Trump Offers To Meet With Mueller, But Is It Too Late For Damage Control?

440px-Director_Robert_S._Mueller-_III-1donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedBelow is my column in The Hill newspaper on the effort of the Trump legal team to reach deal to have the President sit down with the Special Counsel in exchange for certain conditions or concessions.  The problem is a matter of timing.  As has been a repeated problem, the Trump team seems a couple steps behind the unfolding controversy.

Here is the column:

Former White House counsel John Dean famously told Richard Nixon that there was a “cancer on the presidency.” That cancer ultimately claimed not only Dean (who pleaded guilty to a felony) but 69 government officials who were charged (with 48 found guilty) on Watergate-related crimes. Most notably, it led to Nixon’s resignation in disgrace.

It all began as a small bungled burglary at the Watergate that led to the discovery of slush funds, dirty-trick political operations and cover-ups. It is a cautionary tale for any White House: The real danger of a scandal is not the discovery of the primary cancer but the risk of metastasis, or spreading of a cancer to all parts of a body.

The key in medicine and the law is to act before a cancer spreads to unknown parts. This could be the objective behind a reported offer of the Trump legal team of a “deal” with special counsel Robert Mueller. With new allegations mounting against the president, the team is reportedly seeking a closure of the investigation in return for an interview. The question is whether this offer is too late and too limited to deal with the threat.Metastasis occurs when cancer cells break away from a primary cancer and travel through the blood or lymph system in other parts of the body to form new cancers. The irony in Trump’s case is that the original investigation began with an allegation that he or his campaign colluded with the Russians to interfere with the 2016 elections. I have previously expressed my skepticism that a criminal case against Trump could be made on such collusion on the currently available evidence.

However, the mandate given to Mueller is a virtual pathway for metastasis. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein mandated that Mueller may investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” In addition, Mueller is allowed to investigate “any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) — including perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence and intimidation of witnesses.” Finally, he is allowed to investigate “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” That is a mandate that can easily take the investigation to any part of the Trump business, legal and political dealings.

If Trump were to agree to such a sit-down, it would have been smarter to do so many months ago before new allegations emerged. That is how you confine a cancer — with early and overwhelming action. With every month, however, the potential list of topics for an interview (and the evidence gathered) expanded exponentially, from secured loans to strippers to the Seychelles. On the available evidence, a properly prepared Trump could do an interview of collusion and even obstruction without causing greater harm. It is certainly a risk given the president’s penchant of ill-advised statements. Trump can navigate the obvious risk of false statements in a narrow, well-defined interview, but the scope of the risk is now far broader than it was.

The Stormy Daniels payoff by Trump’s longtime lawyer, Michael Cohen, in an example of the risk of waiting. A narrow scope now depends largely on Mueller’s sense of restraint or propriety. Unlike the unrelated charges against former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, these allegations are directly related to the election and would easily constitute a matter that arose in the course of his investigation. Indeed, the best hope for the White House is that the notoriously buttoned down, patrician Mueller might be repelled by the thought of delving into alleged romps with porn stars and Playboy bunnies.

The Trump team can legitimately demand a list of areas for such an interview in advance under a decision of the D.C. circuit court involving former Agricultural Secretary Michael Espy, who was accused of 30 corruption counts involving gifts and travel under the Clinton administration. Former President Clinton advanced excessive claims of privilege to try to protect himself and his aides from answering questions. He failed spectacularly.

First, the Supreme Court ruled that he had to agree to a deposition in a civil lawsuit by one of the women accusing him of sexual assault. Second, the courts reaffirmed, for both Clinton and Espy, that the limited privilege against answering questions can be overcome with a showing of a legitimate evidentiary need. This is particularly easy to show in a criminal investigation. Moreover, the White House would be hard pressed to argue that dealings on prior business deals or payoffs to porn stars involve core presidential decisionmaking.

However, the courts have applied a balancing test in defining the scope and necessity of questions. That means Mueller must show that he cannot get this information from other sources and that he has well-defined, reasonable areas of inquiries. That can reduce the surprise element but not necessarily the risk. If Mueller were to put Daniels or financial dealings on that list, the interview is less likely to be a cure as opposed to a catalyst for legal risk.

