In light of recent developments, Trump should definitely refuse any hypothetical Mueller interview

Here's the thing.

What is NOT a fact, but only suspicion and speculation:

The FBI and Mueller are out to get Trump, and will lie, cheat and steal to do it.
The DNC is filled with criminals, represent the 'deep state' (woo) and focus only on Trump, because for some reason completely unknown to me, they want Pence in office.

What IS a fact:

Donald Trump knows a great deal about these situations, but is too much of a coward to go before Mueller and tell him his own truths.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


We need the TRUTH

An investigation is the only way to get it. That's why we have one. Like I said, Good, Bad, or Indifferent.
We need to know. Let the man do his job.

You may need the truth, but if you have to trample peoples 5th amendment rights int he process im not so sure you'd be a lesser evil than the lie you want rooted out.

You cannot compel someone to provide testimony against themselves. You cannot force them to do it. Mueller is welcome to do his job if he can do so without violating the civil rights of the president in the process.

a reply to: angeldoll

Do you not realize how illogical what you are saying is?

We have a right to not incriminate ourselves. Another fact you left out: the 2 who have had charges filed on them thus far by Mueller had charges filed not for any crimes committed, but because they presented information that was not factually true during the investigation.

That is dirty as all hell. The only crime they committed was not disclosing something that wasn't illegal to begin with. In Manaforts case, it was something the FBI had already visited with him over. In Flynn's case he was interrogated without a lawyer present, without notifying his superiors that he was being interrogated...without even informing him it was an interrogation. He was suckered into a technicality, plain and simple.

Why on Gods green Earth would any sane person volunteer to visit with people who operate like this???

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You are being overly dramatic now. Trump can go, or be compelled to go. The sucker needs to stand up on his hind legs like a man and face his accusers.

a reply to: olaru12

Yeah, i don't give a rats ass about the numerous stupid things Trump has said.

I don't support Trump. I support the movement against the Democrats, the FBI, and the DOJ. If you are feeling left out, hit me up once this is done. Ill join you in supporting the destruction of the GOP.

What I am talkinga bout are basic constitutional rights.

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You are being overly dramatic now. Trump can go, or be compelled to go. The sucker needs to stand up on his hind legs like a man and face his accusers.

Facing his accusors would happen in court, not an FBI interview.

Can you possibly tell me how, either specifically or in general, I am being overly dramatic? Flynn and Manafort have both had charges filed on them for "lying to the FBI". In one case, it was about something they already knew. In the other case, they didn't even advise it was an interrogation or allow counsel. Do you think this is how we should build cases? Jailing people on technicalities, using guerilla tactics while interrogating people?

Trump can be compelled to go, i am sure. And he can sit there and say nothing the whole time. You cannot be forced to speak to law enforcement. In fact, any lawyer who isn't a complete idiot would tell you not to.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: olaru12



What I am talkinga bout are basic constitutional rights.

Do the American People have a constitutional right to know the TRUTH.

Trump should fire Mueller and indict everyone involved in uranium one, pay to play, Clinton foundation and the FBI and CIA insurance society. That would include Mueller at least once.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

According to you the FBI are his accusers. It's Muller, the Republican, who's out to get him, right?

Fine then. Give him a pass. Let him hide behind the skirts of his attorney's and the Fifth. I just want the truth, and I think they owe us that. They are freakin' public servants, after all. All of them.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: olaru12



What I am talkinga bout are basic constitutional rights.

Do the American People have a constitutional right to know the TRUTH.

I've never seen that listed, per se, but they have certainly had over a year to find it, nonetheless, and so far have spent millions of dollars investigating all to prosecute a couple process crimes. All the "bad" Trump news seems to leak immediately, regardless of truth content, so I'm sure if there was a hint of real evidence it'd be all over the news already.

Its like the whole charade is an attempt to convince their base that he's so gosh darn innocent there is no need for an investigation, ya know, like anyone who is accused of something nefarious is want to do.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: olaru12



What I am talkinga bout are basic constitutional rights.

Do the American People have a constitutional right to know the TRUTH.

I have not seen that enumerated in the Constitution.

BUt since LEO are legally allowed to lie to you during an investigation, I would say the answer is a resounding "no".

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: olaru12



What I am talkinga bout are basic constitutional rights.

Do the American People have a constitutional right to know the TRUTH.

I've never seen that listed, per se, but they have certainly had over a year to find it, nonetheless, and so far have spent millions of dollars investigating all to prosecute a couple process crimes. All the "bad" Trump news seems to leak immediately, regardless of truth content, so I'm sure if there was a hint of real evidence it'd be all over the news already.

Goodness, please inform us of all the 'bad' news Mueller's team has (and hasn't released publicly yet) for those of us who aren't omniscient.

a reply to: RadioRobert

All the "bad" Trump news seems to leak immediately, regardless of truth content, so I'm sure if there was a hint of real evidence it'd be all over the news already.

