It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In light of recent developments, Trump should definitely refuse any hypothetical Mueller interview
page: 5share:
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.
Truth is this has always been and will always be a witch hunt. The investigation is a farce and I wouldn't show for this kangaroo court until they subpoenaed me...and then I would...
edit on 24-1-2018 by GuidedKill because: (no reason given)
In light of recent developments, Trump should definitely refuse any hypothetical Mueller interview
Apparently Trump is ok with the interview but his lawyers will never allow it.
Trump says he's 'looking forward' to talking to special counsel Robert Mueller
www.cnbc.com...
edit on 24-1-2018 by olaru12
because: (no reason given)
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.
Are the American people going to get the truth out of trump?
originally posted by: Sillyolme
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.
Are the American people going to get the truth out of trump?
I wouldn't expect to with Trumps record of playing fast and loose with the truth.
www.nytimes.com...
www.independent.co.uk...[editb y]edit on 24-1-2018 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Wayfarer
what impeachable crimes has he committed ?
1 he fired comey he is obstructing justice. no comey was fired because he was not competent at his job as shown in his clinton investigation farce and leaking to press which he should be arrested for. president trump had the right to fire him because fbi thru justice department is attached to executive branch.
2 well he colluded with russia. no he didn't but apparently the dnc and hillary did but colusion is not a crime
3 well russia hacked dnc for trump. no there is no proof that russia hacked dnc because dnc never let law enforcement examine their servers. likely source of info on wikileaks came from seth rich who was assassinated.
4 well he lied on obama by saying he had tapped trumps phones. well guess what he actually did that is what that fisa warrant was for.
what impeachable crimes has he committed ?
1 he fired comey he is obstructing justice. no comey was fired because he was not competent at his job as shown in his clinton investigation farce and leaking to press which he should be arrested for. president trump had the right to fire him because fbi thru justice department is attached to executive branch.
2 well he colluded with russia. no he didn't but apparently the dnc and hillary did but colusion is not a crime
3 well russia hacked dnc for trump. no there is no proof that russia hacked dnc because dnc never let law enforcement examine their servers. likely source of info on wikileaks came from seth rich who was assassinated.
4 well he lied on obama by saying he had tapped trumps phones. well guess what he actually did that is what that fisa warrant was for.
a reply to: olaru12
Yes, and I applaud his transparency. He clearly has nothing to hide, and isn't worried in the least. Although I still think it is a bad idea to waive your Constitutional protections and agree to the interview, I would hope Mueller wouldn't stoop so low as to setup a simple perjury trap.
That is to say, if Trump mistakenly tells Mueller he had Spaghetti last weekend instead of Linguini he won't be facing any perjury/obstruction complaints.
Regardless his openness and transparency is enviable.
Yes, and I applaud his transparency. He clearly has nothing to hide, and isn't worried in the least. Although I still think it is a bad idea to waive your Constitutional protections and agree to the interview, I would hope Mueller wouldn't stoop so low as to setup a simple perjury trap.
That is to say, if Trump mistakenly tells Mueller he had Spaghetti last weekend instead of Linguini he won't be facing any perjury/obstruction complaints.
Regardless his openness and transparency is enviable.
edit on 1/25/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: angeldoll
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.
I can toast to that
originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Wayfarer
what impeachable crimes has he committed ?
1 he fired comey he is obstructing justice. no comey was fired because he was not competent at his job as shown in his clinton investigation farce and leaking to press which he should be arrested for. president trump had the right to fire him because fbi thru justice department is attached to executive branch.
2 well he colluded with russia. no he didn't but apparently the dnc and hillary did but colusion is not a crime
3 well russia hacked dnc for trump. no there is no proof that russia hacked dnc because dnc never let law enforcement examine their servers. likely source of info on wikileaks came from seth rich who was assassinated.
4 well he lied on obama by saying he had tapped trumps phones. well guess what he actually did that is what that fisa warrant was for.
Proteus, wish I could give you more than one star for this. Very nice job of laying this all out. It has been thoroughly discredited, and rightfully so. There was never anything to it, and mainstream Dems have known this all along. Even Peter Strozok admits he didn't think there was anything to it.
The Op is right. No one has to appear and talk to the Mueller. However, here are a few things that should be noted and lets see what options that
are going to be on the table:
Option A: They choose to speak to Mueller. By choosing such, means that they can set some of the terms, and the lawyers on both sides will talk, negotiate and ultimately even make deals. Immunity anyone? By agreeing one gets some wiggle room and their attorneys can negotiate fully. And yes that means that they can invoke the 5th on most questions, using such to barging chip. And best thing of all the lawyers are there with the person talking to Mueller, to confer and keep their client safe.
