Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump should not voluntarily submit to an interview with Mueller

Trump should not voluntarily submit to an interview with Mueller

Trump’s impromptu comments demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt why Trump SHOULD NOT sit down with Mueller, under oath or otherwise.

Robert Mueller and his team already have worked their way through interviews with over 20 White House aides, according to Fox News:

More than 20 White House personnel have voluntarily given interviews to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating Russia’s actions during the 2016 election, Fox News has learned.

A personal attorney for President Donald Trump also said the White House turned over more than 20,000 pages of records to investigators, calling the level of cooperation and transparency “unprecedented.”

According to a summary of records and witness interviews reviewed by Fox News, 17 campaign employees — plus 11 others affiliated with the campaign – also have spoken with Mueller’s team or congressional committees.

So who is left to interview? Trump.

The news tonight is that Trump, responding to media questions as he was leaving for Davos, said he was looking forward to sitting down with Mueller to answer questions, perhaps even under oath.

The Washington Post reports on the comments:

President Trump said Wednesday he is “looking forward” to testifying under oath to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III as part of the probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election while also mounting a preemptive defense of potential obstruction accusations.

“I would love to do it, and I would like to do it as soon as possible,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “I would do it under oath, absolutely.”

The president suggested he could be investigated for obstruction of justice as part of the Russia investigation because he was “fighting back” and reiterated there was “no collusion” between his campaign and Moscow.

“Oh, well, ‘Did he fight back?’” Trump said, “You fight back, ‘Oh, it’s obstruction.’”

It’s clear from the audio that Trump’s comments were impromptu and reactive:

The NY Times reports that Trump’s legal counsel already is walking back the comments:

Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer leading the response to the investigation, said Mr. Trump was speaking hurriedly and intended only to say that he was willing to meet. “He’s ready to meet with them, but he’ll be guided by the advice of his personal counsel,” Mr. Cobb said. He said the arrangements were being worked out between Mr. Mueller’s team and the president’s personal lawyers.

Mr. Cobb said the president was not trying to volunteer to testify before a grand jury, which is how prosecutors speak to witnesses under oath, but was merely speaking off the cuff. Interviews with agents and prosecutors are not conducted under oath, but lying to the F.B.I. is a felony.

Trump’s impromptu comments demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, why Trump SHOULD NOT sit down with Mueller to answer questions, under oath or otherwise.

Trump is a salesman by nature. He’s given to bombast and hyperbole. He shoots from the hip.

Those characteristics, while they proved valuable against the comatose and drab Hillary, could be a disaster in an interview with Mueller. Mueller’s team is very experienced in these perjury and obstruction traps. They will not ask any questions they don’t already know the answer to, and the questions they ask will not be posed to obtain information. They have all the information. They will be probing not for information, but for mistakes.

Don’t do it. I don’t know what power Mueller would have to compel testimony, but nothing should be done voluntarily.

UPDATE: I discussed my views on the Michael Graham podcast at Ricochet. You can listen to the full program here, and my segment is below.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Connivin Caniff | January 24, 2018 at 8:46 pm

I am getting the distinct impression that Ty Cobb, Esq., is an idiot.

If Trump agrees to an interview with Muller, the first words out of his mouth should be, “You’re Fired!”

Agree with the Prof. This is a classic example of hubris bringing down an otherwise competent leader. Like the typical intellectual who insists he’s going to represent himself at trial.

I forget the West Wing episode for this is spotlighted, it’s the one where Sam gets played into creating a media Feeding Frenzy over a Bartlett campaign ad. But his counterparts advice rings true here, something close to:

“this is their issue. If they talk about the issue we lose. If we talk about this issue we lose”

If President Trump testifies before the Meuller Hit Squad, he loses. It’s a trap, a kill box where all the Avenues of Escape have long ago been sealed off.

G. de La Hoya | January 24, 2018 at 9:17 pm

I get dizzy trying to keep this soap opera straight 🙂 I would be quaking in my boots if I were an Obama holdover.
Near boredom has me ready for some heads to roll. 🙂

Two thoughts on how this could go, based on President Trump’s words and the current political environment.

1) He did add something along the lines “pending the advice of his lawyer”. I suspect that advice will be similar to the above here.

2) A big FBI-bomb is about to go off, which will mean the end of Team Mueller…so President Trump can make this statement, and know that he and Mueller will never have that interview.

Trump is going to walk away from this unscathed…mark my words.

    Leslie’s got it.

