Tuesday, February 06, 2018

Trump's lawyers reportedly want him to refuse an interview with special counsel Robert Mueller

Trump's lawyers reportedly want him to refuse an interview with special counsel Robert Mueller

Needless to say. They graduated from law school, so they can't be complete morons.

(1) They know that Mueller is going to ask questions that he already knows the answer to, in order to test whether Trump will perjure himself.

(2) Trump has serious legal problems with the Comey firing (he basically confessed to obstruction in his Holt interview and his meeting with the Russians), as well as with his participation in the cover-up of the Trump Tower meeting (several people have told the press that Trump personally made the decision to lie publicly about the purpose of the meeting). And those are just the things Mueller can prove beyond doubt. There's also Comey's contention that Trump asked him to drop the Flynn investigation, which is supported by memos and conversations Comey had in the aftermath. That still just comes down to Comey's word against Trump's, but ... can Trump be trusted to navigate that under oath?

(3) Therefore, given Trump's nature, he probably will perjure himself.

So, yeah, any lawyer should advise him to refuse. I don't think Mueller, a very prudent man by all accounts, will risk either a constitutional crisis or the possibility of having a subpoena quashed by the Supreme Court, so a Trump refusal will probably mean that he'll never have to discuss the matter under oath.

But at least a minor crisis will ensue nonetheless.

Here's why:

Trump's lawyers can't tell Trump the truth about why they don't want him to testify. ("You're the guy who claimed the largest inauguration crowds and the most-watched SOTU address. We don't think you can go two sentences without lying.") Therefore they will have to give him a bullshit reason for refusing, and that reason, because it will be obviously disingenuous, will just end up reverberating through the media cycles when Trump proclaims it, probably through Twitter.

What public reason will they give? They've already floated "Mueller doesn't have sufficient stature," but I don't think they'll go with that one. Will it be the tried-and-true "witch hunt"? Stay tuned.





23 comments:

  1. I don't think mueller will give him a pass. If he'll do that there's no point in investigating at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even Clinton had to testify.

      Delete
  2. And all this proves collusion with the Russians? Obstruction and perjury prove there was no case. Question: what did Martha Stewart go to jail for? Insider Trading or...

    Good God. If anyone believes there's really a Trump/Russia collusion thing you're ridiculous. There's more Hillary/Russia than Trump. The same press that produced the Post is the same press that believes the Benghazi YouTube video. Wear a jersey and wipe the chin.

    Clowns to the left and jokers to the right...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And Al Capone went to Jail for tax evasion.
      Guess that means there was no case against him for bootlegging and the other parts of his criminal enterprise...
      A good prosecutor will go for what they feel can be easily proven in court.
      That is why someone who killed a single person may be charged with 1st and 2nd degree murder and manslaughter.

      Delete
    2. Meeting with the Russians to get dirt on Hillary is collusion. Helping Junior write a memo to lie about it is probably fraud and/or perjury.

      He can - and probably will - chant "no collusion" til he starts foaming at the mouth and falling over backwards. Doesn't make it so.

      I mean, shave a nut and open an Amway franchise, the real question is what happens when Mueller nails his ass. And will it be televised. Because you know Little Donnie won't be smart enough to resign like Nixon.

      Delete
    3. You know that Trump Jr already confessed to colluding with the Russians, right? That would be conspiracy to violate the election laws. I don't see any way he can stay out of the slammer for taking that meeting with the intention of getting dirt on Hillary from people who purported to represent Russia's efforts to support Trump.

      As far as Hillary goes, the Russians were desperate to keep her from being elected, so I reckon there was no co-operation there at all.

      I suppose you were talking about Uranium One, which is a completely false story from top to bottom. Not a word of truth to it. And it doesn't even make any sense.

      http://www.othercrap.com/2017/10/the-hillary-clinton-russia-uranium-one.html#more

      Delete
    4. He also might be trying to refer to the idea that since a Clinton campaign hired law firm hired Fusion GPS to do oppo research, which then hired Steele, who then went to where the dirt was (or supposedly was) in Russia, that the Clinton's colluded with the Russians.

      Which if you believe that, then you should also have no problems believing that Trump colluded considering his campaign directly hired a staffer who went to Russia looking for help from government officials.

      Delete
    5. Is collusion with Russia (or Russians) a crime? I would have thought there would have had to have been a quid-pro-quo. I'm sure foreign leaders share other things with other leaders and campaigns all the time.

