Why Trump is right if he declines to interview with Mueller

The few indictments resulting from the Mueller investigation have been against several of Trump's former campaign staffers related to criminal activities that started before joining the Trump campaign. General Flynn, as a perfect example, was only guilty of lying to federal agents about something he wasn't obliged to disclose in the first place. Had he of simply used his 5A right to remain silent or answered the question truthfully, there would've been absolutely no crime committed and he'd have walked away clean.

The burden of proof rests squarely upon Mueller, and there are few legitimate reasons Trump would want to cooperate with the interview. Mueller has thus far operated by chasing down technical or procedural violations, or catching people in lies unrelated to the actual investigation. It is likely that Mueller - who clearly has a weak case to begin with, especially in light of the corruption/bias revelations against his team - would employ such tactics against the President in an effect to end his investigation on a successful note.

If Trump mistakenly lied about what he had for dinner two months ago, Mueller could charge him with lying to federal agents. Either way, it is solely on Mueller to build any case against the President. Given the extreme polarization of our country politically, there is nothing Trump can say that will exonerate him in the eyes of that demographic. He should exercise his 5A protections against the SC, and keep the ball in Mueller's court to continue to justify the existence of an investigation that is clearly producing nothing of real significance.

OP SOURCE: www.msn.com...

Is anyone really surprised DC insiders would have some skeletons in their closet? I'm sure not. Trump isn't a DC insider or a politician for that matter. This too shall pass, and when the investigation is over the left will have two choices. They can either work with this administration and pursue goals that are mutually beneficial, or they can continue their scorched Earth policies and face voters in 2018/2020. Tax cuts are going to shine very, very, very quickly - by 2018 the benefits will be felt by 80% of Americans.

Go with door number two Dems. A friendly suggestion!

Besides, surely a conspiracy of this proposed size would have left behind a massive amount of evidence. Supposedly the "Russians" were extremely sloppy in their DNC "hack" so how did they all of sudden get so much smarter when it comes to "collusion" ?

General Flynn, as a perfect example, was only guilty of lying to federal agents about something he wasn't obliged to disclose in the first place. Had he of simply used his 5A right to remain silent or answered the question truthfully, there would've been absolutely no crime committed and he'd have walked away clean.

That is not correct. He plead guilty to that charge, allegedly in exchange for his cooperation in the investigation and so that he would not face other charges relating to his work with foreign governments.

It is likely that Mueller - who clearly has a weak case to begin with

Weak case on whom for what?

If Trump mistakenly lied about what he had for dinner two months ago, Mueller could charge him with lying to federal agents.

If he was mistaken, it was not an intentional lie and Mueller would not waste his time on such a silly thing.

At this point, Trump talking with Mueller and the SC is mostly about optics.

If I was Trump I'd tell Mueller to go # himself.

Executive Privilege people.

I agree with trump here. This could become a real problem if it becomes the norm. You don't like a president try and trap him.

I see it as being past the point of no return. This is all founded in malice. Insults fly and we dont care.

I think we are just waiting for someone to set it off. We are willing. Everything points to a declared enemy, not a simple misunderstanding or due process of law.

Its ok though. As you said, this too shall pass.

a reply to: JBurns

Perjury is purposeful lying. Not mistakes. In other words, it's only perjury if you know you're lying. Law allows for lack of memory or mistakes. Also, perjury is unusually hard to prove, which is why you don't see a lot of perjury cases.

Trump lies about obvious things. Obvious and very easy to prove.

a reply to: JBurns

I don't really think he could deny meeting with Muller. If he did REFUSE, what would that tell you??? That it's a nothingburger ? Is that what it would tell you?

It would tell me what I already know, there is a rotten egg and it stinks. I don't have to see a rotten egg to know what it smells like.

originally posted by: introvert

General Flynn, as a perfect example, was only guilty of lying to federal agents about something he wasn't obliged to disclose in the first place. Had he of simply used his 5A right to remain silent or answered the question truthfully, there would've been absolutely no crime committed and he'd have walked away clean.

That is not correct. He plead guilty to that charge, allegedly in exchange for his cooperation in the investigation and so that he would not face other charges relating to his work with foreign governments.

What exactly is he cooperating with?

It is likely that Mueller - who clearly has a weak case to begin with

Weak case on whom for what?

Strong case on whom for what? Please provide your sources

If Trump mistakenly lied about what he had for dinner two months ago, Mueller could charge him with lying to federal agents.

If he was mistaken, it was not an intentional lie and Mueller would not waste his time on such a silly thing.