Trump could maintain that he will agree to an interview solely on the original collusion allegations. Mueller then will have to decide whether he wants to pull Trump into court in a subpoena fight over the other topics. The optics could appeal to the White House in reaffirming that the investigation is now far afield from the original mandate and that the president has cooperated in addressing the original allegations of knowledge of Russian hacking or election interference.

That strategy would treat the original cancer over a year after it showed up on X-ray. Even if Mueller agrees to an initial interview on collusion or a narrow category of questioning, it does not mean he cannot demand answers on the remaining areas. Clinton testified at least seven times on different allegations during his presidency.

Whatever deal is struck or rejected, the next step is likely to be the most critical for both Mueller and the White House. In refusing to answer questions categorically, the White House could trigger a court fight that works, ultimately, to the advantage of Mueller. The White House would likely get a list of topics (and limitation of time and topics), but Mueller would likely win on the right to force an interview.

With privilege arguments negated, Trump would be left three choices: invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege (with obvious political risks), refusing to comply (risking an order of contempt), or answering a range of difficult questions (with the risk of false allegations or incriminating statements). There was a time when a limited interview might have sufficed. However, Mueller has metastasized. It now depends on how aggressive he will be, but both the treatment options and the outcomes are becoming more limited.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

113 thoughts on “Trump Offers To Meet With Mueller, But Is It Too Late For Damage Control?”

  1. The current two-party dynamic led to the election of Putin’s president and, the Koch’s V.P.

    Media should run parallel Mueller investigations, borrowing from ALEC’s parallel state governments. Where ALEC’s goal is to supplant democracy and enrich the few, media’s goal could be to strengthen democracy and save economic growth.

    The economics website, The Balance, lists GDP growth by year. Charles Koch (low taxes for the rich, wage suppression and business-run government) praises himself, “We’ve made more progress in the last five years than I had in the previous 50.” GDP growth in his “successful” years languished at an average 2.2% (and, all of the benefits of labor productivity improvement went to the rich). Balance’s charts show years in the past 70, when GDP was double, triple and quadruple the Koch’s “successful” years.

    1. Typical Progressive idiocy. You voted for HRC, the same person for whom voted the Koch Bros, The Bush Krime Syndikat, George Will, John Kasich, Mitt Romney, and Bill Kristol, son of a self-described Bolshevik (the Bolsheviks committed genocide far beyond the Judaic “holocaust”).

      1. Joseph,
        Have you read the reporting about the Kosovo town of Podujevo, which is described as the home of the network behind Trump Supporters 2020, Sean Hannity Fans, Hannity Fans Official, MAGA, etc?
        The explanation for why Assange called Hannity to offer dirt on Mark Warner and, Repubs, then released the Warner text messages – answered.

  2. @KimDotcom sez

    The Deep State Takeover

    CIA now runs State Department

    25% of 2018 Democrat candidates are members of Intel community

    Non-official media assets (paid by CIA) run the fake news media

    Internet private sector under CIA control

    Mueller investigation keeps Trump in line

    Checkmate

      1. Peter Hill – the Deep State has been there since the beginning of the Federal Reserve. It has nothing to do with the experience level of Trump.

        1. ‘Nothing to do with Trump’..?? I’ve been following American politics for since the Nixon era. ‘Deep State’ was never used in reference to the President’s opposition until Trump took office. And if you think the Federal Reserve is part of some Rothchild conspiracy, don’t even respond. I’ve seen those stupid memes.

          1. Peter Hill – I have been following politics since Harry Truman. The Deep State has always been there, it just has a new name.

          2. Peter Hill, the belief in the deep-state conspiracy follows in large part from the conjunction fallacy.
            The probability of events A and B occurring in conjunction with one another is always lower than the probability of event A occurring separately or the probability of event B occurring separately. However, whenever both events A and B can be seen as “representative” of the actions of a large and admittedly powerful organization such the federal government of The United States, the conspiracy theorist will see the conjunction of events A and B as being more probable than the separate, causally-unrelated occurrences of those same events. That is so because of the “representation” that the conspiracy theorist makes in his or her imagination about the large and powerful organization known as the deep state. In its most extreme version pretty much everything that happens makes the deep-state conspiracy seem to become increasingly more probable rather than increasingly less probable. That is known to be mathematically false. But it fits the “representation” that the small and powerless make in their imaginations so well that it becomes an unshakable conviction.

