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.
The man felt compelled to defend the size of his dick during a Presidential debate.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus
The man felt compelled to defend the size of his dick during a Presidential debate.
the fact that you remember that and quote it here says as much about you as him
President Donald Trump says he "would like to" testify before the special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. Here's what Trump said when he was asked at the White House whether he would like to testify: ""Yes. I would like to."
originally posted by: carewemust
originally posted by: soberbacchus
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: soberbacchus
Dowd was against President Trump sitting down personally with Bob Mueller. The president wants to sit down personally with Bob Mueller. In business if your lawyer does not agree with you he has to go.
Why would Dowd not want Trump to sit down with Robert Mueller?
Without Dowd there, I suppose Trump will perhaps skip golf this weekend and meet with the Special Counsel for a couple hours?
From what I'm hearing Dowd thought that Mueller was trying to catch president Trump in a trap.
President Trump wants to meet with Mueller as soon as possible and answer whatever questions Mueller has.
I would want to do the same thing. Answer honestly and let the chips fall where they may.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
as to the "hiding" alledged earlier in this thread....
www.yahoo.com...
President Donald Trump says he "would like to" testify before the special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. Here's what Trump said when he was asked at the White House whether he would like to testify: ""Yes. I would like to."
lol
yep that is textbook "hiding"
When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI operated) Bulger gang.
Current media applause omits the fact that former FBI Director Mueller was the top official in charge of the Anthrax terror fiasco investigation into the 2001 murders, which targeted an innocent man (Steven Hatfill) whose lawsuit eventually forced the FBI to pay $5 million in compensation.
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: carewemust
originally posted by: soberbacchus
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: soberbacchus
Dowd was against President Trump sitting down personally with Bob Mueller. The president wants to sit down personally with Bob Mueller. In business if your lawyer does not agree with you he has to go.
Why would Dowd not want Trump to sit down with Robert Mueller?
Without Dowd there, I suppose Trump will perhaps skip golf this weekend and meet with the Special Counsel for a couple hours?
From what I'm hearing Dowd thought that Mueller was trying to catch president Trump in a trap.
President Trump wants to meet with Mueller as soon as possible and answer whatever questions Mueller has.
I would want to do the same thing. Answer honestly and let the chips fall where they may.
See here is the problem with that. Mueller has a history of RAILROADING innocent people. The Whitey bolger case is a good example.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra
Given the fact the SC was illegally appointed lends more weight to it needing to be stopped.
Speaking of...has that issue that manafort brought up about the sc been heard yet?
it would be a shame if a federal judge ended muellers investigation before trump had an opportunity to meet with him
originally posted by: Eshel
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus
That is because Mueller is in fact on a fishing expedition for a crime that does not exist. The disagreement came with Trumps willingness to be interviewed by Mueller. Trump sees it as being open and honest with the SC and has nothing to hide. His former lawyer was against it and rightfully so given Mueller's history.
The latest demand by the SC for records from Trumps business is in fact outside the scope of his mandate. The SC does need to be ended. Given the fact the SC was illegally appointed lends more weight to it needing to be stopped.
Well, seems to me, that with all this inside knowledge you'd make a prime candidate to be Trump's replacement lawyer. I would suggest applying immediately.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra
when discussing this here previously were we not advised that the motion would be thrown out and never get a hearing?
originally posted by: soberbacchus
If a fisherman goes fishing for fish that "do not exist", then what is there to be afraid of?
originally posted by: soberbacchus
Trump's businesses and it's deals or transactions with Russian entities is precisely within the scope of Mueller's mandate.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra
when discussing this here previously were we not advised that the motion would be thrown out and never get a hearing?
Yup... Given the judges action against the SC in the Flynn case Mueller is in trouble. It is unheard of for a judge to order all exculpatory evidence be turned over to the person who already plead guilty.
originally posted by: soberbacchus
You say crazy stuff.
originally posted by: soberbacchus
Not only is it "heard of", the judge involved had done the exact same for virtually every case he had heard in the past year.
originally posted by: soberbacchus
It was a cut and paste form letter and part of his process.
Weird...the crap you guys invent.