At this point, Trump talking with Mueller and the SC is mostly about optics.

What exactly does Trump have to gain? Those that voted for him appreciate his no nonsense way of dealing with all of this silliness and those that didn't already have their mind made up.

originally posted by: xxspockyxx

originally posted by: introvert

General Flynn, as a perfect example, was only guilty of lying to federal agents about something he wasn't obliged to disclose in the first place. Had he of simply used his 5A right to remain silent or answered the question truthfully, there would've been absolutely no crime committed and he'd have walked away clean.

That is not correct. He plead guilty to that charge, allegedly in exchange for his cooperation in the investigation and so that he would not face other charges relating to his work with foreign governments.

What exactly is he cooperating with?

It is likely that Mueller - who clearly has a weak case to begin with

Weak case on whom for what?

Strong case on whom for what? Please provide your sources

If Trump mistakenly lied about what he had for dinner two months ago, Mueller could charge him with lying to federal agents.

If he was mistaken, it was not an intentional lie and Mueller would not waste his time on such a silly thing.

At this point, Trump talking with Mueller and the SC is mostly about optics.

What exactly does Trump have to gain? Those that voted for him appreciate his no nonsense way of dealing with all of this silliness and those that didn't already have their mind made up.

Well, I'm not sure what he has to gain. On one hand if he doesn't talk with them, he may look like a puss. Then again, he may also say something incredibly stupid that comes back to bite him.

No matter. I couldn't care less.

a reply to: JBurns


To be sure, he has already made public statements purportedly the same as the statement he'd make to the SC. Why do so under oath, especially in light of Hillary Clinton and her aides (who did lie to the FBI) avoiding being interviewed under oath?

He has nothing to gain, and possibly something to lose if the President misspeaks. I believe they also floated a question and answer via certified mail/courier as one alternative. Even this is risky, when it is on the prosecution to build a case against you. You're not required to do their job for them.

That is not correct. He plead guilty to that charge, allegedly in exchange for his cooperation in the investigation and so that he would not face other charges relating to his work with foreign governments.

But it is correct. He plead guilty to a procedural crime. He was never found guilty of anything else. Allegedly in exchange for cooperation to not face other charges proves nothing.

Weak case on whom for what?

Russian collusion for Democrats and their conspirators.

If he was mistaken, it was not an intentional lie and Mueller would not waste his time on such a silly thing.

At this point, Trump talking with Mueller and the SC is mostly about optics.

Except he did waste his time on that with Flynn, and he has been shown to be anti-Trump. He didn't charge Dems who've been guilty of the same crimes.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xxspockyxx

originally posted by: introvert

General Flynn, as a perfect example, was only guilty of lying to federal agents about something he wasn't obliged to disclose in the first place. Had he of simply used his 5A right to remain silent or answered the question truthfully, there would've been absolutely no crime committed and he'd have walked away clean.

That is not correct. He plead guilty to that charge, allegedly in exchange for his cooperation in the investigation and so that he would not face other charges relating to his work with foreign governments.

What exactly is he cooperating with?

It is likely that Mueller - who clearly has a weak case to begin with

Weak case on whom for what?

Strong case on whom for what? Please provide your sources

If Trump mistakenly lied about what he had for dinner two months ago, Mueller could charge him with lying to federal agents.

If he was mistaken, it was not an intentional lie and Mueller would not waste his time on such a silly thing.

At this point, Trump talking with Mueller and the SC is mostly about optics.

What exactly does Trump have to gain? Those that voted for him appreciate his no nonsense way of dealing with all of this silliness and those that didn't already have their mind made up.

Well, I'm not sure what he has to gain. On one hand if he doesn't talk with them, he may look like a puss. Then again, he may also say something incredibly stupid that comes back to bite him.

No matter. I couldn't care less.

Could have fooled anyone that has ever read a thread on ats that has anything to do with defending Hillary or persecuting Trump. Certain people always seem to show up to offer their 2 cents.

originally posted by: xxspockyxx

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xxspockyxx

originally posted by: introvert

General Flynn, as a perfect example, was only guilty of lying to federal agents about something he wasn't obliged to disclose in the first place. Had he of simply used his 5A right to remain silent or answered the question truthfully, there would've been absolutely no crime committed and he'd have walked away clean.

That is not correct. He plead guilty to that charge, allegedly in exchange for his cooperation in the investigation and so that he would not face other charges relating to his work with foreign governments.

What exactly is he cooperating with?

It is likely that Mueller - who clearly has a weak case to begin with

Weak case on whom for what?

