Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump’s lawyers reportedly don’t want him talking to Mueller – It’s advice he should take

Trump’s lawyers reportedly don’t want him talking to Mueller – It’s advice he should take

There is no evidence Robert Mueller needs from Donald Trump – it’s a trap Trump should avoid unless and until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/former-fbi-director-robert-mueller-named-special-counsel-in-the-russia-investigation-946481731669

On January 24, 2018, as Robert Mueller appeared near the end of his plowing through interviews with White House staffers past and present, and other Trump associates, it appeared that Trump himself would be next on Mueller’s list.

At an impromptu press session, Trump said he looked forward to meeting with Mueller, and might do so under oath, “subject to my lawyers.”

My *advice* was clear, 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 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.

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

The NY Times reports tonight that Trump’s lawyers are giving him similar advice, Trump’s Lawyers Want Him to Refuse an Interview in Russia Inquiry:

Lawyers for President Trump have advised him against sitting down for a wide-ranging interview with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, according to four people briefed on the matter, raising the specter of a monthslong court battle over whether the president must answer questions under oath….

Mr. Trump’s decision about whether to speak to prosecutors, expected in the coming weeks, will shape one of the most consequential moments of the investigation. Refusing to sit for an interview opens the possibility that Mr. Mueller will subpoena the president to testify before a grand jury, setting up a court fight that would dramatically escalate the investigation and could be decided by the Supreme Court….

…. John Dowd, the longtime Washington defense lawyer hired last summer to represent Mr. Trump in the investigation, wants to rebuff an interview request, as do Mr. Dowd’s deputy, Jay Sekulow, and many West Wing advisers, according to the four people. The lawyers and aides believe the special counsel might be unwilling to subpoena the president and set off a showdown with the White House that Mr. Mueller could lose in court….

Others close to Mr. Trump have also cautioned him against a freewheeling interview. Marc E. Kasowitz, the president’s longtime personal lawyer from New York who initially dealt with the special counsel after Mr. Mueller took over the Russia investigation last May, has also consistently said that the president should not agree to the interview.

Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey who led the presidential transition until just after the election, bluntly said last week that Mr. Trump should reject a request to be questioned.

“I don’t think the president of the United States, unless there are credible allegations — which I don’t believe there are — should be sitting across from a special counsel,” he said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and an informal adviser to Mr. Trump, echoed that advice.

“The idea of putting Trump in a room with five or six hardened, very clever lawyers, all of whom are trying to trick him and trap him, would be a very, very bad idea,” Mr. Gingrich said last month on “Fox and Friends.”

Trump needs to understand that Mueller’s team wants nothing more than, at a minimum, to lay out grounds for an indictment, even if they can’t indict under longstanding DOJ policy.

The Times indicates that there is one voice arguing Trump should submit to an interview:

One of the few voices arguing for cooperating with Mr. Mueller is Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer whom Mr. Trump also brought on to deal with Mr. Mueller’s investigation. Since Mr. Cobb was hired in July, he has argued that the White House should do everything possible to cooperate with Mr. Mueller’s investigation.

There is no evidence that Trump has that Mueller can’t get through other witnesses or through written questions. Putting Trump across a table from Mueller and his team would be foolish.

Just say No. Make them go to court if that’s what they want to do, and fight it to the Supreme Court.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Oh, heck no!
Not a peep to him.
Let the legal crew take care of ALL of that…

    JusticeDelivered in reply to snowshooze. | February 6, 2018 at 9:16 am

    Think about how much fun it will be to watch Mueller gnash his teeth over being publically neutered and ignored 🙂

Never talk to the police. Just don’t. Not the local police, not the Feds. Never.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Same Same. | February 6, 2018 at 12:03 am

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&t=285s

    Everyone should watch this video at least once a year to reinforce the concepts. Especially if you’re the talkative type (like me).

      Arminius in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 6, 2018 at 12:54 am

      That’s a great video. Everyone needs that advice. Think you’ll never need that advice? If you own a firearm for self-defense and ever need to use it you’ll find you do. Even in gun friendly states such as here in Texas you’ll find cops and prosecutors who would love nothing more than “solve” the crime by pinning it on you. There’s not a lot of such people here, but you never know when the cop that shows up really isn’t your friend. So just assume the cop isn’t.

      I also know that if you’re ever interviewed by an effective interrogator they can trip anyone one up and accuse you of lying to them. Trump is talkative and a braggart so it would be easier, but they can get anyone for that.

    myiq2xu in reply to Same Same. | February 6, 2018 at 12:19 am

    If you’re innocent the best time to tell your side of the story is when there are twelve people seated in the jury box. Maybe.

    If you are guilty then silence is golden.

    The two biggest mistakes criminal defendants make are talking to the cops and consenting to searches. People think that if they don’t cooperate with the cops they will look guilty.

    As Chris Rock said, “Would you rather look guilty at the mall or be innocent in jail?”

The only thing Trump should say to Mueller:”You’re fired!”

Trump is incapable of giving a consistent and truthful story so, yeah, it’s a bad idea for him to testify. OTOH … after all the BS we’re having to go through … I want all the cards on the table.

Well, he can always take the Fifth.

    Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | February 5, 2018 at 10:29 pm

    I suppose he could, but there’s no reason for him to do that. He’s under no obligation to talk, there aren’t even any allegations that he’s committed an offense, so why should he?

