Me likey this line of logical inference.Quotes taken from across a year and a half:"Mr. Trump has told advisors he is eager to meet with investigators to clear himself of wrongdoing, three people briefed on the matter said.""I would love to speak [to Mueller]. I would love to. Nobody wants to speak more than me. I would love to speak because we’ve done nothing wrong.""I am looking forward to it, actually. Here is the story: There has been no collusion whatsoever. There is no obstruction whatsoever. And I am looking forward to it. I would do it under oath. I would do it. I would do it under oath, yeah.""I’ve always wanted to do an interview, because, look, there’s been no collusion.""I would love to do that. I'd like to do it as soon as possible.""Oh, I would do it under oath. Absolutely.""100 percent. I would be glad to tell him exactly what I told you."
Another logical inference that the commie will likey:"Making a panel appearance at a conference requires huddling with attorneys and taking their advice just as much as does being the target of a special counsel investigation."
What crime is Christopher Steele suspected of committing? You're... not good at this. (Of course, "this" could refer to at least 375 things.)However, you have inadvertently stumbled into somebody else's good sense. Trump's lawyers are 1,000% correct not to let the lying treason monkey anywhere near Mueller's court stenographer. Apparently he has already perjured himself in his scripted and vetted written responses. If they ever let Weekend CPAC Donald Trump testify without a muzzle for an hour, he'd end up talking himself into the jail cell underneath Shiekh Omar Abdel-Rahman's.But things are going just peachy without Benedict Arsehole's testimony. Nice and deliberate and 2020-like. Devin Nunes did America a great favor by leaving everything for the 116th House to handle.
"What crime is Christopher Steele suspected of committing? You're... not good at this."I'M not good at this? I didn't accuse him of committing any crime. It's his own lawyers who told him not to talk. For heaven's sake, he wasn't even going to be in the country. I know it was hard to read to the second sentence in this short post."Apparently" - yeah, you can stop there. I've been hearing this allegedly and apparently for 2 years now. Cohen's hearsay that Trump talked to Roger Stone over maybe a three-month period was...what's the word...useless.
No one has yet accused him of any crime.So the search is on for some other reason why he would huddle with his attorneys, and why they would find a friggin' panel discussion such a grave threat.
Viking Eric, the first response was from me to you. The second post was Rogert, replying to me. Then the third post was my reply to him. I trust that helps. Cohen's hearsay that Trump talked to Roger Stone over maybe a three-month period was...what's the word...useless.Golly, and I’d been told that Cohen's useless hearsay was (scrolls back one week on this site) "Pretty good stuff … for the Trump defense team.” For good Trumpkins, lyin' exoneratin' Michael Cohen will forever be two silhouetted profiles and the vase.
Oh, in that case: innocent man makes statements professing his innocence.And he did answer Mueller's questions after careful review by his lawyers. Considering that virtually all the charges in this investigation stem from the investigation itself, that's good advice.
Absolutely. Especially when the client is a delusional retard with no impulse control.It's going to be funny if all of that careful legal review, after months of preparation and delay, still isn't enough to protect Trump from perjury.
It sure would be funny, this hypothetical scenario!
Post a Comment