It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Trump Says He Interviewed Bob Mueller for FBI Director - That Could Be a Ruse.

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yep. Then the was. That's the way these things go.




posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

NO
If he is not the "target of a criminal investigation" what kind of target is he?
This gets to the heart of the entire mess.
What law did he break to become a "non criminal target"?
Or are you just ok with people being investigated only because of disagreement of politics?

Also "sources familiar with the situation" say trump has never been under any investigation in this matter. You will surely take their word as well?



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Trump is under investigation. He wasn't when he asked Comey but he is now.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

No I don't remember that. Maybe you can find it in my thousands of posts. Huh?



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody



NO If he is not the "target of a criminal investigation" what kind of target is he? This gets to the heart of the entire mess. What law did he break to become a "non criminal target"? Or are you just ok with people being investigated only because of disagreement of politics?


No. The heart of the matter was you saying that he was not under investigation.

That is false.

Now you are just moving goalposts to deflect from your ignorance.



Also "sources familiar with the situation" say trump has never been under any investigation in this matter. You will surely take their word as well?


That is not what it said. Perhaps you should read it again.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

He may well be a target now. His team is really ramping up the attacks on Mueller.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

FYI there is no designation of "non criminal target".
That fact alone should be enough for you to understand the "source familiar with the situation" is spouting bs.

The fact that Mueller wants to speak to trump does not make him "under investigation".
Perhaps trump is a witness.

The facts show LEO's have repeatedly and many times under oath have stated trump himself is not under investigation. If you have facts refuting this by all means provide them.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 10:35 AM
link   
He also mentioned interviewing with Mueller again. Guess his mouth piece couldn't get him out of that.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Subject. Subject to becoming a target any second now. Lol



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

He may well be a target now. His team is really ramping up the attacks on Mueller.

It may well rain today.
You have anything to refute what LEO's have repeatedly testified under oath to congress about? By all means please post it.
For all you know mueller "may well" be working with trump as posted in other threads here.
How you can ridicule one "may well" while spouting another I will never understand.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

They already said he's asubject. Not a witness.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
He also mentioned interviewing with Mueller again. Guess his mouth piece couldn't get him out of that.

You have information that will prevent trump from taking the 5th?
You do understand trump in no way has to cooperate with any of this?
In our nation it is still innocent until proven guilty, or are you now admitting muellers investigation is purely political and has no actual merit?



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

They already said he's asubject. Not a witness.

Please provide that source as I have not seen that ANYWHERE and would greatly appreciate you posting it.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

FYI there is no designation of "non criminal target".
That fact alone should be enough for you to understand the "source familiar with the situation" is spouting bs.

The fact that Mueller wants to speak to trump does not make him "under investigation".
Perhaps trump is a witness.

The facts show LEO's have repeatedly and many times under oath have stated trump himself is not under investigation. If you have facts refuting this by all means provide them.


As I said, I can give you many sources that show Trump was subject to being part of the investigation, even if at the very least because his entire campaign was/is being investigated because of their alleged ties to the Russians.

But Trump was investigated for his potential obstruction of justice issues. Which is not a criminal investigation because Mueller already said he cannot indict a sitting president, but he can hand over their findings to congress for potential impeachment proceedings.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

They already said he's asubject. Not a witness.

Please provide that source as I have not seen that ANYWHERE and would greatly appreciate you posting it.



The person, who was not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations and spoke on condition of anonymity, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the president is considered a subject of Mueller’s probe — not a target. A subject is typically someone whose conduct is of interest to investigators but prosecutors are not certain they’ve gathered enough evidence to bring charges.


www.apnews.com...:-Mueller-says-Trump-not-criminal-target-currently

This has been a topic of discussion for quite some time. Are you this uninformed on the issue?

Yes, I understand it cites a person that spoke on the condition of anonimity, but I am surprised you have not seen this claim "anywhere".

This isn't even a point that Trump's own legal team disputes.

They know he is the subject of the investigation, at least by proxy because it involves his own campaign.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BlueAjah

Oh..today you believe CNN. Got it.
Just depends on what they are saying I guess.


My quote included NPR as a source as well. I included CNN for you all. So today you do not believe CNN?

Trump did not all of a sudden make this up and decide to suddenly tweet about it, as some are pushing.
It was known information, and informed from many sources, that Mueller had been interviewed by Trump for a position within the FBI before he became SC.

Here is another:


last Updated Jun 13, 2017 8:59 PM EDT

A day before former FBI Director Robert Mueller accepted the appointment to be the special counsel probing Russian meddling in the presidential election, President Trump met with him to talk about taking another turn as FBI director.

