Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the leaking of the questions outlined by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for an interview with President Donald Trump. The leak occurred shortly before the resignation of Trump counsel and his replacement with Emmet Flood. The change removed the lawyer who was most eager to cooperate with Mueller to bring an end to the investigation. If the leak was designed to poison the well for an interview, the statements of Trump’s counsel certainly indicated a harder line toward Mueller. Giuliani has stated that Mueller would be given no more than a couple hours on narrow topics — a public statement that could push Mueller toward fulfilling his earlier threat to subpoena Trump. If Trump fights Mueller on the subpoena, he is likely to lose. He could then find himself pulled into a grand jury room without the benefit of counsel (though he could always reverse himself and agreed on a sit down with the Special Counsel).
Here is the column:
The leaking of the dozens of questions for President Trump from special counsel Robert Mueller has launched a Beltway version of a whodunit mystery. It is not clear who would benefit from releasing the questions, either to pressure Trump to sit down or to poison the well for such an interview. The fact is that either could be true. The questions are largely predictable but probative. It could be used to show that there is no ambush to pressure Trump or that the questions are too broad to justify a refusal by Trump. The most devious would be a leak from the Trump team that could be used to cut off an interview on the basis of the leak itself.
Then there are the questions themselves. While most coverage is focusing on the questions dealing with collusion and obstruction questions, those questions, with a couple exceptions, are fairly predictable. Those are not generally the biggest threats for a suspect or a target. The real danger oftens comes from the seemingly innocuous housekeeping questions. One such question is buried in the middle of the list: “When did you become aware of the Trump Tower meeting?” That question could force a dangerous contradiction for Trump if he is the “blocked caller” left unidentified in the recent House Intelligence Committee report.
Before addressing that sleeper question, it is important to put the entire list into perspective. I have previously said that Trump should seriously consider sitting down with Mueller if the special counsel is willing to confine questions to four prior areas negotiated with Trump’s counsel. These questions have not altered that view, as most of these questions come in areas where Trump has extremely strong defenses. In such interviews, you want attacks to come from the front where your armor is strongest. Most of these are frontal attacks that Trump can handle, if he prepares and consults with counsel.
That remains a big “if,” given Trump’s past self-inflicted wounds from off-the-cuff statements and tweets. Worse yet, Trump does not appear to appreciate or at least recognize the criminal allegations raised against him. In yet another ill-advised tweet, Trump said, “It would seem very hard to obstruct justice for a crime that never happened!” Perhaps, but Trump seems intent on showing that it can be done. It is possible for the president to be accused of obstructing justice into an investigation of a crime that did not occur. Obstruction addresses your conduct with regard to the investigation, not the underlying crime.
Trump’s refusal to heed universal legal advice not to discuss the investigation publicly, or to raise it with figures like James Comey, is the very basis for this allegation. In other words, Trump is building a case against himself tweet by tweet. While I continue to question the basis for a criminal charge on this evidence, Trump’s continued failure to recognize the danger of a self-inflicted wound is disconcerting for any lawyer.
It also is true that one question would seem to suggest Mueller has a particularized interest in the conduct of Paul Manafort. The question asks, “What knowledge did Trump have of any outreach by his presidential campaign, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, to Russia about possible assistance to the campaign?” The question is framed as if an attempt by Manafort to get Russian assistance is an established fact. The question clearly contradicts Trump’s tweet that there are “no questions on collusion.”
However, there still remains an absence of a crime raised in that question for Trump and he could likely navigate that line of questions with the assistance of counsel. Moreover, while some questions do deal with Trump business dealings before the election, they notably do not deal with Stormy Daniels and the serious allegations raised by payments made by Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen.
Now to the sleeper question. The recent House Intelligence Committee report was largely well-supported and even included pointed, if somewhat indirect, criticism of Trump’s past statements. However, one element of the minority rebuttal also struck me as equally credible. The Democrats objected that a critical call was never pursued by the majority: Donald Trump Jr.’s phone records show that he received a call from a blocked number between two calls with Emin Agalarov, an Azerbaijani singer and businessman who features greatly in the infamous Trump Tower meeting with Manafort, Jared Kushner and Russians.
Democrats argue that Trump was known to use a blocked number to communicate with his son. The timing of the call strikes me as raising a legitimate question and, absent countervailing facts from the majority, would seem to constitute a glaring omission. It is not clear why the majority did not try to determine the identity of the “blocked caller” with a subpoena. The president and the White House, as well as Trump Jr., have denied that Trump was aware of the meeting.
Mueller likely did not have the same hesitation as the House Intelligence Committee in subpoenaing the identity of the blocked caller. If Trump is the blocked caller, he would have to assume that Mueller already knows the answer to the sleeper question. He would have to admit to the call and either change his position or claim, implausibly, that he and Trump Jr. discussed unrelated subjects.
This is why the greatest danger for Trump lurks not in the sexy questions but in the sleeper questions. This could be a motivation for the leaking of the questions by someone who is unconvinced that Trump could navigate all of these questions without tripping a wire. In the end, “Whodunit?” is less important than “What is to be done?” The president can sit down or bunker down. The problem, however, with a bunker approach is that Mueller does not need much of an opening to pursue Trump. All the special counsel needs is enough to slip a subpoena through.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
“The Danger To Trump Rests In The Sleeper Questions Of The Special Counsel”
________________________________________________________________
The danger to President Trump and to the Constitution rests in the dereliction of Paul Ryan who has not impeached or referred Rosenstein, Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Steele, Simpson, Hillary, Huma, Lynch, Clapper, Power, Farkas, Rice, Obama et al. for abuse of power, corruption, conspiracy, violation of the public trust, subversion, malicious prosecution and multiple other crimes of high office and misdemeanors.
Paul Ryan is complicit in the Obama DOJ/FBI “Deep State” coup d’etat in America.
@George May 3, 2018 at 1:58 PM
“The danger to President Trump and to the Constitution rests in the dereliction of Paul Ryan who has not impeached or referred Rosenstein, Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Steele, Simpson, Hillary, Huma, Lynch, Clapper, Power, Farkas, Rice, Obama et al. for abuse of power, corruption, conspiracy, violation of the public trust, subversion, malicious prosecution and multiple other crimes of high office and misdemeanors.”
Yes, yes, but to be fair, he did fire the House Chaplain for offering intercessory prayers on behalf of America’s poor:
“The truth is as simple and as clear as [House Chaplain] Father Conroy’s prayer that eventually got him fired, when he last fall he implored lawmakers debating the massive tax giveaway to ‘guarantee that there are not winners and losers under new tax laws, but benefits shared by all Americans’ — words that an angry Ryan aide told the priest were ‘too political.’
“Any distraction that exposes the warped tenants of the new creed of 21st-century Republicans — that poor people are lazy schemers undeserving of a break from the government that’s in thrall to hedge-fund billionaires — must be tossed down the memory hole, as quickly as possible.
