Not sure what "meetings" you refer to, if you mean the singular meeting at Trump Tower with that Russian lawyer who wanted to discuss Magnitsky sanctions, the "strange" connection is with Fusion GPS which produced that phony dossier. There ought to be something on this in Mueller's report, probably having to do with the credibility of evidence. I'll wait a couple of weeks to see what is finally reported, but would sensibly expect the infamous Steele Dossier, sold by Fusion GPS would detract from the credibility of evidence from a meeting they arranged.
I'd say it worked pretty good. I mean really, half of Trump's inner circle are now felons and we are still counting.
There were several meetings of several persons in the Trump Team. Remember the old minister for justice as example? Remember his son... Read the Mueller report and try to remember all the persons where an investigation was from him. Anyway, if Mueller reort rates this as OK, then it is.
When we get down to indictments, charges and calls for impeachment, I think there's a need to be more specific than "persons in the Trump Team", people formally recognized as part of his campaign team, employees with positions in the "Trump Organization", his "inner circle" (however described)? No, I don't remember the old minister for justice meeting, minister for justice of which country? A religious minister advocating for justice? The minister's? Trump's son (which one)? I intend to read the report, whatever of it becomes available. I expect it will be posted here as soon as it becomes available, with damning conclusions even though whoever gets it here first will not have had a chance to read it, much less legally analyze it. There have been so many people associated with Trump, his inner circle, his Trump Organization, his various ventures, his family and the families of all of these, that is unreasonable to expect anyone to remember them all. I suppose by "this" you mean that meeting at the Trump Tower I mentioned, arranged by Fusion GPS. And yes, I think that was suspicious, but given Fusion's baggage, not quite as damning as some think, certainly not as indictable. And yes, if Mueller investigated this (as he must have) and reached the conclusion that since it was set up by the same guys who produced that dossier (or for any other reason), this was not good evidence of collusion, I will defer to his judgment, he ought to know, he saw the intelligence on this and has the legal expertise. I would apply the same judgment to all of the conclusions Mueller reached based on each of his nearly 3 thousand subpoenas and 500 hours of interrogations. I expect Mueller went through it all and in every instance made a sound legal judgment on the import of the matter and how well it supported (or failed to support) a claim of collusion. Mueller's overall conclusion that none of all those subpoenas and interviews produced sufficient evidence of Trump's (or his team's) collusion with Russia to defeat Hillary (or interfere with the election) suggest to me the Report will be challenged. Challenging Mueller's legal conclusions will be a tough row to hoe because the man has some outstanding legal expertise. Fortunately, Barr has retained Mueller to help in the process of digesting and in redacting his report, so we can expect Mueller's extensive familiarity with its contents and the basis for his conclusions will help overcome any ambiguities. I honestly look forward to the redacted report.
Are you kidding? I'm talking about US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who, as a senator and member of Trump's campaign team, had quite strange meetings with Russians. Yes ... Trump had fired him later ... but not because of that! And I'm talking about the son of Donald Trump ...
You must be a foreigner, Sessions was not a Minister for Justice or its facsimile. In the US there isn’t a parliamentary system (which features Ministers with different portfolios. He recused himself to avoid any appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest. Trump let him go because the Democrat witch hunt required Trump focus all his attention on this Russian collusion hoax and with an AG who had recused himself from all things Russian he was helpless. Which one?
Just because you failed to mention the special powers given to the special prosecutor .. such as those described by Allan Dershowitz in the links given to you - does not mean they do not exist. The idea that Mueller is restricted by the same rules than restrict a normal prosecutor - is nonsensical gibberish on steroids.
Session was not US minister? Sure ... are you living in the United States of America or in "Utopia States of America"?
You have consistently FAILED to provide any shred of credible substantiation for your baseless opinion and kneejerk denialism. I have consistently provided credible substantiation for my position. Game over! Have a nice day!
You have never substantiated your opinion. I on the other hand provided a number of links from a highly regarded civil rights Lawyer - Allan Dershowitz .. which was met with "kneejerk denialism" The only thing you have consistently done is engage in name calling, ad hom, and blaming others for your failings.
Well no, as you noted yourself, he was "US Attorney General". The US president doesn't have a "Cabinet of Ministers", there are no "Ministries", in the US the president does have a Cabinet, but it is full of Secretaries or Directors of what elsewhere would be called "Ministries" (in the US usually called "Departments"). In the US, what elsewhere might be the "Ministry of Justice" is the "Department of Justice". which is led by the Attorney General, who is appointed by the president and a member of his Cabinet. The positions are roughly equivalent, but you do have the nomenclature wrong.
Democrats and their fellow-travelers need to get back to basics. If you don't like the president and want to get rid of him, get out and vote. All this investigating, discussion of indictments and impeachment is the wrong approach: You need to find a clean candidate with an appealing vision, support him, get others to, and then have him (her/it) prevail on election day.
Thank you for proving me to be 100% accurate about your failings yet again. The game is still over! Have a nice day!
Thank you for conceding that the GOP was WRONG to impeach Bill Clinton. Speaking of finding a "clean candidate" who will the GOP nominate to replace the corrupt BLOTUS?
That your claim contradicts a recognized and highly esteemed legal mind- Allen Dershowitz - and that you failed to respond to the arguments made by Dershowitz is just a fact. That you continue to repeat " I'm right, I'm right" and claim "you provided nothing in support of your claim" over and over like a broken record - as if this constitutes some kind of refutation to the claims of Dershowitz - is self delusion.
Projection of your own shortcomings does not alter the fact that you abjectly FAILED to support your bogus allegation about Mueller. That you are in DENIAL regarding your failure is NOT my problem. Have a nice day!
That's nothing--half or more of Congress have been felons for many years running. Like Bill Clinton, unconvicted felons, but felons nonetheless.