Strong case on whom for what? Please provide your sources

If Trump mistakenly lied about what he had for dinner two months ago, Mueller could charge him with lying to federal agents.

If he was mistaken, it was not an intentional lie and Mueller would not waste his time on such a silly thing.

At this point, Trump talking with Mueller and the SC is mostly about optics.

What exactly does Trump have to gain? Those that voted for him appreciate his no nonsense way of dealing with all of this silliness and those that didn't already have their mind made up.

Well, I'm not sure what he has to gain. On one hand if he doesn't talk with them, he may look like a puss. Then again, he may also say something incredibly stupid that comes back to bite him.

No matter. I couldn't care less.

Could have fooled anyone that has ever read a thread on ats that has anything to do with defending Hillary or persecuting Trump. Certain people always seem to show up to offer their 2 cents.

I'm more than willing to offer my 2 cents, but I just don't think anything would come of a conversation between Trump and Mueller.

originally posted by: neo96
If I was Trump I'd tell Mueller to go # himself.

Executive Privilege people.

Executive privilege is to protect executive work product in furtherance of policy and action.

It does not apply to a criminal investigation.

He would have to invoke the 5th Amendment, and allow for all his supporters like the OP to think that's just fine.

Flynn plead to the crime he did in exchange for his testimony, we don't know what Mueller had on him that got him to agree to testify.

I love the "Mueller's weak case .." comment.

The emails from his own idiot son near prove the matter, and then idiot Trump himself goes on national television and says he fired Comey to end the Russian investigation.

Weak case, pffft.

originally posted by: JBurns
Why Trump is right if he declines to interview with Mueller.

Trump has nothing to gain and everything to lose if he interviews with the FBI and they follow their standard operating procedure of NOT recording it and, instead, use Form 302 to take notes on the interview.

The person who records the notes and files the Form 302 has the opportunity to completely invent or omit statements and make it the OFFICIAL record of what Trump says during the interview.

If any of it is used to indict Trump for making false statements to the FBI -- he will be charged with making false statements to the FBI because the issue then becomes 'were you lying during the interview or are you lying now when you claim you never made the statements to the FBI?"

The paraphrased notes on FBI Form 302 LITERALLY BECOME THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF STATEMENTS.

I don't think a lot of people understand that the FBI does this...I know I didn't until recently. Here's an article that discusses Form 302: Beware when the FBI is not recording...

So, if Trump interviews with the FBI, there better be a recording or I will not have any confidence in the interview...whether they state Trump made no false statements or if they say he did.

In this day and age...the FBI should be recording interviews. Their excuse that it hinders their rapport with interviewees doesn't pass muster. It makes them look like they recommend to indict or not indict for arbitrary reasons and they want to protect that opportunity for abuse.

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.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xxspockyxx

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xxspockyxx

originally posted by: introvert

General Flynn, as a perfect example, was only guilty of lying to federal agents about something he wasn't obliged to disclose in the first place. Had he of simply used his 5A right to remain silent or answered the question truthfully, there would've been absolutely no crime committed and he'd have walked away clean.

That is not correct. He plead guilty to that charge, allegedly in exchange for his cooperation in the investigation and so that he would not face other charges relating to his work with foreign governments.

What exactly is he cooperating with?

It is likely that Mueller - who clearly has a weak case to begin with

Weak case on whom for what?

Strong case on whom for what? Please provide your sources

If Trump mistakenly lied about what he had for dinner two months ago, Mueller could charge him with lying to federal agents.

If he was mistaken, it was not an intentional lie and Mueller would not waste his time on such a silly thing.

At this point, Trump talking with Mueller and the SC is mostly about optics.

What exactly does Trump have to gain? Those that voted for him appreciate his no nonsense way of dealing with all of this silliness and those that didn't already have their mind made up.

Well, I'm not sure what he has to gain. On one hand if he doesn't talk with them, he may look like a puss. Then again, he may also say something incredibly stupid that comes back to bite him.

No matter. I couldn't care less.

Could have fooled anyone that has ever read a thread on ats that has anything to do with defending Hillary or persecuting Trump. Certain people always seem to show up to offer their 2 cents.

I'm more than willing to offer my 2 cents, but I just don't think anything would come of a conversation between Trump and Mueller.

I agree. There is absolutely no reason for Trump to participate in a witch hunt that is only fueled by partisan disinformation.

a reply to: introvert


Thank you for pointing that out introvert You are correct, and I may have oversimplified in regard to Flynn. But his foreign agent violations had started well before the Trump campaign, and surely we cannot try to hold Trump responsible for the unrelated actions of a staffer. I am sure Trump suspected a U.S. General (as did Pence) would be of sound moral character. I think everyone was disappointed to see otherwise.