“Even as he scoots out the door to a cushy life as a millionaire lobbyist, Paul Ryan wants you to forget that he dreamed of slashing Medicaid at his college keg parties and ditched the teachings of the actual Jesus for Ayn Rand’s latter-day church of selfishness, sipping $350 bottles of pinot noir with Rand disciples like hedge-fund billionaire Cliff Asness.”
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/will_bunch/paul-ryan-fires-house-chaplain-policies-hurt-the-poor-20180429.html
You’re quoting a vulgar newspaper columnist being a vulgar newspaper columnist as an authority? Couldn’t you at least get someone who doesn’t write like an adolescent?
@Insufferable May 3, 2018 at 4:04 PM
“You’re quoting a vulgar newspaper columnist being a vulgar newspaper columnist as an authority? Couldn’t you at least get someone who doesn’t write like an adolescent?”
A perfervid Trump apologist accusing someone else of being vulgar and writing like an adolescent?
Have you at last no sense of irony, Sir? Have you at last no sense of irony? 🙂
Turley wrote, “The question is framed as if an attempt by Manafort to get Russian assistance is an established fact. [sentence edited] However, there still remains an absence of a crime raised in that question for Trump and he could likely navigate that line of questions with the assistance of counsel.”
Turley also wrote, “If Trump is the blocked caller, he would have to assume that Mueller already knows the answer to the sleeper question.”
Why not also presume that Mueller might already know the answer to the Manafort question? Since Manafort was in attendance at the Trump Tower meeting, and since Papadopoulos sent emails to Manafort about Russia’s desire for a meeting of one sort or another, why insist that there is an absence of a potential crime in the Manafort question for Trump? Just because Turley doesn’t see the potential criminal implication of the Manafort question doesn’t mean that Trump wouldn’t see the potential criminal implications of the Manafort question.
GIULIANI TO TRUMP’S DEFENSE:
INCREDIBLY TRUMP HAS TO SPIN FOR GIULIANI..!!
I’ve been reading up on the ramifications of Rudy Giuliani’s interviews on behalf of Trump. It appears that Giuliani made not ‘one’ but ‘two’ mistakes. Perhaps Professor Turley will address these missteps tomorrow. For now we have this from Greg Sargent in today’s Washington Post.
“You know it’s gotten bad when the president is required to do damage control for his lawyer, but that’s exactly what happened this morning, when Donald Trump took to Twitter to explain himself, after Rudolph W. Giuliani admitted on Fox News that Trump repaid $130,000 in hush money to Stormy Daniels. In suspiciously non-capitalized prose, Trump (or his ghost-tweeter) basically confirmed the story and said it was no biggie.
But Giuliani’s other admission — delivered during his interview with Sean Hannity on Wednesday night — may be more important and damning. Giuliani conceded in an offhand way that Trump fired FBI Director James B. Comey because Comey failed to do Trump’s bidding and publicly declare that Trump was not under investigation. Here’s what Giuliani said:
“He fired Comey because Comey would not, among other things, say that he wasn’t a target of the investigation,” Giuliani said. “He’s entitled to that. Hillary Clinton got that, and he couldn’t get that. So he fired him, and he said, ‘I’m free of this guy.’”
In saying this, Giuliani appears to have thought that he was exonerating Trump. Giuliani was saying Trump didn’t fire Comey to obstruct the investigation into Trump campaign collusion with Russian sabotage of our election, but rather because Comey didn’t publicly clear him, which Giuliani believes Trump was “entitled to.”
Edited from The Plum Line by Greg Sargent.
Today’s WASHINGTON POST
Great catch, Peter Hill. I doubt that Guliani would have said either of those things anywhere else but on Fox News. They don’t seem to care at all what any other audience might think about whatever they say on Fox. As though legal strategy were somehow irrelevant. And media strategy is all that matters. Curious.
Annie – everyone one has their favorite to drop to. The FBI/DOJ like NYT and WaPo. If the President prefers Fox, big deal.
Paul, Mueller has “deep-state operatives” watching Fox News 24/7. Chances are Avenatti gets intel reports from “NYT and WaPo operatives” watching Fox News 24/7. Whatever Guliani leaks inside the Fox bubble will not stay inside the Fox bubble. Because bubbles are as transparent as glass houses. You can see right through them. You can hear everything they’re saying, too. Just because they’re all shouting at one another doesn’t mean that Fox News is The Cone of Silence.
I do like and adopt some of the legal pundits’ positions that the POTUS does not have to justify in anyway his decision to fire someone under his employ. As the head of that separated power, it is unlimited.
So, for all the questions that are of the “What were you thinking” or “How did you feel” type questions, all he has to do is answer “Because I felt like it”.
That is enough to answer the question, and is all that is needed to justify such decisions.
You realize that your position means that, because the POTUS “is” the law, he is therefore above the law, and cannot be held legally liable for any crime he might commit…. Is that what you believe?
And if this question got to the Supreme Court, and the Court decided against Trump, do you think he could just ignore the ruling?
The POTUS is always above the law when it is a Republican. Nixon rule # !…When the President does it, its not illegal.
Jon says: ” It is not clear why the majority did not try to determine the identity of the “blocked caller” with a subpoena.” Really? I mean, come on. Talk about pre-determined outcome.
Rudy really screwed the pooch last night. Just a preview of things to come. His lawyers probably reasoned: well, if we keep denying Trump knew about it, Cohen’s going down for federal election law felonies for an unreported in-kind contribution. Just the threat of that will make him sing like a canary, and we really, really don’t want that. On the other hand, if we admit Trump knew about it and approved it, well, that’s just another lie on top of literally thousands of others he’s gotten away with, but no felony involved. Anyway, those evangelicals and white supremacists will overlook any lies we tell, and maybe we can spin it with the line that he just wanted to protect Melania’s delicate feelings. The rubes always buy the “family first” line. Anyway, Rudy messed up by claiming that Trump reimbursed Cohen in payments of less than $10K, so the payments wouldn’t get reported to the IRS. Guess what? That’s a crime, too.
I’m beyond the point of asking what it will take.
Cohen’s going down for federal election law felonies f
In your dreams.
One other thing: now they’re saying it was a loan. Federal election law requires reporting loans, too. Still a violation.
Stormy Daniels is not a campaign committee. You’ve been listening to too many imaginative shysters.
The payoff was made to help him in an election. Whether in the form of an in-kind payment, or loan, it is reportable. Failure to do so is a felony.
is it still considered ‘hush’ money if liberals can’t stop talking about it ?
If the story keeps changing, then don’t blame anybody else for talking about the constantly changing story. The latest trial balloon being floated is that the repayments to Cohen were some sort of monthly retainer tacked on to the ordinary fee for service arrangement. Chances are that that story will change tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. When the music stops playing, everyone has to stick with whatever story they get stuck with. Anyone who doesn’t have a story to stick with has to plead The Fifth.