  3. Says Turley, “Mueller has metastasized”. No…metastasis has eaten away GOP conscience and objectivity and a concern for American national sovereignty.

    Russophile Republicans, Nunes and Rohrbacher (friend of the Koch’s legislator, Rep. Garrett) have their agenda. Meanwhile Cotton and Rooney cautiously peek their heads up from under the covers trying to salvage something, who knows what, from the moral abyss of the donor class party.

  4. The question is whether this offer is too late and too limited to deal with the threat.Metastasis occurs when cancer cells break away from a primary cancer and travel through the blood or lymph system in other parts of the body to form new cancers. The irony in Trump’s case is that the original investigation began with an allegation that he or his campaign colluded with the Russians to interfere with the 2016 elections.

    So the body was healthy before the investigation began and the cancer was caused from an external (Mueller) and not an internal (Trump team) source? Nicely done. Isn’t this the form of medicine Josef Mengele practiced? This is what you get when the Federal Bureau of Matters is on the case. We need a second opinion.

    1. “So the body was healthy before the investigation began and the cancer was caused from an external (Mueller) and not an internal (Trump team) source? ”

      Excellent. That was exactly what I was thinking as I read Turley’s piece. A lawyer playing a doctor. Maybe it is time to remove the cancer and remove Mueller. I think that will happen though perhaps be delayed after the next set of elections.

      1. Historically speaking, the firing of one special prosecutor leads to the hiring of another special prosecutor. If firing Mueller leads to the end of the investigation, it will be the first time in our history that that will have happened.

      2. Instead, let’s remove the Koch cancer. Charles Koch announced, “We’ve made more progress in the last 5 years than I had in the previous 50”. Koch “success” is reflected in the 2.2% lackluster, average GDP growth, the replacement of democracy with oligarchy, the most incarcerated population in the world and, labor receiving the lowest share of national income in U.S. recorded history. The Koch’s do Stalin proud.

  5. Fire Mueller, Stroczk, Page, Ohr, et. al save America some money. Ask Session’s to retire, then prosecute them all.

      1. With oligarchs (of America) funding the Repubs., Putin may get the help you reference. Rooney and Cotton haven’t been reminded lately, who butters the Party’s bread.

          1. And Russia’s oligarchs find Republican friends like evangelicals and the NRA, while eliminating their dissidents in the nations of our allies.

  6. Trump has no reason to talk to Mueller. I think it’s a calculated strategy to make the offer publicly and then decline citing irreconcilable differences on the terms. Trump looks good for offering; Mueller gets nothing and looks like he’s dragging his feet. Win-Win.

    1. Right on Mespo. Citizens aside from Hilbot cultists, the MSM / DeepState have long been ready to move on.

  7. If IF if IF if …… conjecture referral is like allegation, purportedly and reportedly Where’s the beef?

    1. Michael, the principle of identity is an if/then statement. The principles of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are utterly dependent upon the principle of identity. There’s not much else in the way of logic without the material implication of the principle of identity.

  8. One would think that it is in the best interests of the United States, the American People, the American Dream, justice, truth, and all; for Trump to reveal absolutely everything, if not publicly then in camera to the investigation. However, we don’t have a system that has the best interests of the above listed entities at heart. We have an oligarchy which has the best interests of a select few and the President at heart, in spite of what was intended by the founding fathers. Trump either opens up, reveals his tax returns, answers all questions or he is guilty and not fit to be in politics, let alone be President. Most Americans know by now that Trump is simply not fit. But, hey, he makes a lot of dupes feel good about America, about themselves. Putin does that too. That’s how an oligarchy works. Keep the mob excited.

    1. Sure but then that would start a parade from the left having to do the same thing and how would that help your socialist cause especially as an outsider?

      1. Michael

        You illustrate what is wrong with this country better than anything else. I advocate complete disclosure at the highest levels and you knee jerk flip it to an us or them routine. Left, right, whatever; Clinton, Trump all of them must be laid out bare. What you keep forgetting, however, is that Clinton is not the leader of the US; Trump is. Those in power must be held responsible for their actions. Those that used to be in power, left or right, can be dragged out and investigated after. It would seem to me that any fool off the street should be able to differentiate this common reality. This country is in dire need of political cleansing across the board. It should, however, start at the top. Then, perhaps the rats below decks will get the message and get the f*#k off the ship.

