Excuse me, that last reply should read Judge Jeanine, not Judge Judy. Judge Judy is actually kind of thoughtful.
I remember Jeanine being thoughtful once.
Excuse me, that last reply should read Judge Jeanine, not Judge Judy. Judge Judy is actually kind of thoughtful.
Mueller could just be baiting him to incriminate himself as he just did. Don't really think it would count as entrapment either.
I think I have said beaucoup times, that I am cheering him on to do that.
Oh, better hurry up too. Kavanaugh is about to be nominated and we already know what his view is.
![]()
Mueller could just be baiting him to incriminate himself as he just did. Don't really think it would count as entrapment either.
To be fair, Mueller knows what he has and I’m just speculating on what is the better format. It’s his investigation, not mine, and he’s done pretty well to date so it’s best I just continue with the we’ll see approach.
However, Mueller doesn’t strike me as the baiting type, that will try to nail someone in an interview. He probably just wants Trump’s response to his findings to have a complete and thorough investigation. That should tell us all something about why Mueller is refusing to take obstruction off the line of questioning.
That should tell us all something about why Mueller is refusing to take obstruction off the line of questioning.
Or maybe it is the fact that Trump/Guiliani have told him that obstruction and collusion so-called are the only two topics they will allow- and further, that Mueller is required to specify the exact crimes that Trump is being investigated for. Ya think? Just a thought.
This undermines Mueller's year long plan/attempt to trap Trump into thinking that he should be willing to come in for a getting-to-know you free floating chat where once he gets there, he starts asking about Condo deals in Crapistan in 2002 and deutch bank loans and gets him on perjury.
The reason Mueller wants to have a sit down with him is because he knows he cant nail him on anything other than perjury, you cant charge someone with obstruction of justice if there was no crime committed, What was he obstructing? Mueller has nothing thats the reason he needs the sit down interview hes hoping to get Trump on perjury.
Wrong. You can certainly charge someone with obstruction of justice even if charges are not brought up in the investigation of a possible crime.
What was he obstructing if a crime didnt happen?