Haha. So Pravda Faux News is now spewing that law enforcement organizations are “liberal?” That’s rich.
This is to “maybe if we keep saying everything is fine, the grand jury won’t indict him” inieagle
TRUMPERS TAKES HEED!
PROFESSOR TURLEY PRESENTS SEVERAL RED FLAGS HERE
Today the Professor validates my reasons for frequenting this blog. Almost every paragraph here has fine legal points not normally found in most newspapers.
The professor notes that Trump has a propensity towards “self-inflicted wounds”. Therefore his legal team knows that Trump would flounder in a deposition. That meeting at Trump Tower, in particular, is an area where Trump would probably veer off the rails. So intriguingly someone on Trump’s legal team “poisoned the well for such an interview”.
Could Rudy Guiliani have been that person? Giuliani, one should note, had just joined Trump’s team before these questions leaked. Perhaps Guiliani thinks Trump can now get better terms regarding a deposition; a narrower set of questions and limited time frame. Nevertheless, the professor feels that Trump Tower meeting is going to be problematic.
The professor concludes by noting Robert Mueller can always subpoena Trump. Once that happens, this showdown is almost certainly heading for the Supreme Court. There Trump will almost certainly lose. The court can’t possibly rule that a sitting president is beyond the law. Clinton haters should note that ‘was’ the basic question during the Clinton impeachment crisis 20 years ago, ‘No sitting president is beyond the law’.
The court can’t possibly rule that a sitting president is beyond the law. C
If they’re serving the institutional interests of lawyers, they cannot possibly. If they have a lick of sense and constitutional principle, they’re not going to rule that Trump takes orders from Mueller. Mueller is an employee.
Mueller is not Trump’s employee. Someone should tell him that.
Yes, he is.
Here’s the distinction you and YOUR President don’t understand: the power to hire and fire might exist, but the head of the DOJ and FBI are employees of the people of the United States. We pay them. The heads of the DOJ and FBI owe duties of loyalty to the citizens of the United States, not the President. If the President breaks the law, the DOJ and FBI have a duty to the citizens of the United States to go after him. Demanding personal loyalty, which to Trump means: “ignore the crimes I committed and exonerate me to my TV audience” is not a valid grounds for removing the head of the FBI or the DOJ. In the face of criminal conduct, removing the head of the FBI because he refused to pledge personal loyalty is obstruction of justice.
Nutchacha the attorney-general and his subordinates work for the president. It’s doesn’t matter what your feelz tell you ought to be.
No, they don’t. Giuliani works for the President. The AG, the DOJ and FBI work for the citizens of the US, who pay their salaries. Their duties are to prosecute law breakers like Trump.
The POTUS also works for the citizens of the US who pay The President’s salary. The POTUS, by extension, has the same duties to serve the interests of justice as do The AG, The DOJ and The FBI. Moreover, The POTUS swears an Oath of Office to preserve, protect and defend The Constitution of The United States. That Oath of Office is literally written in The US Constitution. The POTUS is duty bound to serve the interests of justice.
The only exceptions to the sworn duties of The POTUS are to be found in The Bill of Rights, since The POTUS, too, is a citizen of The United States.
As NII has stated, I’ll lay out the particulars. Mr. Mueller was appointed by the DOJ. The DOJ is part of the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch is headed by the President. The President can fire anyone at anytime. It may not look good, but that’s the way it works.
The Congress and the Judicial Branch are the checks in the system. Congress can impeach. That’s how our Constitution lays it out.
If Trump got impeached and convicted, do you really think he would vacate the office? He might just declare the impeachment to be a “fraud,” to be ignored …..
And if he runs in the next election and demonstrably loses, he might declare the election to be a “fraud,” no doubt due to “millions and millions of Mexicans” bused in from who-knows-where, and somehow allowed to register to vote.
That is quite the scenario. Maybe you think he would be acting like Sec. Clinton who keeps parading around the country complaining about her loss.
Always a possibility, but your dreams are just that, dreams.
You’re hitting on something, Jay. Even if Trump is forcibly removed from office, he will keep spinning conspiracies to whoever will listen. I think Trump will be trouble until he’s either dead or feeble.
If the President fired Comey because he wouldn’t publicly exonerate him, and/or to try to stop the Mueller investigation, that’s obstruction of justice. Trump admitted to Lester Holt that he fired Comey to try to stop the investigation into Russian meddling. Giuliani confirmed that Trump fired him because he wouldn’t publicly exonerate him, and not only that, he believes Trump is entitled to such exoneration. Trump’s in way more trouble than he or his lawyers seem to appreciate. The mere fact that Trump has the authority to fire Comey isn’t the issue. If the reason is to try to prevent the DOJ and FBI from bringing him to justice, that is a crime.
If the President fired Comey because he wouldn’t publicly exonerate him, and/or to try to stop the Mueller investigation, that’s obstruction of justice.
No it isn’t Natacha. Comey was an at will employee and no crime was being investigated.
That aside, Comey was playing a double game, telling the President he wasn’t a subject or target of an investigation and then refusing to make a public statement to this effect.
No, Comey was not an at-will employee, and yes, Russian interference was being investigated. Comey isn’t a prop for the rodeo clown to use to entertain the flock, either.
Sorry Natacha. Pres. Trump can fire any employee in the Executive Branch for any reason. And since you’re using his words from the Lester Holt interview, did you forget he said if anyone did anything wrong it would be a good thing to find out?
And Mr. Comey has certainly shown the country he is a character, maybe not a rodeo clown, but something like a male Sec. Clinton.
Natacha – Comey’s job is at-will. Mueller will never make an employment case out of it. 😉
Natacha said, “If the President fired Comey because he wouldn’t publicly exonerate him, and/or to try to stop the Mueller investigation, that’s obstruction of justice.”
Technically speaking, it appears to be the case that Trump fired Comey for refusing to stop the investigation of Flynn. Trump may have tasked Flynn with providing sanctions relief to Russia. The window of opportunity for sanctions relief was closing as the Russia investigation was picking up steam. Firing Comey may have been a last ditch effort to deliver sanctions relief to Russia in exchange for Russia’s hack and leak operation in support of Trump’s bid for The Presidency. A conspiracy does not have to succeed in every last particular in order to be charged as such. Avoiding obstruction of justice charges may be the least of Trump’s worries.
Again, the court can’t possibly rule that presidents are beyond the law. Such a ruling would be a green light to future rogues in the White House.
PH, Presidents are not beyond the law. But legal proceedings would occur AFTER leaving office.
In the meantime, the POTUS can presumably lie, cheat, steal, self-deal, sell out to any foreign power, and maybe even murder – with no corrective action possible while still in office?
If a President does something nefarious in office, then Congress can impeach. That’s the way it works, Jay S.
I realize you don’t like it, but that’s how the Constitution was written.