      CZ75Compact in reply to Milhouse. | February 6, 2018 at 3:07 am

      What’s the probable cause or reasonable suspicion for Mueller’s investigation anyway?

        CZ75Compact: What’s the probable cause or reasonable suspicion for Mueller’s investigation anyway?

        Agents of the Russian government interfered in the U.S. election, going so far as to engage in cyberwarfare by illegally hacking into the DNC email system, then releasing those emails for maximum political effect.

        This is an ongoing pattern of behavior by the Russians, including against U.S. allies in Europe. They also made attempts to recruit within the Trump campaign. There is every reason to believe they will continue in their attempts to undermine the integrity of the U.S. electoral process.

          murkyv in reply to Zachriel. | February 6, 2018 at 11:30 am

          There is no proof it was Russia who “hacked” the DNC.

          None

          murkyv: There is no proof it was Russia who “hacked” the DNC.

          There is substantial evidence of Russian involvement, which includes the conclusions of U.S. intelligence agencies, other nations’ intelligence agencies, and independent cybersecurity firms. We even know the URL used to spoof Podesta’s account. Furthermore, this is part of a pattern of behavior on the part of Russia. They have interfered in political systems of U.S. allies, including fragile new democracies in eastern Europe.

          murkyv in reply to Zachriel. | February 6, 2018 at 3:36 pm

          Are you seriously going to cite the Obama “intelligence communities” that are now being exposed as highly political and corrupt?

          Podesta opened his own “window” to the world

          murkyv: Are you seriously going to cite the Obama “intelligence communities” that are now being exposed as highly political and corrupt?

          The U.S. Intelligence community is supported by independent sources, including allied intelligence services and private cybersecurity experts. Furthermore, it is consistent with Russian cyberwarfare conducted over the last several years against U.S. allies.

          murkyv: Podesta opened his own “window” to the world

          If you mean he fell for a spoof, that is correct. It’s a type of illegal hack, which has been traced back to Russian agents.

          DavidJackSmith in reply to Zachriel. | February 6, 2018 at 6:25 pm

          That’s bollocks. The DNC REFUSED to let the FBI examine their servers. They have never been forensically examined to see whether they were even hacked. In fact, it’s widely believed by many experts that it was an “Inside” job — someone logged into Podesta’s account and stole his emails.

          DavidJackSmith: The DNC REFUSED to let the FBI examine their servers.

          Um, there was an election going on. Turns out that the DNC had need of their servers. The FBI was provided server logs.

          DavidJackSmith: In fact, it’s widely believed by many experts that it was an “Inside” job —

          Uh, no it’s not “widely believed” outside the right-wing echochamber.

      Milhouse: He’s under no obligation to talk,

      Not unless he is subpoenaed. Whether Mueller will do this or not is an open question.

      Milhouse: there aren’t even any allegations that he’s committed an offense, so why should he?

      At the very least, he’s a witness to matters under investigation.

        Immolate in reply to Zachriel. | February 6, 2018 at 12:11 pm

        Hmmm. Yeah. No. It appears to me that, if the standard for Presidential candidates who are apparently guilty as sin is to sit down for an informal, unrecorded, unwritten chat with an FBI fan-boy, the the standard for a President who is apparently not guilty would be to tell the Special Prosecutor to submit his questions, which will be answered in the fullness of time. If you don’t believe that the chief executive can avoid testifying under oath, I offer you the Obama Administration, in which many apparent criminals who were not President, avoided testifying at all.

          Immolate: If you don’t believe that the chief executive can avoid testifying under oath

          Clinton had to testify while in office, and that was just a civil matter. While deference is given to the President due to his constitutional role and duties, he is nevertheless subject to the law like all citizens. Trump is a witness to activities currently under investigation, so is subject to being called as a witness.

    Olinser in reply to Zachriel. | February 5, 2018 at 10:46 pm

    Taking the Fifth would be literally the stupidest thing Trump could possibly do.

    He is under absolutely no legal obligation to talk to Mueller, and Mueller has absolutely zero legal grounds to compel him to talk under oath.

      YellowSnake in reply to Olinser. | February 6, 2018 at 8:31 am

      Well, he said he would. I know he had his fingers crossed.

        Arminius in reply to YellowSnake. | February 6, 2018 at 8:56 am

        He said he would submit to an interview “subject to my lawyers.”

        You must not be very bright if the rest of us knows what that means, but you don’t.

        But I’m sure you’re bright enough to know what he meant. It’s simply that you choose to ignore it (so you can pretend he lied) because you are pure evil and consumed with hate, as you’re now saying he should ignore his lawyers’ advice even though during that presser he said he would take it before submitting to any interview.

        And while you accuse Trump of being a liar, you’re a bigger liar than he is since you’re ignoring the entirety of “what he said he would do.”

        This is going to be the last time I lower myself to communicate with you, liar.

        He did — subject to Hildebeeste having an on the record and sworn interview about her obvious mishandling of classified material.

      Olinser: Mueller has absolutely zero legal grounds to compel him to talk under oath.

      Trump is a witness to events that are under investigation. As such, he would be subject to subpoena.

The Washington Post has printed several articles carried in the regional newspapers, pushing the notion that Mueller wants to, and should, interview DJT. They do have a tendency to publish their wet dreams, lately. I’ve read several articles where they said what a member of the intelligence community “will testify to” — and they’ve been grossly wrong. Then, they repeat their grossly wrong text, as if it were true. This nonsense is no different.

DJT should let Mueller and his band of unethical frauds twist in the wind.

The most Trump should offer them is to look at and maybe answer a list of written questions concerning nothing but Russia and any evidence of collusion that they have. No way to a sit-down interview with a team of trained people ready to crucify Trump on a process charge converted to obstruction. It is my theory that Mueller will come up with a charge/s but will offer to drop and dismiss all evidence of collusion by Trump and his team PROVIDED the FBI/DoJ witch hunt ends that same moment along with all future investigations of any involved.

    tom_swift in reply to inspectorudy. | February 6, 2018 at 12:58 am

    but will offer to drop and dismiss all evidence of collusion by Trump

    But there is none. Mueller has nothing on Trump, nothing at all. Therefore he has nothing to offer in trade for any concessions.

      inspectorudy in reply to tom_swift. | February 6, 2018 at 10:56 am

      Your problem is that you are approaching this as an honest person. The people working with Mueller may or may not be so. Considering that almost every issue being raised about the FBI in the last ten years involves Mueller and most of the people in question for their activities. Do you really think that they will come up with nothing on Trump?

Of course Trump should not accept the Mueller interview. But he should offer ‘a deal.’ Trump will agree to be interviewed only after Mueller is interviewed by a team put together by Trump’s lawyers; a team of Trump nominated FBI/DOJ agents and a second grand jury. The questions are all based around the obvious conflicts of interest, illegal leaks and shenanigans of the Mueller team. Mueller can either admit he’s conflicted (and immediately be fired) or lie (and be prosecuted). After that, Trump can point out he only agreed to be interview by Mueller, who is no longer available due to legal reasons. It’s the only way to wrap up the witch hunt in a timely fashion.

The Lyin’ Don should NOT…on any account…submit to an interview with Mueller.

Therefore, against all advice to the contrary, he probably WILL.

    It’s a dumb idea … but I think his ego is screaming to talk to Mueller.

    I don’t think he will because people who hate him want him to for one, and he never wants to appease them. Also, he has had plenty of opportunity for legal advice on this. His original comment of “Sure” was long ago in political time. He will probably keep denying through Twitter.

      PODKen in reply to willow. | February 6, 2018 at 6:24 am

      Whether Trump talks to Mueller or not … the only thing I’m sure of is that Trump will never have a consistent and completely truthful story about anything. Just as always … he’ll create enough chaos and racket to keep himself the center of attention. Trump is only interested in Trump.

I agree. Mueller is a liar and a pig. He does process crimes because he is a liar and a pig. But I repeat myself.
He is despicable.

    mochajava76 in reply to puhiawa. | February 6, 2018 at 9:25 am

    OK, you do not like the man.
    But you accuse him of being a liar and a pig.
    Please provide evidence to these accusations.

    We don’t like what he is trying to do, but people i respect like Trey Gowdy have vouched for his being a professional. He tweeted “Mueller has a distinguished career as both a prosecutor & director of the FBI. I was always impressed with his integrity & evenhandedness.”

    So i’d like to hear you state your case against this.

      Arminius in reply to mochajava76. | February 6, 2018 at 11:43 am

      For starters, Mueller didn’t tell Congress that he had removed Strzok and Paige from the investigation for their anti-Trump bias. And he should have. Instead he tried to split the baby. He removed the two, but then he hushed it up.

      And then there’s the fact he’s stocked his team with prosecutors who don’t have a reputation for integrity. Weissman, his number two, is exhibit A. And then most of his team clearly have conflicts of interest since they have close ties to Hillary Clinton, the Clinton foundation, and former Obama officials. But then so does Mueller given his close friendship with Comey who frankly should be a target of investigation given that Comey has admitted to leaking government information. Even if the information wasn’t classified (and if you do the math, some of it certainly was) those documents he stole weren’t his. And I use the word “stole” properly as leakers can be charged with theft of government property since that’s exactly what it is.

      And speaking of leakers, given the information that anonymous sources “close to the investigation” keep leaking information, such as grand jury information, that only people in Mueller’s office would know. Yet Mueller isn’t interested in the fact that people in his office are breaking the law.

      So you respect Trey Gowdy? Here’s what Gowdy has to say on the subject (you have to put up with about 30 seconds of narration before you get to the video of Gowdy).

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7C9UJ_Xx6w
      “Trey Gowdy: Mueller ‘Broke Law’ Leaking Trump Russia Charges”

      Is that sufficient a reason for why I doubt Mueller’s ethics? Frankly, when these inside-the-beltway types start vouching for each other’s unimpeachable character an strong ethics, I immediately suspect the individual has the ethics of a five dollar hooker willing to do tricks in a dumpster behind a liquor store. Actually, lower ethical standards because the hooker is doing it because she has to but these millionaire attorneys are doing it because the want to.

      Ask me about Eric Holder lying his way through his confirmation hearings for AG, all the while the inside-the-beltway times vouching for his character, sometime. How’d that work out for you?

        Immolate in reply to Arminius. | February 6, 2018 at 12:17 pm

        Yup. Mueller has pretty much done everything crooked in this investigation that he could have done, starting with failing to recuse himself from investigating the motive behind Trump’s firing of a personal friend. His appointment was illegitimate from the start. He is a willing participant in an attempted palace coup.

        Close The Fed in reply to Arminius. | February 6, 2018 at 5:28 pm

        Re: Arminius:

        Didn’t Mueller hire Preet whatever his name is?
        The one Trump had to fire?

    Ragspierre in reply to puhiawa. | February 6, 2018 at 10:08 am

    According to Der Donald, he has complete faith in Mueller.

    Unless you think the Lyin’ Don is lying…

    Arminius in reply to puhiawa. | February 6, 2018 at 10:19 am

    This actually has more of the stench of Mueller’s no. 2, Andrew Weissman. Weissman is notorious for prosecutorial misconduct. Which is why he gets lots of convictions, and a high percentage of them are overturned on appeal.

    But Weissman doesn’t care, and neither does the U.S. Department of Injustice apparently. He enjoys destroying people’s lives.

    His favorite dirty trick is witness intimidation. I that’s how he got Flynn to plead guilty to a process crime; Flynn took the plea because they told him if he fought the charge they’d indict his son. General Flynn’s son is the chief of staff at his consulting and lobbying firm, the Flynn Intel Group. It’s not clear what crime(s) Weissman could indict Flynn’s son for considering Weissman didn’t even indict Flynn for any crimes related to the firm. But one of Weissman’s favorite intimidation tactics is to make up crimes that don’t exist.

    When Weissman came down here to Texas to take over the Enron investigation that habit of his was on full display. One Enron executive took a plea deal and was about to plead guilty in court. The incredulous judge asked him if he knew that he was about to plead guilty to a wire fraud crime that doesn’t exist.

    The thing about Flynn is he was sandbagged by the now discredited Peter Strzok. Strzok stopped by to talk to Flynn and convinced Flynn that his personal conduct was not in question. Shocka! Strzok lied. Apparently they were trying to get Flynn to say something inconsistent or to omit something at odds with Flynn’s filings related to his business’s foreign operations (I’m not buying the idea he was charged and plead guilty simply over a phone call to the Russian ambassador, since as the former head of DIA he would have known any such conversations were recorded) and probably the information he provided for his five year update for his TS/SCI clearance.

    That appears, based upon public information, how they got Flynn for lying to investigators. Scroll up to DaveGinOly’s comment and follow the link to the video, “never talk to the police.” Flynn’s problem is that he trusted Strzok. Never, ever trust a cop, particularly an FBI agent.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2018/02/fbi_told_oregon_state_police_n.html#incart_river_home

    “FBI told state police not to wear body cameras for 2016 stop of refuge occupation leaders

    Prosecutors say witness testimony, audio and video evidence, plus bullet trajectory analysis yielded one conclusion: FBI agent W. Joseph Astarita lied about firing two shots at the truck of refuge occupation spokesman Robert “LaVoy” Finicum in 2016 after he swerved into a snowbank.

    The information is detailed in a 32-page government response to Astarita’s motion to dismiss the federal indictment against him. He’s pleaded not guilty to three counts of making false statements and two counts of obstruction of justice. Astarita’s lawyer claimed the indictment was based on “junk science.”

    The government response also reveals that Oregon State Police SWAT troopers at the scene, ordinarily required to wear body cameras, didn’t that day at the request of the FBI. The FBI did obtain video from FBI surveillance planes flying above the scene.

    State police detectives also normally record interviews of officers who might be involved in a shooting, but they didn’t that night when questioning the FBI Hostage Rescue Team members, again at the FBI’s request. A follow-up interview with the hostage team members also came with unusual conditions, prosecutors note…”

    Who did Astarita lie to? For starters two of his own supervisors. And those “unusual conditions” the prosecutors note were that the HRT refused to submit to interviews by state police detectives individually, but all of them had to be interviewed together. That’s a no no.

    The fact that they asked local state police SWAT members to remove their body cams is clear indication of intent on all their parts. They clearly didn’t want any video of evidence of how they intended to handle the situation. The fact that they insisted on being interviewed as a group means they all wanted to be in on the lie and if they were interviewed individually they couldn’t get their story straight.

    As an aside, it would be extremely easy for an investigator to get someone for “lying to a federal agent” if they were going to compare your answers to your security clearance paperwork. TS/SCI clearances are reinvestigated every five years. They ask for a lot of information. It would be impossible to remember all of it during what you thought was a casual conversation. In addition to having your attorney in the room you’d need to have the paperwork right their.

    In fact, it’s so easy to make an honest mistake and omit something I failed to list my brother-in-law, a foreign national, on my final five year update. This caused huge problems as I head left active duty in the Navy and was working as a defense contractor. And it was an Air Force contract. So AFOSI seized on the fact that I had failed to list my brother-in-law, a Japanese national, on the paperwork. You know how they knew about him? I had listed him on my previous five year update. But AFOSI insisted I was hiding something. Then the uptight bastards demanded to know about why I hadn’t listed all my other foreign contacts.

    Understand I had been stationed in Japan for five years. NCIS sensibly told us not to submit foreign contact reports every time we met a Japanese person, since they’d be doing nothing else but following up on the paperwork. Hundreds of sailors with TS/SCI clearances meeting dozens of Japanese people a day, that would be just stupid. Other foreign nationals such as Chinese, yes, but only report Japanese nationals if they act suspiciously such as trying to get information. But AFOSI didn’t understand that. At least not the unimaginative agents I was dealing with. So I had to take a lie detective test as they were convinced I was hiding something.

    It’s one of the reasons I got out of the business entirely.

Trump should invite mueller to the White House for an interview, then leave the White House for Mar a Lago without tell mueller, and leave mueller spending the rest of the day in the hallway waiting.

All very straightforward. There’s no advantage to Trump in meeting Mueller on a battlefield Mueller has already prepared. Even more; it would be a losing proposition for any President to have anything to do with any investigator in Mueller’s position. This is not a joust between equal adversaries.

In which case, this–

One of the few voices arguing for cooperating with Mr. Mueller is Ty Cobb

seems inexplicable. Why would Cobb argue any such thing? I can’t see any scenario in which this would be a winning—or even an adequate— move. Perhaps the Times is just lying.

Still convinced he’s pulling a Clinton here.

1) State that he has no problem talking with Mueller, provided his lawyers set up proper procedures(*).

2) Never get proper procedures set up.

(*) Of course, proper procedures would be giving DJT exactly the same treatment HRC got, with full immunity to all aides, no recordings, a gentle foot massage during the interview, etc…

    Yes, but…..Comey and Mueller were/are on different missions, Comey’s was to exonerate and Mueller’s is to convict

      YellowSnake in reply to MarkS. | February 6, 2018 at 8:40 am

      Your talents as a mind reader are wasted here. You should become a professional poker player.

        Comrade,

        He is a professional poker. But he makes ends meets during the off-season by mind-reading.

        Thank you for your continuing contributions. Without the likes of you, we’d have no truly low standard for readers to compare.

DieJustAsHappy | February 6, 2018 at 7:18 am

I do not see how the Presidency nor the nation could be served well by Trump consenting to such an interview. He has demonstrated that he listens and is willing to accept advice, despite have previously expressed strong convictions. I do so hope and pray he does so in this instance.

DavidJackSmith | February 6, 2018 at 8:15 am

There is no way President Trump will “talk” to Mueller. I know there are some people who still underestimate this successful billionaire…

(who has had decades of dealing with high-priced lawyers on both sides of the table)

…I suggest they watch the real savvy Trump when he was a regular guest on David Letterman back in the 80s and 90s. It’s quite revelatory of how calculating and cautious he is.

DavidJackSmith | February 6, 2018 at 8:15 am

There is no way President Trump will “talk” to Mueller. I know there are some people who still underestimate this successful billionaire…

(who has had decades of dealing with high-priced lawyers on both sides of the table)

…I suggest they watch the real savvy Trump when he was a regular guest on David Letterman back in the 80s and 90s. It’s quite revelatory of how calculating and cautious he is.

He should do the interview. First though download an mp3 of Hillary saying “I do no recollect” and just keep mashing the button for every answer.

WHAT DOES HE HAVE TO HIDE?

Let’s have that transparency thing – like Nunes said.

I’ll bet he finds a way to not to release the Democratic memo, too. He is a weasel.

While he is at it, he can release his tax returns!

    scaulen in reply to YellowSnake. | February 6, 2018 at 8:39 am

    Taxes taxes taxes, Russia, Russia, Russia. Broken record much?

    How about a compromise, taxes for OB real birth certificate + college records and Trump on the record as long as Hillary does so under oath on live TV?

    Regardless of what anyone says, Trump is the target of this investigation. So far, the universe of Trump/Russia collusion investigations, over the last 2 years, has produced NO evidence that any such collusion existed. Now, in the real world, this investigation would have ended by now. NO LEA is going to shove this amount of money down a rathole when there is clearly no case here. Unless, they whole point of the investigation is not to prove the collusion charge, but to find anything that it can hang on the principles in the investigation, in this case Trump. So, it is both good tactics and a winning strategy not to make this easy for them, by creating a process crime, such as perjury, simply because you misspeak or forget a fact.

    I have no doubt that the Schiff memo will be released, unless the FBI/DOJ comes up with some substantive national security reasons not to release it. Releasing it plays right into the Republican’s hands, if it is substantively different than the Nunez memo. If such is the case, then the next logical step is to declassify the underlying evidence to settle the case. Such a move would cause splodey heads among the Dems.

    Finally, let’s look at the Trump tax returns. In the first place, why should the man release them? Would you want to give a potential employer YOUR returns every time you applied for a job? It is bad enough that employers are now running credit checks on potential employees. Who cares how the man spends his money? He filled out all the financial disclosure records required of those entering elective office and that can be verified through the IRS WHICH ALREADY HAS HIS TAX RETURNS.

    “WHAT DOES HE HAVE TO HIDE?….”

    That he was born in a foreign country. That he is a muslim. That he is a gay transvestite. That his education credentials are fake. That the two books attributed to his name are fake. That his closest political allies are Jew-haters al sharpton and louis farahkan. That his baseless admission to harvard was engineered by Saudis. That he never taught Constitutional law despite advertising that he did. That he enabled hillary klinton in securing illegal search warrants. That he hates the nation as it was founded. That his ‘wife’ is a man. That…

    Oh – wait: wrong president!

    Sorry.

    Close The Fed in reply to YellowSnake. | February 6, 2018 at 6:37 pm

    Re: Trump’s tax returns

      Close The Fed in reply to Close The Fed. | February 6, 2018 at 6:39 pm

      Re: Trump’s tax returns

      I don’t want him to release them for at least one reason:

      What he pays, compared to what I pay, makes me embarrassed I pay so little.

      Second reason: Taxes are nothing but legislation manipulating Americans’ behavior. Congress may have the POWER, but it doesn’t have the RIGHT, to manipulate us via taxes.

How about Trump agree to the exact same interview that hillary got over her missing 30,000 e-mails? He gets to have as many lawyers as he wants and they cannot record or write down anything. And they have to draw up a Trump exonerating document two months before they interview him.

    inspectorudy: He gets to have as many lawyers as he wants and they cannot record or write down anything.

    When the FBI interviews people, detailed notes are typically taken, as it was with the Clinton interview. Trump could certainly have his lawyer present.

    Trump’s lawyer will almost certainly advise against any voluntary interview. However, Trump, as President of the United States, has an obligation to the rule of law, and should be forthcoming on an investigation of foreign interference in the U.S. electoral process. It’s a question of whether Trump does what is best of his country or what is best for himself. There’s little doubt which path Trump will choose.

      Mac45 in reply to Zachriel. | February 6, 2018 at 11:38 am

      There have been multiple investigations into foreign influence in the U.S. electoral process. This has taken place over nearly two years. So far, NO evidence has surfaced which indicates that there was ANY foreign influence involved with the Trump campaign. None, nada, zip, zilch. So, why is Trump’s testimony necessary? Short answer, it is not. And, under the rule of law, a person can not be coerced to give any type of testimony IF there is no probable cause to believe that he has any material information to give. This is how attorneys squash subpoenas all the time in criminal inquiries.

      What would be best for the country, is if Mueller, et al would focus their investigation on the only area which has provided evidence that Russian influence in the U.S. electoral system may actually have occurred, the actions of the HRC campaign, the DNC and the FBI/DOJ. All took action based upon information largely provided by Russian sources, some of whom were actual Russian intelligence agents, and many of whom were closely tied to the Russian government. Was it collusion? Well, let’s let Mueller concentrate his efforts on those players for the next two years and find out, shall we?

      Trump has already provided numerous public statements on the Russia/Trump collusion issue. He need say no more, at this time.

        Mac45: There have been multiple investigations into foreign influence in the U.S. electoral process.

        That’s right, and there is substantial evidence that Russian agents did directly interfere in the U.S. electoral process, including illegal email hacks, and attempts to recruit people in the Trump campaign.

        Mac45: So far, NO evidence has surfaced which indicates that there was ANY foreign influence involved with the Trump campaign.

        That’s not correct. Papadopoulos was working with Russian spies while acting as an advisor to the Trump campaign, then he lied about it. Trump himself called on Russia to release emails they had stole from the Clinton campaign. There is also evidence that Russia oligarchs were moving money through the Trump organization. That doesn’t necessarily mean Trump committed a crime, but it does make him a material witness to all these events.

          Mac45 in reply to Zachriel. | February 6, 2018 at 12:29 pm

          Zach: That’s right, and there is substantial evidence that Russian agents did directly interfere in the U.S. electoral process, including illegal email hacks, and attempts to recruit people in the Trump campaign.

          There has been NO evidence presented that the Russian government attempted to recruit people within the Trump campaign, while they were working in the campaign. None. Ever page, who was touted by the FBI as a Russian agent, was used BY THE FBI just months before they used him, to obtain a FISA warrant to surveille Trump as an undercover informant to take down a Russian mobster in NY. The other alleged charges against the Russian government have NOTHING to do with Trump.

          Zach: That’s not correct. Papadopoulos was working with Russian spies while acting as an advisor to the Trump campaign, then he lied about it. Trump himself called on Russia to release emails they had stole from the Clinton campaign. There is also evidence that Russia oligarchs were moving money through the Trump organization. That doesn’t necessarily mean Trump committed a crime, but it does make him a material witness to all these events.

          Actually, there is NO evidence that Papadoopoulos was working with Russian spies on anything. He was in contact with Russians, whom he knew and was ostensibly working to open lines of communications with Russia, on behalf of the Trump campaign. The reason given for this was not to “subvert” the Trump campaign, but seemingly to establish lines of communication which would be immediately available to Trump, should he win the election. That Papadopoulos lied about it is his mistake, as there was no evidence of any wrong doing. In fact, investigation reveled that, when having senior members of the Tr8ump campaign travel to Russia for discussions, this was nixed immediately and it was communicated to the Russian contacts that such trips would not be occurring. So, the Papodopoulos Affair is hardly an indication that there was any collusion.

          As to money, belonging to Russian oligarchs moving through the Trump organization, this was the business organization and several of Trump’s businesses had deals and contrats in existence with these people prior to Trump securing the nomination. Unlike the huge amount of “donations” moving through the Clinton Foundation and huge Russian speaking fees paid directly to WJC, during the Uranium One negotiations, none of these transactions were in any way suspicious.

          So, I stand by my statement that there was NO evidence that there was any foreign involvement in the Trump campaign.

          It is always interesting when people bring this subject up that they completely ignore the Chinese. Since 1992, the Clintons have been caught accepting significant “contributions” from the Chinese. Every single one. The Chinese has been proven responsible for numerous cyber breaches of both private entities, including defense contractors, as well as the US Government. Yet, no one seems to care? On the one hand, you have the Chinese, who have been proven to have successfully attacked American cyber infrastructure as well as influence, or attempt to influence US elections, on the other you have the Russians, who MAY have attempted to intrude into US electronic electoral systems and who May have attempted to influence the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election. Which to investigate? Which is likely to be the greater threat in this area? I wonder.

          Immolate in reply to Zachriel. | February 6, 2018 at 12:33 pm

          Going out on a limb here, but your usual tricks for shaming a Republican into acting stupidly won’t work with Trump. He’s not easily shamed, and he plays the game you’re clumsily attempting to play with a great deal of skill. He’s certainly not invulnerable to the imposing forces arrayed against him, but he’s most probably invulnerable to your machinations.

          Mac45: There has been NO evidence presented that the Russian government attempted to recruit people within the Trump campaign

          That is incorrect. Papadopoulos was subject to recruitment, then pleaded guilty to lying about it. While much of it is still not public, there’s enough already publicly known, including the guilty plea to substantiate the claim.

          Mac45: As to money, belonging to Russian oligarchs moving through the Trump organization, this was the business organization and several of Trump’s businesses had deals and contrats in existence with these people prior to Trump securing the nomination.

          That’s right!

          Immolate: Going out on a limb here, but your usual tricks for shaming a Republican into acting stupidly won’t work with Trump. He’s not easily shamed

          You are absolutely right!

          There is substantial evidenced that should put hillary and bill klinton in prison for the rest of their ratty lives. Soon, that evidence will inculpate obama and jarret. None, re Donald Trump.

          Get real.

          TheFineReport.com: hillary and bill klinton

          The whataboutism is strong in this one.

          murkyv in reply to Zachriel. | February 6, 2018 at 3:49 pm

          Trump himself called on Russia to release emails they had stole from the Clinton campaign.

          Good Grief, this again?

          That’s absolute bullshit and you children know it.

          Go watch the friggin tape.

          And be honest, for a change

          Mac45 in reply to Zachriel. | February 6, 2018 at 3:59 pm

          Zach: “That is incorrect. Papadopoulos was subject to recruitment, then pleaded guilty to lying about it. While much of it is still not public, there’s enough already publicly known, including the guilty plea to substantiate the claim.”

          Sorry, but there is still no evidence to support the charge that an attempt to recruit Papodopoulos was being recruited by any Russian government agency or, if he was that he was recruited or even knew about it.

          This recruitment theory stems from the activities of Joseph Mifsud. Nothing is known about Mifsud, except that he is Russian. Certain intelligence personages have made the assumption that he was attempting to recruit Papodooulos as a Kremlin asset, which would be good tradecraft and happens in almost all areas of government and business, but there is no proof of this. Also, no proof that he was, in fact, recruited has ever been presented. Papdopoulos is alternately portrayed as a rather incompetent individual and as a sophisticated international information broker with vast experience in dealing with Russian government interests, depending upon which story a person is trying to sell. If the story is that he was attempting to sell out the Trump campaign to Russian government interests, then he was an experienced operator. When the narrative changed to portray him as the target for Russian recruitment, he became either a conniving or foolish dupe. When he is being used to sell the narrative that he told a bunch of diplomats that he was a “Russian conduit” into the Trump campaign in order to justify surveillance of Trump, it becomes impossible to determine exactly what he is. If he is a foolish dupe, then this “disclosure” was accidental and could be largely inaccurate. But makes it unlikely that he was ever a serious subject of Russian recruitment efforts. If he is a cunning operator, who was recruited by Russian government interests, then it could have been planted misinformation designed to imply that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russian government. Yet, he was never charged with espionage, acting as an unregistered agent for a foreign government or anything remotely related to being an agent for the Russians. He was charged with one count of lying to the FBI, to which he pled guilty. We have no idea what the lie entailed or if it was even related to the Trump/Russia collusion investigation.

          So, once again, there has been no evidence presented in nearly TWO YEARS of investigation which shows any COLLUSION between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

          murkyv: Good Grief, this again?

          It’s on video.

          Mac45: there is still no evidence to support the charge that an attempt to recruit Papodopoulos was being recruited by any Russian government agency

          It’s in Papadopoulos’ pleading, along with where he admitted to lying about his contacts with Russian agents. He was also told by the Russians that they had stolen Clinton emails, information Papadopoulos presumably shared with others in the Trump campaign. The Russians were attempting to infiltrate the Trump campaign, which is a valid reason to investigate such links.

      When obama and klinton are finally interviewed by the FBI under oath,Trump will follow in kind.

      For traitors obama and klinton, it’s a question of whether they should do what is best of their country or what is best for themselves, correct?

      Please.

      When obama and klinton are finally interviewed by the FBI under oath,Trump will follow in kind.

      For traitors obama and klinton, it’s a question of whether they should do what is best of their country or what is best for themselves, correct?

      Please.

“Mueller has a distinguished career as both a prosecutor & director of the FBI. I was always impressed with his integrity”

That doesn’t follow. Mueller was FBI Director from 2001-2013. 5 of those years under Obama.

The corruption of the FBI is systemic. Would you really have us believe Mueller had no idea what was going on in the organization he was in charge of?

So Mueller is either corrupt or incompetent. But I have seen no evidence of incompetentence on his part.

Zach, hacking into DNC servers and releasing embarrassing emails to the public is not “interfering with the election”. Such a statement damages your credibility and makes me wonder if you are arguing in good faith.

And that’s not even proven. The most recent evidence was the download speed was so fast that it was more likely an internal leak via data transfer via USB drive than internet hack.

Zach: “Trump is a witness to events that are under investigation.”

How do you know this? Provide specific examples.

Zach: “Papadopoulos was subject to recruitment”

Subject to? What an awkward way to phrase your answer. Sounds like weasel words. Did the Russians attempt to recruit him or not?

Yellow Snake: “WHAT DOES HE HAVE TO HIDE? Let’s have that transparency thing… He is a weasel.”

Does this mean you will be coming out from beneath your pseudonym?

Ha.

Shouldn’t Mueller recuse himself? Trump just exposed the systemic corruption of an org Mueller was in charge of for 13 years. How can he not have a conflict of interest now?

Fen: hacking into DNC servers and releasing embarrassing emails to the public is not “interfering with the election”.

Uh, of course it is. It’s also a felony.

Fen: How do you know this?

Trump’s foreign policy advisor, George Papadopoulos, was communicating with Russian spies while trying to set up a meeting with the Trump campaign, while also bragging that the Russians had hacked emails, then lied about it to the FBI. Trump called on Russia to release stolen emails. Meanwhile, Trump was apparently involved in misleading statements concerning the meeting between his campaign and Russians, a meeting explicitly promised to be part of Russia’s effort to help Trump’s campaign. And so on and so on.

Even if you want to argue that Trump was innocent of all wrongdoing, he is a witness to these matters which are under investigation.

Fen: Did the Russians attempt to recruit him or not?

Yes, they did. How far they went and details of Papadopoulos’ actual involvement are not known publicly, but he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and is apparently cooperating.

FBI used their Russian hunting spy, burned him and turned him into the Russian spy to get the FISA title 1 warrant.

https://twitter.com/drawandstrike/status/960679415113048065

Well, if Mueller were ALSO under oath and Trump could cross him…. that would be fair play.

Zach, please explain how releasing DNC emails to the public is interfering with the election.

By your standard, when the media released Trump’s private conversation about pussy grabbing celebrity groupies, they “interfered” with the election.

    Fen: explain how releasing DNC emails to the public is interfering with the election.

    By your standard, when the media released Trump’s private conversation about pussy grabbing celebrity groupies, they “interfered” with the election.

    They are not comparable at all. The government of Russia is using cyberwarfare to in a concerted attack against democratic systems around the world, including illegally hacking into the DNC and violating U.S. sovereignty. The recording of Trump’s conversation (which was not private, but made in the presence of several people while he was wearing a mic as part of his appearance on a television show) was recorded legally and owned by a U.S. corporation.

murkyv: Try reading Andrew McCarthy on the topic.

Donald Trump Should Refuse a Mueller Interview

McCarthy: Moreover, a president does not obstruct justice by merely firing a subordinate, which he has the incontestable constitutional authority to do.

True.

McCarthy: Of course, if there is concrete evidence that a crime has been committed, and if the president engages in criminal conduct to cover it up (e.g., bribing witnesses or suborning perjury), Congress could well decide that firing the prosecutor is a corrupt, impeachable offense.

True. And it may be indictable, at least once the President leaves office.

McCarthy: But if there has been no crime, and if a president believes the deleterious effects of an investigation on his capacity to govern outweigh the political damage from terminating the prosecutor, that is a reasonable choice to make — under circumstances in which, as a matter of constitutional law, the president does not need a reason at all.

True again.

But one doesn’t have to be a U.S. attorney to note that McCarthy left out a case from his analysis, an error of logic called a false dilemma. Do you see it?

What if the President uses his Constitutional powers to impede an investigation? What if he says, “I am going to stop this investigation in order to protect myself from the investigators, and am using my constitutional powers to do so”? It has to do with motive. An exercise of constitutional powers can still be obstruction under the law if it is intended to obstruct a legal investigation. The alternative is that the President is above the law.

It appears all Mueller has is the phony obstruction deal with Mueller’s close friend Comey, which is absurd and if Trump lies while being interviewed. If Mueller had anything it would have been leaked long ago. His team of Clinton supporters wouldn’t be able to contain themselves. I believe Trump knows this but he has followed the directions of Cobb so I am not so sure. To testify about non criminal acts is about the dumbest thing he could ever do.

It appears all Mueller has is the phony obstruction deal with Mueller’s close friend Comey, which is absurd and if Trump lies while being interviewed. If Mueller had anything it would have been leaked long ago. His team of Clinton supporters wouldn’t be able to contain themselves. I believe Trump knows this but he has followed the directions of Cobb so I am not so sure. To testify about non criminal acts is about the dumbest thing he could ever do.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend