want to move forward. When the Republicans had both Houses did they "move along to resolving important legislative issues" like immigration? No, they didn't. I wonder why?

I'd like Social Security and Medicare for all Americans; this would be even more important to me than would be the significance of shipping undocumented workers to sanctuary cities like Chicago from where I could hire them to do cheap labor for me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As well as indictments and guilty pleas from close Trump insiders.

Yup. Reps and Cons it seems have a reading comprehension as Mueller's report does basically say things did happen, he can't just can't get sufficient evidence for exhortation or indictment.
Such things are fairly common in DCS/CPS cases. You know it happened, you can see things happened, but good luck proving it to a judge.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Perhaps you're thinking of volume of cases, even those against
companies. He might not even be aware of most of those.
I'm thinking his current legal woes are weightier & more personal.
Personal stress is more than ever.

He's definitely aware of Trump University, very aware of when he and his father shredded documents before they could be subpoenaed, and so on and so forth. He most definitely does know about at least a good chunk of them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The report available to me is redacted for legitimate legal reasons; therefore, I'll trust the opinion of the AG who has read the non-redacted report and William Barr knows more than just about anybody else what the entire Mueller investigation has concluded.

Weird how he misrepresented the report in his "summary" then, isn't it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Two years and thirty million dollars later there's zero evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election; there's also zero evidence Trump obstructed with the Mueller investigation. It's time now for our Congress to move along to resolving important legislative issues.

There are at least 10 reasons to show how Trump obstructed justice. Maybe you shouldn't rely on William Barr for all your information, eh?

 

[Kenny]

Not at all. You made an assertion. Post # 40...


I asked you to back it up.


You couldn't provide anything to support your position. Instead, you tried to deflect by posting nonsense.


Now...


I followed your link. I went to the article you posted. I searched for "dossier". The word "dossier" is not mentioned in the article.

So, again, when I asked...
What "false representation of the Dossier to the courts"? Please be specific.

You could not come up with anything.

What are you going to do now, post some more worthless links for me to chase?

Then you really aren't looking, are you. I think it is the case of "I can't see what I don't want to see".

Can't help you on that one.

You just saying "I couldn't provide anything" doesn't make it so.

Let me translate what you are saying... "The fake dossier that was used for the FISA application (which they knew), the Democratic collusion to make that happen, the illegal release of information by Commey just means "Trump and the Republicans are all at fault and the Democrats are nothing but saints".

You can have that position if you want to, I just don't see it that way.

 

[Kenny]

There are at least 10 reasons to show how Trump obstructed justice. Maybe you shouldn't rely on William Barr for all your information, eh?

ABSOLUTELY! That is why Muller never charged him with obstruction, because it was so clear cut!

 

[SkepticThinker]

ABSOLUTELY! That is why Muller never charged him with obstruction, because it was so clear cut!

Mueller explained IN THE REPORT, why he didn't charge the President with anything. He explained that it is because he was following the predetermined opinion(s) that a sitting president can't be indicted.

 

[ecco]

Weird how he misrepresented the report in his "summary" then, isn't it?

Not at all weird. He's just doing what Trump expects all his sheeples to do. As Trump himself said yesterday "Nobody disobeys my orders".

On the other hand, a few people did...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...g-he-is/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7e8c6e30640f
The list:

1. White House counsel Donald McGahn: Declined to tell Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein to fire Mueller.
2. Former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski: Declined to apply pressure on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit the scope of the Russia probe.
3. Deputy Chief of Staff Rick Dearborn: Declined to give Sessions a typed note Lewandowski gave him relaying the president’s message.
4. Staff secretary Rob Porter: Declined Trump’s request to ask the No. 3-ranking official at the Justice Department, Rachel Brand, whether she wanted to be attorney general and take oversight of the Russia probe.
5. Transition team leader Chris Christie: Declined to call FBI Director James B. Comey and tell him that Trump liked him.
6. Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein: Declined to do a news conference after Comey’s firing saying it was his idea.
7. Deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland: Declined to write an internal email stating Trump hadn’t told national security adviser Michael Flynn to talk during the presidential transition to the Russian ambassador about sanctions.
8. Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats: Declined Trump’s request to say there was no link between the Trump campaign and Russia.
9. Acting Attorney General Dana Boente: According to McGahn, Boente declined Trump’s request to state publicly that Trump wasn’t under investigation. (Boente said he didn’t recall this conversation.)
10. Chief of Staff Reince Priebus: Declined to get Sessions to resign.
11. Chief economic adviser Gary Cohn: Along with Porter, prevented Trump from pulling out of trade deals by pulling papers off his desk.
12. Chief of Staff John F. Kelly: Along with Cohn, declined to lobby the Justice Department to prevent the AT&T-Time Warner merger.
13. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis: Declined Trump’s request to assassinate Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
14. Mattis: Declined Trump’s request to provide military options for Iran.
15. Unnamed officials: Ignored Trump’s directive to not endorse an agreement reached at the G-7 Summit.