    Leslie, I hope you are right and I am wrong. Lord knows, I’ve underestimated Trump and been proven wrong. I’ve even refused to learn from those examples and been proven wrong again, after I should have known better.

    But this is very very dangerous territory for him. And I’m kind of scared.

    [looks to mirror] “Don’t go wobbly on us now, Fen”

    Wife; “Sweetie, why are you wearing a wig and an old lady’s dress? Do we need to talk?”

    Many in the media are either not hearing, or are willfully ignoring, those words. You nailed it, Leslie.

    regulus arcturus in reply to Leslie Eastman. | January 25, 2018 at 10:06 am

    Bingo.

    I can’t see Trump walking into any meeting with Mueller. This looks like posturing ahead of revelation of additional FBI criminality, possibly implicating Mueller himself.

    Trump won’t testify.

Is it possible Trump is doing the Clinton Two-Step:
1) Promise to testify under oath as long as certain conditions are met.
2) Move the goalposts so those conditions never get met.

    Bill Clinton ‘got it,’ much like Donald Trump has learned. The difference, of course, is the corrupt news media shilled for Clinton, while it is completely adversarial to Donald Trump. (Bill Clinton is an evil genius, but I’d take Trump in a fight over Clinton, any day.)

    What Bill Clinton ‘got’ was that you do what you want in spite of ‘norms.’ (Hitler discovered that, too. As did Stalin. The absurdly incompetent hillary klinton tried to copy Bill, Hitler and Stalin, but did not have the talent to get past ‘Go.’)

    Screw ’em, Donald! The Base is with you.

Trump’s off-the-cuff comments to the Press aren’t promises. They’re not even policy statements. They may be guidelines, or they may be mere bait. In either case, trying to fence him in with them is like herding fish. It’s a game he’s been playing for over a year now; and why not? It works well.

So no matter what he may say, I don’t see any serious danger that Trump is likely to step right into such an obvious trap as the one Mueller is trying to spring.

Mueller’s time is limited, in any case. He has one hell of a shitstorm gathering over his head. And since none of it originates with Trump, there’s no spoiling attack he can launch against the President which can save his own hide.

    Yet leftist federal judges have used Trump’s utterances as bases to rule his actions unconstitutional. With some luck SCOTUS will end that practice.

Trump is a master poker player: He won’t do it.

If he does, it should be televised nationally – live.

No, no no! Mueller is going to give Trump the same consideration Comey gave Hillary. The interview will not be under oath, it will not be recorded and will only serve his preordained conclusion that Trump is innocent.

I know. I know.

    rdmdawg in reply to Redneck Law. | January 24, 2018 at 10:29 pm

    I think the real ‘Big Risk’ here is if Mueller moves against President Trump in some consequential way. If you thought you saw civil unrest with Antifa, you havn’t seen nothing yet compared to if the swamp manages to damage Trump significantly.

Trump is an enigma.

It’s clear that he is willing to look the fool to gain an advantage. We know he trolls to get an advantage. He is good at getting people to commit to bad actions, the shutdown being a big example.

He has been sued dozens of times, no doubt gave depositions many times and been a witness many times. I think only a cop can take care of himself better then Trump on the stand ( based on experience ).

I don’t even know if Trump is planning on testifying or if he is trolling the media, but I would say whatever he is doing he has demonstrated that he is fully capable of looking after himself.

SAO just let him decide for himself.

    Trump is brilliant in, among other ways, is how simply be breaks-down an issue in his head, and with the guts he has to relentlessly follow through on his statements.

    He doesn’t get caught up in the b.s. or submit to any of it.

    He is an incredibly successful high-stakes gambler.

    The ONLY guy who can beat Donald Trump, is Donald Trump – by his not being true to his instincts. I’d be he knows that.

Just as it is never a good idea to agree to allow an LEO to search your vehicle (or even enter your home) without a warrant*, it is NEVER a good idea to voluntarily talk to law enforcement. Even if you think you are only a witness, if they want you to submit to a formal interview, don’t do it or at least don’t do it without an attorney with you. * If he had probable cause to search your vehicle, he wouldn’t need to ask.

I doubt the Trump will give any statement to Mueller, voluntarily or otherwise. He might have actually done so in the Spring or Summer of 2017, but not now. He has learned that he can not trust anyone in DC, especially Mueller and his Merry Band of Clinton Supporting Elves. The man may play the fool, but he is not one.

Trump is the sitting President of the United states, which gives him extensive legal leeway in NOT being interviewed. He will make use of that. Let Mueller seek an indictment based upon the statements of others. Lots of luck there.

