Clinton Crime Foundation investigation was also opened a month ago. Let's just say that will be a "target rich environment" although it might be a year before outcomes are revealed. I hope they target Chelsea for pilfering the foundation and also go over and look at pay to play corruption between her husband's hedge fund and the state department along with the standard pay to play between the Crime Foundation and the State Department. And Huma too. Remember she was working for Teneo, the Foundation, and the State Department all at the same time? Yup. Wall to Wall conflict of interest, corruption, and pay to play. Bring her down too. Let's kneecap them and see how Hillary likes, just as Mueller is trying to kneecap trumps kids. Once they are under investigation, get wiretaps on them too so that you can pick up their communications about it while they are trying to coverup. And get all their emails before they blow them away.
You know there’s a reoccurring theme with the right, they make up allegations against democrats then find that it’s not true about democrats but is true about themselves. For example, the uranium thing. Clinton was conspiring with Russians, blah blah blah. Then what do you know Trump tower is crawling with Russians and they are stealing dnc emails. This argument that a political document is an illegal way to launch an investigation. Turns out it’s not true but now you want an investigation into the Clinton Foundation because of a political book, Clinton Cash. The margin for error is vast on the right. All you guys do is hit each other in the face with a pie whenever you aim at a democrat, yet you keep winning with gerrymandering and help from foreign governments. It is truly impressive and remarkable.
Either that or they think they are above the law and are trying to cover-up something really really big. Since the FISA court has a 99.9% chance of authorizing spying by the FBI, it would be great to know who else they have been spying on. Merkel perhaps?
Unless Mueller were to grant Trump immunity from prosecution even if Trump makes a mistake in his testimony... Trump would be a fool for talking to Mueller. The upside is minimal... the downside runs to impeachment, to election losses to litigation over whether he can grant himself a pardon. Plus, he could make himself a 2.5 year lame duck. He has massive political risk and massive criminal liability risk (even if it is just for perjury) ... for what? Hillary colluded with the Russians. The FBI colluded with steel who colluded with hillary and the Russians. Trump has nothing to prove at this stage.
Yup. already underway too. should be a lot of things to report about the time Mueller thinks he owns the stage when it comes time for his report and legal actions right before the elections. Same with the fbi investigation. Mueller will be sharing the stage for a while. He will continue to be the star of the show, but not the only one. Especially after this week when Obama's name starts surfacing on a daily basis in regard to his role in "matters." Think you have heard the last of Susan Rice and the State Department? Think again. It's going to be non-stop.
Well the question isn’t so much should Trump talk to Mueller but when should he talk to Mueller. Delay is the best tactic and Trump can delay for a very long time if he wanted to but once it hits the streets, and people know Mueller wants to question Trump, it would be wiser for Trump to go in rather than be served a subpoena, politically speaking. I will say this too, while we are getting into the grey areas of how the law is applied to the president - it is still not settled law that a sitting president cannot be indicted. And I know this is the position of the DOJ and I actually agree that a sitting president cannot be indicted but it is still not settled all the same.
Like I said, remarkable. As to the nonstopness of investigations, we’ll see and if they yield any indictments... pssh we’ll see too.
Wrong. Mueller is probably going to go for an indictment anyway. His attorneys can decide that. If they conclude that, then there is only downside to talking to Mueller. If Mueller is already planning to indict Trump then he is just interviewing him to get material to strengthen his case and to probe the defendant to see how he holds up in different areas. It is more than apparent that Flynn caved too early. Now flynns sees all the scumbags that interviewed him - Strzok for example- as questionable, biased corrupt goons, and also sees that he was confronted with evidence from an investigation lauched from a toxic warrant. He should have held out. Comey has only Trump and Comey and Rosenstein to work with on that obstruction charge. If trump pleads the fifth, then next in line is Comey as his star witness- a defense counsels dream. From there you have Rosenstein who is all over the place. He is questionable and flawed and another defense counsels dream at this point and we go forward. Mueller is Comey's mentor. And Mueller was hired by and reports to Rosenstein. What an ungodly, ungodly, convoluted conflicted mess. Just a goldmine for defense attorneys to work with. The other thing too, is that everyone assumes that Mueller wants to interview Trump on the obstruction thing and trump is beating his chest to say that he has nothing to hide on that. Then he gets in there and Mueller starts asking him about some deal in Crapistan years ago and Mueller has evidence that trump does not know about and trump walks right into the trap. Stay out of it. If Mueller has the goods, he is coming. And if he doesn't, I would not give him any. The lefty press will do their outrage and allege that trump therefore is guilty. On the other hand, people are getting a front row seat to seeing how the government goons destroyed Page in public- with no charges brought. Mueller has worked hard and dirty to get stuff on Trump. Go for it then. He should not need Trump to help him. As you will recall, Comey did not even need to interview Hillary to reach a conclusion. Note- that was a joke but not really.
According to you. You actually do not know what Muellernhas beyond what has been reported. I’m not sure what you’re saying I’m wrong about either.