What President Trump Have To Hide?
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
I'm not out to get Trump. If he is clear, so be it. CMCM, I encourage you to read the Washington Post article to which I linked in a previous post. From that article I believe you will conclude there is no factual basis to believe the president has yet been cleared by the Mueller investigation.
-
This dialog has become as good as any cartoon. I always wanted to know if liberal thinking was nuts or mindless or real or made up or what. I still don't know, but this has been a refreshing insight.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@C_M_ said:
I'm not out to get Trump. If he is clear, so be it. CMCM, I encourage you to read the Washington Post article to which I linked in a previous post. From that article I believe you will conclude there is no factual basis to believe the president has yet been cleared by the Mueller investigation.
To be clear, I am not claiming that either, if you read what I said, it shows that there is no reason to believe, as of yet, that there has been any wrongdoing.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@C_M_ said:
I'm not out to get Trump. If he is clear, so be it. CMCM, I encourage you to read the Washington Post article to which I linked in a previous post. From that article I believe you will conclude there is no factual basis to believe the president has yet been cleared by the Mueller investigation.
To be clear, I am not claiming that either, if you read what I said, it shows that there is no reason to believe, as of yet, that there has been any wrongdoing.
I take issue with your summary of what you've claimed, David. Let's review:
First, Wolfgang posted this question...
"Was there just recently some information released that "the special investigator" actually found nothing against the president in the matter commonly labeled "Russiagate" ?"
You responded this way...
"Yes that is what has happened. To date, they have found no evidence. @Bill_Coley and other liberals will try to twist it, but yes, that is exactly what has happened."
That is, you confirmed to Wolfgang that "some information" has recently been released that Mueller has "found nothing against the president." So certain were you of the accuracy of his post that you told Wolfgang he had summarized "exactly what has happened."
The problem is no such thing has happened. The Washington Post story published Tuesday night said NOTHING about the Mueller probe's finding "nothing." And there have been no other information releases - either from Mueller's team or media outlets - that have said Mueller has found "nothing against the president." So your response to Wolfgang on that score was factually incorrect.
And you said nothing to Wolfgang about whether there is yet "reason to believe...there has been any wrongdoing," an assertion with which I take great issue, but which is not the subject of this post. You told him "to date, they have found no evidence," an assertion, as I noted in my previous posts, you can't possibly know to be true because other than by its court filings, none of us knows what evidence Mueller's team has and hasn't found.
So in my view, your initial response to Wolfgang was factually incorrect, and your more recent summary of your initial response to him was substantively incorrect.... Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?
-
I am not declaring the President, cleaned or cleared (It's not mine to give). It's not over until it's over. I just hope Trump won't authorize an Investigative Abortion, by firing Mueller. The President better watch Mueller, he may be setting Trump up to play him. After Trump leaves office legal matter can tag him in a most painful way. Bill will know more about this. CM
-
As long as Hillary is an investigative target, I doubt that Trump will fire Mueller. We are all safe.
-
@C_M_ said:
I am not declaring the President, cleaned or cleared (It's not mine to give). It's not over until it's over. I just hope Trump won't authorize an Investigative Abortion, by firing Mueller. The President better watch Mueller, he may be setting Trump up to play him. After Trump leaves office legal matter can tag him in a most painful way. Bill will know more about this. CMI think you win the prize for unexpected word pairing of the month, CM! An "investigative abortion" I certainly understand - and agree with - the intention of your words, but what a way to get there!
Several legal authorities have commented just as you have regarding the potential of Mueller's setting a trap for Trump. The way I've most often heard it, the trap could be in his assuring the president that he's not a "target" of the investigation... because Mueller has decided to follow DOJ policy, which is that sitting presidents can't be indicted. Such a decision might ease the president's mind so completely that he would sit down for an under oath interview with Mueller's team, during which, being a compulsive liar, he would impeach himself, implicate others, and make enough false statements to fill a host of impeachment grounds and/or charges to face after he left office.
Were I a supporter of the president's, the LAST thing I would want him to do, EVEN IF I believed he had done absolutely nothing wrong, would be to testify before the Mueller team, so incapable is the man of telling the truth for more than a few minutes at a time.
-
-
"Here we go again!" You and Hillary! CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@C_M_ said:
I am not declaring the President, cleaned or cleared (It's not mine to give). It's not over until it's over. I just hope Trump won't authorize an Investigative Abortion, by firing Mueller. The President better watch Mueller, he may be setting Trump up to play him. After Trump leaves office legal matter can tag him in a most painful way. Bill will know more about this. CMI think you win the prize for unexpected word pairing of the month, CM! An "investigative abortion" I certainly understand - and agree with - the intention of your words, but what a way to get there!
Several legal authorities have commented just as you have regarding the potential of Mueller's setting a trap for Trump. The way I've most often heard it, the trap could be in his assuring the president that he's not a "target" of the investigation... because Mueller has decided to follow DOJ policy, which is that sitting presidents can't be indicted. Such a decision might ease the president's mind so completely that he would sit down for an under oath interview with Mueller's team, during which, being a compulsive liar, he would impeach himself, implicate others, and make enough false statements to fill a host of impeachment grounds and/or charges to face after he left office.
