Why Trump is right if he declines to interview with Mueller

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?

Because none of them took the 5th Amendment. They all thought taking the 5th would be political death, as it would be if it were anyone but Trump. Trump can shoot a person on 5th Avenue and his people will cheer.

He can take the 5th and his people will cheer.

If my client is charged with a federal offense, or being investigated with a federal offense, I wouldn't have my client talk to the prosecutor.

If I am a political consultant, I would say "You have to talk b/c taking the 5th means you can't answer the questions and the public will turn on you."

Trump's people will never turn on him. Jeez, maybe if an Alt-Right hero like Bannon came out and said it all was true, that Trump did collude, maybe then the Trump fans would believe it, but other than ...oops. The "Always Trump" people will not turn on him no matter what.

So, I wouldn't allow him to talk. He'll be the first president ever to take the 5th - fitting.

***

If he "has to talk" then why is Trump negotiating at all?

You're just wrong on this, sorry.

Trump has 5th Amendment rights just like every American citizen. It's just no president ever thought he could invoke them.

If he has nothing to hide it should not be any problem should ir.
He said in the past he would cooperate and be questioned. Hold him to it.

a reply to: Scrubdog


I agree, much like introvert and I were discussing it is foremost an issue of optics at this point. I wouldn't fault him for agreeing to an interview, as it would certainly be a much applauded act of transparency in a government that traditionally fears/persecutes transparency. But I feel strongly against any person voluntarily waiving their constitutional protections (there are some situations it makes sense or is even common, like waiving your right to a speedy trial when it suits your particular defense)

I appreciate the fact you wouldn't personally hold it against him, as those protections are a keystone to our democratic republic

But there is no denying the fact that some people will nevertheless hold it against him, whether it makes logical sense to you or I or anyone else. It would be interesting to see if Mueller would be interested in a Q&A type exchange through the attorneys, which Trump has signaled he may be amenable to. I think he also floated drafting a statement of his formal position on the matter, so it will be interesting to see where this heads

a reply to: Sillyolme


You never have to testify against (incriminate) yourself. You are familiar with the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights? Constitutional protections are immutable, unless one waives them.

A citizen (which the President is a citizen) can never be compelled to testify against themselves.

a reply to: Sillyolme

What are you referencing? Every interview is voluntary. You can invoke the 5th at any point, just as she could have. Now god knows I'm not a fan of Clinton, but I do give her credit for voluntarily participating in the interview. That being said, where was the jeopardy? She wasn't put under oath and no one took her/her aids to task for lying to federal agents.

The part that wasn't voluntary was the search warrant issued for seizure of her private server. The very same one she wiped clean before handing over to investigators, which I'll point out is highly unusual. Anyone else would've been accused of tampering with evidence.

No search warrants against Trump have been issued, and I wouldn't expect any different. Whether to interview or not is solely up to the President.

a reply to: JBurns

I think that poster usually shows up and then when she is proven wrong leaves the thread. I have only been back on here for a few days but that is what has happened so far.

a reply to: xxspockyxx



That is OK though, a majority of lefties on here will at least rise to the occasion and challenge their own beliefs and opinions. Just as many of us frequently do when confronted with facts or new information. I suppose each person learns and grows differently though

No matter how much I disagree with some lefties on here, I certainly respect the fact that a majority of them come here with the intent to avoid echo chambers and engage in good-faith discussion and debate.

No disrespect intended silly I am open to debating this or another topic at any time (with anyone for that matter), it is how we learn new things and challenge our own wrong ideas

originally posted by: Sillyolme
He can't decline

just when i thought i had seen it all


EVERYONE in the usa has 5th amendment rights

you are wrong

Having read what the op has stated, as why Trump is right if he declines to interview with Mueller.

The first thing that everyone should understand: A sitting United States of America President is not above the law.

No President, at any time, while serving is above the law. The president is protected from more civil law suits. That means a person who Trump may owe money to, may not have a chance to sue the man, until after he is done with being President.

However, in a criminal case, or investigation, the president can not avoid merely cause he is a sitting President. He can delay the actions, due to the obligations of being President, and say take off to another country.

Now as far as Mueller and the whole investigation the answer is a yes/no kind of answer as it all depends. And here is how it goes: If Mueller asks, and he says yes he will talk with Mueller, and there is no subpoena, then Trump and his legal team get to call the shots, including what the President can and will not talk about, even can say no. That is fine and legal, there is nothing compelling the man to talk to Mueller. He would even be entitled to know what Mueller wants to talk about and have time to reply and make a decision.

However, if he says no, Mueller, if he still wanted to talk to Trump, would then have to get a subpoena, and have it served to the White House staff, and lawyers. If that is the case, then Trump is not able to say no, and would be compelled to actually sit through the interview, and it would be Mueller’s team that would get to set the terms and topics where Trump would be required to answer under oath.