Good point. It may be that Flynn and Manafort's misdeeds are the only ones to come forth in this investigation, and I think Mueller is trying to finish it up, but current events will simply prolong it.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: olaru12



What I am talkinga bout are basic constitutional rights.

Do the American People have a constitutional right to know the TRUTH.

I have not seen that enumerated in the Constitution.

BUt since LEO are legally allowed to lie to you during an investigation, I would say the answer is a resounding "no".

Does that mean it should be changed? Do you think we, as tax payers, and essentially their employers, have the right to demand truthfulness from our public servants?

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

According to you the FBI are his accusers. It's Muller, the Republican, who's out to get him, right?

Fine then. Give him a pass. Let him hide behind the skirts of his attorney's and the Fifth. I just want the truth, and I think they owe us that. They are freakin' public servants, after all. All of them.

I don't mean to sound rude, I really don't. But you are all over the map here.

Currently the only accusers of Trump is the mob standing outside his gates with pitchforks, using supposition and rumor as their only evidence.

The FBI is investigating an alleged crime (an allegation which since has completely fallen apart at the seams). If they find reason to make recommendations to indict, then an indictment will be prepared. After that, if the decision is made to try him, he would (at that point) have accusers to face.

The FBI doesn't accuse. The FBI investigates and makes recommendation. Its the People, via the Attorney General, who accuse.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: olaru12



What I am talkinga bout are basic constitutional rights.

Do the American People have a constitutional right to know the TRUTH.

I have not seen that enumerated in the Constitution.

BUt since LEO are legally allowed to lie to you during an investigation, I would say the answer is a resounding "no".

Does that mean it should be changed? Do you think we, as tax payers, and essentially their employers, have the right to demand truthfulness from our public servants?

Yes and no.

No one should be forced to incriminate themselves. If we are going to do that, might as well bring back the Inquisition.

But our government should not be allowed to lie to us. To that end, before I ever consider anything about Trump i'd need to see Smith Mundt reinstated. Right now, CONGRESS (not Trump) has given Uncle Sam the right to lie to you via psyops. This has been true for 15 some odd years now. That is the fire you want to put out.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: olaru12



What I am talkinga bout are basic constitutional rights.

Do the American People have a constitutional right to know the TRUTH.

I have not seen that enumerated in the Constitution.

BUt since LEO are legally allowed to lie to you during an investigation, I would say the answer is a resounding "no".

Never participate in a discussion where one side is allowed to lie to you, but an impromptu lie over something of no significance may result in your being charged with a crime.

Listen, here's an example of how the feebies (and other federal agents) can screw Trump (or you) in an interview even if you're innocent.

Hypothetically, your son happens to innocently do his laundry at the Kwick Klean laundromat that happens to be owned by organised crime. He does a lot of business there, and he is friendly with the owners, though he doesn't know them well or of their enterprise. He becomes a person of interest, but they have no real evidence apart from the fact he frequents the business and is friendly with the owners.
The Feds through wiretapping wireless coms at the location learn that your son sent you a text from the laundromat four months ago: "Hey, Dad. I'm still down at Kwik Klean I might have to meet you and mom at 7:30 for dinner instead of 7."

They decide to interview you while investigating the whole scenario.

FBI: "We think junior is involved in organized crime."
You: "I don't think so"
FBI: "The Bianco brothers are laundering money out of their laundry mat. We have junior on tape saying he is bringing in some goods (a lie to you)"
You (panicked): "I can't believe that"
FBI: "Yeah, he did. On 18 September. I can let you listen to the tape next time. Listen, we're just trying to find out the truth. Maybe we can help him if you're honest with us. Do you know anything about his trips going down to Kwick Klean?"
You: "No. Not that I'm aware of" (either because you're afraid of hurting your son or because you don't remember the text)

Boom! You just got a process charge and they bring in the 18 Sept text as evidence against you. Usually just brought as a pad charge -- the sort that they will drop in exchange for testimony or as part of a plea (or sometimes jf you're a politically motivated prosecutor who needs something and has nothing). Now they're going to try and flip you against your son (who has done nothing wrong. They simply lied to you) while threatening jail time, and they lean on your son to "confess" and in exchange they won't prosecute dear ol' dad.


Does that happen often? No, not incredibly often -- but often enough you shouldn't ever participate in an interview with the feds without consulting a lawyer first. Now on top, if you think there is a witch hunt on, would you ever consent to putting yourself in that situation?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Nah, I don't think you're rude. I probably am all over the map, and it's your right to express that! lol.
But I don't care. Everybody is all over the map these days because it's hard to stay focused on one thing when the whole damn government is a side show.

Out with the old swamp, in with the new swamp.

Peace.