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.

 

Why Trump is right if he declines to interview with Mueller

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Oh, and FWIW, I'm a progressive liberal democrat who can't stand Trump, as he's the worst president this country has ever had, but I won't take a thing from it if Trump decides to not talk to Mueller. That means nothing, and I would recommend that he not speak to Mueller.

Problem is he is president and that looks bad politically.




posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 09:00 PM
link   
He can't decline



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
He can't decline

Is there a source for this claim?



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
He can't decline


Yes he can. He has the right to remain silent just like anyone else.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
He can't decline

He can decline



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: JBurns

If Trump and Mueller are working together: Trump goes in, with the world watching. He closes the door. They both laugh, give each other the "hi-five", chat for a bit about the grandkids, then Trump leaves...looking really flustered and worried.

CNN/MSNBC/NYPost/WaPost and other Anti-America outlets begin celebrating.

Two days later...BOOM! Indictments on Hillary, Comey, Lynch, Rice, and 900 other people who were involved in international money laundering, illegal collusion, kid sex, and spirit cooking.


I like your timeline. I hope, from the bottom of my heart, that is this is the timeline I'm posting from. If not, well then I hope the internet serves as a sort of bridge between timelines so that this occurs somewhere in the multiverse, and that one day I get to see a movie with this as its plot.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Scrubdog

Meant to say Muellers team, not Mueller. Sorry I'm at work on my phone, working very hard. Namely, Strzok.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: sine.nomine

Happens all the time to everyone, no problem.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zelun

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: JBurns

If Trump and Mueller are working together: Trump goes in, with the world watching. He closes the door. They both laugh, give each other the "hi-five", chat for a bit about the grandkids, then Trump leaves...looking really flustered and worried.

CNN/MSNBC/NYPost/WaPost and other Anti-America outlets begin celebrating.

Two days later...BOOM! Indictments on Hillary, Comey, Lynch, Rice, and 900 other people who were involved in international money laundering, illegal collusion, kid sex, and spirit cooking.


I like your timeline. I hope, from the bottom of my heart, that is this is the timeline I'm posting from. If not, well then I hope the internet serves as a sort of bridge between timelines so that this occurs somewhere in the multiverse, and that one day I get to see a movie with this as its plot.


That was a hope/dream combo. Actually, if Mueller and Trump are NOT working together, I hope that President Trump does not agree to interview. Most legal experts agree that it would be a TRAP set by Mueller to achieve his end-game objective. Just like that Azzhole Ken Starr did with Bill Clinton.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Just like that Azzhole Ken Starr did with Bill Clinton.


The entire investigation is Clintonesque.




posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Agreed, there is little gain by agreeing to an interview in this situation.

Those convinced of his wrong-doing won't be satisfied until Mueller himself closes the investigation without charging Trump. Nothing the President says will clear him in the minds of these people, which according to recent polls is roughly 50:50 (from memory, possibly off a few % either way) Those who support him will also be unswayed in that belief as well, so this is a no brainer at least to me

I wouldn't interview, especially since he has denied all allegations so many times in public. His position on the matter is clear, and this isn't a situation that is typically ever improved through words (ie: remain silent)
edit on 1/11/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: carewemust
Just like that Azzhole Ken Starr did with Bill Clinton.


The entire investigation is Clintonesque.



No, Clinton himself appointed Kenneth Star and directed him to investigate whether Whitewater was a legitimate investment enterprise or wrongfully gained.

Clinton was impeached over saying "No" to a question: "Is there an affair with you and Monica Lewinsky"- bc he had broken up with her months earlier.

In this matter,

Trump fired Comey because in Trump's own words, Comey wouldn't drop the Russia investigation.

In response, the DOJ appointed Mueller to look into whether Trump and/or the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election.

This investigation isn't over, and everyone charged has been charged with crimes concerning the Trump campaign and collusion with Russians.

There is nothing in common IMO



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Nope
Clinton had to talk, Nixon had to talk, Bush had to talk Reagan had to talk
Why do you think trump is special?



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: neo96

Nope
Clinton had to talk, Nixon had to talk, Bush had to talk Reagan had to talk
Why do you think trump is special?


When asked about being interviewd by Mueller, 2 days ago, Trumps response was that he'd like the have the same freedom afforded Hillary during her interview with the FBI. No swearing in, no recordings, 20 minutes.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