Trump’s legal team will attempt to have Mueller submit a series of questions for Trump to provide answers to. Once those questions are accepted, if they are, written responses will be provided. If Mueller wants follow up questions, the process begins again. This could take weeks or months and, in the meantime, the clock on the illegal government surveillance, Servergate, Clinton Foundation and Uranium One is ticking down. In the meantime, Trump will string everyone along with nothing statements that he would welcome a talk with Mueller. He probably means it. But, that is a long way from promising to give Mueller a statement.

    Marco100 in reply to Mac45. | January 25, 2018 at 11:54 am

    When Trump floats the idea that he will do an “interview” with Mueller under “oath,” consider the possibility that it is he who will be doing the “interviewing” rather than Mueller; and he will also insist that it is Mueller who will respond “under oath” to Trump’s interviewing.

So far Trump has been full of surprises. Can’t wait to see what is next. My guess, Mueller does not have anything except a bunch of anti-Trump compromised people.

Something tells me it will be something like, “Your Fired” or we are locking up Hillary. I am guessing we are seeing a 1/3 of all the corruption at the DOJ/FBI.

Trump firing Comey and keeping Mueller on is not obstruction. The question is how much money has Mueller wasted on this? That alone should be a crime.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to MarkSmith. | January 24, 2018 at 11:37 pm

    When Trump casually stated he’d talk to Mullah Mueller under oath…..

    Note the wording can also mean with “Mueller swore to talk under oath!”

      According to the NYTs, he also said something else…

      He also said he would be willing to answer questions under oath, but not until after asking whether Hillary Clinton, his 2016 campaign rival, has spoken under oath to the F.B.I. in the investigation into her use of a private email server while she served as secretary of state.

      He set a benchmark that won’t be reached.

Yes, President Trump should not agree to be interviewed in any manner!

Mr. Mueller should be limited to the record he’s obtained to date. The President should not seek to add to it. Based on that record, Mueller will hopefully conclude that the President acted carelessly but without criminal intent, the same ground that Comey gave for not pursuing criminal charges against Hillary.

    Barry in reply to Guahan. | January 25, 2018 at 1:23 pm

    “Based on that record, Mueller will hopefully conclude that the President acted carelessly…”

    What “carelessly”?

    There is neither carelessness or collusion of a criminal nature, or even collusion not criminal. There is no there, there.

    Careless? That would be the criminal cabal of FBI, DOJ, and intelligence* assets.

    *use of that term does not imply actual

Yes. Mueller is just waiting to force a process crime, or to leak to DNC-affiliated journolists, who will carry out a trial by press (i.e. public lynching).

    rdmdawg in reply to n.n. | January 25, 2018 at 12:38 pm

    So, what do you do with a president who is guilty of a process crime? I suppose this is all just material for Dems when they impeach Trump.

Why does mueller loom like he’s storing acorns for the winter?

Add this to the list of truths that we hold to be self-evident: Never agree — or allow yourself — to be interviewed by a prosecutor who wants to hang you.

Bucky Barkingham | January 25, 2018 at 7:34 am

If Trump declines an interview or any kind of sit down with Müeller it will be cited as “obstruction of justice”, and if he does a sit down there will be some small inconsistency found and cited as “obstruction of justice”. This is no longer an investigation into the Russia Collusion fantasy, in fact it has become the Seinfeld of investigations – an investigation about nothing.

Dumb legal question. Under the Constitution, isn’t Trump the chief law enforcement officer for the nation?

Didn’t he interview Mueller just before the appointment?

What if Mueller lied to him. What if Mueller lies to him in the upcoming interview?

    MarkS in reply to Petrushka. | January 25, 2018 at 7:53 am

    Don’t forget, there are different rules for different people

      Petrushka in reply to MarkS. | January 25, 2018 at 8:08 am

      I think that everything that has happened since the “storm” comment has been choreographed. You don’t ask questions of witnesses unless you have the answer. There would be no discussion of the messages unless the Trump team already had them and unless they are incriminating.

      This is a sequenced rollout of prosecution for public education.

      For example, the democrats plan a response to the four-page memo. That requires the House Committee to release the supporting documents. That was planned.

      There may even be questionable statements in the memo. Bait.

    Milhouse in reply to Petrushka. | January 25, 2018 at 9:23 am

    Dumb legal question. Under the Constitution, isn’t Trump the chief law enforcement officer for the nation?