      In this case, the alleged quid pro quo is that Putin/Russia agreed to help Trump if Trump agreed to repeal/not enforce the Magnitsky Act.

      The Trump Administration isn't enforcing the new sanctions imposed on Russia, but I don't know if that's part of the Magnitsky Act.

      Delete
    6. The GOP completely reversing their policies regarding Russia right after the meeting suggests a bit of quid pro qou.

      Delete
  3. Watching this from the safe confines of Australia... how does an obvious liar, cheat and perjerer (?) get to run what is ostensibly, the greatest/richest nation in the world. A nation that calls itself "America" when it is just part of that continent, not the continent itself. Why is it, that despite the obvious truth that all can see, and are too ready to call out other nations on their ineptitude towards stamping out corruption (see Russia et al), they let this buffoon lead them. It says more than you are willing to say, that the peoples ambition for their own 15 minutes of fame, and the glorification of those that achieve some form of celebrity (witness many z list celebrities and the desire for fame at any cost - leaking of selfies, and the mock horror following the leak) that you will endorse not only "The Donald" who surrounds himself with sycophants, but your next best choice is Oprah!

    I know we don't live in the ideal world, but surely, the greatest democracy in the world can fix this and do better?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think there are a number of things here.

      1.From the opinion polls that came out during the Oprah boomlet, she was still only at around 20% among Democrats, so most Democrats realized that 'celebrity' is not the best alternative. The claims otherwise were media hype.

      It's important to remember that most of the time mainstream U.S media doesn't reflect the actual United States, but a sensationalized funhouse mirror version of it.

      In regards to Trump, there are a number of issues there. I think you have to separate the Trump voters into various factions.

      About 12 million people voted for Trump in the primaries. However, in some of the Republican primaries registered independents couldn't vote, some of the elections were caucuses which have a much lower turnout and not primaries and Trump was the only candidate still running with nine primaries to go.

      So, had everybody who supported Trump personally gotten a chance to vote for him in the primaries, my guess is he would have received about 20 million votes.

      Those are the idiot hardcore Trump supporters. Not naming names, but some of them regularly post here.

      Delete
    2. 3.The analysis of these hardcore Trump voters after the election was that most of them were poorer whites voting on mostly economic issues, or social issues such as a reaction against liberal 'indentity politics' (while embracing their own identity politics.) I don't doubt this is true, but it seems increasingly there is a larger component to it.

      4.The rest of the voters fit into two camps I think: regular Republican voters and those for whom the bargain is "I don't care how crazy Trump is, as long as I get my taxes cut."

      For the regular Republican voter, many of them are Republicans because they believe in a sense of order and following orders, or staying in line. So, to them, they voted for Trump simply because he was the Republican nominee. In regards to Trump being unfit for office, I don't know the psychological term for it, but I think many were simply in denial as to how bad he was.

      I don't think more needs to be said about the Trump supporters who voted for him hoping for (and receiving) a financial benefit.

      Delete
    3. 5.Finally, in regards to the hardcore idiot Trump supporter, there are a few things:
      A.This isn't just a U.S phenomenon
      B.It includes many of the regular Republican voters not just the hardcore idiot Trump supporters.

      I don't pretend to fully understand this, but there is clearly a phenomena of a few things going on here. It may have started with global warming denialist arguments put out by the fossil fuel industry, but it seems to have morphed into a desire to deny 'experts' everywhere, and to want to stick a needle in their eye.

      Now, these people have taken it, ALA Alex Jones, into a full blown conspiracy where those who believe expert opinion are falling for 'fake news' and those who believe Alex Jones are actually the smart ones who know that those who listen to expert opinion are actually the ones being duped.

      This simply doesn't fit into my worldview or education, so I can't begin to comprehend it, but I know that believing all these people are 'idiots' as I call them, or simply irrational is an oversimplification of them. I don't know what else to make of them though.

      Delete
    4. Interesting thoughts from down under. When Trump first ran for the Republican nomination 5 years ago, most of us saw that as a crazy celebrity looking for attention. What changed here was the next 4 years of Obama's presidency. You see, a lot of our country has strong family values, and Obama and the democrats have strayed far from that belief. These elitists preach how we should give, give, and give some more to the poor Sudanese people coming to our country via a random lottery system in which they can bring not just their children and spouses, but parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. While the rich democrat celebrities like Madonna live in gated mansions, they tell us we don't need a border fence with Mexico. The hypocrisy is astounding! Ask the family of the NFL football player who was killed two days ago. He was run down by a drunk illegal immigrant who had been deported twice. Illegal immigration is a huge problem in the U.S., and that was one of Trump's main platforms when he ran for president this time. And that's when many of us got on board.

      Under democratic leadership, our national deficit increased to over $20 trillion, while we taxed our corporations into oblivion to pay for handouts. Obama actually created a system where it was more beneficial for "certain" people here to not work, and live off the backs of the working folk. He encouraged a politically correct society, which did nothing but create more divisions between groups of people. The left wants to control how we think, talk, act...and their mindless followers seem to prefer it that way. However, the other half of the country likes to think for themselves, have less government interference, and receive more pay for an honest day's work.

      If you read or watch the typical American news media, they clearly have an agenda, so don't expect to see anything positive on Trump. Hell, I'll even admit that he's a pompous ass most (ok, all) of the time. But we didn't elect him for his personality. We elected him because this country needs to get back on track, and it takes a Republican president get serious shit done. Trump was, and is, our best option.

      And not to mention, all of the corruption under the Obama administration would have been swept under the rug if Hillary had won. In fact, it is the ridiculous Russia-Trump conspiracy theory floated by the democrats, that has led to the uncovering of...wait for it...a Justice Department conspiracy involving the democrats!

      Delete
    5. Yes, AndyB was one of those idiot Trump supporters I was referring to, as you can clearly see for yourself.

      Delete
    6. Said the poster who calls anybody who disagrees with him an idiot... nuff said.

      Delete
    7. Perhaps Adam T didn't need to call him an idiot, but it's pretty astounding that literally every single statement made by AndyB is inaccurate (or misleading at best). This one almost made me fall out of my chair:

      "The left wants to control how we think, talk, act...and their mindless followers seem to prefer it that way. However, the other half of the country likes to think for themselves..."

      Oh, the irony!

      Delete
    8. People who continue to believe and parrot complete falsehoods earn the title of idiot. The word is applicable, even if you whine.

      Delete
    9. The Gent, I've disagreed with Scoopy a number of times, which I think he would attest to, but I've never called him an idiot, and I don't think he's an idiot.

      I call people who are idiots, 'idiots.' As the line goes "stupid is as stupid does."

      Delete
  4. Adamt nailed it with one omission: the vast majority of rank and file republicans who voted for him didnt do so over taxes. They were convinced hillary was the antichrist. It was stop hillary at all costs. I know, I'm related to dozens of them. Especially the evangelical. They allowed him to be a monster because "well, at least he's not Hillary"

    ReplyDelete
  5. You're underselling the liability of Trump here when you refer to his involvement in falsifying "the purpose of" of his son's June, 2016 meeting with foreign nationals. It's falsifying "the result of" that meeting that I think is the more serious potential offence. There's wiggle room to suggest the possibility of other "purposes" for that meeting. But there's no escaping the fact that the Russians passed to Trump Jr. oral and documentary evidence of a felony having been committed (i.e., campaign funds having been paid to the Clinton campaign and the DNC) and Trump stated just the opposite of this, claiming that the Russians provided none of the incriminating evidence that they said they possessed. Inconveniently for the Trumps, Don's lawyer, Futerfas, released a statement saying that the evidence WAS provided. And apparently destroyed and clearly concealed by Trump Jr. Mr Akmetshin who attended the meeting has publicly stated the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is collusion a crime someone asks above? No, clearly not. No one is claiming that it is. After all, the Obama campaign colluded very publicly with the German government during the 2008 election campaign in arranging all the logistics and permissions needed to provide Obama the opportunity to give a campaign speech in the Tiergarten in Berlin. Is that a problem? Nope. And Russian attempts to aid the Trump campaign publicly or privately are interesting, yes, but not illegal unless something of value, probably money, was solicited by the Trump campaign or provided by the Russians. If that happened then we are into serious criminal liability territory.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here’s the issue I see... Telling Trump not to do something is considered a challenge by him. He can’t be told what to do. He’s like a toddler and as such he will want to testify because A) “You can’t tell me what to do, I’m Trump,” and B) He believes he’s smarter by hen everyone so he thinks he’ll sail right through questioning, and C) He doesn’t think he did anything wrong.

    ReplyDelete