Option B: Keep this in mind that Mueller has this option always present and that is the Grand Jury. In that setting the first thing is that the lawyer is not present there with the client. And the Client has to answer any and all questions. So here is the problem with taking the 5th. If Trump is summoned before a Grand Jury, and sworn in, it is him facing 16 people, who his attorney did not get to help choose. Now on questions about him, yeah he can plead the 5th, but what if the question was about say his daughter or his son, now he is on the hook and has to reply, he can not plead the 5th, nor can he refuse to answer.
The 5th amendment is used to prevent self incrimination, however, it can not be used to protect someone else.
So ask yourself, if you were Trumps lawyers, which do you prefer to have your client in front of answering questions, in front of Mueller and answering questions where you can be right there and stop him from giving out anything too much, or in front of a grand jury where you can not be present to stop him from saying anything?
Option A: They choose to speak to Mueller. By choosing such, means that they can set some of the terms, and the lawyers on both sides will talk, negotiate and ultimately even make deals. Immunity anyone? By agreeing one gets some wiggle room and their attorneys can negotiate fully. And yes that means that they can invoke the 5th on most questions, using such to barging chip. And best thing of all the lawyers are there with the person talking to Mueller, to confer and keep their client safe.
Option B: Keep this in mind that Mueller has this option always present and that is the Grand Jury. In that setting the first thing is that the lawyer is not present there with the client. And the Client has to answer any and all questions. So here is the problem with taking the 5th. If Trump is summoned before a Grand Jury, and sworn in, it is him facing 16 people, who his attorney did not get to help choose. Now on questions about him, yeah he can plead the 5th, but what if the question was about say his daughter or his son, now he is on the hook and has to reply, he can not plead the 5th, nor can he refuse to answer.
The 5th amendment is used to prevent self incrimination, however, it can not be used to protect someone else.
So ask yourself, if you were Trumps lawyers, which do you prefer to have your client in front of answering questions, in front of Mueller and answering questions where you can be right there and stop him from giving out anything too much, or in front of a grand jury where you can not be present to stop him from saying anything?
a reply to: JBurns
The Trump wiretap tweet is what keeps sticking out at me.
One day he tweets that Obama had his phones tapped at Trump tower. The resulting response is to ridicule him for a preposterous notion, then demand that he prove it. Since he doesn't prove it immediately, his opposition begins calling him a liar. The liar meme sticks, and we still see it pop up from time to time (mostly because DJT is FOS and embellishes as often as he can when speaking publicly).
Meanwhile, he takes office and a evidence showing he was wiretapped begins to be accepted as truly existing. The immediate response to this is to parse words onw hat "wiretap" means, etc, and continue ridiculing him and calling him a liar. This is about the time that the entire Russian Collusion investigation begins to kick off.
Then we find out that, indeed, a FISA warrant did exist. From this point, you get all sorts of wild shouting, arm waving, and name calling trying to change the subject. Meanwhile, the "Russian Collusion" investigation is pointed at and we are told that if we just wait we will see how crooked Trump is.
And he may be...but i can't get over the fact that it all started with Trump making a tweet that was immediately ridiculed. And more and more evidence kept coming out about that tweet, vindicating Trump which has been ignored in lieu of criticizing the circus around it all.
At the end of the day we have the singluar issue of a candidate being wiretapped as a political hatchet job that needs to be exposed fully. All the other stuff is nice, but this whole thing started with that. And the evidence already available supporting it is stronger than the "Russian Collusion" ridiculousness that started the last year of moronic snipe hunting off.
The Trump wiretap tweet is what keeps sticking out at me.
One day he tweets that Obama had his phones tapped at Trump tower. The resulting response is to ridicule him for a preposterous notion, then demand that he prove it. Since he doesn't prove it immediately, his opposition begins calling him a liar. The liar meme sticks, and we still see it pop up from time to time (mostly because DJT is FOS and embellishes as often as he can when speaking publicly).
Meanwhile, he takes office and a evidence showing he was wiretapped begins to be accepted as truly existing. The immediate response to this is to parse words onw hat "wiretap" means, etc, and continue ridiculing him and calling him a liar. This is about the time that the entire Russian Collusion investigation begins to kick off.
Then we find out that, indeed, a FISA warrant did exist. From this point, you get all sorts of wild shouting, arm waving, and name calling trying to change the subject. Meanwhile, the "Russian Collusion" investigation is pointed at and we are told that if we just wait we will see how crooked Trump is.
And he may be...but i can't get over the fact that it all started with Trump making a tweet that was immediately ridiculed. And more and more evidence kept coming out about that tweet, vindicating Trump which has been ignored in lieu of criticizing the circus around it all.
At the end of the day we have the singluar issue of a candidate being wiretapped as a political hatchet job that needs to be exposed fully. All the other stuff is nice, but this whole thing started with that. And the evidence already available supporting it is stronger than the "Russian Collusion" ridiculousness that started the last year of moronic snipe hunting off.