    Yes. We usually speak of the Attorney General as the chief law enforcement officer, but the AG has no independent authority at all; he exercises authority delegated to him by the president, or by Congress. Law enforcement is an executive power, and the constitution says all executive power belongs to the president. Therefore, while Congress can add to the AG’s authority, it can’t give him executive powers.

    Didn’t he interview Mueller just before the appointment?

    Not as far as I remember, and it would be astonishing if he had. Probably unethical.

    What if Mueller lied to him. What if Mueller lies to him in the upcoming interview?

    There’s no law against lying to the president.

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | January 25, 2018 at 1:27 pm

      “Not as far as I remember…”

      Trump interviewed Herr Mueller the day before he was appointed SC.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | January 25, 2018 at 8:47 pm

      But there are laws against Presidents, or anyone else, lying to federal investigators. What a great country!

      A few years ago, and therefore I only remember the very basic details, a police officer testified that he had lied to the mother of a suspect about getting called to their apartment building because the other residents had reported the smell of gas. They had not, he readily admitted. It was a ruse. So he asked her if she would give him permission to come inside and check for a gas leak.

      Here’s the interesting part. He then testified that she gave him permission to enter. The mother said she had not given him permission. He searched the son’s bedroom and found evidence against him.

      The judge threw everything out, saying he would not take the word of an admitted liar over that of a citizen. The appeals court overturned the lower court’s decision, saying the police can lie to people. Apparently you just have to take their word as to when they’ve stopped lying and have started telling the truth.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=d-7o9xYp7eE

      “Don’t Talk to the Police

      Regent Law Professor James Duane gives viewers startling reasons why they should always exercise their 5th Amendment rights when questioned by government officials.”

      Trump would be a fool to let Mueller’s attack dogs interview him. It looks like Flynn got sandbagged into talking with Mueller’s attack dogs because they told him his conduct wasn’t in question. So Flynn didn’t have his own lawyer present. Remember, they can and will lie to you. And if the investigators question you long enough, anybody will eventually give up enough conflicting statements that they can hang a “lying to federal investigators” conviction on you.

      Or, whatever charge they can. Never talk to the police if you’ve had to shoot someone in self-defense. Plan ahead. There are organizations you can join that for a reasonable monthly fee will provide you with umbrella insurance and lawyers available 24/7. The kind of thing you’d get automatically if you were a cop and a member of a PBA. Don’t assume that just because you live in a “gun friendly” state your local DA or police chief is a fan of concealed carry or armed self-defense.

everybody thinks this is a trap for Trump, Trump is no fool , what if it became a trap for Mueller. If Sessions is there, if an judge is there, if an FBI agent is there, Mueller would be smart to leave right a way.

From a former federal prosecutor, a strong endorsement of Prof. Jacobson’s advice. MR. PRESIDENT–DON’T DO IT!! Yes, I am shouting. It is a trap, plain and simple.

“Trump is no fool”

Umm, I voted for him realizing that, that sometimes, yes, Trump is a fool.

An “interview” with Mueller is not a P.R. opportunity, it is largely as pictured in the Branco cartoon: all downside and no upside. “My my, said the spider to the fly.”

The President should listen to his legal counsel.

From what I understand from all of the legal talking heads, he cannot simply refuse. He can negotiate terms, such as answering only written questions or answering only questions on specific topics, but he must respond. As the bove commenter mentioned, sometimes Trump is a fool and at almost all times he cannot shut up. His main answer should be, “I was executing my constitutional authority,” and then “Asked and answered.”

    rdmdawg in reply to Obie1. | January 25, 2018 at 12:43 pm

    The Dems have forever gotten away with “I can’t remember”. That seems to stump the FBI. It’s what General Flynn should’ve done.

Trump should take the Fifth.

    William A. Jacobson: I don’t know what power Mueller would have to compel testimony, but nothing should be done voluntarily.

    There is a grand jury empaneled. Trump could submit to an interview with the Special Counsel’s office, or he could be subpoenaed by the grand jury. He would have to have legal justification for not answering the summons. After claiming executive privilege, President Nixon was forced to surrender the tapes. And President Clinton was compelled to testify by a grand jury.

    As noted, Trump could certainly take the Fifth.

      Or he could just pull a Hildebeeste and say he doesn’t recall.

        If he doesn’t recall, then he can certainly say so. However, if he does recall, then he has to answer.

          Barry in reply to Zachriel. | January 25, 2018 at 1:32 pm

          However, if she does recall, then he has to answer.

          See how stupid that comment is.

          Commies, always predictably dumber than bricks.

          murkyv in reply to Zachriel. | January 25, 2018 at 8:03 pm

          Hillary couldn’t “remember” 39 times in her interview over her ILLEGAL server. Bill was up there at 267 times that he didn’t recall, or some other version of memory lapse in his sworn deposition over Paula Jones.

          For being the supposed “smartest man and woman in the world”, if they’re short-minded, neither one of them she should have been anywhere near the reins of power

          Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | January 25, 2018 at 9:19 pm

          But, but, Trump is the one with dementia, murkyv!

          Right up there with “I don’t recall” as an Obama administration classic was, “I found out the the same time the rest of you did, when I saw it on TV.”

          It got so ridiculous I started joking Obama wouldn’t know what he had for lunch until he saw it on the 5 O’clock News. “I found out I had the Potato Salad with Arugula and Dijon Vinaigrette and then the Halibut in White Wine reduction sauce the the same time you did. When I saw it on TV.”

          It worked out so well for him Hillary Clinton decided to start using it. Clinton said she didn’t know that Loretta Lynch had met with her husband on the tarmac in AZ until she saw it on TV.

          Ever since Obama left off office I now think of “…until I saw it on TV” as elitist code for “I spit in your face, peasant.”

          murkyv:Bill was up there at 267 times that he didn’t recall, or some other version of memory lapse in his sworn deposition over Paula Jones.

          Paula Jones said she couldn’t remember or couldn’t be sure many times as well. That’s the nature of testimony.

          What’s your point? Are you suggesting that Trump lie to the FBI?

Professor, his quote was edited:

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/01/24/trump-finally-says-hed-testify-oath-mueller-one-serious-condition-593202

The president did have one pretty weighty condition.

Trump said, as cited by the Times, that “he would be willing to answer questions under oath, but not until after asking whether Hillary Clinton, his 2016 campaign rival, has spoken under oath to the F.B.I. in the investigation into her use of a private email server.”

    Marco100 in reply to SDN. | January 25, 2018 at 11:47 am

    I actually didn’t see any quote in that Time story at all in which Trump said he would be willing to testify “under oath.” He simply said he was “looking forward” to an “interview” with Mueller. Clearly Trump’s attorneys could set as conditions of the interview to occur, that it not be under oath, and that nothing that Trump says in the interview can be used to prosecute him. You know–same shit as Hillary.

While I have no doubt Trump would acquit himself admirably in an “under oath” testimony situation, the problem is obviously the “process crime” liability that would be generated as soon as he testified under oath about virtually ANYTHING which anyone else has ever contradicted. The obvious example is what Trump says occurred in his conversations with Comey. Trump could be telling the truth about that, and Comey lying, and yet a la Scooter Libby, Mueller could prosecute him for obstruction of justice or perjury simply because of the difference in recollections, good faith or not, as between Comey and Trump. And the fact that Comey is the liar doesn’t make a bit of difference.

“Trump is a salesman by nature. He’s given to bombast and hyperbole. He shoots from the hip.”

This is EXACTLY my view of Trump. That type of personality has a lot of strong points, but it has some weak points too. So far, this clash of personalities between Trump and all previous Republicans has been the source of both success and conflict.

But Trump should not be in the same room with Mueller, who is itching to take something out of context (and for which there will be legal consequences…just ask Flynn).

    Marco100 in reply to Matt_SE. | January 25, 2018 at 11:58 am

    It all depends on the details, conditions, and parameters of the interview, if it is to occur. Trump has already quite obviously floated the notion that if he is going to sit for an interview, it be under the same conditions as HRC’s interview with the FBI–off the record, nothing can be used against him, no notes. Mueller himself couldn’t participate in such an interview, because then he’d be a witness and disqualified from serving as special counsel.

    So any interview between Mueller himself and Trump presupposes some sort of written deal in which anything said within the confines of the interview itself is subject to some form of use or transactional immunity. For example, lawyers including prosecutors typically are prohibited from using settlement discussions or plea negotiations as trial evidence.

      Marco100: it be under the same conditions as HRC’s interview with the FBI–off the record, nothing can be used against him, no notes.

      Clinton’s interview was on the record, notes were taken, and her answers could have been used against her.

        But the questions were softballs.

        Barry in reply to Zachriel. | January 25, 2018 at 1:36 pm

        Notes.

        Little FBI love notes.

        Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | January 25, 2018 at 3:06 pm

        You’re a comedian, Zachriel.

        https://apnews.com/ce84437c8b1c4a27881d49f51e02631f/More-texts-turned-over-from-FBI-agent-taken-off-Mueller-team

        “…Strzok said in a July 1 text message that the timing of Lynch’s announcement ‘looks like hell.’ And Page appears to mockingly refer to Lynch’s decision to accept the FBI’s conclusion in the case as a ‘real profile in courag(e) since she knows no charges will be brought.'”

        Everybody knew on 1 July that there was no way Clinton would be charged. In fact, they knew long before that. And by everybody that includes the Clintons. And Hillary was interviewed the next day.

        https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-documents-in-hillary-clinton-e-mail-investigation

        “Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s July 2, 2016 interview…”

        I take that back, Zachriel. You’re a clown. Because only a clown would still be trying to sell this discredited story that Clinton might have said something in that Potemkin interview, the last act in that Potemkin “matter,” that could have possibly resulted in criminal charges. It was so unserious that Cheryl Mills, an immunized witness*, was allowed to sit in on Clinton’s interview as one of her lawyers.

        That never happens in a real investigation. But since they were just going through the motions since there was nothing Clinton could do that would result in prosecution, who cared.

        *Mills demanded immunity before she’d give up her laptop. So the FBI immunized her and agreed to destroy her laptop at the conclusion of the investigation.

        Why is this wrong, boys and girls? SOP would be issue a subpoena and seize the laptop. But they never empaneled a grand jury. Because from the start they knew they were never going to prosecute Clinton so why bother. And the FBI never agrees to aid with the destruction of evidence.

        Unless your name is Clinton.

        You’ve lost your Jedi mind-trick powers, Zachriel. If you’ve ever had any. We didn’t need the FBI lovebirds’ texts to see through this farce, but they’re just further confirmation of what we already knew.

        But, please, continue. I only respond to for the comedic value you unintentionally bring to the table.

          Arminius: Everybody knew on 1 July that there was no way Clinton would be charged.

          That’s right. Most legal analysts knew well in advance that there was unlikely to be a prosecutable crime concerning the Clinton emails. If you were told otherwise, you were misinformed.

          Arminius in reply to Arminius. | January 25, 2018 at 6:55 pm

          There were tons of prosecutable crimes. Multiple violations of the Espionage Act, multiple violations of the Federal Records Act, Obstruction of Justice, Theft of Government Property (Hillary Clinton acknowledge when she signed the NDAs that gave her access to classified that all classified information is goverrnment property)But you can’t see them if you have your eyes closed from the start. Because your boss tells you to close your eyes. And Clinton could have lied her way through that interview and they would have closed their eyes to that, too.

          Like I said, you’re a clown, Zachriel. Unless you mean most legal experts knew, as I did, that the fix was in from the start because Obama wanted Hillary to succeed him and he kept saying so publicly. The investigators got the message.

          murkyv in reply to Arminius. | January 25, 2018 at 8:09 pm

          To the Zachs…

          Setting up and using only her own private server for government business WAS the INTENT.

          Arminius: Multiple violations of the Espionage Act

          We addressed this claim already on the Loretta Lynch thread.

          Z: Email, whether .gov or .com, is not considered secure for classified information, but is used for day-to-day communications. Clinton extensively used the State Department’s secure system for classified information, and none of the information on her emails was properly marked classified. It’s reasonable that she had no intention or motive for sending classified information by email. If you don’t know that the information is classified, then you can’t be charged under the Espionage Act.

          Arminius: Unless you mean most legal experts knew …

          Legal experts based their views on the lack of elements of “scienter and bad faith” as required by the Supreme Court in Gorin vs. United States.

          murkyv: Setting up and using only her own private server for government business WAS the INTENT.

          That is incorrect. Clinton used the State Departments secure system for classified communications. Some classified information was found on Clinton’s private emails, but none of it was properly marked. It’s not uncommon. For instance, classified information was found on Sec. Powell’s AOL account, and aides to Sec. Rice also had emails on private accounts with classified content.

          It wouldn’t be a violation of the Espionage Act unless the server was purposefully used to transmit classified information.

Did Trump ever release his tax returns? I have to agree with most of the comments above that it is as likely a set up for Mueller as it is for Trump.

Here’s what should happen – Trump agrees to meet for an interview. When Mueller arrives, Trump introduces him to the new Special Prosecutor that will now be interviewing Mueller and Trump steps out.

OR the Special Prosecutor is introduced as Trump’s lawyer, but then starts interrogating Mueller.

Boy, the fun that could be had when Sessions wakes up! I wonder what he’s dreaming about?

I propose a new Venue:
Mueller has to be under oath and answer questions from Trump as well.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend