Mueller seeks to question Trump about Flynn and Comey departures

Trump is under no obligation at talk to Mueller. End of story. He might have an off the record conversation or send him a letter, but that is as far as it should go.

You don't get to question your boss, do you?

Yes and no. Trump and his lawyer already said they would talk to Mueller. Maybe Trump faces no legal jeopardy by changing his mind, but his lawyer may not get off so easy. Trump is allowed to lie, lawyers aren't.
 
Mueller seeks to question Trump about Flynn and Comey departures


Trump talking under oath, what could possibly go wrong?

"Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is seeking to question President Trump in the coming weeks about his decisions to oust national security adviser Michael Flynn and FBI Director James B. Comey, according to two people familiar with his plans.

Mueller’s interest in the events that led Trump to push out Flynn and Comey indicates that his investigation is intensifying its focus on possible efforts by the president or others to obstruct or blunt the special counsel’s probe.

Trump’s attorneys have crafted some negotiating terms for the president’s interview with Mueller’s team, one that could be presented to the special counsel as soon as next week, according to the two people."
I've never expected that we'd be rid of Trump because of this investigation, but it seems even less likely to damage the Oranguton with Mueller not being interested in what Trump knew, and when he knew it, of Russia-Campaign connections. A president can hire and fire , at will within the Executive branch, subject to congressional confirmations. Unless there's some proof Trump was covering up something that could be seen as a crime, there's nothing here. Without some coverup of something very close to a direct quid pro quo with Russia, this won't hurt him at all.
 
I've never expected that we'd be rid of Trump because of this investigation, but it seems even less likely to damage the Oranguton with Mueller not being interested in what Trump knew, and when he knew it, of Russia-Campaign connections. A president can hire and fire , at will within the Executive branch, subject to congressional confirmations. Unless there's some proof Trump was covering up something that could be seen as a crime, there's nothing here. Without some coverup of something very close to a direct quid pro quo with Russia, this won't hurt him at all.

Maybe you haven't been following the news. It seems Trump fired Comey over the Russian thing, like he told Lester Holt. Now we find Trump had Sessions pressure Raymond Wray to fire Andrew McCabe
 
I've never expected that we'd be rid of Trump because of this investigation, but it seems even less likely to damage the Oranguton with Mueller not being interested in what Trump knew, and when he knew it, of Russia-Campaign connections. A president can hire and fire , at will within the Executive branch, subject to congressional confirmations. Unless there's some proof Trump was covering up something that could be seen as a crime, there's nothing here. Without some coverup of something very close to a direct quid pro quo with Russia, this won't hurt him at all.

Maybe you haven't been following the news. It seems Trump fired Comey over the Russian thing, like he told Lester Holt. Now we find Trump had Sessions pressure Raymond Wray to fire Andrew McCabe
Yeah, but if there's no crime implicating Trump's campaign in a quid pro quo with Russia, Trump didn't do anything wrong in firing Comey. It's illegal to cover up a crime, but it's not illegal to fire an FBI director over directing an investigation.
 
The USSC already ruled 9-0 that a sitting president has to answer a subpoena.

No they didn't and a president can ignore a supreme Court ruling.

.

Clinton v. Jones - Wikipedia

Both parties appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which ruled in favor of Jones, finding that "the President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 
[QUOTE="bendog, post: 19136841, member: 42949
Yeah, but if there's no crime implicating Trump's campaign in a quid pro quo with Russia, Trump didn't do anything wrong in firing Comey. It's illegal to cover up a crime, but it's not illegal to fire an FBI director over directing an investigation.[/QUOTE]

The problem is that Trump can fire anybody for no reason at all. But it's illegal to fire them for an illegal reason. Had Trump kept his mouth shut, instead of telling Lester Holt why he fired Comey, there wouldn't be a problem.
 
The USSC already ruled 9-0 that a sitting president has to answer a subpoena.

No they didn't and a president can ignore a supreme Court ruling.

.

Clinton v. Jones - Wikipedia

Both parties appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which ruled in favor of Jones, finding that "the President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]




It was a civil case with Paula Jones, nothing to do with kennth start
 
[QUOTE="bendog, post: 19136841, member: 42949
Yeah, but if there's no crime implicating Trump's campaign in a quid pro quo with Russia, Trump didn't do anything wrong in firing Comey. It's illegal to cover up a crime, but it's not illegal to fire an FBI director over directing an investigation.

The problem is that Trump can fire anybody for no reason at all. But it's illegal to fire them for an illegal reason. Had Trump kept his mouth shut, instead of telling Lester Holt why he fired Comey, there wouldn't be a problem.[/QUOTE]
Well, if there's nothing to the Russia investigation, Trump didn't do anything wrong in firing him for pursuing the Russia investigation.

Hey it may be that Flynn or Papadopolus told Mueller that Trump told him to sell Crimea in exchange for dirt on Hillary. If so, we do have a constitutional crisis. The gop won't impeach him, but unless one is blindly partisan, they have to admit the election, while legal, was not a legitimate election under law. But my guess is that isn't going to be the outcome.
 
Mueller seeks to question Trump about Flynn and Comey departures


Trump talking under oath, what could possibly go wrong?

"Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is seeking to question President Trump in the coming weeks about his decisions to oust national security adviser Michael Flynn and FBI Director James B. Comey, according to two people familiar with his plans.

Mueller’s interest in the events that led Trump to push out Flynn and Comey indicates that his investigation is intensifying its focus on possible efforts by the president or others to obstruct or blunt the special counsel’s probe.

Trump’s attorneys have crafted some negotiating terms for the president’s interview with Mueller’s team, one that could be presented to the special counsel as soon as next week, according to the two people."
Do you know how many times Trump has had to prepare for, and give testimony? I think it's safe to say Trump will not be caught off guard.

This will likely go nowhere, if it even happens at all.
 
If I were Trump, I'd tell Mueller to get fucked. He's under ZERO obligation to talk to him.

So much for 'full cooperation' and 'nothing to hide'.

Though the Trump Team kinda blew that standard when they instructed Bannon not to answer questions for the House Intel committee.

Trump and his ilk blinked. They're circling the wagons.

Or more accurately, circling the bowl.
 

Forum List

Back
Top