So ultimately it comes down to if there is or is not a subpoena involved. And as it is the President of the United States, it would require a federal judge to issue such. And Mueller would have to provide both compelling argument and evidence to that, judge for the judge to even consider and do such. And the Judge may probably put down guidelines as to what is and is not going to be with in the scope of said interview.

But right now, it is going back and forth and only the team members and lawyers are talking and sending messages back and forth.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

no 5th amendment rights for trump?
you also are wrong
he does not have to answer

a reply to: sdcigarpig

You are right that Mueller could get a judge's signature, but his fifth amendment rights still apply and he can exercise his right to remain silent for all (or some) of the questions at any time. Mueller may not make an inference of guilt if he does not choose to waive his Constitutional protections or if opts to remain silent.

It will be interesting to see what happens though. If Trump does decline, Mueller will have to get his evidence from other sources. Our 5th amendment protections are enshrined for a reason, and I'd never suggest anyone waive that valuable and necessary Constitutional protection. A legal system that could force a defendant to testify against themselves is a terrifying prospect.

At least Trump's position on the matter is well known and publically available, so it shouldn't hinder any potential leads since the President denies any wrong-doing. Don't get me wrong, I really like President Trump but he does have a tendency to talk a bit too much sometimes and especially on Twitter. These are not traits one should have when interviewing with a federal investigator who can charge you for any lie (including unintentional, unrelated or about things you aren't required to disclose). Remaining silent and letting the government carry its burden of proveing your guilt is usually the best course of action.

a reply to: JBurns

I agree, the president can use the 5th amendment, and thus remain silent, however, here is the problem to this date:

We all, including the President, however, the President is not exercising such. In a case like this, the tweets that the president sends out becomes a matter of public record and can be used against him. And it has been, from the get go.

Ultimately the President is going to have to listen to the lawyers that are there to protect the man legally and not ignore them.

a reply to: shooterbrody

What I pointed out, is this: If he willingly agrees to talk, then his team sets the ground rules.

If he does not and Mueller requires a subpoena, then they set the ground rules.

I did not mention anything about him taking the 5th amendment.

But here is the thing, if he takes the 5th, that could look just as bad on him, as it would say that he knew and could possibly hiding something in the process, where he would be guilty of breaking a law.

Right now it is going to boil down to 2 possible outcomes: 1) No one wants to throw themselves on the proverbial sword and take the hit for Trump, either spending time in jail, or having to be pardoned and end up toxic by the act. 2) The other is that someone close to Trump decides to throw themselves on the proverbial sword and all of the blame.

a reply to: sdcigarpig


there is no reason for trump to speak to anyone
mueller can make his "recommendation" with or without speaking to potus
mueller has jack squat on potus

a reply to: shooterbrody

While yes Mueller can make his recommendations with or without speaking to the POTUS.

We do not know what all Mueller does or does not have on POTUS, only on those who have been indited under US law.

You are right, Trump does not have to speak to Mueller. But how would it look to the everyday person on the street, the "average Joe", or to members of congress? Or even say an ally of the USA? Or to a country that is trying to force the USA out of a part of the world?

No matter what, Trump is still subject to the same laws and rights as all others, with some perks included with the job he currently holds. The question would be how would Trump want to talk to the special prosecutor, under his terms or under Mueller's terms? That would be first question that would have to be answered, though if I was sitting in Trump's seat, I would watch and stall, and only when it is evident that the man was getting close, to then agree to talk to him, but under conditions that my lawyer would set up and placed.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Would Mueller announce to the country that he wants to interview the President of the United States...either in person, or via written questions?

He/his team has conducted a lot of interviews without telling the country/press in advance. I don't think Mueller is a show-boat, like Comey.

a reply to: carewemust

If one looks at how this has gone down so far, Mueller is not putting out press releases on when a person is interviewed, usually it comes from the person being interviewed. It is leaked by either that person of their staff.

All we know is that Mueller is eventually going to want to talk to the President, and the rest will be silent or blacked out until they are either ready to release that information or it goes to Congress as a report to both the House and Senate committees, along with the full body of evidence and documentation.

So if you look at the past on this investigation, we do not know when or who gets talked until after the fact.

a reply to: JBurns

He's still going to have to appear before Mueller which is what I am saying. Whether he actually answers any questions I guess is another story. My point is he's not going to have a choice in answering a subpoena. Let him plead the fifth. Maybe then the GOP will finally see him for what he is and decide to dump him.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

That does indeed seem to be the case. Only the Congressional Committees release a schedule of people to be interviewed.

But I bet that if the President is scheduled, it will be leaked by somebody...unless Mueller keeps it simple, between him and Trump.

a reply to: carewemust

I believe that is something that the Trump legal team is wanting, hence why the negotiations with Mueller.