Mueller blinks - Report: Mueller will accept written answers from Trump on Russia collusion

a reply to: Xcathdra

Ex-Trump Lawyer Told Mueller That Trump Is Too Dumb to Testify

Dowd then explained to Mueller and Quarles why he was trying to keep the president from testifying: “I’m not going to sit there and let him look like an idiot. And you publish that transcript, because everything leaks in Washington, and the guys overseas are going to say, ‘I told you he was an idiot. I told you he was a goddamn dumbbell. What are we dealing with this idiot for?’ ”

“John, I understand,” Mueller replied, according to Woodward.

He blinked? Yeah - Trumps got him over a barrel all right :-)

He recognizes that there's no point. The president might as well have his lawyers write in the answers for him. It's not going to matter in the end

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I say put your money where your mouth is. Trump said he would be willing to talk so why let his lawyers do it for him? Makes him look like a little biz nitch. If a president isn’t willing to stand up to what he says than don’t be POTUS. He has no integrity IMHO

a reply to: Allaroundyou

When Trump is through soiling The Executive Office of the President of the United States - I bet there will be some stories then. Boy howdy

Since neither of us has access to any of these people - it's all hearsay

I know that Trump is not usually the best person to speak for himself. That's why this seems credible to me - his lawyers are actually trying to protect the man. This is what they're supposed to do. Trump has gone back and forth on this (according to several different sources at different times). What he wants to do is not necessarily what he should do. If he's telling the truth and has done nothing wrong - there wouldn't be an issue

So, written answers to written questions his lawyers don't want him to freestyle

If a president isn’t willing to stand up to what he says than don’t be POTUS. He has no integrity IMHO

Can't argue with that

a reply to: Spiramirabilis


I couldn’t agree more.

originally posted by: smurfy
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's the same thing, Mueller will be able to glean the information he wants from any written content...that would include the author of same.
If anything, it shows that Mueller knows much more than even we think.

No, it doesn't. Do you expect Trump's answer to be anything other than "no collusion, no crime, everything legal 100%" ?

I wouldn't. Those are the same answers he's given all along, this won't be any different. What this means is exactly as XC wrote, he doesn't have a damn thing in regard to any potential crime. Trump's actions - which he doesn't deny - were entirely legal. Just as Hillary got dirt on Trump via foreign nationals (ie: those from Ukraine/Russia/Great Britain) Trump attempted to get dirt on Hillary via foreign nationals. Obviously that isn't a crime.

And with all due respect, are you even familiar with the US justice system? There is no "spirit of the law" here. Law is black and white, it is either legal or illegal as defined by the statutes as written. You can't twist a legal definition to meet the required elements of a crime. If the subject's conduct does not specifically violate US law, he will not (and does not) face legal jeopardy.

Again, I have nothing but respect for the Irish people and their long struggle for liberty/independence. I am not criticizing you for not being an American (based on your "Location" in your ATS profile) but am just curious if you were aware that is how our system of law and order works

Just because Trump's team met with a Russian lawyer about "dirt" doesn't make him guilty of a crime. You may not like the fact that he did that, but it is not unlawful (and point me to the statute if you disagree). Verbally making statements in support of "hacking" against your opponent is also not a crime, it is merely bad sportsmanship. Refusing to accept the conclusions of partisan hacks within the US/international intelligence appartus is not a crime - after 9/11-Iraq era lies folks have gotten a little smarter about trusting government without accountable and provable evidence. (we know not to trust government without absolute proof of its claims)

Mueller cannot "glean" anything from Trump's statements other than the denials. He still can decline to answer with specificity (yes/no only) and may invoke his right to remain silent at any point (as can any US citizen at any time they choose for any reason they choose without reproach)

a reply to: Allaroundyou

There is no need. A lawyers job is to protect their client from prosecution. It is a sound legal strategy to refuse to speak with investigators/prosecutors unless it is through your attorney as an intermediary. Our rights our recognized in the BOR for a reason, they provide a consistent bulwark against the type of tyranny Trump alleges Mueller represents (a politically motivated persecution/abuse of the legal system) so why on Earth would he waive those rights?

Those rights force Mueller to meet the very high burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt." The more rights Trump waives, the easier Mueller's job is. That makes zero sense.

Prosecutions are supposed to be very difficult on the accuser. After all, if you don't "prove" your allegations that is all they ever remain...mere, simple allegations.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Mueller has nothing

Sounds cryptic to me...

I bet he has $omething.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Nothing against POTUS, he even criticized liberal MSM for reporting lots of misinformation about his investigation. He didn't criticize Fox, or Alex Jones or Breitbart..he criticized CNN/Rachel Maddow for spreading false information

He has violations of minor campaign law/technical violations (lying to the government...hard for me to shed a tear for those crooks when government lies far more.. 24/7/365)

And don't forget the FBI cleared Trump/campaign of any criminal activity once already. Or did you forget that part

www.nytimes.com...

Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia
-failing NY times

a reply to: JBurns

I believe muellers office cleared trump twice of collusion.

Then people said since it was not mueller saying it then it does not count.

Either way i think it is more civilized for mueller to question potus in this manner.

Its sad, all this time, money and Adm Shiff's promises of clear instances of collusion, and all we get is Mueller Asking Trump to confess to anything at all?

Wrap it up dork, youre useless

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: JBurns

I believe muellers office cleared trump twice of collusion.

Then people said since it was not mueller saying it then it does not count.

Either way i think it is more civilized for mueller to question potus in this manner.

Agreed

I don't understand the attacks against him still, at least in that respect. There is a lot of legitimate criticism to be had about Trump, but Russian collusion is not one of them I just with Mueller or the FBI would've jumped to Trump's defense when the media was making these false claims like they did for Hillary RE: China server hacking

I hate seeing our formerly cherished institutions degraded to what they are today. I truly hope they are able to restore our confidence in them and their ability to carry out their duties without bias/political motivations

a reply to: JBurns

Mueller or the FBI would've jumped to Trump's defense when the media was making these false claims like they did for Hillary RE: China server hacking

Got to take the good with the bad on this one cause it will serve in the long run. You would not want mueller to be considered in the tank in the end.

Trump was always steady on the desire to have a thorough investigation. A seeming biased investigator would not be good in the end or a seeming biased investigation in favor of trump. If the potus is toats cleared then what does the opposition have to stand on later.

restoration