Mike, that’s what Bill Clinton was hoping for. The ruling was against him though. And Trump tried for that same deferment with regards to the Trump University suit. The courts ruled against him. Trump then settled out with the plaintiffs.
The Trump University story is pre Presidency. Does not affect his present job. I can’t say for sure, but I’m sure he settled to get it out of the way. And exactly why he wants the Mueller investigation to cease. It causes him to have to spend time away from doing the things he wants to do.
All Trump wants to do is eat fast food while watching Fox News.
You forgot about The Gorilla Channel
DSS – is there a Gorilla Channel?
PH, I thought you were going to retort that he only wants to play golf.
Republicans like it that way.
Mike Peterman believes that the President IS the law, is above the law so long as in office.
Jay S, its not a question of what I believe in, its how our Constitution lays out how situations get handled. The President is the head of the Executive Branch. He can fire anyone in that department. He can demand that any investigation be terminated. He hasn’t done that. All the investigations from the FBI to the Senate and House and now Mr. Mueller’s have been ongoing. The House recently stopped as they claim it stopped being productive due to the overlap with the Mueller investigation. He cannot fire anyone in Congress or the Judiciary. Congress can impeach a President.
That’s how it works.
Patently incorrect. But maybe if you keep repeating it, it will turn true. And if you just click your heels, you’ll be in Kansas.
This is to “just reporting the Pravda Faux News talking points” mikey
Hello Peter
When I was stationed at Ft. Bragg, NC. I went on training exercises with 5th special forces. The Army officer commander was code name “Comanche”. He knew all the Apache interrogation tricks. The one that gets most information is this one.
Strip clothes off of perpetrator, stake to ground near a fire ant nest & put honey & jelly on the private parts. Get lots of information, fast. I’m telling the truth.
@TJ May 3, 2018 at 11:42 AM
“Hello Peter
“When I was stationed at Ft. Bragg, NC. I went on training exercises with 5th special forces. The Army officer commander was code name “Comanche”. He knew all the Apache interrogation tricks. The one that gets most information is this one.
Strip clothes off of perpetrator, stake to ground near a fire ant nest & put honey & jelly on the private parts. Get lots of information, fast. I’m telling the truth.”
Is that interrogation technique in the Army Field Manual?
Ken Rogers – although the Apache used that technique, it was not to get information, it was to torture and kills.
@Paul C Schulte May 4, 2018 at 10:58 PM
“Ken Rogers – although the Apache used that technique, it was not to get information, it was to torture and kill.”
Oh, you mean something like the Cheneybush era CIA torture techniques. Don’t overlook the value of false confessions obtained from torturing suspects, though, which helped to justify to the American public the CIA’s paying two psychologists $80 million for techniques any Egyptian cop would have told them about for 100 bucks.
Oh, you mean something like the Cheneybush era CIA torture techniques.
You can’t stop lying, can you?
@Insufferable May 5, 2018 at 2:21 PM
” ‘Oh, you mean something like the Cheneybush era CIA torture techniques.’
“You can’t stop lying, can you?”
You apparently think that accusing people of habitually lying, as you also have with JT, rather than attempting to correct their expressed perceptions with logic and evidence is a potent rhetorical strategy, Insufferable, but all it actually demonstrates is your own intellectual torpor and/or incompetence.
Thanks for trying to participate in the disussion, though, however feebly.
You lied. If you wish to be treated charitably regarding errors, don’t lie.
PH, our Constitution is pretty clear about how Presidents are to be treated. While in office, he is not subject to court proceedings. That can occur once out of office.
Impeachment and voting are the 2 ways our Constitution allows for removing a President.
In this situation, it would make things ‘look better’ if Pres. Trump cooperated with Mr. Mueller and sat for an interview so that’s the angle they are trying to negotiate. Normally these negotiations are conducted behind the scenes, but of course nowadays, not possible. So we will listen to the back and forth and various media heads give their opinions, each side trying to rile the other side.
Sit back, relax and wait for the dust to settle. In the meantime, you might want to read an article about Mr. Manafort’s legal team claiming that Mr. Mueller couldn’t provide any evidence about colluding with Russia, in a court filing a couple of days ago.
PH, our Constitution is pretty clear about
You’re not getting it. For their ilk ‘the Constitution’ is not a law with semantic content and actual binding provisions. It’s an incantation uttered by appellate judges when delivering to their ilk what they want and declaring ex cathedra that elected officials cannot declare that their ilk must receive something else per community discretion.
NII, I can assure you I understand the thinking behind PH and many others on here. I just like to remind them how its supposed to work.
Do you think the Founding Fathers contemplated the election of someone like Trump? Or doesn’t it matter?
The Founding Father included a procedure for removing a President in the Constitution.
I doubt if they envisioned a Trump, or an Obama, or a Clinton being elected.
That’s beside the point; the removal,process is there, with a high hurdle for implementation.
That “high bar” requirement is there because the impeachment and removal process isn’t there just to overturn,the results of an election.
Your alternative is what? The Clintons? Or Barack Obama, who has had a simulacrum of an adult life, not the real thing?
Haha. Hannity pivot. Next.
Mike, from Manafort’s legal team, you say? They don’t have to make their case to me.
PH, Mr. Manafort’s legal team just filed court documents claiming that when asked for proof of contacts with Russians during the 2016 election, the Special Counsel team came up with no evidence. His team is attempting to get his charges thrown out since there was no basis to have an investigation.
I don’t know how the court will rule, but that’s the latest piece of the puzzle. Since Mr. Mueller went after Mr. Manafort with heavy charges, its safe to assume he’s being used to get Pres. Trump. If that case falls apart, so does the rest of the investigation.
No, Mueller can sign a form which has ‘subpoena’ written on it. La di dah. Doesn’t make it valid or effective. BTW, what happened to Eric Holder when he was declared in contempt of Congress?
NII, and I believe Mr. Mueller will go ahead and do that just for the ‘look’. All the never Trumpers, MSM and Dems will shout loudly that Pres. Trump refuses to cooperate, even though it would not be legal to serve a subpoena.
Everything mueller is doing is pre-planned and precisely calculated. It is designed to at first desensitize people to the corruption of the justice system and then, roll out the propaganda ministry and deep state corruptors to begin calls for a complete overhaul and replacement of the American justice system BECAUSE it is so corrupt. All muellers machinations are designed to make people so angry and resentgul of the current American system of justice that they will be accepting of a replacement system. They will eventually be sucked into calling for a replacement of the American justice system which is based on wait for it…………………….
The Constitution.
The step after that is obvious.
Tell the truth and there is no danger! What a concept. I’m tired of people pretending that the “danger” to Trump comes from any other source than Trump.
They’re not pretending. The whole investigation is a fraud. Partisan Democrats support the investigations because partisan Democrats have no conception of procedural fairness.
And the House investigation released last week was a model of non partisan procedural fairness.
You forgot “/s”!
Which Democrats made Trump lie about the Stormy Daniels payoff?
Who says he lied?
Did you see the interview at the entrance of Air Force One? Maybe not, since you only watch Fox. He denied the whole thing and said he didn’t know Stormy Daniels and didn’t know why Michael Cohen paid off Stormy Daniels. That was a bold face lie.
I can’t believe that the lies this man tells don’t bother you.
……. as this lawyer is drafting payment, release, and confidentiality agreement to settle a frivolous case brought against a business owner client who does not have time for the nonsense.
Lawyers settle cases for their clients, with monetary payments, all day ever day. Wealthy clients do not have the time or inclination to be bothered. They receive a bill for legal services and they issue payment. This is routine and not even close to unusual.
Stormy Daniel type opportunists rarely target those without a pot to piss in……..
We are a litigious society. In my world we have a term for that: job security
“The whole investigation is a fraud.” How do you know this? Do you have inside evidence? If so, what is it? Is it a fraud because Trump says it is a fraud? Or because Fox says that it is? What is the evidence?
Jay S, while the FBI investigation can be argued whether it was valid or not, the Mueller investigation is truly a fraud.
A Special Counsel is appointed when a crime has a preponderance of evidence. If the FBI or Congressional committees had come up with something substantial, then a Special Counsel MAY be called for.
Mr. Rosenstein appointed someone who had many conflicts of interest. Mr. Rosenstein also has a conflict of interest and should never have been the one to appoint. Mr. Mueller lacked ethics and morals by accepting the SC position.
So even assuming that Mr. Rosenstein and Mr. Mueller were totally in the right, the country deserved as impartial an investigative team that could be assembled. But Mr. Mueller stacked the team with Clinton supporters. It doesn’t matter if they are the most honest people in the world. IT LOOKS BAD. It’s called conflict of interest.
So that’s why so many, including myself have always considered the Mueller investigation a total fraud. Hopefully that explains things for you.
Check. Pravda Faux News talking points regurgitated. You will undoubtedly get a cookie.
This is to “I have a ‘Hannity was here’ tattoo across my lower back” Mikey
“The whole investigation is a fraud.” How do you know this?
Rosenstein commissioned him to undertake a notional counter-intelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation. Mueller and Roseinstein have behaved since as if the mandate under the former rubric is applicable to the latter. The latter requires a discrete set of crimes to investigate. Mueller’s investigation has never been properly delineated. The law does not provide for the appointment of a special counsel with a roving mandate to get a particular person. Andrew McCarthy has discussed the irregularity of the investigation in detail.
To add to that, he hired by discretion a crew of lawyers which included five Democratic Party donors, a couple of them large-scale donors. I conducted an experiment with the FEC database, trying to find relatives who appear in it. I’ve got scads of partisan Democrats in my family, including a collateral relation worth millions. I found one contribution to the local Congressho’, dated 2002. I checked an attorney in Rochester who had been chairman of one of the suburban Democratic Committees. He’s not in that database. The share of the population who finance campaigns is much higher than it was 60 years ago (John Kennedy and Richard Nixon had 22,000 donors between them). It’s still single-digits, and he manages just by accident to find four among his initial 14 hires. He wanted people he could ‘trust’ after a fashion.
Thus far, we’ve had indictments on mickey-mouse process crimes, harassment of peripheral figures, indictments which do not have to be defended in court (and are substantively inconsequential), indictments on matters irrelevant to the campaign (which could have been handed by the Criminal Division or the U.S. Attorney), stupefying harassment of the President’s legal counsel, and unprofessional rubbish like early-morning no-knock raids on the home of a co-operative target with reputable legal counsel. The script for this was the John Doe investigations in Wisconsin. The Democratic Party wasn’t embarrassed over that because the Democratic Party is institutionally sociopathic.
McCabe and then Mueller have put 21 months into this investigation. It was like pulling teeth to induce the FBI director to cough up the documents delineating the start of the investigation, but when they were they were dated July 2016. The FISA warrants to spy on people connected to the President were secured in October 2016. I’d point out that in the Watergate mater, all consequential convictions were secured within 29 months. In the interminable Iran-Contra investigation, all the big game were bagged within 42 months. In the multi-stage Whitewater investigation, the last consequential accomplishment of the prosecution was the plea agreement with James McDougal, ratified 39 months after the investigation began. No one of note in any of these investigations was tried less than 9 months after he was indicted. Well. 42-9 = 33, and that takes us to April of 2019. Why don’t you put up or shut up between now and then, eh?
SMS,I wish I could hear you speak your words.
+10 on your last comments.
You can’t handle the truth.
Rosenstein and Mueller did not have a “crime” to investigate, had no “probable cause” and are investigating a person for political purposes not a crime. They are abusing power and conducting a malicious prosecution all of which constitute crimes of high office for which Paul Ryan should have already impeached them and the entire Obama coup d’etat gang of co-conspirators.
Trump won the election and Obama, Hillary, Comey, Rosenstein, Mueller et al. are doing every legal and illegal thing they can to overturn that election.
Paul Ryan has a duty to impeach all officers of the United States for crimes of high office.
Paul Ryan is a co-conspirator in the Obama coup d’etat by dereliction and deliberate omission.
More idle speculation.
According to TNYT the Ukrainians aren’t cooperating.
… because they want Trump to sell them some missiles. Not because of the intrinsic merits of the case.
Mueller already has Manafort’s emails to Kilimnik from the execution of the search warrants on Manafort. Mueller also has Gates as a cooperating witness. Mueller also has the evidence from Skadden Arps that Alex van der Zwaan didn’t destroy. While more evidence is better than less evidence, there’s no indication that Mueller’s case against Manafort has been weakened by The Ukraine’s recent decision to stop sharing evidence with Mueller. The return of Kilimnik to Russia is a necessary consequence of The Ukraine dropping its investigation of Kilimnik. Mueller was never going to get Kilimnik directly. Nor does Mueller need Kiliminik to testify against Manafort nor anyone else. It’s going to be alright.
Question. Who’s the dummy & who’s the puppet? Enter the Twilight Zone.
Before addressing that sleeper question, it is important to put the entire list into perspective. I have previously said that Trump should seriously consider sitting down with Mueller if the special counsel is willing to confine questions to four prior areas negotiated with Trump’s counsel.
You’ve never practiced criminal law, right?
Somebody sold Turley a bum steer. The leaked questions are the areas of inquiry. Not “four,” but “forty-four.” As Bill Martin points out below, they are not the sort of questions that Mueller or any other prosecutor would actually pose to Trump. As your nemesis, Natacha, pointed out, yesterday, they are topics about which almost any number of actual questions could, and would, be posed.
If Trump fights Mueller on the subpoena, he is likely to lose.
You begin with the assumption that everyone has to play nice with the lawyers, even when the lawyers are behaving abominably. How is Mueller going to serve a subpoena on the President, or compel his attendance if he so manages? Why should Trump co-operate with Mueller at all?