Were I a supporter of the president's, the LAST thing I would want him to do, EVEN IF I believed he had done absolutely nothing wrong, would be to testify before the Mueller team, so incapable is the man of telling the truth for more than a few minutes at a time.
Do you actually know that is what Mueller has decided? A sitting president can't be indicted? Has he actually said that?
And yes, I don't want the president to talk to Mueller. It would be a trap just like they did during the Bush years, just like they did to Michael Flynn. It's disgusting.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Do you actually know that is what Mueller has decided? A sitting president can't be indicted? Has he actually said that?The statement you're asking about - that Mueller "has decided to follow DOJ policy, which is that sitting presidents can't be indicted" - is part of a larger paragraph that describes the way "I've most often heard" described the "trap" Mueller "could be" setting for the president by telling him that he is not a target of the investigation. That is, the statement is an element of a scenario I've heard described, and not an assertion of fact.
And yes, I don't want the president to talk to Mueller. It would be a trap just like they did during the Bush years, just like they did to Michael Flynn. It's disgusting.
Thousands of people testify under oath every day in this country without being charged with perjury. The reason? They tell the truth. Were he to testify in the Mueller probe (as if he's going to have a choice!) the president would all but inoculate himself against perjury prosecution were he to tell the truth. What's "disgusting" is that there's very good reason to believe the president would lie repeatedly were he to testify.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Do you actually know that is what Mueller has decided? A sitting president can't be indicted? Has he actually said that?The statement you're asking about - that Mueller "has decided to follow DOJ policy, which is that sitting presidents can't be indicted" - is part of a larger paragraph that describes the way "I've most often heard" described the "trap" Mueller "could be" setting for the president by telling him that he is not a target of the investigation. That is, the statement is an element of a scenario I've heard described, and not an assertion of fact.
And yes, I don't want the president to talk to Mueller. It would be a trap just like they did during the Bush years, just like they did to Michael Flynn. It's disgusting.
Thousands of people testify under oath every day in this country without being charged with perjury. The reason? They tell the truth. Were he to testify in the Mueller probe (as if he's going to have a choice!) the president would all but inoculate himself against perjury prosecution were he to tell the truth. What's "disgusting" is that there's very good reason to believe the president would lie repeatedly were he to testify.
Yes, and there are also plenty of documented cases where a trap is baited and set and sprung by getting people on technicalities. Michael Flynn is one of those.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
And yes, I don't want the president to talk to Mueller. It would be a trap just like they did during the Bush years, just like they did to Michael Flynn. It's disgusting.
Just tell the truth! CM
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Yes, and there are also plenty of documented cases where a trap is baited and set and sprung by getting people on technicalities. Michael Flynn is one of those.
Please! I don't think so. Intrapment? Have you read his indictments? CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
And yes, I don't want the president to talk to Mueller. It would be a trap just like they did during the Bush years, just like they did to Michael Flynn. It's disgusting.
Just tell the truth! CM
First, you should know what you are talking about. Do you realize that the FBI agents don't belive Flynn lied to them? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-comey-told-congress-fbi-agents-didnt-think-michael-flynn-lied/article/2648896
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Yes, and there are also plenty of documented cases where a trap is baited and set and sprung by getting people on technicalities. Michael Flynn is one of those.The record clearly shows that President Trump doesn't lie just at the margins, or that his are lies only by a "technicalities" standard. He lies at any time, about almost everything. I am confident, David, that if we ever see the transcript or the video of the president's interview with the Mueller team, we won't have trouble identifying the lies (though we may run out of numbers trying to count them).
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Yes, and there are also plenty of documented cases where a trap is baited and set and sprung by getting people on technicalities. Michael Flynn is one of those.The record clearly shows that President Trump doesn't lie just at the margins, or that his are lies only by a "technicalities" standard. He lies at any time, about almost everything. I am confident, David, that if we ever see the transcript or the video of the president's interview with the Mueller team, we won't have trouble identifying the lies (though we may run out of numbers trying to count them).
You and I also disagree with the rate/frequency/substance/reality of the President's alleged lies.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
First, you should know what you are talking about. Do you realize that the FBI agents don't belive Flynn lied to them? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-comey-told-congress-fbi-agents-didnt-think-michael-flynn-lied/article/2648896If he didn't lie, then why did he sign - under penalty of perjury - a plea agreement that said, in part...
"I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and because I am, in fact, guilty of the crime charged."
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
First, you should know what you are talking about. Do you realize that the FBI agents don't belive Flynn lied to them? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-comey-told-congress-fbi-agents-didnt-think-michael-flynn-lied/article/2648896If he didn't lie, then why did he sign - under penalty of perjury - a plea agreement that said, in part...
"I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and because I am, in fact, guilty of the crime charged."
There is a difference between lying and intentionally lying. He was put in a trap.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
There is a difference between lying and intentionally lying. He was put in a trap.I encourage you to look up the word "lie," David. By definition, there is no such thing as an unintentional lie.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
And yes, I don't want the president to talk to Mueller. It would be a trap just like they did during the Bush years, just like they did to Michael Flynn. It's disgusting.
Just tell the truth! CM
First, you should know what you are talking about. Do you realize that the FBI agents don't belive Flynn lied to them? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-comey-told-congress-fbi-agents-didnt-think-michael-flynn-lied/article/2648896
Did he lie to indict himself? CM
