How many links do you need?
My first prediction, your wrong. I can list a few links, here’s three for openers.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/04/politics/donald-trump-robert-mueller/index.html
My second prediction, you can not show me Mueller saying Trump is an active criminal target of the investigation.
Like another poster said, " You’re going to need a bigger boat " Trump has been found guilty of nothing, Left Hand. Heck, he has not even been charged.
We don’t know what he denied, only that there was something - it may just be the Buzzfeed statement that their report was based on leaks from Mueller’s probe.
Trump? You mean “Individual-1”?
I do seem to be outvoted, so maybe I’m not being as reasonable as I felt like I was being. But I feel like the implication would be, then, that there is some second team investigating Trump’s obstruction of justice into the Russia investigation, other than Mueller?
Why would that exist?
Mueller already shot down the Buzzfeed report. Fake news. Trump never asked Cohen to lie.
Look-- let’s be sensible here. There are many here that would walk over broken glass if it had to a Trump charge but 2+ years in with a team of people on it, 100,000,000+ documents examined, and multiple interviews, he has not even been charged.
Now, stay with me for a moment, if Mueller had anything, don’t you all agree he would have used it by now? At the very least before mid-terms.
He has nothing. He’ll shake the trees and kick the tires a bit more, but when he shows his cards, which should also include full disclosure that he followed the law while doing it, I expect a badly hyped movie to be shot down, and those hoping it would lead to something to quickly turning on the man.
That kinda gives away your hand. This is not a political investigation. It’s a criminal investigation.
No, he didn’t.
No it wasn’t.
Cite? :rolleyes: Don’t worry: we all know you don’t have one.
No. Your perception and surmising are all wrong.
Bolding mine.
I wonder if you could point to where exactly, in the statement above from Mueller’s office, it says that “Trump never asked Cohen to lie”.
Thanks very much in advance. I’ll take my answer off the air.
It’s a fair surmise, but I’m not sure that the implication actually is that there’s a second team investigating Trump’s obstruction of justice with regard to the Russia probe. It could be that the implication is that Buzzfeed’s sources are not actually part of the Mueller team, but instead are connected with the Trump Administration, say. Or some Cohen associates who had dealings with him during the period in question.
Potentially such persons might be in a position to know about communications from Michael Cohen that refer to Trump’s instructions about Cohen’s upcoming Congressional testimony. Such persons might have said to the Buzzfeed reporters something like ‘I’ve seen those emails and I know Mueller has them.’
I’m speculating, of course. But I think it’s plausible. The misstep of the Buzzfeed reporters was to strongly imply that they learned of the (hypothetical) documents/emails/what-have-you from someone on Mueller’s team, instead of from someone working for Trump or working with Cohen.
Remember, the Buzzfeed reporters didn’t state flat out that someone on Mueller’s team was their source, so they may have felt they were behaving according to journalistic ethics. That’s kind of debatable at this point. But none of that means that there’s proof that Trump didn’t instruct Cohen to lie—or that there isn’t proof that Trump did ask Cohen to lie.
There are still people in the DoJ who are committed to the rule of law. To my knowledge Rod Rosenstein still has access to Mueller’s work and is leaving the department in a few months. He has little to lose by leaking information.
Cohen has already secretly recorded Trump, and a recording is not a document in the strict sense. This is almost certainly the evidence BuzzFeed references, since Trump never does anything in writing. Hell, he has to be caught and sent back to his desk to sign bills he supports.
I agree with all that.
No doubt we haven’t heard the last of ‘Trump’s instructions to Cohen,’ no matter how ardently Trump fans would like it to go away.
Just one, as long as it contains “Muellers [sic] words to the press.”
Mueller is not quoted in any of those links. An unnamed source “says they were told Trump was not a criminal target at that time.” All three articles seem to be going off the same source. You may as well have linked to Elmo singing about the letter C.
Are you planning to concede that you were, at best, stating your point extremely sloppily, and that what you meant to say is that nine months ago an anonymous source claimed that Mueller told the president he was not, at that time, a criminal target? Or do you wish, instead, to offer a single link of “Muellers words to the press”?
Of course I cannot. Fortunately, I never claimed that Mueller has said that in public. Mueller says almost nothing in public, which is a big part of why I was so skeptical of your claim.
You’re aware that that quote is about how, when you’re gonna take down a powerful, vicious predator, you need to be well-prepared, right? Because I think it’s a great quote for the occasion. It’s just that Mueller’s a goddamned battleship.
Oh, so you’ve seen his cards, have you?
He manifestly did not.
Pretty much this. We’ve all been able to see more of them than Mueller would probably prefer. His preferred number would likely be zero.
Mueller has had some of his cards turned over for him, including the accidentally(?) non-redacted filing. Likely Mueller does not actually want potential targets knowing exactly what cards he does or does not hold at this time.
If he can truthfully state something that muddies whether or not he has a particular card in his hand then his position is strengthened whatever hand he actually holds.
The problem with Mueller breaking his silence to comment on a news story is, the next time a story breaks new ground and Mueller doesn’t comment, is that tacit confirmation that it is true?
Others on this site are far better debaters, explainers, and thinkers than I am, so I trust you’ll have more than enough fun with them showing you the error of your thoughts.
Instead, I’d like to address the length of time/documents examined/interviews conducted point you think you’re making, and I’d like to address it with one word:
When we get to the length of time and expense that Benghazi took - when we approach numbers in what John Oliver calls “Stupid Watergate” that approach the republicans’ investment in seeing a chance to take down Hillary - then I might find your objections at least semi-legit. And would it be correct this presume that , if Trump is never personally punished or convicted, that Clinton be afforded the same respect?
What you’re clearly not understanding is that Benghazi involved investigating Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton and is therefore completely justifiable. The Mueller investigation is investigating Dear Leader, and is therefore treason.
Two years? Starr went seven. Get back to us.
And the Republicans are not done yet.
New Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham, is on top of those Clinton emails! He will be examining “the FBI’s handling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications targeting former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.”
Democrats have greeted Graham’s agenda with well-deserved mockery.
Trump has already defunded the FBI (though his beloved Shutdown). It’s starting to look as though Graham has been instructed by his Russian handlers to finish off the Bureau through these “investigations.”
Buzzfeed strikes back.
The article includes a signed Letter of Intent, dated 28 October 2015, and some artist renderings. The LOI is quite specific about various terms of agreement.