You know, If Mueller and Trump are in cahoots, then it's likely Comey is in on the scheme too, at least peripherally. Comey's "leaked" memo was the impetus for the SC. Which would make the ACTUAL topic of conversation at Comey's uncomfortable dinner go like:
Trump: "Jim, you've done a tremendous job thus far in getting this stuff out in the open as much as you could, Mike Rogers, he's a great guy, he told me as much, but I have a job for you. A way for you to serve your country much more bigly than as my Director of the FBI."
Comey: "What is it, Mr. President."
Trump: "I want you write a memo, and I want it to say I made inappropriate advances toward you."
Comey: "Mr. President? Like licking your lips and such?"
Trump: "Hah no no. Professionally inappropriate. And I need someone I can trust, but also someone who both the Democrat and Republican establishment will accept as non-partisan. I'm new on the scene here and I don't know who to go to."
Comey: "Bob Mueller. He's perfect."
Trump: "Terrific. How's your Big Mac?"
Comey: "Same as every other Big Mac I've ever eaten."
Trump: "Terrific. I'm also going to have to fire you."
Comey: "Mr. President, I serve at the pleasure..."
Trump: "Op op op. I know. But that phrase freaks me out. Don't say it. So you write this memo, give it to one of your college buddies. Don't worry about Executive Privilege, I'll pardon you after it's all said and done. I'm gonna go on TV and say I fired you because of the 'Russia thing.' That will get them all worked up and get you in the clear of it. Then you tell your buddy to leak it to the press. They'll demand a special investigation. That's where your buddy, Bob Miller..."
Comey: "Mueller, Mr. President."
Trump: "Mueller, excuse me, comes into play. And it's important that Bob know nothing of any of this. The facts will speak for themselves. Do you think this Mr. Mueller will wake the sleeping dogs once he gets his hands on this FISA warrant Mike told me about?"
Comey: "Mr. President I apologize for having any part in that affair. I have copies of of the 302's from that incident in my office."
Trump: "Those aren't for me, they're for Mr. Mueller. For what it's worth, I also have copies in the Oval Office, which is why we're having this conversation. It's water under the bridge, Jim."
Comey: "Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, I think Bob will follow every line of inquiry before him."
Trump: "Super. Well, I'm about done, I see you've barely touched your fries. Would you like some fresh ones for the road?"
Comey: "No thank you Mr. President, I'm sure my wife will want dinner when I get home."
Trump: "Some for her too then? They've got this terrific sandwich, it's called "the McRib." They only have it sometimes though but now I can get it whenever I want!"
Comey: "Yes, Mr. President, but no thank you."
Trump: "Alright, well, your loss. Give her my best. You're doing great things Jim, and your country and I thank you. And Jim, call me Don."
edit on 11-1-2018 by Zelun because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

100% right! Trump has more to gain by talking with Kim Jong, than he does from talking to Bob Mueller.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Zelun


Are you a screenwriter? I could almost visualize that one-on-one interaction.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 10:16 PM
link   
To me this is much like any voluntary search or statement. If you waive your rights then you lose their protections, there are few legitimate reasons to really ever do this. Rights exist to protect us from the government. When a LEO is asking your permission to search for example, they do so because they don't have enough evidence or information to articulate probable cause to warrant the search. If you agree to this request, then you have waived your 4A rights just as you waive your 5A right when you continue to speak to LE after being advised of your rights

If you refuse the search/interview, then there is most likely no known remaining sources from which to acquire further evidence/information to meet their evidentiary requirements. If you allow the search/interview, even if you've done nothing wrong, you create additional opportunities for evidence collection and avenues of investigation against your own self-interest and without the protection of certain Constitutional rights. If there were enough evidence in the first place, no one would be asking for your permission. You'd either be indicted/arrested (a little different in the case of a President, who can only be impeached/convicted by the congress) or searched, depending on which particular scenario/right we're looking at.

No one can possibly hold it against the President for utilizing the protections our Constitution guarantees each Citizen. If the government believes he has broken a law (which is the only legitimate reason to investigate in the first place) then it is entirely their responsibility to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I just can't see any benefit to this, and potentially lots of shortcomings. "Anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law" including misspeaking and accidental omission (like Sessions misspeaking about forgotten contact he wasn't even required to disclose, as a perfect example where remaining silent is paramount)



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: neo96

Nope
Clinton had to talk, Nixon had to talk, Bush had to talk Reagan had to talk
Why do you think trump is special?


When asked about being interviewd by Mueller, 2 days ago, Trumps response was that he'd like the have the same freedom afforded Hillary during her interview with the FBI. No swearing in, no recordings, 20 minutes.


Please say you are joking!

He has NOT been well-advised if he does not insist on being recorded.

If the FBI interviews him and records his statements by hand via notes on Form 302, then they can claim he did or did not say all kinds of things.

He should insist on being recorded for his own protection if he is going to consent to an FBI interview.

Nothing good will come of giving an interview without being recorded.


***

Beware when the FBI is not recording...


***

ETA: And whether he is sworn in or not..it's still illegal to give false statements to the FBI!

Wait! Just as I typed that, something I wrote a few weeks ago came back to me....only ONE party in Washington DC has to consent to a recording of a private conversation. IF Trump records the interview without the FBI's knowledge and they use their Form 302 to create a false record of his actual statements, then Trump could potentially expose criminality in the FBI's procedures of collecting statements if they falsify his statements.

It would be the most significant exposure of corruption in federal law enforcement in recent history.

I hope he has a plan to secretly record the interview. Otherwise, he is a fool to not insist on a recording.



edit on 1/11/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 10:21 PM
link   
I hope President Trump refuses to be interviewed by the Special Counsel next Wednesday at 3:00pm and then slams CNN with the KING OF FAKE NEWS award at 5:00pm.

I'd really like to see another meltdown on their set, like the night Trump won the Presidency.







 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join