Trump to Attorney General Jeff Sessions: Stop Mueller probe 'right now'

originally posted by: Words

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: Words

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: Words
a reply to: Kharron

But Manafort and Gates were on trial for activity unrelated to the 2016 election or Trump, correct?

No, Gates is not on trial at all as he struck a deal with Mueller after he pleaded guilty. We don't know what deal he made but we will eventually.

Manafort is on trial for charges ending in 2017, here is the list of 18 charges, filed in Virginia. There is still District of Columbia as a separate trial.

I asked if Manafort and Gates were on trial for activity related to the 2016 election or Trump, not whether deals were made, or from what year the charges stem from.

And like I said, Gates is not on trial as he struck a deal. What deal it is we don't know and I'm not going to speculate, but chances are very high that it will have to do with bringing someone higher up, down.

As to Manafort charges, they are about bank and tax fraud, conspiracy against the United States, failing to register as a foreign agent and so on.

One thing I will say about Manafort though, he is turning out the be the most loyal employee of Trump's and has not turned on him or accepted any deals in all this time. I firmly believe he is the one who is being made an example of, as he is most likely to get life in prison by protecting the higher ups. Not being a rat is commendable in any situation, I think.

It could also mean there is nothing to rat, no beans to spill.

Could be. Maybe the campaign chair just did not know everything that Gates and those lower than him knew about.

It's all speculation at this point. We will see soon enough. Take care, Words.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Words
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Wait...are people implying this is obstruction of justice?

I'm not, but I think it would be safe to say some are (though it's not so long as he doesn't act on it).

And it is that sort of context in which Trump may have attempted to obstruct justice when he acted out through firing Comey.

do you mean when he fired Comey with the advise of Rosenstine?

Rosenstein wrote a detailed letter to President Trump explaining why he should fire James Comey.

a reply to: Kharron

The Americans that have plead guilty have done so to process crimes, lying to the fbi.
Gates and Manafort have nothing to do with the 16 election. Have a look at what the judge told the prosecutors today; they can't even use the word oligarch during the trial. That is light years removed from the events of the 16 election.
Stone remains unindicted.
This event is a train to nowhere.

a reply to: WarPig1939

All this evidence, all the Russia collusion. This is very damaging stuff here omg.

Trump is a goner. /yawn.

Yes you're right.... so it's any wonder why Trump is so desperate to stop this investigation in its tracks knowing they got nothing....?

hmm.

Logic for ya.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Kharron

The Americans that have plead guilty have done so to process crimes, lying to the fbi.
Gates and Manafort have nothing to do with the 16 election. Have a look at what the judge told the prosecutors today; they can't even use the word oligarch during the trial. That is light years removed from the events of the 16 election.
Stone remains unindicted.
This event is a train to nowhere.

Manafort is being investigated and tried for the connections to the Russians, Ukrainians and so on. This is all part of the trial. Manafort is also charged with not registering as a foreign agent, and is on trial for period ending in January 2017. Tell me, when was the election?

The reason they cannot use the word "oligarch" is because judge T.S. Ellis seems to be a fair judge and does not want the connotation of oligarch to paint the defendant in a bad light before he is found guilty. It has nothing to do with what you're implying. The judge said that Soros or Koch brothers could be seen as oligarchs who influence politics so he did not want to use that word. Too bad for you I already read these news today before you tried to spin them.

Take care, shooter. Try reporting news as they are, although I have to say it, maybe you weren't trying to spin it, maybe you just didn't get the whole gist of what was being said.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

The investigation is needlessly hurting innocent people. A couple of them have even lost their homes.

a reply to: carewemust

The investigation is needlessly hurting innocent people. A couple of them have even lost their homes.

Which people? I'm sure you're intimate knowledge of this investigation to make that comment.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Words
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Wait...are people implying this is obstruction of justice?

I'm not, but I think it would be safe to say some are (though it's not so long as he doesn't act on it).

And it is that sort of context in which Trump may have attempted to obstruct justice when he acted out through firing Comey.

do you mean when he fired Comey with the advise of Rosenstine?

Ye, good luck with that, no leftist thinks THAT far.

a reply to: Kharron

2 trials for Manafort
The one ongoing has nothing to do with the 16 election. Even the prosecutors have stated this.

www.cnbc.com...
Mueller's team has said it will not bring forward evidence regarding Russian collusion at the Virginia trial.

Doesn't get much clearer than from muellers team.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I agree about speaking definitively without facts. Facts are so debatable it seems, depending upon the framework or context from which or into which they are viewed. As much as I would also like to keep an open mind about Guliani I am afraid that I no longer can.

Imagine how desperate you have to be to try to convince yourself this is obstruction of justice.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Same thing that has motivated him the whole time..

He is scared of getting caught.. because he knows he did it..

a reply to: face23785

........

Yes, because firing the guy investigating you and then going on TV and saying that is why you fired him is not obstruction......

If Trump has nothing to hide let the investigation finish in it's own time.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Kharron

2 trials for Manafort
The one ongoing has nothing to do with the 16 election. Even the prosecutors have stated this.

www.cnbc.com...
Mueller's team has said it will not bring forward evidence regarding Russian collusion at the Virginia trial.

Doesn't get much clearer than from muellers team.

Here's the full quote:

According to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's May 2017 order, Mueller is looking at "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated" with Trump's campaign, as well as matters that arise from the investigation. Mueller's team has said it will not bring forward evidence regarding Russian collusion at the Virginia trial.

What do you read from that?

I read it as Mueller team is investigating links and coordination between the Russians and the Trump campaign. The evidence they have on Manafort regarding this will be used in the D.C. trial and not the Virginia one.

If the MSM article used the Mueller team words accurately then that would imply they already have evidence but will save it for the later trial. Why would they do that, you may ask?

In an ongoing investigation into other people and collusion, would you present all your evidence to the public, all possible witnesses and records right at the beginning, while still looking into people or would you save it for as late as you can?

I'm asking you to just look at this logically, from the outside, no emotions about Trump or anyone around him: if you were the prosecutor, would you go all out at the first trial or save all the bad stuff for later, knowing you have another trial in late September?

If you carefully read those words -- we will see the evidence of collusion from Manafort later in the year, whatever it may be.

Once again, we'll see. You'll notice I never say anyone is guilty, but plenty of people are making claims that no one is guilty, even though we all have the same information.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Same thing that has motivated him the whole time..

He is scared of getting caught.. because he knows he did it..

And if it comes out he did, I'll get my pitchfork with you.

If it comes out he didn't, will you acknowledge that?

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I agree about speaking definitively without facts. Facts are so debatable it seems, depending upon the framework or context from which or into which they are viewed. As much as I would also like to keep an open mind about Guliani I am afraid that I no longer can.

Oh, I don't really trust him haha. I just mean about the whole situation.

I don't think Trump will really act to try and stop it, that would be political suicide. But if Session's does something per Trump's "request", maybe in his mind, or maybe truly, he is buffered.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: face23785

........

Yes, because firing the guy investigating you and then going on TV and saying that is why you fired him is not obstruction......

The investigation is bigger than one man. You guys pulled this same baseless crap when he fired Comey as if that brings everything the FBI was doing to a halt.

Grasping at straws man. Better get used to him for another 2 years at least. Your impeachment hopes are all but gone.

So he wants Sessions to stop the investigation.

Hm.

What part of "recused" does he not understand?

originally posted by: angeldoll
So he wants Sessions to stop the investigation.

Hm.

What part of "recused" does he not understand?

My guess would be the recused part.