I may have to use Mom’s parental lock to block her from watching ABC News anymore. I go over there and she’s watching David Muir spread this manure:
A source familiar with the matter confirms that during a meeting with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in December, President Donald Trump asked Rosenstein about the direction of the FBI’s Russia investigation and asked Rosenstein whether the deputy attorney general was part of Trump’s team.
Rosenstein seemed surprised by the questions, the source confirmed.
CNN, which first reported the story, said the December meeting occurred as Rosenstein prepared to testify before the House Judiciary Committee.
Mom appeared somewhat startled when I screamed “SO FUCKING WHAT?” at her television.
According to this learned idiot, Trump is guilty of witness tampering:
But wait! There’s more!
Well he must know what he is talking about, he’s an expert!
Attorney. Professor @UofNH (journalism, legal advocacy). Analysis @CNN, @BBC, @CBS, @Bloomberg, @VanityFair, others. More: http://sethabramson.net/bio . Views mine.
I’m gonna let y’all in on a little secret – a lot of lawyers don’t know very much about the law. The took some classes and passed some tests and became lawyers. Then they started practicing in one or two areas and forgot most of what they ever knew about everything else.
Criminal law is a specialty that I used to practice. If I had a client accused of witness tampering I would very carefully compare the allegations in the complaint to the statutes to see if the allegations met all the elements. Witness tampering is a specific intent crime. You cannot unintentionally witness tamper. All they have is speculation as to what Trump’s intent was.
But it also takes more than speculation to sustain a complaint. It takes evidence.
There is no “evidence” in this story. They do not allege a single admissible fact. All they have is some hearsay that a conversation took place. Even if the complaint was sufficient on its face the case wouldn’t make it past a preliminary hearing. At an arraignment the prosecution has to allege a crime, but at a preliminary hearing they have to present enough evidence to convince a judge that probable cause exists.
They have nothing.
But let’s say that Trump admits he asked those questions. So what?
That’s his fucking job!