Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trump should listen to his lawyers and not testify. The consensus among former Federal prosecutors is also that Trump shouldn't testify. It's a perjury trap. Nothing to do with Russia or obstruction.
But let the presstitutes have their fun. I love seeing their downcast faces when yet another hope is dashed.
Bill Clinton was charged with lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice. There is no evidence the shows Donald Trump did anything remotely close to that.
Wow... are you kidding? Trump has committed and admitted obstruction of justice in plain view for everyone to see:
1. He told Lavrov, in public view, that he fired Comey to relieve the pressure from the Russia investigation. That's an admission of guilt.
2. Trump admitted obstruction in his televised interview with Lester Holt -- he said he had the "Russia thing" on his mind when he fired Comey. That's an admission of intent to obstruct.
Trump is 100% guilty of obstruction of justice. Case closed. It's a fact, not open to dispute. The only question is whether or not he will be prosecuted and/or impeached for it.
Depending on which side you're on... argument for is that trump would not be able to resist bragging, "embellishing" (red that as lying), and talking talking talking about himself, and will put his foot in it, bigly. That is also an argument against. LOL
Yep. And, that is a big reason why the trumpissts all think that isn't any evidence to hang trump with - none of it has leaked. I'm thinkin' they'll be pretty surprised when all is said and done.
I think you mean Mueller's team is leaking like a sieve.
There are almost daily news reports about all the leaks.
The press on your planet covers a lot different stories than ours, obviously. Here we get stories on what Mueller has filed openly in court, but we have no idea what he's working on, how deep he is into it, or who the subjects currently being investigated are.
How about let us know what Mueller is going to decide, when you hear, and give us some references to support it? The way interplanetary communications are these days, it could be months yet before the public knows anything here. There's a dear.
You mean the news reports about the indictments and stuff like that? Here's a hint - those are not "leaks".
"WASHINGTON — An adviser to the United Arab Emirates with ties to current and former aides to President Trump is cooperating with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and gave testimony last week to a grand jury, according to two people familiar with the matter."
"The Department of Justice has called on its oversight branch to open an investigation into the leak of details about special counsel Robert Mueller’s first indictment against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Last Friday, CNN was first to report a federal grand jury in Washington had approved the indictment, which was under seal on orders from a federal judge.
How many do you want. There's no proof the leaks and sources are Mueller's Democratic staff. imo, we need a Permanent Special Counsel on Leaks. The point is that some of what he's doing or planning is being leaked.
"WASHINGTON — An adviser to the United Arab Emirates with ties to current and former aides to President Trump is cooperating with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and gave testimony last week to a grand jury, according to two people familiar with the matter."
"The Department of Justice has called on its oversight branch to open an investigation into the leak of details about special counsel Robert Mueller’s first indictment against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Last Friday, CNN was first to report a federal grand jury in Washington had approved the indictment, which was under seal on orders from a federal judge.
How many do you want. There's no proof the leaks and sources are Mueller's Democratic staff. imo, we need a Permanent Special Counsel on Leaks. The point is that some of what he's doing or planning is being leaked.
In the article, it does not discuss what relationship the "two people familiar with the matter" are - they could be part of the advisor's contingent, now, couldn't they? If they had been part of the FBI, you can be certain the article would have noted that. Doncha think?
And, the second article doesn't specify if the leak came from the FBI or from someone on the Grand Jury. You do realize that Grand Jury members are not part of the investigation, right?
So, you have not proven any leaks came from the FBI. Sorry. What you have shown is that the press is doing its job of digging for information, and reporting it.
Is there a single person who voted for POTUS Trump who actually thinks him testifying is a good idea? There can't be.
Donald Trump voters keep saying how the entire investigation is a sham and this whole thing is a "witch hunt," yet not a single Trump supporter wants him to testify before the FBI. I wonder why.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
