You've got him now libs!!
- Thread starter TarHeelEer
- Start date
So a sitting President should attack the credibility of an ongoing investigation?
You don’t even realize how foolish you sound.
You don’t even realize how foolish you sound.
This shows 2 things.
1. How weak the case against Trump is.
2. How desperate the SC is to get him.
Consider these two statements, written in the same story.
"Mr. Mueller wants to question the president about the tweets.
(really? This is what he was charged to look into?)"
...oh but it gets better
"None of what Mr. Mueller has homed in on constitutes obstruction, Mr. Trump’s lawyers said. They argued that most of the presidential acts under scrutiny, including the firing of Mr. Comey, fall under Mr. Trump’s authority as the head of the executive branch and insisted that he should not even have to answer Mr. Mueller’s questions about obstruction".
To me, this is a tacit admission that Mueller can't prove any "collusion", so he's going to try to prove Trump at least obstructed the sham investigation into it, even though there has never been any proof found nor in existence that it ever really happened in the first place!
Unreal.
Are you now at least ready to agree with Mueller that he can't prove any "collusion, or are you still waiting for him to finish his"obstruction" investigation into it?
I find this paragraph from that NYT article laughable in light of the DOJ's "exoneration" of Hillary's 'intent' behind first concealing, then lying about, then ultimately destroying evidence contained on her illegal e-mail server.
from article:
"If Mr. Mueller opts to tailor a narrative that the president tried to obstruct the Russia investigation, he would have to clear several hurdles to make a strong case. He would need credible witnesses (Mr. Comey and Mr. Sessions have been the target of concerted attacks by Mr. Trump and allies, undercutting their standing) and evidence that Mr. Trump had criminal intent (the special counsel has told the president’s lawyers he needs to question him to determine this).
Are you serious? They're saying on one hand "intent" cannot be used in the case of Hillary as a reason NOT to prosecute her for breaking the Law, but it can be used in a possible criminal charge against Trump where no crime has even been committed? They can use what they think his "intent" was in order to prove a crime against him he didn't commit but they can excuse Hillary's "intent" to exonerate her from a crime she in fact did commit?
Scotty...beam me up!
from article:
"If Mr. Mueller opts to tailor a narrative that the president tried to obstruct the Russia investigation, he would have to clear several hurdles to make a strong case. He would need credible witnesses (Mr. Comey and Mr. Sessions have been the target of concerted attacks by Mr. Trump and allies, undercutting their standing) and evidence that Mr. Trump had criminal intent (the special counsel has told the president’s lawyers he needs to question him to determine this).
Are you serious? They're saying on one hand "intent" cannot be used in the case of Hillary as a reason NOT to prosecute her for breaking the Law, but it can be used in a possible criminal charge against Trump where no crime has even been committed? They can use what they think his "intent" was in order to prove a crime against him he didn't commit but they can excuse Hillary's "intent" to exonerate her from a crime she in fact did commit?
Scotty...beam me up!
