http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...to-offer-mueller-an-interview-in-exchange-for
Nothing to hide folks
Nothing to hide folks
Trump, afraid of November, wants to cut a deal
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
Frankly i dont got much of an opinion on this either way, obviously there wasnt any collusion its long past that point, but with that said, if i was a lawyer i sure as hell wouldnt want a bullshiter like trump talking to a prosecutor, thats basically the only way he can screw himself..... on purgery....... Its not all that surprising a lawyer would fight to not let him talk to mueller...... though Trump is such a dumbass he probably wants to get in a fight with mueller.
Mueller has subpoena power and has two - and possibly more- convened grand juries he works with in DC. If he has the goods on Trump then he needs to move on it. Regular viewers know that I am all for it.
He shouldn't need Trump's testimony since we are assured right here on the forum that absolutely everyone has stuff on trump and has allegedly flipped. Go for it.
Mueller is afraid to indict him because he knows he cant get a conviction and it will end out looking like a victory for trump and another major loss to cap off a career of major losses. And he is squeezing witnesses and defendants by threatening to prosecute them but once they go full legal, he has to prove the case.
Note as always that I am talking about "get a conviction" on obstruction of justice and collusion to enter into a crime with the Russians (collusion alone is not a crime unless it is insider trading). As I say in every discussion of this, I don't doubt for a second that he has all sorts of side stuff on Jared and probably trump- to compensate for not being able to make the big kill. Bunch of pussy stuff. The minute Mueller indicts or subpoenas Trump he has passed the point of no return. You either prosecute of get a conviction or history will show that the witch-hunter had to stand down when push came to shove. He doesn't have the goods but his attorneys know that Mueller's strategy is to try to lure Trump into his perjury trap and then get a little consolation prize. We have seen plenty of that already, right? Screw Mueller. Trump should follow his attorneys advice 100%. I mean John Dowd not the other clown attorneys who have no white collar crime defense experience. Dowd is better at Muellers job than he is.
I see that Mannafort is requesting jury trials rather than just before a judge. Good. Let Mueller work for it. Remember the days when Mannafort allegedly had flipped on Trump? Howd that work out?
He shouldn't need Trump's testimony since we are assured right here on the forum that absolutely everyone has stuff on trump and has allegedly flipped. Go for it.
Mueller is afraid to indict him because he knows he cant get a conviction and it will end out looking like a victory for trump and another major loss to cap off a career of major losses. And he is squeezing witnesses and defendants by threatening to prosecute them but once they go full legal, he has to prove the case.
Note as always that I am talking about "get a conviction" on obstruction of justice and collusion to enter into a crime with the Russians (collusion alone is not a crime unless it is insider trading). As I say in every discussion of this, I don't doubt for a second that he has all sorts of side stuff on Jared and probably trump- to compensate for not being able to make the big kill. Bunch of pussy stuff. The minute Mueller indicts or subpoenas Trump he has passed the point of no return. You either prosecute of get a conviction or history will show that the witch-hunter had to stand down when push came to shove. He doesn't have the goods but his attorneys know that Mueller's strategy is to try to lure Trump into his perjury trap and then get a little consolation prize. We have seen plenty of that already, right? Screw Mueller. Trump should follow his attorneys advice 100%. I mean John Dowd not the other clown attorneys who have no white collar crime defense experience. Dowd is better at Muellers job than he is.
I see that Mannafort is requesting jury trials rather than just before a judge. Good. Let Mueller work for it. Remember the days when Mannafort allegedly had flipped on Trump? Howd that work out?
Last edited:
Is is not past that point. There was collusion in the campaign, even if just Manafort and Co. the campaign was dirty.
Trump of course knew, however you see for example with the lawyer paying from his own funds how Trump operates.
Russia . . . . . if you're listening , i hope you find the 30 thousand e-mails ,
you will be greatly rewarded .
you will be greatly rewarded .
You know everything is fuked up when the 'crooks' start making the conditions.
LOCK HER UP.
Trump has said he is "looking forward" to speaking with the special counsel's team, but his lawyers have repeatedly emphasized that he would only agree under certain conditions.
Legal experts interviewed by the Journal expressed skepticism Mueller would agree to the idea.
“You can’t put a timeline on these things,” said former federal prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg. “Someone could walk in the door on the day before their proposed deadline and say, ‘I’ve got some information that’s going to blow your minds.’ … [And] Mueller’s going to say, ‘Oh, too bad, the deadline’s tomorrow?’”
LOCK HER UP.
Trump has said he is "looking forward" to speaking with the special counsel's team, but his lawyers have repeatedly emphasized that he would only agree under certain conditions.
Legal experts interviewed by the Journal expressed skepticism Mueller would agree to the idea.
“You can’t put a timeline on these things,” said former federal prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg. “Someone could walk in the door on the day before their proposed deadline and say, ‘I’ve got some information that’s going to blow your minds.’ … [And] Mueller’s going to say, ‘Oh, too bad, the deadline’s tomorrow?’”
They're delusional, "oh, cut the investigation short as you feed me fluff on a line of questioning you control? Certainly!"
Fuk any interview , we want him in the witness box , under oath ,
preferably televised LIVE .
.
An interview is a conversation where questions are asked and answers are given.[1] In common parlance, the word "interview" refers to a one-on-one conversation with one person acting in the role of the interviewer and the other in the role of the interviewee. The interviewer asks questions, the interviewee responds, with participants taking turns talking. Interviews usually involve a transfer of information from interviewee to interviewer, which is usually the primary purpose of the interview, although information transfers can happen in both directions simultaneously. One can contrast an interview which involves bi-directional communication with a one-way flow of information, such as a speech or oration.
preferably televised LIVE .
.An interview is a conversation where questions are asked and answers are given.[1] In common parlance, the word "interview" refers to a one-on-one conversation with one person acting in the role of the interviewer and the other in the role of the interviewee. The interviewer asks questions, the interviewee responds, with participants taking turns talking. Interviews usually involve a transfer of information from interviewee to interviewer, which is usually the primary purpose of the interview, although information transfers can happen in both directions simultaneously. One can contrast an interview which involves bi-directional communication with a one-way flow of information, such as a speech or oration.
Fuk any interview , we want him in the witness box , under oath ,
preferably televised LIVE .
An interview is a conversation where questions are asked and answers are given.[1] In common parlance, the word "interview" refers to a one-on-one conversation with one person acting in the role of the interviewer and the other in the role of the interviewee. The interviewer asks questions, the interviewee responds, with participants taking turns talking. Interviews usually involve a transfer of information from interviewee to interviewer, which is usually the primary purpose of the interview, although information transfers can happen in both directions simultaneously. One can contrast an interview which involves bi-directional communication with a one-way flow of information, such as a speech or oration.
And judge Judy overseeing