In light of recent developments, Trump should definitely refuse any hypothetical Mueller interview

In light of some recent (and other not-so-recent) developments, I believe Trump should exercise his Constitutional rights and decline to interview with Mueller. Recent revelations RE: exposed Special Agent Peter Strozok and DOJ attorney Lisa Page have shined light on their self-described "insurance policy" which they allegedly carried out through what they describe as "a secret society" within the Bureau/DOJ.

From Water Protector Legal Collective, which describes itself as an "On-the-ground legal support for the Dakota Access Pipeline resistance at Standing Rock ND" the following legal advice is offered to "activists" (which of course applies to ANY Citizen, including the President who is also a Citizen with Constitutional protections):

Rights and Tips for Interacting With Law Enforcement

[...]

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives every person the right not to answer questions asked by a police officer or government agent.
I WISH TO REMAIN SILENT.

[...]

You are under no legal obligation to have a conversation with the police, FBI, ICE, TSA, or investigator. If you agree to talk with them, you will very likely give them the information they need to arrest you or prosecute you or someone else.
Your best bet is to politely but firmly refuse to speak to them. Always make your refusal to speak to them clear, in words, as opposed to simply shaking your head.

[...]

You have the right to remain silent and to refuse to answer questions.

Anything you do say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present when questioned.

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you at no charge.

If you decide to answer questions now, without an attorney present, you will retain the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.

Do you understand these rights as explained to you?

Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

Your “Demand of Rights”

I will not talk to you or anyone about anything.

I demand to have an attorney present before I speak to you or anyone.

I will not answer any questions, or reply to any charges, without my attorney present.

I do not agree to perform any test, consent to any searches, or participate in any line-ups, except DUI tests that don’t involve words.

I will not sign anything unless my attorney agrees I should do so, except jail release agreement.

I will not waive any of my constitutional rights.

source: waterprotectorlegal.org...

Another source, which renders advice to its readers regarding police stops (appears to be geared toward "activists" as well, but applies to any Citizen)

1. Can You Refuse to Answer Police Questions?

You always have the right to remain silent, and in most cases, that silence can't be used against you.

source: blogs.findlaw.com...

The effort against Trump has been proven as anything but transparent and disinterested. We have seen a concerted effort to bring the President down, and combating their misinformation with facts is important to winning an information war.

Trump's (and our) Constitutional protections exist as a safeguard against political persecution and other types of tyranny, and we are foolish to waive them. It is Mueller's job to build a case, and the President would be wise to make him do his job not to do it for him.

There is no crime here. No "collusion" (which isn't a crime) no obstruction (for exercising his unilateral legal authority) no nothing that ties him in to any criminal acts. Answering questions will not help, even if he does a perfect job. Mueller will have weeks to pour over his answers and look for any excuse to hang a criminal charge over his head.

Lied about eating that giant KFC bucket last weekend? Mueller could charge him for this. As it stands, even if every single accusation is true/proven (which is entirely NOT the case) no crime has been committed Trump walks. Talking to Mueller only increases his attack surface, leaving potential for misinterpretation or misspeaking (which everyone does occasionally)

Has President Trump been summoned yet? If so, will it be in person, or by written questions? Sessions was interviewed for a few hours in person last week.

p.s. I don't think the Mueller probe will last much longer. It's based on lies.

What's the point of interviewing Trump after a year of guilty in the kangaroo courts of public opinion ?

The only thing left is his haters trying to legitimize their BIGOTRY.

a reply to: JBurns If he does that do you realize how guilty that would make him look? If he is not guilty then why do that? Plus Trump already said he looks forward to the interview. Don’t you want to know the truth? I do, and if it turns out he is innocent that I will accept that. If it turns out the claims are true would you accept that?

a reply to: carewemust

He has not that I am aware of, but it would be ill-advised for him to agree to any such request. Force Mueller to summon him before a Grand Jury, in which case he can still exercise his 5th amendment rights.

It is put up or shut up time for Mueller. Either he has evidence of a crime or he doesn't (he doesn't, as I explained above he's not accused of committing any actual crime).

Either way, the President shouldn't give him any more ammo to use in this witch-hunt.

Mueller won't need to interview Trump at all. It amuses me that y'all think that has to happen for the hammer to fall.

a reply to: neo96

The point of interviewing Trump is to see if his story matches up with the others. This is how they find inconsistencies in story’s. Proper investigation tactics. Just because you support him does not mean he is above the law. Yes he can invoke executive privilege but that will not help his case.

a reply to: JBurns



If he did refuse, he would get a subpoena, plain and simple.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

"make him look" ?