The interview was first mentioned by Trump friend and Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy in an interview on PBS' "NewsHour" Monday evening.

Mr. Trump, Ruddy said, "was looking at [Mueller] potentially to become the next FBI director. That hasn't been published but it's true."

Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed Tuesday night to reporters that Mr. Trump interviewed Mueller "I believe the day before he was made special counsel." Sanders said that while Mr. Trump has the right to fire Mueller, he has no intention of doing so.

Mueller has already served 12 years as FBI director -- two years longer than the 10-year term. And to serve that extension -- under the Obama administration -- he had to be granted special dispensation by Congress. Had he been appointed again by Mr. Trump, Congress would likely have to weigh in again. The measure approved by Congress and signed by Obama explicitly states that Mueller "may not serve as Director after September 4, 2013."


He "could" have been FBI director again if Congress approved.

Trump interviewed Robert Mueller for FBI director



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert




As I said, I can give you many sources that show Trump was subject to being part of the investigation, even if at the very least because his entire campaign was/is being investigated because of their alleged ties to the Russians.

Comeys testimony UNDER OATH to congress shows otherwise.
This was the initial source for trumps irritation, comey told him privately he was NOT under investigation but would not state the same publicly. Ironically comey did state that fact very publicly under oath in front of congress for all the world to see, but hey believe what you like. The congressional record doesnt mean anything anymore right?




But Trump was investigated for his potential obstruction of justice issues. Which is not a criminal investigation because Mueller already said he cannot indict a sitting president, but he can hand over their findings to congress for potential impeachment proceedings.

If there is no crime how can there be an "criminal investigation"?
It appears to me some have ignored things said and taken things not said as gospel.

If the DOJ's policy is that a sitting president can not be indicted how will mueller present evidence of such with out breaking his own policy?
www.cnbc.com...


Under the current law, the special counsel's focus is somewhat more limited, with the scope of the investigation set by the attorney general and confined to investigating criminal matters.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




The facts show LEO's have repeatedly and many times under oath have stated trump himself is not under investigation. If you have facts refuting this by all means provide them

This is a lie. Who besides Comey was asked? And he was asked about a timeframe when he was still employed.
Trumps status changed on a dime the moment he fired Comey and told us it was because of russia..
edit on 7312018 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: kurthall

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: carewemust

I predict trump will redact this tweet once his keepers tell him to say what he really meant to say.

at this point, its safer to believe in trump's action rather than his words

he needs to stfu on this topic and do what he is seemingly doing very well for the country; try to fix the last 16 years of economical debauchery.



Wow, sorry, you don't get a pass. When Obama took office, unemployment was almost 12% and people were losing there homes. A far cry from what trump walked into, the economy was already doing GREAT! The economy RIGHT NOW, is growing at the same pace as in 2014!







Yeah keep dreaming buddy..

Everyone was broke under Obama.

You guys should just shutup and enjoy TRUMPS economy.

Obamas economy lmao. If this is Obamas then Obamas was Bushes lol..

man you guys say dumb stuff.




What are you talking about???? The housing crisis was in 2008 under BUSH, and Unemployment was almost 12% try harder, you cant change the past. FACTS ARE FACTS....When TRUMP took over unemployment was what %? It went down 7% under OBAMA....


Also you really are just NOW going to see trumps economy....so many things your boy took credit for, were already in the works under OBAMA.....From now, until trump is out of office, is trumps economy....

Perhaps you are a young one, and don't remember 2008! We were in the "GREAT RECESSION"!



edit on 31-7-2018 by kurthall because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-7-2018 by kurthall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody



Comeys testimony UNDER OATH to congress shows otherwise. This was the initial source for trumps irritation, comey told him privately he was NOT under investigation but would not state the same publicly. Ironically comey did state that fact very publicly under oath in front of congress for all the world to see, but hey believe what you like. The congressional record doesnt mean anything anymore right?


I do believe it. I think it is correct.

But after he fired Comey, he became part of an obstruction investigation.

Not sure why you are having a hard time grasping such a simple concept.



If there is no crime how can there be an "criminal investigation"? It appears to me some have ignored things said and taken things not said as gospel. If the DOJ's policy is that a sitting president can not be indicted how will mueller present evidence of such with out breaking his own policy?


There does not have to be a crime necessarily for an investigation to take place. All you need is potential evidence that a crime may have taken place.

That's pretty much what the premise of an investigation is.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join