General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo, Mueller's "team" told Trump's "lawyers" that he wasn't a "target" of a criminal investigation?
Are we to assume that the story came from Trump's lawyers?
Wouldn't that put Mueller and his team in an awkward situation, in that they cannot come out and dispute the claim? Because if they denied it, that would mean that Donald Trump could be a "target" of a criminal investigation? Could this be nothing more than Trump's lawyers attempting to steer their side to a more favorable position??
After all, the office of the Special Counsel has been very diligent in keeping quiet about information they did not want into the public.
On further study, we may find that this story originated with Donald Trump and his lawyers and may or may not be true?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)kentuck
(111,103 posts)"They" would have been Trump's lawyers??
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)kentuck
(111,103 posts)Because the White House lies and makes up shit.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)kentuck
(111,103 posts)"...to the Washington Post, that you have found nothing criminal and that the President is not a target of any criminal investigation. Also, we are going to say that you will file a report in June or July to end this investigation....Capiche?"...
"...And if anyone disputes that this happened, we will move to shut down the investigation. Got it?"
(Conversation between Trump lawyers and lawyers on the Mueller team)
Impossible?
Which translated = Shit is about to get real.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I think the NY state level option is insurance against this and any preemptive pardons.
kentuck
(111,103 posts)He crosses one bridge at a time. We have been assured that the NY Attorney General is the back-up insurance if the Mueller investigation is shut down. I doubt that he would be able to get away with anything in NY state...
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Luckily for him, there is a nearly inexhaustible supply of gullible voters waiting to be conned.
kentuck
(111,103 posts)Turbineguy
(37,343 posts)Wouldn't that prove that Mueller released this information?
This story probably came from where trump gets all his facts. His ass.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Because if they wanted to make Trump look innocent, they would have said Trump is "just a witness."
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)And nothing is going to derail this investigation. Each Investigator has the similiar power as Mueller.
kentuck
(111,103 posts)Why should we accept it as factual?
Cicada
(4,533 posts)As Senator Cruz of Texas said Dems now will crawl over broken glass to vote. I dont want Trump supporters to wake up so I hope nothing happens fro Mueller until after November.
kentuck
(111,103 posts)It is being reported??
Is that info coming from the Special Counsel office also?
Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)Then again, the timing is weird. The same day Trump goes apeman on Jeff Bezos, the Post carries this story.
I think it may be a genuine leak, but one that Mueller intended to be disclosed to one man in particular: Trump.
Trying to lull him into a false sense of complacency. Maybe lower his guard and agree to an interview.
May have just been bait.
kentuck
(111,103 posts)But someone leaked the story to them. Was it Trump's lawyers or was it Mueller's lawyers? I think it has been reported that the story came from Trump's lawyers to the Wash Post reporters? Dowd would have been on the team at the time Trump's lawyers were told that Trump was not a "target" of a criminal investigation.
Is this the information that was leaked to the reporters? They would have only reported what they were told, in my opinion. Can we trust the information, is the question? If the leak had come from Mueller's office, it would be much more trustworthy.
I think there is much more to this story than has been reported. Just my opinion.
Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)I guess I don't know the answer to that question. Seems if all they did was report what was being leaked by the WH, we'd be getting a very skewed - and untrue - point of view from a seminal newspaper.
Then again, Mueller does not leak, so who could have corroborated this info? Velly interesting.
kentuck
(111,103 posts)Good question!
But, in this instance, they may have only reported the leak?
Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)Then your conclusion seems on solid ground.
kentuck
(111,103 posts)But I cannot imagine Donald Trump having that information and not tweeting about it or talking about it at every stop?
Something about this story doesn't add up for me??