- Joined
- Feb 3, 2017
- Messages
- 10,023
- Reaction score
- 3,470
- Location
- Midwest USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
If Mueller is not after Trump then there is really no reason for him to need to interview Trump, other than trying to entrap Trump into something. And, if he has to entrap Trump into something then that means he doesn't have enough evidence to charge Trump with anything unless he can entrap Trump into saying something incriminating.
Might I suggest that you look up the actual legal definition of "entrap"?
Doesn't matter how technical you want to get. You know darn well what I meant.
Actually I don't. Do you mean "entrap" as in
- "convince to engage in a criminal enterprise which the 'entrapped' person would not have engaged in absent the intervention of law enforcement agencies", or
- "encourage the person who engaged in a criminal enterprise admit that they had engaged in that criminal enterprise by showing them the evidence that you have collected that indicates that they did so"?
The first is something that is not permitted by law and the second is perfectly proper.
If you believe that there is something improper about the second, then you are going to have to write a whole new book on what law enforcement agencies, investigators, prosecutors, and the courts are allowed to do in the legal system since it would be "improper" to convict anyone who does not come forward of their own volition and confess as to use anything other than the accused person's voluntary confession would constitute "entrapment".
If you do NOT believe that there is something improper about then second, then I fail to understand what your objection to it is.
You know darn well what I meant. Take the word entrap out if you want. Doesn't change a damn thing. You still know what I meant.
actually we don't know what context you are using it for.
You know darn well. Playing stupid does not bolster your case.
you are using entrap because it makes trump a victim of a wrongful action and malicious intent.
you are using entrap because it makes trump a victim of a wrongful action and malicious intent.
You know darn well what I meant. Take the word entrap out if you want. Doesn't change a damn thing. You still know what I meant.
Ahh, so what you meant by "entrap" was "investigate in order to obtain evidence which might result in a criminal prosecution and/or an admission of criminal conduct".
That sounds reasonable to me.
Why do you think that law enforcement agencies should NOT be allowed to "investigate in order to obtain evidence which might result in a criminal prosecution and/or an admission of criminal conduct"?
Or do you think that they should NOT be allowed to "investigate in order to obtain evidence which might result in a criminal prosecution and/or an admission of criminal conduct" if you happen to belong to the same political alignment as the person that the law enforcement agencies are "interested in"?
Trump may also be innocent of anything and yet open his big mouth and say something that could be used against him, even if it were not true. Access Hollywood tapes for example. They do not prove he actually did anything and yet the left tries to claim it as proof that he did. Not one woman has ever come forward to say that Trump grabbed her *****.
lol is this a joke?
No. Please name and provide proof of any woman who has come forward to say that Trump grabbed her *****.
Jill Harth claimed Trump attempted to grab her *****.
Jessica Leeds claimed Trump attempted to grab her *****.
Kristin Anderson claimed Trump grabbed her *****.
Jill Harth claimed Trump attempted to grab her *****.
Jessica Leeds claimed Trump attempted to grab her *****.
Kristin Anderson claimed Trump grabbed her *****.
Investigators inside the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller reacted with a mixture of skepticism and laughter at Rudy Giuliani’s claim that he will negotiate a swift end to Mueller’s probe of President Donald Trump and his alleged involvement in possible Russian election meddling and obstruction of justice, FOX Business has learned.
As the former New York City mayor’s remarks made their way to Mueller’s investigators, they were said to be “amused,” according to one person with direct knowledge of the matter. Mueller’s team has signaled that its probe of Russia’s possible meddling in the 2016 presidential election is exploring new avenues presented by at least two cooperating witnesses and that there is little Giuliani can do to force Mueller’s hand, these people add.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?