We have Constitutional protections against self-incrimination for a reason. Waiving those protections are one of the silliest things one can do. You cannot infer guilt by one refusing to waive their Constitutional protections, which are designed to protect the accused against politicization or other abuse - which is exactly what the evidence we've seen points to.

This isn't a communist totalitarian state. If the government accuses you of a crime, it is their job ENTIRELY to prove their allegations. You are NEVER obliged to assist them in prosecuting you, that is a hallmark of fair and impartial American justice.

Why do that? Because he's not guilty of any actual crime! "Collusion" isn't a crime. Exercising his lawful authority as POTUS can NEVER be construed as "obstruction" (you have to break a law for that, also). The only thing Mueller could even possibly get him on is something similar to General Flynn (who lied about something he wasn't required to disclose). The mere act of lying is in itself the totality of the crime.

Speaking to investigators in the face of your own best interests and Constitutionally GUARANTEED protections could be entirely asinine IMHO.

a reply to: kurthall

Sure, which he can still refuse to answer questions albeit physically, in person.

You do realize the 5th amendment applies at all times, right? Including under subpoena, warrant, detention, arrest, arraignment, trial, conviction, etc.....?

A subpoena doesn't suddenly remove Trump's 5th amendment protections. Ever. For any reason. Unless he waives his 5th amendment protections of course.

I'm confused why you think Trump's Constitutional rights can some how be revoked without his permission?

a reply to: Wayfarer You know these types. They are unreasonable and blind followers it would seem. And Jburns....If it is time to put up or shut up then why does everyone on your team keep saying lock her up. Years of investigation and nothing to show. Just wild claims backed by nothing but yet Trump followers want yet another investigation to be done. Double standard much

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Wrong answer.

I don't keep saying lock her up. I keep saying investigate her. Big difference.

If there is evidence of a crime, then lock her up. Otherwise, political prosecutions are despicable.

Nice case of "what about" though.

a reply to: JBurns
You saying he is not guilty of any actual crime is very plainly your opinion. You do not know what Mueller has or does not have. Time will tell. Now if you could answer my question from earlier. If he is found guilty of a crime that could lead to impeachment or him resigning would you support that or still cry wolf?

He'd better refuse! If past performance is any indication he'll lie like a rug.

He can't help it, he is that stupid.

LOL Yea you guys better pray your hero refuses.

K~

a reply to: Allaroundyou

I freely admit, there is little evidence against Clinton.

What we do know is that she lied to investigators (as did her aides) Peter Strozok and company, but was never charged with. Flynn was charged for this exact same offense. That is OK.

Otherwise, there is nothing against her that is concrete enough for a criminal indictment IMHO. So yeah, going after Hillary is probably a huge waste of time. But in light of the Strozok/Page revelations, the email investigation needs to be re-opened. Not about the emails themselves necessarily, but about how the investigation was handled and to determine how much damage Page/Strozok's "secret society" actually did.

a reply to: JBurns
I never said “you” keep saying that. But your base does. I was using a generalization that’s all. And also she was already investigated for a long time and nothing came of it.

Nah... just like Trump is going to Davos to strut. Trump should show up per Mueller's request, take his favorite McDonald's meal and just sit there.. staring at Mueller and stuffing his face with a non-poisonous meal.. all the while staying mum.

Mueller needs Trump, Trump doesn't need Mueller. Mueller is Comey!

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: JBurns If he does that do you realize how guilty that would make him look? If he is not guilty then why do that? Plus Trump already said he looks forward to the interview. Don’t you want to know the truth? I do, and if it turns out he is innocent that I will accept that. If it turns out the claims are true would you accept that?

What difference does it make?

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Agreed, and it is a mistake. I was happier after the election when Trump announced that lock her up was campaign rhetoric. Would have been nice to leave it at that. But she has been instrumental in pushing this anti-Trump narrative (despite not having evidence to back it up) and that is wrong too. A lot of corruption and evidence has come to light as well, including her campaign's financing of the "dossier"

It is also wrong to seek her imprisonment without due process and Constitutional guarantees of protection. Her 5th amendment rights are a check against political retribution as well. This is why no one under investigation by the government should ever think they can talk their way out of an investigation. If they're investigating you, they think you are likely guilty of a crime. If they speak to you voluntarily or request you to waive your rights, they are doing so because they have insufficient evidence to charge you with a crime and are in fact hoping you'll provide them that evidence. Thankfully the 5th amendment protects us against this type of self-incrimination, but many waive this protection thinking they can talk their way out of it.

a reply to: aethertek

I do, and he should.

Constitutional safeguards exist to prevent unchecked government abuse and political retribution. There is no legitimate reason to waive this right. Trump's position on the issue is very clear: he did nothing wrong. Mueller can read his public statement and take from it what he will. He's under no obligation to help Mueller persecute him.