Nii asked, “How is Mueller going to serve a subpoena on the President, or compel his attendance if he so manages?”
I have no idea who the process server is for the grand jury. But I’m prepared to guess that The United States Marshals Service is in charge of federal arrest warrants issued for failure to respond to a grand jury subpoena. Or not. What do you think, Nii?
They work for the President. If they go rogue, they have to get past the Secret Service, the White House Usher, the President’s appointments secretary, the President’s military aide, and Melania’s very sharp fingernails.
Attorney General Sessions will let The U. S. Marshals in the side door. The Secret Service will honor the arrest warrant.
‘Sez who? Sessions at this juncture has sufficient authority to sneeze and perhaps blow his nose if Rosenstein countersigns an order allowing him to do so.
Fine then. Have it your way. But, out of curiosity, how is Trump supposed to run for reelection while under self-imposed house arrest???
Trump may not run in 2020, given his age and other factors.
Also, if the scenario develops where the U.S. Marshalls might get involved, the top positions at DOJ may be filled by replacements.
I think Rosenstein’s job is hanging by a thread, and Sessions is may have a bit more “job security”.
To clarify, there might be different faces at DOJ before an impasses/ standoff develops between,Trump and Mueller.
I wouldn’t count on the DOJ calling in the federal marshalls if Rosenstein is gone.
Trump is going to be around for two full terms.
In fact all you liberal should start gearing up for your next drama:
“Trump colluded with North Korea to win 2020”
I suppose a gunfight between the U.S Marshals and the Secret Service would make for interesting television.
Nutchacha,….
– IMO both sides are likely to play hardball; Mueller and his team are more aggresive than any special counsel/ prosecutor I’ve ever seen.
I don’t know what Guliani’s relationship is with Mueller.
Unless Guliani can tone things down, smooth things over with Mueller to the point where some concessions/ compromises are reached, I think both sides will be digging in their heels and engaging in all out legal warfare and brinksmanship.
Rule of law? Oh thats right, law is what you say it is right?
I hate to bring Hitler into this, but in the 1930s someone asked a high German legal official what German law was. He said it was “whatever Adolph Hitler wants it to be.” That is, Germany had become a nation of personal rule rather than a nation of laws.
Those questions purportedly attributable to Muler are silly and unprofessional and appear to have been written by a hack journalist. “What were you thinking when….?” etc. Professional prosecutors focus on piecing together facts, fact patterns, and potential inconsistencies and not discussing thoughts on hypothetical crimes.
Agreed. At this juncture, I’ll wager news stories referencing anonymous sources are commonly fabricated. Steven Glass and Jayson Blair were just too blatant about it. (Glass’ inventions were remarkably gaudy. They got by his editors two dozen times and survived letters of complaint from subjects of stories.
49 questions were written by Jay sekulow.
Why is Mueller using Sekulow as a subcontractor? And when has Sekulow ever practiced criminal law?
Until Mueller sends his final reports to Rosenstein, Trump and Trump’s lawyers will have no process of discovery for whatever evidence the OSC has thus far gathered. Consequently, Turley does not yet have any clear basis for supposing that Trump’s legal jeopardy is as limited as Turley has been imagining it to be.
For instance, the leaked questions about Flynn are not necessarily about obstruction of justice. The Flynn questions could be about a conspiracy to commit election fraud and receipt of an illegal, in-kind, campaign contribution from a foreign power in exchange for a promise of sanctions relief for Russia. The same thing goes for the leaked questions about Manafort and Cohen.
While an interview with Mueller is preferable to a subpoena to appear before a grand jury, the legal jeopardy for Trump is the same in both events. Trump needs to be represented by lawyers who can actually foresee the peril their client is in before it’s too late to save their client from himself.
P. S. I hate feeling sorry for Trump. He’s done nothing to earn nor deserve any pity from anyone. And yet . . . No. I refuse. I’m not going pity Trump just because Trump is oh so very pitiful and forlorn.
That’s quite a conversation you’re having with yourself, L4D.
Dispensing free legal analysis and advice to yourself must be one of your favorite hobbies.
“Late” is just another closeted Trump admirer who goes out of her way to bash Trump in public when in reality she “wants him on that wall and needs him on that wall”. He is like the ex who she bashes to her friends, but dreams about at night. It is so revealed in her comments above.
Trump is a derelict train heading for a tremendous train wreck and nobody can do anything to stop it.
It’s time to wake up, gentlemen. Snap out of it. Start paying attention to what’s really going on around here.
Tell us more “Late” about your real feelings about Trump – your real deep down feelings.
Bill Martin,..
-We are fortunate to have Late4Dinner’s speculative expertise, dispenced by her daily in great volume.
And JT is lucky to have such a brilliant legal mind at work as L4D’s.
Her reviews a nd “corrections” of JT’s postions on Constitutional Law and other matters is likely a valuable resource for Prof. Turley.😒
Bill Martin commanded, “Tell us more “Late” about your real feelings about Trump – your real deep down feelings.”
L4D heartily endorses well-nigh everything last word that Natacha has ever posted about The Dotard. There just aren’t that many exceptions that I would take anymore to Natacha’s word on the subject of Fatso. Also, Isaacbasonkavich, Enigmainblack, Mark M., Jay S., Dave137, FishWings and a host of others too numerous to remember are reliable speakers on the subject of Fatso.
But Original Ken is still Da Best.
Somehow, that’s not surprising that you’re impressed with Kenny.
Ken is busy doing real work in the real world along with anonymous, swarthmoremom and Linda. There’s a big blue wave coming, gentlemen. And when it inundates you, Ken, anonymous, swarthmoremom and Tyger-Tyger will return to the blawg. L4D can hardly wait.
Much the same way that “Late” references lefty articles vs.original thoughts on Trump, she defers to others when confronted her true closeted inner feelings about bad boy Trump.
Trump is a septuagenarian juvenile delinquent. His boyhood experience at the military academy scared him straight for many years up until the deaths of his parents. After that there was no else left who could tell him, “No you don’t, Buster.” Eventually, inevitably, the latent repressed desires to behave in the manner of a common street punk burst their banks and swept Trump downstream on deluge of delinquency the likes of which the world had never before . . . Well, actually we’ve all heard it before and there’s absolutely nothing attractive about it. Except possibly for Bill Martin and Tom Nash.
L4D would not hesitate but to crush both of Trump’s testicles with a pair of zircon encrusted tweezers aided by a jumbo magnifying glass. The little pip-squeak runt.
@Late4Dinner May 4, 2018 at 7:50 AM
“L4D would not hesitate but [sic] to crush both of Trump’s testicles with a pair of zircon encrusted tweezers aided by a jumbo magnifying glass. The little pip-squeak runt.”
This Yoo-ian (and Zappa-ian) comment seems to reflect, shall we say, something more than just policy differences.
Are you suggesting that the POTUS should potentially be subject to the same treatment as the male children of terrorism suspects, per John Yoo?
