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.
Mueller is an embarrassment. He should have stepped down long ago for his part in the scandals concerning Uranium One and other Obama era scandals, not the least of which is his close relationship to James Comey.
The only thing that might change this is if Trump fires Mueller.
If that happens, all bets are off. If the Republicans don't stand up against that, the party is likely ruined.
They will be known as the party of traitors and Russian toadies from then on out.
I don't know who you're listening to (CNN?) but you're getting some very bad information. There has been not one ounce of evidence of any "collusion" (which isn't a crime) by President Trump or his team since this this so-called "investigation" began 18 months or so ago.
You people keep hoping. But CNN is misleading you and giving you false hope that President Trump has committed some crime.
Isn't it time to give it up?
Further, a sitting President cannot be indicted. That has been settled many years ago by the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice.
Putin would have had more reason to desire Clinton win the election. There is no reason on God's green earth why he would have wished for Trump to win.
You people are so obsessed, and are just laughable. I'll repost for your edification what I posted yesterday on a similar thread. This is what Mark Levin, a Constitutional attorney who worked in the Reagan White House had to say about this possible interview of the President:
I don't know who you're listening to (CNN?) but you're getting some very bad information. There has been not one ounce of evidence of any "collusion" (which isn't a crime) by President Trump or his team since this this so-called "investigation" began 18 months or so ago.
You people keep hoping. But CNN is misleading you and giving you false hope that President Trump has committed some crime.
Isn't it time to give it up?
Further, a sitting President cannot be indicted. That has been settled many years ago by the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice.
I don't watch anything on TV, and haven't for twenty years. I read newspapers, although mostly online these days. I have also read Gelnn Simpson's testimony, all of the memos in the "dossier", "Fire and Fury" and "Collusion" and "A Very Expensive Poison" by Luke Harding. "Collusion" was the best of the three that were not original source documents, kind of like something Woodward and Bernstein might have written about Watergate. It is an excellent job of journalism, recounting facts with little commentary that might lapse into opinion, and predating stories that are just showing up in the news. "Fire and Fury" had too much Wolff in it for my taste, which is to be expected considering it was written more from observations and conversations than from any sort of background research and evaluation. It is much shallower than "Collusion".
All we know if the investigation is what has been made public. We don't know what else Mueller has in his files. Even if he has solid evidence, you won't see it until he has rounded up everyone on the periphery of the indictment. Mueller's job is to report his findings to Rosenstein, who will in turn make the determination how to proceed. If Trump cannot be indicted, there can be a presentment of charges which means it will be waiting for him when he hands over the keys to the Oval Office.
What makes you believe so strongly in Trump's innocence? His own protestations? Talking heads? Source data?
Putin would have had more reason to desire Clinton win the election. There is no reason on God's green earth why he would have wished for Trump to win.
Putin hates Hillary because she's wise to his bull**** and strong enough not to stand for it. Trump, OTOH, may be in hock to Putin, and therefore sworn to protect and defend Mother Russia.
You people are so obsessed, and are just laughable. I'll repost for your edification what I posted yesterday on a similar thread. This is what Mark Levin, a Constitutional attorney who worked in the Reagan White House had to say about this possible interview of the President:
You people are so obsessed, and are just laughable. I'll repost for your edification what I posted yesterday on a similar thread. This is what Mark Levin, a Constitutional attorney who worked in the Reagan White House had to say about this possible interview of the President:
Man this investigation is heating up. This is getting closer to Trump with each passing day. And no, this is not fake news. No wonder the bozos at Fox News are blowing a gasket.
Robert Mueller has something new cooking.
In a new court filing on Thursday, the special counsel’s office revealed additional details of the probe that indicate he has recently expanded his investigation of Paul Manafort. The further implication of this filing is that Mueller is actively building a collusion case against the former Trump campaign chairman or other Trump campaign officials, and potentially basing it on the testimony of former Manafort deputy Rick Gates.
The new details show that Mueller’s team acquired search warrants on five telephone numbers last month, just two weeks after Gates began to officially cooperate in Mueller’s probe.
If the warrants against the five phones are “not the subject of either of the current prosecutions involving Manafort,” then they would seem to not be connected to the crimes arising out of the Ukrainian imbroglio, which is the subject of his current prosecutions. By process of elimination, they are related to either a potential collusion case against Manafort, or additional targets. If there are additional targets, though, they would have to be connected in some way to Mueller’s wider mandate to investigate Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and/or the Trump campaign’s potential cooperation with that interference and links to Russia.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has obtained evidence that calls into question Congressional testimony given by Trump supporter and Blackwater founder Erik Prince last year, when he described a meeting in Seychelles with a Russian financier close to Vladimir Putin as a casual chance encounter “over a beer,” sources told ABC News.
Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has taken the unusual step of questioning Russian oligarchs who traveled into the US, stopping at least one and searching his electronic devices when his private jet landed at a New York area airport
Investigators are asking whether wealthy Russians illegally funneled cash donations directly or indirectly into Donald Trump's presidential campaign and inauguration.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office moved to seize bank accounts at three different financial institutions last year just one day before former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was indicted, prosecutors disclosed in a court filing Thursday.
The previously unknown move against the bank accounts was revealed in a list of search and seizure warrants prosecutors submitted to a federal court in Washington after Manafort's defense team complained that the government was withholding too many details about how the warrants were obtained.
The new filing also indicated that Mueller's investigators have been pressing on with their work in recent weeks despite the pair of indictments pending against Manafort and a detailed indictment in February of the Russia-based Internet Research Agency and a dozen Russian nationals for alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Prosecutors said some information about the various searches was withheld from Manafort because it relates to the identity of informants or "to ongoing investigations that are not the subject of either of the current prosecutions involving Manafort." POLITICO reported in January that an errant court filing by the defense indicated that at least one employee of a Manafort consulting firm was surreptitiously cooperating with the FBI and journalists
Which question? I didn't watch it on TV or video. I read the transcript.
I didn't need to. The FBI did. That's how they convinced the judge to issue the FISA warrant.
They got the warrant by misleading the judge.
The information was not verified, they also try to substantiate the claims by Steele by using an article from a reporter that Steele himself briefed.
The DOJ is now allowing the congressional committees to view the FIAS application, we may get more information on this application in the coming weeks.
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.
