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.
Just because the December 5 subpoena allegedly sought Manafort's bank statements rather than Trump's does not mean that Mueller does not have Trump's bank records.
Maybe it is you who needs to learn to read critically.
The fact is, you have no legitimate reason to believe that Mueller has Trump's non-campaign related bank records. The initial "Fake News" report that suggested that Mueller did have those records was corrected, as shown in the article I linked above. That "Fake News" story was your basis for making that claim. But it was redacted and changed to show that it was Manafort's Deutsche Bank bank records that Mueller has.
Mueller does not have unlimited authority to pursue Trump in any manner that he wants. Mueller's mandate is focused first and foremost on the Russians interference with our elections, with a sub-focus on the Russians interaction with the Trump campaign.
Mueller's mandate does not authorize him to go on an open fishing expedition through all of Trump's historical business records, in hopes of finding something, anything, that can be used to get rid of President Trump. That sounds like something between a witch hunt and a coup, doesn't it?
The good news is, Mueller is under supervision from the DOJ and he is not allowed to do that.
The wonderful part about the Mueller investigations is that NO ONE, outside the investigation knows what they have and do not have. They are keeping a very tight lid on leaks.
The wonderful part about the Mueller investigations is that NO ONE, outside the investigation knows what they have and do not have. They are keeping a very tight lid on leaks.
Trump has to be peeing in his Depends.
We know that the Mueller investigation leaks like a sieve. If they had something, we would know it by now. If it amuses you to pretend otherwise, then we will leave you to that.
You are making assumptions about what Mueller does or does not have without any knowledge as to the truth of those assumptions. I say its foolish to make such assumptions without first knowing the facts. And I am the one being partisan? OK.
Not making an assumption, an educated guess based on history.
We'll see. I know you folks who are damn near ready to bust with excitement at the thought of an impeached Trump see it differently, but I don't suffer from your brand of partisan delusion or hysteria.
My "opponent" in this discussion is the theater of the absurd that calls itself a legal system.
The fact is, you have no legitimate reason to believe that Mueller has Trump's non-campaign related bank records. The initial "Fake News" report that suggested that Mueller did have those records was corrected, as shown in the article I linked above. That "Fake News" story was your basis for making that claim. But it was redacted and changed to show that it was Manafort's Deutsche Bank bank records that Mueller has.
Mueller does not have unlimited authority to pursue Trump in any manner that he wants. Mueller's mandate is focused first and foremost on the Russians interference with our elections, with a sub-focus on the Russians interaction with the Trump campaign.
Mueller's mandate does not authorize him to go on an open fishing expedition through all of Trump's historical business records, in hopes of finding something, anything, that can be used to get rid of President Trump. That sounds like something between a witch hunt and a coup, doesn't it?
The good news is, Mueller is under supervision from the DOJ and he is not allowed to do that.
Except the difference between you and me is that I make no assumption that he does or does not have Trump's bank records. You, on the other hand, have insisted unequivocally that Mueller does not have Trump's bank records. Clearly Trump is under some level of scrutiny by Mueller and you don't know what he does or does not have.
The wonderful part about the Mueller investigations is that NO ONE, outside the investigation knows what they have and do not have. They are keeping a very tight lid on leaks.
Trump has to be peeing in his Depends.
There are times something gets out.....but I strongly suspect that's deliberate on Mueller's part, to see who starts panicking.
There are times something gets out.....but I strongly suspect that's deliberate on Mueller's part, to see who starts panicking.
Very little has gotten out. Most of it has been reported by 3rd parties and outside attorneys who draw educated conclusions based on questions asked, witnesses/attorneys seen coming or going, indictments filed, or subpoenas issued. I actually don't recall seeing many, if any, reports from sources (named or unnamed) from inside the probe itself.
Remove the partisan blinders and go back and look all the different high level indictments in politically motivated cases. ...
It is Starr v Clinton all over again. Ever since the JFK Whitehouse...these politically motivated "investigations" read like pulp court intrigue novels. How people can be blind to the pattern is a remarkable feat of partisan myopia.
You do have a point there. The tradition has become to entrap politicians and high-profile individuals in general. They may or may not have committed an underlying crime. But as goes the epigram, "it's not the crime, it's the coverup". Persons whose livelihood stems from nurturing a positive public image, will fret and agonize over maintaining that image, more so, than whether their ensuing efforts place them in criminal jeopardy. Investigators prey on this, bagging their quarry, whether they're doing the public a service, by removing a genuinely dangerous miscreant from power, or trapping a hapless but ultimately decent person, who happens to be unpopular.
So, to reiterate: I'd love to see an orderly constitutional transition from a Trump administration to a Pence administration (and hopefully in 2020, to a more centrist administration). But I fully agree, that to trap Trump in a lie under oath, very much smacks of Starr vs. Clinton, or some J. Edgar Hoover maneuver.
He can't go 2 minutes without lying. Talking to FBI would be insane.
You're talking about Obama, I assume. The man never told the truth about anything.
I can't wait till Obama is indicted. Could be soon.
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.
