It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
NO If he is not the "target of a criminal investigation" what kind of target is he? This gets to the heart of the entire mess. What law did he break to become a "non criminal target"? Or are you just ok with people being investigated only because of disagreement of politics?
Also "sources familiar with the situation" say trump has never been under any investigation in this matter. You will surely take their word as well?
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody
He may well be a target now. His team is really ramping up the attacks on Mueller.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
He also mentioned interviewing with Mueller again. Guess his mouth piece couldn't get him out of that.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody
They already said he's asubject. Not a witness.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert
FYI there is no designation of "non criminal target".
That fact alone should be enough for you to understand the "source familiar with the situation" is spouting bs.
The fact that Mueller wants to speak to trump does not make him "under investigation".
Perhaps trump is a witness.
The facts show LEO's have repeatedly and many times under oath have stated trump himself is not under investigation. If you have facts refuting this by all means provide them.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody
They already said he's asubject. Not a witness.
Please provide that source as I have not seen that ANYWHERE and would greatly appreciate you posting it.
The person, who was not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations and spoke on condition of anonymity, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the president is considered a subject of Mueller’s probe — not a target. A subject is typically someone whose conduct is of interest to investigators but prosecutors are not certain they’ve gathered enough evidence to bring charges.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BlueAjah
Oh..today you believe CNN. Got it.
Just depends on what they are saying I guess.
last Updated Jun 13, 2017 8:59 PM EDT
A day before former FBI Director Robert Mueller accepted the appointment to be the special counsel probing Russian meddling in the presidential election, President Trump met with him to talk about taking another turn as FBI director.
The interview was first mentioned by Trump friend and Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy in an interview on PBS' "NewsHour" Monday evening.
Mr. Trump, Ruddy said, "was looking at [Mueller] potentially to become the next FBI director. That hasn't been published but it's true."
Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed Tuesday night to reporters that Mr. Trump interviewed Mueller "I believe the day before he was made special counsel." Sanders said that while Mr. Trump has the right to fire Mueller, he has no intention of doing so.
Mueller has already served 12 years as FBI director -- two years longer than the 10-year term. And to serve that extension -- under the Obama administration -- he had to be granted special dispensation by Congress. Had he been appointed again by Mr. Trump, Congress would likely have to weigh in again. The measure approved by Congress and signed by Obama explicitly states that Mueller "may not serve as Director after September 4, 2013."
As I said, I can give you many sources that show Trump was subject to being part of the investigation, even if at the very least because his entire campaign was/is being investigated because of their alleged ties to the Russians.
But Trump was investigated for his potential obstruction of justice issues. Which is not a criminal investigation because Mueller already said he cannot indict a sitting president, but he can hand over their findings to congress for potential impeachment proceedings.
Under the current law, the special counsel's focus is somewhat more limited, with the scope of the investigation set by the attorney general and confined to investigating criminal matters.
The facts show LEO's have repeatedly and many times under oath have stated trump himself is not under investigation. If you have facts refuting this by all means provide them
originally posted by: notsure1
originally posted by: kurthall
originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: carewemust
I predict trump will redact this tweet once his keepers tell him to say what he really meant to say.
at this point, its safer to believe in trump's action rather than his words
he needs to stfu on this topic and do what he is seemingly doing very well for the country; try to fix the last 16 years of economical debauchery.
Wow, sorry, you don't get a pass. When Obama took office, unemployment was almost 12% and people were losing there homes. A far cry from what trump walked into, the economy was already doing GREAT! The economy RIGHT NOW, is growing at the same pace as in 2014!
Yeah keep dreaming buddy..
Everyone was broke under Obama.
You guys should just shutup and enjoy TRUMPS economy.
Obamas economy lmao. If this is Obamas then Obamas was Bushes lol..
man you guys say dumb stuff.
Comeys testimony UNDER OATH to congress shows otherwise. This was the initial source for trumps irritation, comey told him privately he was NOT under investigation but would not state the same publicly. Ironically comey did state that fact very publicly under oath in front of congress for all the world to see, but hey believe what you like. The congressional record doesnt mean anything anymore right?
If there is no crime how can there be an "criminal investigation"? It appears to me some have ignored things said and taken things not said as gospel. If the DOJ's policy is that a sitting president can not be indicted how will mueller present evidence of such with out breaking his own policy?