If so, are you sufficiently taking into account the politico-ethnic fact that most children of non-state terrorism suspects are brownish, rather than whitish-orange like President Trump?
Just asking.
“This part of the exchange during the debate with Doug Cassel, reveals the logic of Yoo’s theories, adopted by the [Cheneybush] Administration as bedrock principles, in the real world.
“Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11488.htm
Now, you can call me an old-fashioned idealistic fuddy-duddy if you want to, but it’s clear to me that there are many more intelligent and humane ways of dealing with terrorism and other geo-political issues than by torturing or killing either children or adults.
President Trump, himself, truth be told, seems to have changed his mind about the acceptability (if not the desirability) of torturing terrorism suspects and killing their families.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/politics/donald-trump-reverses-on-torture/index.html
“When did you become aware of the Trump Tower meeting?”
“That was so long ago, Bob. Who can remember that far back, right? And people are saying all the time, “Trump won the greatest election victory of all time!” Incredible, just tremendous. And then I said Ivanka, you and Jared will solve that whole Middle East thing. And Mexico, will pay, for that wall.”
“So when were you aware of that meeting?”
Dave 137,…
– It may play out the way that you say; the “I don’t remember” or “I’m not sure….I think it was then type of dodge might be the way that Trump responds to questions.
I think the odds are about 50/ 50 that Trump will actually meet with Mueller’s team for questioning.
He may push this issue, and then fight a subpeona to appear before a grand jury.
He’ll take the slipperiest route he can create, as all fraudsters do.
“It depends what the ‘awareness’ of ‘become aware’ becomes.”
You’re projecting.
I think Mueller and the deep state are likely behind the leak. It is a way to discredit the process of using interrogatories and prove the need for Trump’s testimony.
Mueller and his team provided the information orally to the Trump team who compiled it in the format leaked which the Mueller team never had access to. Definitely came from inside the White House!
@enigmainblackcom May 3, 2018 at 4:11 AM
“Mueller and his team provided the information orally to the Trump team who compiled it in the format leaked which the Mueller team never had access to. Definitely came from inside the White House!”
That’s important information if true, enigma. Can you document it?
Ken Rogers – You know, based on the information contained in the paragraph. I could Google the reports and find the information within a few minutes. I appreciate you asked politely, but I already know the information so you’re asking me to prove it to you. I invite you to discover the information for yourself, then you can take into consideration any sources and believe them or discount them as you will. There is reporting surrounding the leaks citing White House officials feeling Mueller has gone way outside the bounds of his authorization; this also didn’t come from the Mueller team. The information is readily available. Happy hunting.
Trump’s attorney wrote the questions based on Mueller’s talks with Gouhliani.
I see everyone’s imagination is at work today.
Doings of the Manhattan Mafia.
At his age, memory failure is a common occurrence. I don’t remember, is a perfectly good answer to all questions, including if he remembers Mueller’s name. 😉
I don’t remember. I don’t recall, I can neither confirm nor deny, that’s SCIP classified and not germane to collusion. Yo don’t have the need to know won’t even be needed.
Mr. Turley, you continue to be frustrated in your search for a technical or strategic “out” for Trump in these matters. As Trey Gowdy asked, If the President is innocent, why does he act like he is guilty? The question remains vaild. It is now underscored with Giuliani’s claimed revelation that Trump repaid Cohen on the Daniels settlement although through some convoluted process through a law firm and in installments. Way to step in it, Rudi!
Given the desire of Trump defenders like Rich Lowry to put an end to the investigation, I think your third theory is correct: “The most devious would be a leak from the Trump team that could be used to cut off an interview on the basis of the leak itself.”
There isn’t much to search. Mr. Mueller was appointed by the DOJ. The DOJ is part of the Executive Branch. Pres. Trump is the head of the Executive Branch. He can fire anyone for any reason. Unlikely he will fire Mr. Mueller or Mr. Rosenstein at this point, even though both would be well deserved.
What you can hope for, is that Mr. Mueller does have some citizen Trump allegations that he can charge, but that wouldn’t happen until he is out of office. However, if the Dems take over the House this fall, I’m sure we’ll get impeachment votes and if Mr. Mueller has something worthy to charge, the House members can certainly use that to vote to impeach. Then is would be up to the Senate to follow through.
So good luck but don’t hold your breath.
Then it would be up to the Senate and even if they convict the future for the left is Trump is removed and President Pence takes over with a new AG. Fastest way to get things done
Troy Gowdy as AG and after a successful string of convictions become a SCOTUS Judge. There is no where to go but wait out the next sixteen plus years and by then the Representative Constitutional Republic Party minus the RINOs plus the independent Constitutional “Centrist Coalition will have marginalized the progressively regressive liberals out of everything.
With people like Pelosillyni, Schumerkly Putz, Maxobscene and Liz a Hauntus either gone or in jail….. Well. Can’t hardly lose if that’s the best the left has.
” The DOJ is part of the Executive Branch. Pres. Trump is the head of the Executive Branch. He can fire anyone for any reason. ”
That view can only mean that the President can commit any crime, and be absolutely invulnerable to any legal consequences. Is that so?
Our Constitution allows for Congress to remove a President from office. Once out of office, then he can face any legal problems. Or, the electorate votes the person out.
That’s how it works. The Constitution wants a President to serve with as little personal distraction as possible.
You failed to remember the answer. Because it makes great bait and fish are easy to catch as the left has proved time and time and time again. Theydon’t have the talent do more than playwith their liddo tweedies and no aptitude for objective debate But they keep biting so questioni is how many hooks do they swallow until the bleed out?
Get back to us when you can define some offense he’s committed.
Conspiracy to commit election fraud and receipt of illegal, in-kind, foreign, campaign contributions.
Clinton’s been out of office for 17 years, any prosecution of the Clinton’s for collecting laundered money from the Orient would now be time-barred, and Mueller’s admitted that Trump wasn’t part of any conspiracy. NEXT!
DSS – this is Mueller’s Case of a Lifetime. If he does not get Trump for something, he looks like a failure. He really wants to be fired and saved from his own disgrace.
DSS – wrong Clinton.
L4D, are you referring to the Clinton campaign, since they by proxy hired a firm that hired a foreign agent to gather ‘intelligence’? Hey, you’re correct, that is against the law.
He tossed a bucket of water on the Clinton Victory Fund party. Not all of the soldiers were pleased to see her melt away.
Olly, I’m glad she lost. I’m glad she’s through. Good riddance. There’s only one person who needs HRC anymore. And his monogram is DJT.
Do you have a few hours to read the list?
You have no list, four-flusher. And neither does Mueller, which is why he’s indicting people on process crimes, securing indictments of internet trolls he’ll never have to defend in court, going after Paul Manfort’s pre 2015 business interests, and subcontracting the harassment of Trump’s lawyer to allies in the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan.
