Robert Mueller’s Written Questions for President Trump May Signal the Beginning of the End

You should read up on what he plead guilty to.

 

I see where a guy like Cohen could curry favor that way. If she committed no crime, it stands to reason he did not either.

 

Why do you think I am commenting. I read a number of sources first.

 

Say a man did that to the woman, fine with you?

 

What you "figured" and reality have nothing to do with one another. They question in obstruction cases because establishing intent matters in obstruction cases. If you think that is "creating" obstruction, then you don't understand obstruction.

 

Posters make a lot of claims that are not factual.

 

Then you know he pleaded guilty with regards to this payment. Not just tax problems. So why did you pretend not to know that if you are now saying you knew that all along?

 

That a man did what to a woman? What are you even talking about?

 

But your superior knowledge of law trumps my own knowledge of law?

 

I was not pretending. I wanted to size up who would make things up.

 

No, five minutes of reflection and a bare-bones knowledge of the law trumps the false claim that questioning = "creating obstruction."

 

He would make up a crime to plead guilty to because . . . your conspiracy theory is missing tons of steps here, sorry.

 

A man has sex with a woman and tries to cash in by collecting money to disclose it. I try to be clear. Trouble is I am talking to those who hate Trump and do not use the same standard of justice on him vs what they try to do for Clinton or Obama or even Eric Holder.

 

If Trump is asked things, and the reason is to create an obstruction of justice, I question Mueller for pulling that trick. All I heard from Democrats is that Starr v Clinton trapped him into perjury.

 

She didn't try collecting money from Trump. She told a story (which you now seem to be admitting is true) to a paper. If you are willing to cheat on your spouse then, no, I have no problem with the truth coming out. Sorry.

Trouble is you are talking to someone who has stated, multiple times, that Obama should have gone through impeachment hearings and who isn't falling for such a desperate whataboutist attempt to run away from the actual conversation.

 

I am dealing with posters who pretend to know law.

 

Oh no, you totally do not understand me. She would collect cash for a sex story. Is the story factual? I have no evidence either way. And you do not either.

Please, deal with your own character assassination and do not include me in them.

 

Your daydream about "creating" obstruction is divorced from reality. If Trump is innocent in that case, all he has to do is tell the truth. That's it. And you are badly mistaken about what a "perjury trap" is. A perjury trap is when you ask questions UNRELATED to the crime at hand and hope you catch the subject in a lie. Asking a subject questions RELATED to the issue and seeing if they lie is pretty much the most basic thing you can possibly do in an obstruction case. BTW, since you are scrambling to change the subject again, let me save you some time and point out the fact that I feel the exact same way about Billo's lies and have stated so on the forum before. Now let's try returning to the actual subject.

 

As to obstruction by Cohen, I have no particular point of view. As to Trump, he is smart and well advised by lawyers and I doubt he would do it either.

 

Your words: "A man has sex with a woman and tries to cash in by collecting money to disclose it. I try to be clear."

 

Well then, consider this news a gift.......Trump was protesting paying at all, cash or otherwise.

Sorry to break your toy.

 

I am not talking of things related to crimes. I feel they won't prove Trump committed crimes. But Trump believes some of the questions are what is called a perjury trap. I suppose his lawyers told him that.

Why are you lecturing me? I have taken law courses in College. I am simply batting around pros and cons to wake up those who have committed to their version of what they would call justice.

 

I despise debates when it comes to media stories. As we well know, they are always factual and always unbiased.

 

You already came to a conclusion when you took at face value what you read said by others.

 

Say, in case you did not bother to notice, and from the way you talk, you must not have noticed, I have never tried to take a "I am superior to you" form of attitude with you, never lectured you on how to post or tried to run you down over comments you make.

Any chance you can do likewise?