Weak case on whom for what?

Just doesn't have any case as far as I can tell against the President. He has at least been able to nail a few people with violating various laws, but we really have to ask if this is the best way to tackle the vulnerability of this country to disinformation.

Educating people about recognizing and filtering misinformation is a key part of that effort, as well as the diplomatic routes being pursued (carrying on Obama-era sanctions and signing new ones, embassy closures, and even more indirect stuff like arming Ukraine or bombing Syrian government bases). I think it is pretty clear the President didn't do anything illegal, or at least that there isn't any evidence he did anything illegal. Either way, this is seeming more and more like a distraction from the reality that we're bombarded with disinfo/propaganda 24/7 and short of a radical new means of defending against/recognizing this tactic will continue to be succeptible.

This may have been an issue for Dems in 2016, but what if 2018 turns out against the GOP? If our elections/society truly is that vulnerable and information warfare is this effective then we need to devise a true defense. I don't think endless investigations into a fruitless issue is the answer to that. At least it isn't the entire answer, as congressional investigations are of course at that respective body's discretion. A criminal investigation however cannot go on forever and should never be considered as a tool for political vengeance (this goes for anyone, not just this situation).

If he was mistaken, it was not an intentional lie and Mueller would not waste his time on such a silly thing.

I would certainly hope not introvert, but it seems the government is all too quick to hang citizens (perhaps even Presidents) for lying - which admittedly isn't ethical, but compared to the level and frequency at which the government lies directly to us is miniscule.

I won't defend Flynn, Manafort, Papadopolous, etc. Having pleaded guilty, they clearly believe they are guilty in regard to what they were accused of. Even Manafort's latest legal filing doesn't dispute his guilt, rather challenges the SC's jurisdiction (or was it scope?). I would say it is on shaky legal standing given the language of the SC's appointment, but I really have no sympathy for unscrupulous DC insiders anyhow.

At this point, Trump talking with Mueller and the SC is mostly about optics.

True, and if Trump ends up meeting him then I applaud his transparency. I just personally see little to gain as a result, other than a potentially quicker disposition. In all likelihood though, if Mueller is to the point where he's even thinking about interviewing the President, I'd say the investigation is nearing its end. On the other hand, if Trump declines to interview, Mueller could simply run out of leads/evidence and may have no reason to continue

It is absolutely an issue of optics at this point. Will be interested to see the result of this/or the result of the investigation. Even if I am right and Trump is clean, I have a feeling we will know much more about the events of the 2016 election

originally posted by: sine.nomine

That is not correct. He plead guilty to that charge, allegedly in exchange for his cooperation in the investigation and so that he would not face other charges relating to his work with foreign governments.

But it is correct. He plead guilty to a procedural crime. He was never found guilty of anything else. Allegedly in exchange for cooperation to not face other charges proves nothing.

Weak case on whom for what?

Russian collusion for Democrats and their conspirators.

If he was mistaken, it was not an intentional lie and Mueller would not waste his time on such a silly thing.

At this point, Trump talking with Mueller and the SC is mostly about optics.

Except he did waste his time on that with Flynn, and he has been shown to be anti-Trump. He didn't charge Dems who've been guilty of the same crimes.

He may have had a kidnapping for money case against Flynn with respect to Turkey, we know he had a failure to register as a foreign agent. Fact is, you can't know what evidence Mueller had over Flynn such that Flynn thought he got a good deal to plead guilty, and neither do I, but I sure don't pretend that Mueller ONLY had a perjury charge against Flynn.

Mueller, the lifelong Republican is "Anti-Trump" because he hasn't charged Dems with the same crimes? He's a special counsel to look into Trump's possible crimes. If you're looking for someone to charge Dems, look to your own DOJ and stop using it to claim that Mueller is anti-Dem.

The lack of knowledge about certain base things is breathtaking.

Why would anyone, admit/submit to an "interview" with someone, they can/could just "let go" of? Kind of like this Hillary thing? Why is she "untouchable? She and her husband has/have been "fired"! They're "private citizens" now. Not unlike, "privates" in the military? Who did more than either of them two, for this Nation. Mueller works for Trump. That's the jist of it! You don't think Pres. Trump and Mueller don't set at the same table? Really? Then the MSM just reports? Don't believe anything you hear, And only half of what you see. ABS is not a good reality source.