Trump lawyers hoping to avoid Mueller interview with signed document claiming innocence

Blumenthal: More indictments likely expected in probe


www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: TDawg61
a reply to: tadaman

I think it's amazing how posts such as yours have become so common. You don't actually address the topic in the op whatsoever.

You just go after the author.

Because thats what their "master" Trump has taught them to do. Pre Trump "conservatives" like myself in this country (I still hate it) despised the tactic of going after the player and not the ball. It seems that now Trump has set up the precedence and it is now acceptable and even encouraged.

Just look at Steven Miller interview on CNN, I dont even like CNN or in particular that host, but the obnoxiousness of miller and his insistent rabid attacking of the host rather than answer questions has become the hallmark of this administration and its sycophants.

a reply to: antiantonym

That was Star’s opinion. I stated my opinion. And before you dismiss my opinion I’ll remind you that Star has one vote just as I do and at the end of the day this is all about votes.

So do you care to tell me what crime Trump is being accused of committing? If you know of one please site your source.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

They said...
Trump also said he'd have no problem answering Muellers questions under oath.

www.latimes.com...


Then two days ago when asked to reaffirm that claim he instead went on a tirade about there being no collusion no crime and Hillary. He did not answering the question at all. So it's really no wonder people are questioning this now.

a reply to: antiantonym

It's called denial.

a reply to: Mike.Ockizard

Is anyone suggesting he not have legal representation?

originally posted by: whywhynot
a reply to: antiantonym

That was Star’s opinion. I stated my opinion. And before you dismiss my opinion I’ll remind you that Star has one vote just as I do and at the end of the day this is all about votes.

So do you care to tell me what crime Trump is being accused of committing? If you know of one please site your source.

Diane Feinstein: "...That's obstruction of justice."

Here's an article on the topic:

time.com...


www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Grambler
Well fair is fair.

First the fbi needs to give a bunch of trump team members immunity.

Then they should write up statements claiming he is innocent before interviewing him.

Then allow others being investigated to sit in on the interview with him.

Then they need to get an agent that has texted his admiration for trump to do the interview.

That interview then should not be recorded.

I mean, that is the precedent, right?

Since you all are sure that those procedures resulted in a cover up you must be saying that trump has something to cover up.

originally posted by: antiantonym

originally posted by: whywhynot
a reply to: antiantonym

That was Star’s opinion. I stated my opinion. And before you dismiss my opinion I’ll remind you that Star has one vote just as I do and at the end of the day this is all about votes.

So do you care to tell me what crime Trump is being accused of committing? If you know of one please site your source.

Diane Feinstein: "...That's obstruction of justice."

Here's an article on the topic:

time.com...

www.youtube.com...

Lol. Firing Comey for lieing to protect hillary clinton during her multiple investigations that he was in charge of, was obstruction of justice in the fantasy “russia” investigation? Bwahahahahahaha!!

Comey lied under oath and released classified info.

originally posted by: Grambler
Well fair is fair.

First the fbi needs to give a bunch of trump team members immunity.

Then they should write up statements claiming he is innocent before interviewing him.

Then allow others being investigated to sit in on the interview with him.

Then they need to get an agent that has texted his admiration for trump to do the interview.

That interview then should not be recorded.

I mean, that is the precedent, right?

Don't forget to throw in a meeting on a tarmac. Hmmm...between Melania and Sessions? Or Mueller himself?

a reply to: antiantonym

Feinstein is not an expert on anything so far as I can tell. In this case she is wrong, as Comey was simply a human filling a seat. The investigation continued (and you keep making threads about it daily). Thus, i fail to see any obstruction.

a reply to: RadioRobert

True ...every lawyer wishes their client was mute. Every lawyer will fight like hell to keep a client from testifying.
But this isn't court. I'm not sure his lawyers can protect him if Mueller really wants to have a chat.

a reply to: TrueBrit

And yet they did offer to meet and yet you cling to the OPS assertions quoting "un-named sources" and former legal counsels, justice department veterans etc. LOL


There is a name for the verbosity in your responses
"Gish Gallop"
logfall.wordpress.com...

It’s true that, if your argument is not clear, your opponent can not attack your position. But presenting an intentionally unclear, imprecise or cluttered argument is not the modus operandi of those honestly wanting their argument to be vetted. A subset of this fallacy is the vague insulators fallacy. The inability to respond to such an argument often leads to the argument from silence fallacy.

a reply to: Grambler

I want some of those Special Counsels fees!

I nominate I fetch the Covfefe, and you an Ante be the recorders

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RadioRobert

True ...every lawyer wishes their client was mute. Every lawyer will fight like hell to keep a client from testifying.
But this isn't court. I'm not sure his lawyers can protect him if Mueller really wants to have a chat.

They can't compel anyone to talk with them. There are a dozen reasons not to, even if he's innocent. They can set you for "false statement" charges by ironically lying to you. There is evidence he is the subject of the investigation. He's completely within his rights to say, "No, thank you".

That's why either the HRC staff refused to talk to the FBI without immunity protection or they were compelled to testify by immunity.

a reply to: ParkerCramer

What was it you could not comprehend?

Get back to me when you're being serious

a reply to: Woodcarver

a reply to: Eshel

Hey Eschel, your posts always are coherent and reasonable.

From my understanding perjury during a deposition is rarely prosecuted. Until some formal charges are brought against Trump who knows whats on Muellers mind

a reply to: Sillyolme

No one's saying it's certain but the option is being discussed

again un named sources, veteran lawyers, blah blah - and of course "discussed" to generate more indignation and ratings

originally posted by: Sillyolme

originally posted by: Grambler
Well fair is fair.

First the fbi needs to give a bunch of trump team members immunity.

Then they should write up statements claiming he is innocent before interviewing him.

Then allow others being investigated to sit in on the interview with him.

Then they need to get an agent that has texted his admiration for trump to do the interview.

That interview then should not be recorded.

I mean, that is the precedent, right?

Since you all are sure that those procedures resulted in a cover up you must be saying that trump has something to cover up.

No, unlike many on the left, I actually want a real investigation that isnt biased for political reasons.

Unfortunately, the evidence is pointing toward not only the hillary investigation being biased to favor her, but the investigation into trumps team being biased against him.

But mnay anti trumpers dont care if the process is fair, as long as it hurts trump.