        1. “This country is in dire need of a political cleansing across the board.”

          What do you think Trump was elected to do? He was elected to change things, to shake up Washington, to drain the swamp. That doesn’t happen in one year or one presidential term. If Trump did things the way his predecessors did, if he ran the White House the way he’s “supposed to,” if he fell in line, then he wouldn’t be doing what he was elected to do would he? He was elected to turn Washington on its head, to do things differently. And we got a wrecking ball when we elected Trump – which is exactly why he was elected.

  9. If you’re going to interview Mr Trump in an effort to get accurate information, you may need to call in a social worker who is trained to inverview five-year olds.

    1. and;for alter ego you aren’t going to get very far because this is exactly the level of most of the left 140 characters of nonsensical playing with their tweeties.

  10. Turley wrote, “This could be the objective behind a reported offer of the Trump legal team of a “deal” with special counsel Robert Mueller. With new allegations mounting against the president, the team is reportedly seeking a closure of the investigation in return for an interview.”

    Surely Turley knows that Trump is no position to negotiate the terms and conditions under which the Special Counsel’s investigation comes to an end. But even more to the point, Mueller knows full well that he gets to decide when and how his investigation comes to an end. Trump is effectively telling Mueller that Trump has something to hide. Trump then offers to be interviewed by Mueller on the condition that Mueller does ask any questions about anything that Trump has to hide. Trump is the worst deal-artist in legal history.

    Turley also wrote, “Unlike the unrelated charges against former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, these allegations are directly related to the election and would easily constitute a matter that arose in the course of his investigation. Indeed, the best hope for the White House is that the notoriously buttoned down, patrician Mueller might be repelled by the thought of delving into alleged romps with porn stars and Playboy bunnies.”

    Paraphrase: Please, Mr. Mueller, be a buttoned-down patrician. Please?

    P. S. The charges against Manafort are unrelated to the election? Says who? The best hope for the White House???

    1. and this although more long winded is even a better example of the intellectual and moral ability of the left. Please go ahead and run your campaigns with this type of stuff going on in the background.

      1. Michael, if “this kind of stuff going on in the background” helps Trump get reelected, then why is Trump so eager for the Special Counsel’s investigation to end?

  11. Mueller now heads a rogue, Democrat aligned, witch-hunt that intends to reverse the 2016 election.

    Rosenstein is not controlling Mueller as he should as Deputy Attorney General. He is part of the Dems conspiracy to overthrow the election. Remember he signed one of the unverified applications for extension of the FISA warrants. He should be suspended and subject to charges.

    Attorney General Sessions should unrecuse himself and end this charade immediately.

    1. If Trump committed the same sort of financial crimes for which Manafort was indicted and to which Gates has pled guilty, then the Russians might have already threatened Trump with exposure of those financial crimes in just such a way as to extort Trump into seeking the Presidency of the United States in the first place. Admittedly, that would not necessarily have required coordinating the activities of the Trump campaign with the Russian information warfare operation. But the possibility of a POTUS acting under duress from the Russians needs to be eliminated before the US elections in 2020. Therefore, the Special Counsel’s investigation must continue apace until it can be ascertained that Trump was not, and is not still, acting under duress from the Russians.

      1. If, may have, possibility, needs to be, therefore ??????/? Now that is WEAK. but it exposes the left quite nicely.

    2. Better for da dems election wise if da porno King is not replaced by Pence. Da women don’t like. Da porn. Stormy helped that Lamb boy last night defeat da candidate T rump campaigned for. Da R was an okay guy no Roy Morre and da porno King came to town and he lost by a tiny bit. So no Pence before da end of da year.

      1. Ken, has Lamb’s opponent (what’s his name) conceded? The last I heard Lamb’s lead was roughly 900 votes with 3,900 absentee ballots not yet counted. OTOH, Lamb’s 900 vote lead was up from a 100 vote lead earlier in the vote counting.

        1. The absentees are down to a few hundred.. The opponent would have to win them all. Could be a recount but lookin pretty damn good for Lamb. All those women had enough of T rump and voted for the lLamb after T rump’s unhinged rally. Maybe he won’t be invited so much.