So you found a crime to justify a special counsel?
So you found probable cause?
So you found “Russian Collusion?”
Or do we all know this is a political “witch hunt” and an investigation of a person not a crime?
Or do we all know the truth that Rosenstein and Mueller have abused power and are conducting a malicious
prosecution for political purposes and should have been impeached by Paul Ryan to preserve the
Constitution?
George, The FBI had a FISA warrant on Paul Manafort in 2014 that ended shortly before Manafort joined the Trump campaign as convention manager in March of 2016. After Manafort was forced to resign as Trump campaign manager around late August or early September of 2016 The FBI got a second FISA warrant on Paul Manafort based upon known connections between Manafort and the Russian intelligence operative Konstantin Kilimnik who served as the channel through which Manafort communicated with the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Manafort needed a new source of money to repay his debts to Deripaska. Manafort may have promised sanctions relief to the Russians attending the Trump Tower meeting on June 9th, 2016, as way of settling his debts to Deripaska. Meanwhile, Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner were also in attendance at that meeting scrounging for Russian kompromat on Hillary Clinton. The cover story will not hold indefinitely, George. Because Oleg Deripaska still wants his money back one way or another.
Trump cannot do well in an interview of any length on as few as two subjects. Before he submits to any questioning, he’ll fire everybody. Only to face the same questions and more, later.
Now I know for sure you are not a human but a machine part of the Collective Left same old SOS again and again and boringly again and nothing to back it up. except three in one oil.
Michael – I’m not laughing with you, I’m laughing at you. Today will be an interesting day, either Trump will condemn Rudy or admit he’s been lying about Stormy Daniels and what he knew about the payment.
To be clear, I don’t consider his sexual relationships grounds for Impeachment (divorce maybe). I just like watching him lie about stuff that doesn’t bring us closer to nuclear war.
Guiliani seems to think that he can whipsaw Mueller in more or less the same way that he had whipsawed McCabe. Or maybe it’s just a last ditch effort. Hail Mary. Might as well give it a whirl. Stranger things have happened.
P. S. Michael Aarethun never had any particular attachment to Trump. He has already moved on to Pence.
Gouhliani whipsaw Mueller? Let’s not forget that Mueller is a former combat wounded Marine officer. My experience with people of Mueller’s ilk is that they are straight shooters to the nth degree. Oh, and they are relentless.
He’s been out of the military for about five decades now and the evidence indicates he’s a Justice Department lifer who does skeezy career-oriented things. John Kerry was also a combat veteran. No he isn’t a square shooter and the other Swift Boat captains saw him for what he was.
ADVICE TO THE PRESIDENT
_______________________
Mr. President, remember these words:
“I DON’T REMEMBER.”
__________________
“Hillary Clinton told the FBI she couldn’t recall something more than three dozen times.”
– WaPo
_____________________________________________________________________
Three dozen is thirty-six.
Hillary’s thirty-six statements of “I don’t remember” would just about cover Mueller’s forty plus questions.
George,
Advice to Trump:
Sessions, you’re Fired! Mueller, Rosenstien & 200 to 300 among the DOJ & FBI. plus some media outlets Aiding/Abetting: You’re Fired & under Arrest for Treason, Sedition, Espionage, Obstruction of Justice, etc… etc..m, & for just in general being American Hating Pieces of Schifft!
Viva le revolution or just wishful thinking of a RWNJ. Who was your civics teacher, Trotsky?
RWNJ? who/what?
Trotsky? So are you another Commie/Nazi American Hating Trash that’s paid by the Nazi Soros to attempt to destroy the DofI & the USC.
Well, I don’t believe you bass tards will have any luck.
Oops. BTW: where did each Congressmen/Senator get their wealth? Sen Mitch McConnell, about your Wife’s Commie Friends Ship Deal? I’m Sure all of us Loyal Americans would enjoy hearing about your Treason! What pieces of Sheeet! Paul Ryan anyone LOL!
Treason shall consist of an overt act to wage war against the United State, or a State thereof, or of lending aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States, or a State thereof.
An enemy of the United States is someone who wages an overt act of war against the United States.
No overt act of war equals no enemy to whom to lend aid and comfort. No enemy to whom to lend aid and comfort equals no treason.
He who says otherwise is an Right Wing Nut Job (RWNJ).
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
– Barry Soetoro
Did you say overt act of war?
Medical alert, someone’s panties are in a bunch. Take a chill pill and see if you can get your hands on some of those Silicon Valley IQ enhancing pills.
Awesome. There’s a tinfoil sale down to the piggly-wiggly this weekend.
This is to “once we git the RINOS we can have the convention in a phone booth” okie
While you’re at it, why not fire the entire FBI and DOJ, and have them re-staffed by the NRA? Then march on NYTimes etc and summarily dispose of everyone? Create a Department of Communication and Propaganda, run by Fox? Fire the entire EPA and subcontract the work to leading oil companies ….
Jay S, ixnay on the ightbray idea-ays. They won’t hesitate but to take us up on it. It’s what they’ve always wanted.
Don’t forget St. Ronnie Raygun and his poor memory,
Don’t forget the left has NO limits and no ethics so it matters little to them. If this one fails they will have six more in the chute ready to go . Their point is to obstruct, reframe, redefine and they have been doing it incrementally since 1909. As long is doing the job he was hired for keeps producing and is effective against the left then the Independent Constitutionalist Center will be adding voters to the 40% they turned out in 2016. while your RINO DINO progressively regressive liberal party came in last place.l 55% Trumps 45% in federal elections every time. First we slmashed Hillary now it’s just seeing if the RINOs will protect the wicked witch of the left prefer votes an dthen we finish smashing the Liberal progressive socialists with their pathetic offerings like Poke A Haunt US and a promise of a raise in taxes and there back stabbing Daca
Sucks to be you and see over a hundred years of effort go down the toilet and all you can do is use your left hand.
.
Lawrence Walsh’s probe ended squalidy, with a substantively absurd indictment which was also invalid due to the passage of time (but dropped on the media a few days before the 1992 election). Anything his crew did is tainted until proven otherwise.
And Richard Millhouse Nixon resigned The Presidency.
In your early-stage dementia, you’ve confounded Walsh with Cox / Jaworski / Ruth.
And what caused you to compound Walsh with Mueller?
See capn’mike’s puerile post, and take your Aricept.
Oh! You got me. Never mind.
I want to see Walsh compounded with Mueller.
Something is incoherent and hysterical.
Should have gone to jail for Iran Contra but admittedly he was not of sound mind.
For what should he have ‘gone to jail’?
Negotiating with terrorists.
U.S. Code citation please, and a description of the specific illegal act Mr. Reagan undertook.
Try this one on for size, instead:
18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or
Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
The word “value” means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater
OK, you’re an aspirant shyster. We kinda figured that.
Backup for the post above:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7
“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
In your mental fog, you fancy this is something other than non sequitur.