 

[Revoltingest]

He's definitely aware of Trump University, very aware of when he and his father shredded documents before they could be subpoenaed, and so on and so forth. He most definitely does know about at least a good chunk of them.

Does this mean you think the latest legal threats
against him are no more vexing than earlier ones?
If so, I disagree.

 

[ecco]

Then you really aren't looking, are you. I think it is the case of "I can't see what I don't want to see".
Can't help you on that one.

But you can help me. What I want to see, what I have been asking for, is for you to support the allegation you made in post #40...

In that he never pursued the false representation of the Dossier to the courts is evidence enough no matter what he wrote.

Of which I asked...

What "false representation of the Dossier to the courts"? Please be specific.

I bolded it this time in case you somehow missed it the three previous times I asked.

It's really not surprising that you made an assertion that you couldn't support. You have done it before. How do I know/remember that? I keep a list of people who make assertions they cannot support. Then, when they make an assertion, I ask them to support it knowing full well they will not / can not.

You just saying "I couldn't provide anything" doesn't make it so.

You are absolutely right, my saying you couldn't provide anything is meaningless. Your inability to provide support for your assertion speaks for itself.

The longer you continue this conversation, the more people will read it and see for themselves how phoney your assertion was and how lame your protestations are.

Let me translate what you are saying...

You need not translate anything I have said. This is about your nonsensical assertion and your inability to support it.

 

[Salvador]

There are at least 10 reasons to show how Trump obstructed justice. Maybe you shouldn't rely on William Barr for all your information, eh?

President Donald J. Trump is within his Constitutional right to fire any executive branch government official whom he deems as having participated in a political witch hunt against his Presidency. Hence, Donald J. Trump can't rightfully be considered an obstructionist for wanting to get rid of political witch hunters.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Probably, because Trump is constantly under investigation. He's also constantly being sued. For Trump, this really is business as normal.

For investigating and sue happy socialists trying to unseat a sitting president, it's business as usual.

 

[Kenny]

You need not translate anything I have said. This is about your nonsensical assertion and your inability to support it.

LOL... I don't think so. You have just demonstrated that it is you who are ignoring reality. My interpretation of your view remains as stated.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

For investigating and sue happy socialists trying to unseat a sitting president, it's business as usual.

And Conservatives/Republicans didn't launch multiple investigations into Benghazi and Clinton's emails?

 

[Revoltingest]

And Conservatives/Republicans didn't launch multiple investigations into Benghazi and Clinton's emails?

How many were there?

 

[ecco]

LOL... I don't think so. You have just demonstrated that it is you who are ignoring reality. My interpretation of your view remains as stated.

"Reality", "interpretation", "view" - AKA "Duck", "dodge", "evade".

After asking four times for you to support your allegation, I must conclude that you cannot.

Therefore this will be my last post on this subject to you. I wouldn't want to violate the forum's rules about badgering.

 

[ecco]

How many were there?

A tale of two investigations: Benghazi vs. Mueller - CNNPolitics
"Chairman Gowdy urgently demanded that the Justice Department wrap up the investigation, yet he literally spent years and years investigating Hillary Clinton as part of the GOP's eight-committee investigation of Benghazi...

Investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack - Wikipedia
Ten investigations were conducted into the 2012 Benghazi attack...
none of the ten investigations found any evidence to support those allegations