          1. 3600 absentees a state auto double check count for a 900 margin. Your facts as usual are far far away from reality.

            But Lamb is not a supporter of the left in anycase and probably a political raider given his former Marine status.

            and who would vote for a Democrat based on moral issues given that parties support of sex offender Bill clinton and woman victimizer Hillary cflinton?

            Have to shovel job your own socialist party first to get anywhere with that … PCRap

            I just ran another net check 3600 absentee 900 margin too close to call expecting a recount and the election may havbe to be run over again. but no jamaicans. .

            1. Michael –
              Is everyone who disagrees with you a “socialist”? It seems to be your all-purpose smear.

          2. Going forward, after Lamb’s election, the problem is the lies and distortions of Fox and A.M. talk radio and, the funding resources for paid attack ads against Dems.
            Repubs get away with huge fatal flaws like Trump’s, whereas the Dems can’t afford one blemish. The money spent and the media bias against labor, forces politicians to take up the positions of the donor class.

          1. Lamb is heavily conservative. where you going to go now? Pelosi will straighten him out? Pelosi won’t have anything to say after losing her leadership position and the next election.

            1. If Lamb loses, Trump is vindicated.
              If Lamb wins, Trump is vindicated???
              Either Lamb wins or Lamb loses.
              Either Trump is vindicated or Trump is vindicated???

              1. T rump went in there all puffed about da tariffs and lost to Lamb. Healthcare was da big issue for Indy’s. Trumocare doen’t cut it.

      2. Since when was the left anti porn or pro moral values. Now there is the Mother Trump Syndrome at it’s best.

        1. Since when was the Constitutional center pro-porn and anti-moral values? Trump Dupe Syndrome at the Consitutional center???

    3. that would be easy he’s had practice but replacing him with Trey Gowdy would be even better.

  12. Be very careful, My extended family has many friends that are very upset about a loved one among our extended community of her family.

    Don’t worry about the FBI, CIA, as DOJ I Know has my loved ones Back, God help you if you do not & step in the middle of something you do not fully understand..

        1. Jay S, if guessing is allowed, I’ll guess that Oky1 might be suggesting that someone in the Trump administration is in the Federal Witness Protection Program.

          But wouldn’t Mueller know that?

  13. Trump should simply plead the Fifth on any question not directly related to the original mandate of Mueller.
    If they rule that he must take the Fifth on all questions or no questions, then Trump should negotiate that — I will answer your questions if they concern only inquiries into the campaign itself and after, and if it concerns only questions of collusion or obstruction, otherwise I will take the Fifth on all the questions.

    As to political fallout, Trump will loudly proclaim he was willing to answer any question related to collusion/obstruction, but Mueller refused; that the investigation has turned into a fishing expedition drifting far from the original mandate of why Mueller was appointed.

    That is how he can submit, make conditions, and still look good in the public eye.

    1. So Trump just announces that he has nothing to hide while refusing to answer any of Mueller’s questions to Trump about anything that Trump might have to hide and the special counsel’s investigation comes to a crashing stand still while Trump still looks good in the public eye? Wish fulfillment? Special pleading? Grasping at straws?

        1. Either Mueller decides when to end his investigation or Trump fires Mueller. If Trump fires Mueller, another Special Counsel will be appointed to continue the investigation.

        1. If you want Trump to be treated the way Clinton was treated, then you want Trump to be endlessly investigated.

      1. It is not that he has nothing to hide, it is rather he would refuse to participate in a fishing expedition, where even his innocuous answers could be carefully crafted landmines by Mueller.
        His PR stance would he would be willing to answer any questions that Mueller was originally charted to investigate, he would hammer that point home in his bellicose way and it would be a plausible reason that most people would say is reasonable.

        1. Thanks for answering, Gary. As long as the Special Counsel’s investigation proceeds apace, I have no problem with Trump declining an interview with Mueller. However, if Trump’s offer to give Mueller a list of pre-approved questions that Trump is willing to answer turns out to be a mere ploy to give Trump the PR excuse he feels he needs to fire Mueller and end the investigation, then Trump is just plain flat out wrong. Another Special Counsel would be immediately appointed to replace Mueller, the investigation would continue apace and Trump will eventually, inevitably end up having to answer questions about whatever it is, or might be, that Trump has to hide. Moreover, Trump would probably have to answer those questions in the midst of his reelection campaign in 2020. The best way out for Trump would be that he doesn’t have anything to hide. But who believes that, anymore?

