This is a point I have been making for months. If I was Trump's lawyer, I would tell him to absolutely refuse to talk to Mueller, unless Mueller can give him some compelling reason to do so. And this is one of the main reasons I would say that.
"In the past, Trump has been careful in his depositions, but since his mode of communication is highly dependent on jaw-dropping hyperbole, gross simplifications and misinformed or misleading assertions, it can’t be a good idea to put him under oath in any circumstance. "
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...wry-217828
Richard A.
Lowry is the editor of National Review, an American conservative news and opinion magazine.
With Trumps foot in mouth disease, hopefully his team of lawyers and Trump himself understand that taking the fifth in this situation is paramount. No matter what Mueller states publicly or to the lawyers, he is on the hunt for any and every reason for an indictment. One need to look no further than the majority of charges already. Nothing to do with the intent of the counsel setup and charges were the result of interview games. I would say no interview and no written responses to questions. If you feel there is sufficient evidence to indict, then do so and hash it out in court.
Since Mueller has admitted he's not the focus of any criminal investigation, the only chance to catch him on anything at all is on inconsistent statements. Otherwise, it's pretty much over for digging up anything on Trump.
All the other traps have sprung and come up empty. That's the only one left.
(04-05-2018, 10:46 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]Yeppers.
No one should voluntarily talk with a policeman or prosecutor until forced by law to do so, and then only with a lawyer present. People have been charged with lying in these cases and fined or jailed in spite of have committing no other crime. Flynn is the latest, but also Scooter Libby, Martha Stewart, and Ray Lewis committed no other crime than lying, and even that is questionable in the cases of Libby and Stewart, both of who got jail time. And those are only the ones we read about, there are probably thousands more who didn't make the national news.
I wouldn't say never but I suppose it's a good rule of thumb. As much as Mueller would suggest otherwise, proportion to the amount the police are lied to, the police don't often make arrests based on inconsistent testimony. Inconsistent testimony isn't the same as lying. The Feds make these case because the subjects are sworn in and they're usually parts of bigger cases. I've actually had many situations where someone didn't want to talk initially, and there was enough evidence to charge them. But after they talked about what happened, they actually helped themselves.
Mueller, however, has made a career on questionable tactics. If Trump talks to Mueller, this will be General Flynn all over again. If Comey and McCabe don't think Flynn lied to them, but Mueller was willing to charge him anyway, it should show you the depth he's willing to go to make a case. Mueller isn't the stand-up guy the media would have everyone believe.
He's the same guy that wiretapped someone and sent him into a defendant's attorney's office to intentionally provide misleading information on the stand, so that the attorney would be tempted to conspire to perjure. That kind of thinking is only present in dirty cops. So, no, I'm with you... he shouldn't talk to Mueller.
Go Trump say you will and then stonewall Muller
Why not everybody else stonewalls when is in their best interest
Mueller is garbage. I hope he enjoys his 15 minutes of meaningless fame in the annals of American history
(04-05-2018, 09:50 AM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Since Mueller has admitted he's not the focus of any criminal investigation, the only chance to catch him on anything at all is on inconsistent statements.
First off, "at this time". Second, impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. I'm not saying I think that's where he is, not that I would agree if he was, but one need not be found guilty in a court of law to be politely told to get out of the Oval Office.
(04-05-2018, 07:37 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (04-05-2018, 09:50 AM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Since Mueller has admitted he's not the focus of any criminal investigation, the only chance to catch him on anything at all is on inconsistent statements.
First off, "at this time". Second, impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. I'm not saying I think that's where he is, not that I would agree if he was, but one need not be found guilty in a court of law to be politely told to get out of the Oval Office.
He isn't "at this time" because there's been no evidence presented to suggest otherwise.
If we get to the point where we're impeaching the sitting President because we don't like him, and that's essentially what it would be about now, then enjoy seeing impeachments happen every other President. If you're impeaching for not committing a crime, then you're opening Pandora's box.
(04-05-2018, 08:43 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (04-05-2018, 07:37 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]First off, "at this time". Second, impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. I'm not saying I think that's where he is, not that I would agree if he was, but one need not be found guilty in a court of law to be politely told to get out of the Oval Office.
He isn't "at this time" because there's been no evidence presented to suggest otherwise.
If we get to the point where we're impeaching the sitting President because we don't like him, and that's essentially what it would be about now, then enjoy seeing impeachments happen every other President. If you're impeaching for not committing a crime, then you're opening Pandora's box.
I kind of agree with both of you.
I would add, impeachment is a high bar to clear, because any representative who votes to impeach would have to face the voters, the same ones who voted the President into office in the first place. And nothing would fire up a President's supporters as much as the congress overturning the will of the people by ejecting from office the President they elected.
And the really high bar to clear is conviction, because that requires 67 votes in the Senate, which would be almost impossible if there was no significant crime.
There would have to be widespread, overwhelming support among the voting public for any impeachment and conviction to succeed. Last I saw, Trump was around a 44% approval rating. I would guess it would have to drop to around 25% for any impeachment movement to get any traction at all.
That's why only two Presidents have been impeached in our entire history, and none have been convicted and ejected from office. Clinton was impeached, but the vote in the Senate on conviction wasn't even close. Interesting factoid- Andrew Johnson avoided conviction when a senator who was in the hospital was carried in on a stretcher and voted to acquit.
(04-07-2018, 06:58 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (04-05-2018, 08:43 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]He isn't "at this time" because there's been no evidence presented to suggest otherwise.
If we get to the point where we're impeaching the sitting President because we don't like him, and that's essentially what it would be about now, then enjoy seeing impeachments happen every other President. If you're impeaching for not committing a crime, then you're opening Pandora's box.
I kind of agree with both of you.
I would add, impeachment is a high bar to clear, because any representative who votes to impeach would have to face the voters, the same ones who voted the President into office in the first place. And nothing would fire up a President's supporters as much as the congress overturning the will of the people by ejecting from office the President they elected.
And the really high bar to clear is conviction, because that requires 67 votes in the Senate, which would be almost impossible if there was no significant crime.
There would have to be widespread, overwhelming support among the voting public for any impeachment and conviction to succeed. Last I saw, Trump was around a 44% approval rating. I would guess it would have to drop to around 25% for any impeachment movement to get any traction at all.
That's why only two Presidents have been impeached in our entire history, and none have been convicted and ejected from office. Clinton was impeached, but the vote in the Senate on conviction wasn't even close. Interesting factoid- Andrew Johnson avoided conviction when a senator who was in the hospital was carried in on a stretcher and voted to acquit.
Trump was at 51% as of Thursday's data dump. America seems to like what he's doing more and more. Mostly that's because the Loony 12% of the far Left are busy showing everyone why they are both humorous and dangerous.
(04-07-2018, 06:58 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (04-05-2018, 08:43 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]He isn't "at this time" because there's been no evidence presented to suggest otherwise.
If we get to the point where we're impeaching the sitting President because we don't like him, and that's essentially what it would be about now, then enjoy seeing impeachments happen every other President. If you're impeaching for not committing a crime, then you're opening Pandora's box.
I kind of agree with both of you.
I would add, impeachment is a high bar to clear, because any representative who votes to impeach would have to face the voters, the same ones who voted the President into office in the first place. And nothing would fire up a President's supporters as much as the congress overturning the will of the people by ejecting from office the President they elected.
And the really high bar to clear is conviction, because that requires 67 votes in the Senate, which would be almost impossible if there was no significant crime.
There would have to be widespread, overwhelming support among the voting public for any impeachment and conviction to succeed. Last I saw, Trump was around a 44% approval rating. I would guess it would have to drop to around 25% for any impeachment movement to get any traction at all.
That's why only two Presidents have been impeached in our entire history, and none have been convicted and ejected from office. Clinton was impeached, but the vote in the Senate on conviction wasn't even close. Interesting factoid- Andrew Johnson avoided conviction when a senator who was in the hospital was carried in on a stretcher and voted to acquit.
I doubt Trump gets impeached, and definitely not convicted by the Senate, unless Mueller comes up with a bombshell too big to ignore. Anything that big would probably result in his resignation. Given the success of the fake news hysteria campaign and the discrediting of Mueller, removing him from office would tear this country apart and, even worse, give us President Pence.
(04-07-2018, 04:44 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (04-07-2018, 06:58 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I kind of agree with both of you.
I would add, impeachment is a high bar to clear, because any representative who votes to impeach would have to face the voters, the same ones who voted the President into office in the first place. And nothing would fire up a President's supporters as much as the congress overturning the will of the people by ejecting from office the President they elected.
And the really high bar to clear is conviction, because that requires 67 votes in the Senate, which would be almost impossible if there was no significant crime.
There would have to be widespread, overwhelming support among the voting public for any impeachment and conviction to succeed. Last I saw, Trump was around a 44% approval rating. I would guess it would have to drop to around 25% for any impeachment movement to get any traction at all.
That's why only two Presidents have been impeached in our entire history, and none have been convicted and ejected from office. Clinton was impeached, but the vote in the Senate on conviction wasn't even close. Interesting factoid- Andrew Johnson avoided conviction when a senator who was in the hospital was carried in on a stretcher and voted to acquit.
Trump was at 51% as of Thursday's data dump. America seems to like what he's doing more and more. Mostly that's because the Loony 12% of the far Left are busy showing everyone why they are both humorous and dangerous.
It's amazing what lifting your leg on the people who elected you will do for your Q score, am I right?
(04-09-2018, 10:27 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (04-07-2018, 04:44 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Trump was at 51% as of Thursday's data dump. America seems to like what he's doing more and more. Mostly that's because the Loony 12% of the far Left are busy showing everyone why they are both humorous and dangerous.
It's amazing what lifting your leg on the people who elected you will do for your Q score, am I right?
Still haven't had that TDS looked at, hmm?
Let's impeach a guy who's policies are improving the lives of millions.
Wonderful idea!
(04-10-2018, 12:32 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Let's impeach a guy who's policies are improving the lives of millions.
Wonderful idea!
Remember their platform slogan, "you didn't build that" and their strategy to "spread the wealth around." Neither is necessary if the public is independent and by extension they aren't necessary either. Can't have that, no sirree.
If the newest raid on Cohen’s office doesn’t clearly show Mueller’s end-game is a conviction for any possible crime, then you aren’t looking closely enough. It also seems obvious that he doesn’t have a lick of evidence for collusion if he’s now looking into campaign contributions.
There’s no way you go this deep into Trump and not get led into other candidates. Someone (probably Stormy’s attorney) referred information to Mueller so that they could pursue it. Is that all it takes to get Mueller to look in that direction? And do we really believe that others haven’t led him to Clinton’s and others?
This is absurd.
(04-10-2018, 06:45 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]If the newest raid on Cohen’s office doesn’t clearly show Mueller’s end-game is a conviction for any possible crime, then you aren’t looking closely enough. It also seems obvious that he doesn’t have a lick of evidence for collusion if he’s now looking into campaign contributions.
There’s no way you go this deep into Trump and not get led into other candidates. Someone (probably Stormy’s attorney) referred information to Mueller so that they could pursue it. Is that all it takes to get Mueller to look in that direction? And do we really believe that others haven’t led him to Clinton’s and others?
This is absurd.
I think you misunderstand Mueller's involvement in this FBI raid on Cohen's office.
The FBI raid on Cohen's office has nothing to do with the Mueller investigation, except that Mueller apparently uncovered something. He was then required by law to go to Rod Rosenstein with it, and Rosenstein would have referred it to the local US Attorney's office. At this point, Mueller is out of it. It will all be handled by the US Attorney's office.
In fact, the US Attorney who authorized the FBI raid is a Trump appointee who donated to the Trump campaign.
(04-10-2018, 08:55 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (04-10-2018, 06:45 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]If the newest raid on Cohen’s office doesn’t clearly show Mueller’s end-game is a conviction for any possible crime, then you aren’t looking closely enough. It also seems obvious that he doesn’t have a lick of evidence for collusion if he’s now looking into campaign contributions.
There’s no way you go this deep into Trump and not get led into other candidates. Someone (probably Stormy’s attorney) referred information to Mueller so that they could pursue it. Is that all it takes to get Mueller to look in that direction? And do we really believe that others haven’t led him to Clinton’s and others?
This is absurd.
I think you misunderstand Mueller's involvement in this FBI raid on Cohen's office.
The FBI raid on Cohen's office has nothing to do with the Mueller investigation, except that Mueller apparently uncovered something. He was then required by law to go to Rod Rosenstein with it, and Rosenstein would have referred it to the local US Attorney's office. At this point, Mueller is out of it. It will all be handled by the US Attorney's office.
In fact, the US Attorney who authorized the FBI raid is a Trump appointee who donated to the Trump campaign.
It would be extremely naive to believe this isn't Mueller driven. When is the last time we've seen the FBI react to anything so swiftly? This has Muellers fingerprints all over it and an attempt to dig for campaign finance details with zero regard to collusion. This is a witch hunt for any charges possible as we've seen in the other indictments.