Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice

Here are the 2 exact reasons for the Obstruction of Justice investigation. And, the same old tired group is being brought before Mueller to have their "memories adjusted" by him. (IMO)

www.cnn.com...

a reply to: UKTruth

No, it is not obvious. The 'dossier' was handed over to the FBI, but there was no investigation into Trump.

The dossier was not handed over by the former head of the FBI, the contents of which were discussed with FBI leadership.

So, I ask again, how do you know Trump is personally under investigation by the SC? You have stated it as fact.

The SC would be required to look in to it, even if they decided there was nothing to it.

a reply to: Grambler
That's an easy one. There are literally 100s of lies told by the President since he took office. ANY OBJECTIVE person can see he's a liar. Which is fine if that's ur guy,politicians lie and all. But you know one thing Republican Senators and Congressmen never questioned or refuted: Comey's credibility or his assessment that Trump is a liar.

If the people in his party are fully aware he's a liar. I get why people would believe a career lawman over the new billionaire president. Trump said he had tapes, so all he has to do is release them if Comey really is lying, or maybe he's just keeping the tapes for a rainier day.

Or he's a liar and they don't exist lol

a reply to: carewemust

I got you, the probing on trying to get what they want is not working, now they most do a very methodical anal probing, to see if they find it.

Specially with Mueller Clinton donors at his site.

originally posted by: carewemust
Here are the 2 exact reasons for the Obstruction of Justice investigation. And, the same old tired group is being brought before Mueller to have their "memories adjusted" by him. (IMO)

www.cnn.com...

..and there you have it... the REAL story is that Mueller is questioning people like Rogers.
The leap to those interviews being a 'widening of the investigation' to include an obstruction of justice investigation into Trump is speculation reported as fact.

The SC has only just organised itself and I am not surprised interviews are now taking place. Note also that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee already confirmed that Coates , Rogers, et al had already testified behind closed doors to elaborate on the questions they would not answer publicly. I suspect if they had dropped any bombshells there, it would have been leaked, as we know the same committee leaked Comey's answers from behind the closed door session.

a reply to: marg6043


I hope Mueller acts quickly..one way or the other.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



Comey would not even be in the position to lie if it weren't for the situation Trump created.

Trump initiated the discussions. Trump booted people out of his office in order to speak to Comey alone.

Unbelievable. So asking to speak to Comey alone is enough for you to say trump brought this on himself.

I suppose if he had called Comey in his office alone he also would have brought this on himself.

Again, its striking you seem much more concerned by this based on your posts than the FBI and media trying to bring down an elected leader.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

No, it is not obvious. The 'dossier' was handed over to the FBI, but there was no investigation into Trump.

The dossier was not handed over by the former head of the FBI, the contents of which were discussed with FBI leadership.

So, I ask again, how do you know Trump is personally under investigation by the SC? You have stated it as fact.

The SC would be required to look in to it, even if they decided there was nothing to it.

The dossier WAS handed to the FBI and Comey discussed it with Trump. No investigation was opened. Handing a document over does not mean there is an investigation, nor does it mean an investigation has to be opened.

At some point you will have to admit that the reason you think there is an investigation into Trump by the SC is because WaPo told you so, based off unnamed sources saying interviews had been set up with Coates, Rogers and co.

Regardless of what you think, how you can then state it as fact is still a question you don't seem to want to answer.

a reply to: thack

Now you're getting hysterical.
Calm down .
Go take a sedative. Have a shot of whiskey and chill out.
This is not a reason to take up arms.
But ill put this out there. Your language could make you a target of investigation too so I'd cool it if I were you.
I bet that dude who shot up the congressmen started just like this.
Dangerous ground dude. Chill ...

a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0

Trump has lied, so has Comey, the FBI hillary Obama, bernie, schumer, and pretty much every othe rpolitician.

What do you mean no one questioned Comeys credibility? You must have missed when all of the dems were callling for hime to be fired, and then the republicans.

Oh and you are a liar. Trump never said he had the tapes.

a reply to: marg6043
Muller Clinton??? Mueller is a Republican. Not only that, but the whole party praised his appointment. And now all of a sudden he's some sort of Libtard creating fake news to damage the President!?

You people may be fickle, but I don't think Robert Mueller is.

originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
a reply to: marg6043
Muller Clinton??? Mueller is a Republican. Not only that, but the whole party praised his appointment. And now all of a sudden he's some sort of Libtard creating fake news to damage the President!?

You people may be fickle, but I don't think Robert Mueller is.

Thats pretty similar to Democrats praising Comey after slating him.
Oh, and any confidence in Mueller investigating Russian collusion is negated if he DOES open up an obstruction of justice investigation because his witness and accuser to that is his good friend. That makes him incapable of continuing without the charge of a conflict of interest.

a reply to: Grambler
So the President alluding to having tapes doesn't count. His words don't matter? Gotcha!
I don't give a sh*t about Hillary, or the fact that he made political enemies. What matters is that none of theses
Republicans questioned his credibility or the characterization that Trump is a liar TO HIS FACE(during his hearing) Politicians squawking on cable tv is just noise.

a reply to: Grambler

Unbelievable. So asking to speak to Comey alone is enough for you to say trump brought this on himself.

Yes. He created the situation.

Again, its striking you seem much more concerned by this based on your posts than the FBI and media trying to bring down an elected leader.

I have no reason to believe the FBI and the media are trying to bring him down. That is the conspiracy you and others are clutching on to, as I said in my post.

It does not register even a slightest bit that Trump may have created this situation himself by his own decisions.

a reply to: carewemust

The key here is not about acting fast, the democrats wants to drag the whole investigation long enough to be able to use it for political gain next year.

I still think they will not get the seats they want, not with what happen yesterday and the targeting of Republican officials.

a reply to: burntheships

Really?

Really...
Ok.

originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
a reply to: Grambler
So the President alluding to having tapes doesn't count. His words don't matter? Gotcha!
I don't give a sh*t about Hillary, or the fact that he made political enemies. What matters is that none of theses
Republicans questioned his credibility or the characterization that Trump is a liar TO HIS FACE(during his hearing) Politicians squawking on cable tv is just noise.

Stick with the facts.
Trump did not say he had tapes.

So, apparently Ken Starr (remember him?) was interviewed by CNN, and of course they asked if he sees a case for obstruction of justice. His answer was not what CNN was hoping for.

Ken Starr Bursts CNN's Bubble; "No Obstruction Case Against Trump From What I've Seen"

CNN: "Do you think there is a case there?"

Starr: "It's too soon to tell. From what I've seen — and of course we don't know a whole lot — the answer is no. But it is going to be investigated and so we will soon know." "Obstruction of justice is really a very hard crime to make out. It's not just you want the investigation to go away, you suggest that the investigation goes away. You've got to take really affirmative action and Director Comey said in his testimony that even though the expression was hope, he took it as a directive." "But what we know is, he didn't do anything about it, right? That is that he did not dismiss the investigation or curtail the investigation. There's an expression of hope, so it becomes an interpretation."

Basically, Starr was saying that you're not obstructing something by just hoping it happens. You have to actually do something to stop the investigation. It goes back to what Comey was forced to admit at the hearing: He's never heard of someone going to jail for hoping.

a reply to: face23785

They were talking about Russian collusion then. This is new, since Comey was fired.
This is an obstruction of justice investigation.

a reply to: UKTruth
So now we can't trust the last 2 directors of the FBI. The former being so damn good at his job they extended his term by 2 years. But we should fully trust that the President is telling us the truth? Have you gone mad!? lol