Here Are The Questions that Bob Mueller Wants President Trump to Answer.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Are you privy to the evidence the Special Counsel has gathered? have they issued some conclusion I am unaware of?

That is the most important aspect in all of this, in my opinion.

Some people are so politically-entrenched that they will say things they desire, or hope for, without any real sourcing or valid information that would inform such a stance.

They are not privy to what evidence they do or do not have. So their assertions are highly illogical.

a reply to: introvert

www.bloomberg.com...
"Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told President Donald Trump last week that he isn’t a target of any part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation or the probe into his longtime lawyer, Michael Cohen, according to several people familiar with the matter."
you are aware rr is rm boss?

they have nothing

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

Ha ha. So outside his legal team but still from his side. Now the clerks are going against him. Love it.

That is exactly what NYT wants you to think. It is called a sophism. It is a fancy thing. In effect they exactly told the truth. Somebody not connected to the Trump lawyer team......

That means you..... Or me... And 8 billion other people. But... By framing the sentence as such in the mind the connection is made
Leak-> Trump, and then kicks in the confirmation of your own bias.

It is a trick, call it journalistic freedom.

a reply to: xuenchen

From now on when I don't answer your silly posts just know that I didn't miss it...I'm just ignoring it.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

www.bloomberg.com...
"Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told President Donald Trump last week that he isn’t a target of any part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation or the probe into his longtime lawyer, Michael Cohen, according to several people familiar with the matter."
you are aware rr is rm boss?

they have nothing

You rightly state that Trump has been told he is not a "Target".
He has been told he is a "Subject".

You wrongly (illogically) offer that as proof that the Special Counsel does not have incriminating evidence on Trump.

The first status you have to worry about is being a target. A target is the person to the prosecutor is gunning for, that's the target of investigation. It's the person who the prosecutor believes has committed a crime and their trying to figure out what the crime was and how to build a case against them.

A witness, on the other hand, is somebody who has really got very little exposure. The prosecutor believes that the person hasn't done it wrong, they simply have information, they were there, they saw something, they have documents that relate to something. They're not caught up in it.

The last status is in-between the two, you’re a subject. And so if you're subject in an investigation what that means is that you're not a target, so they're not gunning for you, but the prosecutor thinks that there is good reason to believe you may have done something wrong. You may have committed a crime or been a part of a criminal activity or part of a conspiracy.

www.whitecollarcrimeresources.com...

a reply to: shooterbrody

So you do not have a source that states they do not have anything on Trump or that he is not a target? Your source only says "according to several people familiar with the matter".

We can't believe the illuminati deep-state elite MSM, can we?

Obviously they at least have some concerns and is a part of what is being investigated, otherwise they would not want to interview Trump to ascertain his intent.

a reply to: soberbacchus

so you are saying rr lied?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Past history of Rosentein with Mueller, points to Rosenstein telling Trump that he isn't a "target", is a TRAP.

A trap to Put the President at ease, so he'll come in for a relaxed little chit-chat with Bob Mueller.

Mueller and Rosenstein have worked together for years...

same source that leaked the questions you are sure are accurate?
how will you get intent with no interview?
does trump get the same interview rules used for his opponent in the election?

originally posted by: Yvhmer

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

Ha ha. So outside his legal team but still from his side. Now the clerks are going against him. Love it.

That is exactly what NYT wants you to think. It is called a sophism. It is a fancy thing. In effect they exactly told the truth. Somebody not connected to the Trump lawyer team......

My guess is that it is no Coincidence this happened after Rudy Giuliani met with the Special Counsel last week to try and bring things to a conclusion.

He's more a public figure these days than a high end white-collar legal eagle (which Trump needs).

Rudy shopped the questions around NY to friends to get legal opinions on what to do and if he should tell Trump to sit down with the SC.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus

so you are saying rr lied?

Did Rod Rosenstein tell Trump they had no evidence suggesting he did anything wrong? Or as you put it, he told them the SC "has nothing on him".

"You are not a target of the investigation" DOES NOT EQUAL "They have no evidence incriminating you in anything".

It's very weird that you continue to pretend those two things are the same.

a reply to: soberbacchus

has rr told trump his status has changed?

a reply to: shooterbrody

What several times. You act like this has come up a dozen times.
It was one news story. And you've ignored that he is a subject of the investigation and you've ignored that the only reason Mueller would have to label him a target at this time would be to indict him through the grand jury. But since he is obviously following tradition of not indicting a sitting president he had no need to label him a target. That doesn't mean there isn't a bullseye on his back. Lol.
That doesn't mean Mueller has nothing. That doesn't shield him from impeachment if that is what is recommended.
It's not really looking good for trump that's all I'm saying.
I have no crystal ball to know what Muellers report will reveal.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus

has rr told trump his status has changed?

I Dunno? Has he?

You seem disconnected from logical discussion and unable to support your repeated declaration that the Special Counsel has no evidence implicating Trump.

a reply to: carewemust

They are not quoted verbatim, and some were condensed.

why ????

a reply to: introvert

Do people usually plead the fifth when the cops question them or do they simply choose to remain silent as is their right?
I'm not saying it doesn't apply I'm saying the fifth and miranda is redundant in my opinion.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: carewemust

They are not quoted verbatim, and some were condensed.

why ????

Because Rudy was taking notes in the meeting.

Trump can be an unblemished angel in Mueller's investigation, 1 hour before the President sits down to be interrogated.

Before the end of the day, Bob Mueller's team would be cranking out Obstruction and Perjury charges. He could do that with any one of us, if you think about it. ( "What ingredients were on that pizza you ate on March 3rd at 6pm?)

a reply to: soberbacchus

They fail to see that collusion is an action described within those other crimes and is just a broad scale term. Because it gives them some sense of false hope to keep saying collusion isn't a crime.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I have no crystal ball to know what Muellers report will reveal.
nor do i