      1. You don’t speak for the public. which curiously enough brings up some latin defintions Public the population republic – for, by, and of the citizens. The system chosen by the founders who rejected democracy.

        1. Michael, I think Smythe511 is on your side of this debate. Smythe511 wants Mueller to end his investigation.

      2. smythe511 said, “. . . [I]t is time to move on. The public is getting tired of it.”

        The public got tired of Hillary Clinton being endlessly investigated. It’s one of the several reasons we ended up with Trump: So that the public would not have to endure Special Counsel investigations and possible impeachment of Hillary Clinton. Given the public’s loss of patience with this investigation, perhaps Trump “never should’ve been allowed to run.”

  14. Mueller does not have a case for collusion, so he is looking for something else. He is a man in search of a crime. I think the President should hold out for videotaped interviews. Never trust the FBI.

    1. The Office of the Special Counsel is investigating the possibility that a crime or crimes may have been committed. It’s so unfair. The OSC is only allowed to investigate crimes that were already known to have been committed and proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of one’s peers. That’s the way Fiske, Starr and Ray conducted their investigations as Independent Counsels. That which is contrary to the truth is the truth where Trump is concerned. That which is contrary to the truth is false where anyone not named Trump is concerned.

      1. I can recommend a good translator that might be able to put all that in some understandable form of standard American English…

    2. Not only does he have no case it’s a ‘so what BFD anyway’ No such crime as collusion. Why they keep going back to that I don’t know you can’t prove something is a crime that isn’t a crime

      1. Conspiracy to coordinate the activities of the Trump campaign with the Russian information warfare operation was too much of mouthful for the talking heads on the TV. So they abbreviated it too collusion. Mueller is not bounded to that usage–no matter how much you subjectively, mystically wish to the contrary.

    3. Paul C. Schulte said, “Never trust the FBI.”

      Paul, unwillingness to trust the FBI is one of the several things that Hillary got wrong. Had she trusted them, they might have been able to prevent the hack of the DNC emails.

          1. You have never contributed to that aspect. It has been a bitchfest since Obama’s election thanks to RWNJ like you.

  15. Every witness that has testified to the Mueller investigators has reported they already had more information than they imagined and were mostly seeking confirmation of what they already knew. Trump drew a red line early and announced his finances were off limits. That obviously hasn’t happened. Turley makes reference to the “available evidence.” I submit there is likely a great difference between what Turley believes that to be and what actually is available to Mueller and his team.

    Trump’s ultimate interview will be a landmine because he is spectacularly unable to tell the truth, often contradicting himself in the same paragraph. Some of his exaggerations may not be criminal, others will make for obvious obstruction and perjury charges. His testimony will likely come after that of Donald Jr, Kushner, and a couple others. Even Trump’s staunch supporters should fear his testimony no matter how few subjects are discussed.

    1. First paragraph was a refreshing change.

      Second was subjective mysticism with nothing to back it up.

      Overall all score?

      Go to a good school for learning American Standard English. Then another for debate.

      1. I’m not debating you, Michael, I just made a statement. I don’t mind debates but honestly, I can’t make sense of what you’re saying much of the time. Maybe there’s a class for that.

        1. Enigma, I could be wrong, but I think Michael believes in a Constitutional right to “stonewall” an investigation depending upon exactly who bought “the rights” to stonewall the investigation.

  16. So Im wondering since Trump has waited so long and missed an opportunity, is there any situation or charges that Trump can be indicted on without an interview? ie money laundering, corruption? Im not quite sure that I understand people stating that a sitting president can not be indicted, Is constitutional law a protection to Trump?
    Thank you

    1. Jackelynn, Turley says a sitting president can be indicted. Some people claim it’s an unsettled question because it hasn’t happened yet. Meanwhile, if Trump committed any of the financial crimes that you mentioned in New York or Florida, then there is nothing to prevent Mueller from making criminal referrals to the State of New York of the State of Florida to indict Trump for those potential crimes. And Trump could not pardon himself for State offenses.

Leave a Reply