The Robert Mueller Investigation

[TahoeHorn 107]

The 49 "questions" were really 49 topic areas identified orally in a meeting.  Mueller's team did not provide a list of questions, and there isn't the remotest suggestion that Sekulow's notes constitute the extentent of what Mueller could ask.  You can bet that a topic would be introduced with a general question and there would be follow-ups focusing on conflicts between the answer and the facts.  Why would it be any other way?

[TwiceHorn 31,169]

3 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Or the questions Mueller decided to give to Trump's team didn't contain any surprises.  Mueller knows more than what's out there, and could well have "surprise" questions.

Yep, the questions strike me as something of a nothing burger.  But, there may have been some strategeric purpose related to Teh Donald (make him want/not want to testify), I dunno.

[TahoeHorn 107]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Yep, the questions strike me as something of a nothing burger.  But, there may have been some strategeric purpose related to Teh Donald (make him want/not want to testify), I dunno.

The reports say that Trump and some of his team think that they can generate a narrative that Mueller is overreaching.

 

The whole Trump strategy seems to me to be a public relations strategy, not a legal strategy.  I have no real confidence in second-guessing whether that's smart or foolish.  It seems to increase his legal problems, but I doubt if Trump's fate will be determined legally.  Congress and the public will decide his fate, so maybe he's smarter than we think.  Who knows?

[Pig Bellmont 8,678]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yep, the questions strike me as something of a nothing burger.  But, there may have been some strategeric purpose related to Teh Donald (make him want/not want to testify), I dunno.

LOL - Special Counsel has list of questions for the President regarding key elements of obstruction of justice (potential) crimes and his knowledge of his own campaign’s contacts/coordination with a hostile foreign power and Twice thinks it’s “nothing”. Read a history book. 

Edited May 2, 2018 by Pig Bellmont

[Pods 7,521]

Just now, TahoeHorn said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mueller-raised-possibility-of-presidential-subpoena-in-meeting-with-trumps-legal-team/2018/05/01/2bdec08e-4d51-11e8-af46-b1d6dc0d9bfe_story.html?utm_term=.a4b39f642e51

This is a perfect example where the media has not been doing their job. They've let the Trump side spin this for months as Trump really wants to cooperate, but his mean old lawyers just won't let him. 

Except, it doesn't work that way. If he refuses a voluntary interview, Mueller can subpoena him and compel him to cooperate or take the 5th.

The Supreme Court has already established the precedent that he must cooperate with a criminal subpoena. Trump would fight it in the courts, which will delay it. Nothing short of firing Mueller will stop it. If Mueller wants Trump's ass in a chair answering questions, or taking the 5th, he unequivocally has that power. 

If Trump was subpoenaed to appear before the Grand Jury, he will be facing questions without his counsel next to him.

You think he's a perjury trap in a voluntary meeting? 

The only question is whether Mueller wants to fight that in the courts, not whether Mueller has the power to compel Trump to testify or take the 5th. 

[wildcat09 29,183]

12 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

I don't think it's going to go like that.  A lot of folks are in the crosshairs of the investigation.  If and when folks like Thiel though his collab with CA via Palantir, and the Mercers role comes to light, there won't be a reunion tour.  

SCL is already under fire in the UK.  CEO Nix gone.  I expect a lot more to follow.

These aren't the types of people to go quietly into the night. They'll regroup unless they're imprisoned.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

9 minutes ago, Pods said:

The press has been absolute dog shit for this entire thing and they are one of the big reasons Trump won the GOP primary and then the election in the first place. Michelle Wolf was absolutely spot on with her critiques of the press. 

It's pathetic that the person with the best handle of the Russia investigation, who has consistently done one of the best jobs of being an investigative journalist and actually investigating, is a Twitter poster who is former public defender with a full-time job as a professor. 

He's not the only one either. Lots of the best investigative journalism has been done by Twitter posters and then followed up by the mainstream press without attribution to the Twitter posters. Both the former and latter parts of that are disgraceful.

 

You don't think there is a strategy for how the press is going about covering the Mueller investigation?

Because I do.  I think they are on a time table of sorts and slow rolling the information in bits and pieces to let the public saturate in the information and think about it for themselves. 

Abramson does not adhere to the slow roll strategy and it makes him come off as a conspiracy theorist to the uniformed reader. 

If the MSM went with the Seth Abramson approach it would be too ridiculous to be considered credible by the vast majority of Americans and would play right into Trump's hands as far as dividing the country.  

The media failed big time before the election to vet Trump but let's be honest, Trump should have never been taken seriously so I can see why the media chose not to focus on Trump's background, an enormous mistake in hindsight but an understandable one. 

[TornACL 7,669]

4 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

The whole Trump strategy seems to me to be a public relations strategy, not a legal strategy.  I have no real confidence in second-guessing whether that's smart or foolish.  It seems to increase his legal problems, but I doubt if Trump's fate will be determined legally.  Congress and the public will decide his fate, so maybe he's smarter than we think.  Who knows?

The funniest part about this is if they have to jump through all the logical, and legal hoops to make an argument...doesn't that in and of itself further validate the need for this investigation? Trump can scream "Witch Hunt" in all caps all he wants, but in this long walk, every time a mirage has been seen off in the distance, it's turned out to be a lake.

 

[Tyler Durden 132]

Jump through hoops?  These asshole are so stupid it would be like someone running hurdles but not trying to jump a single one.  MAGA!

[TahoeHorn 107]

Hypothesis to consider:

Trump won't get brought down on a technicality, as legal gotcha or even some garden variety crime like lying under oath about sex with an intern.  To get him there will have to be something that disgusts people in the political center and many Republicans.  Clinton didn't get bounced but Nixon did.  People know it when they see it.  To make obstruction charges fly under this scenario the American public must learn about some disgusting act that Trump was trying to hide.  "He's trying to hide something so that's obstruction" is not a storyline which will play.  We must learn the something.  If there's a "something" all the things he's been doing to impede the investigation will mortify us.  If there's no "something" then inappropriate behavior to stop Mueller from fucking with him won't move the needle enough no matter how many details of it emerge.  Are the Russians trying to squeeze him with blackmail material?  Did he negotiate with the Russians to help get elected?  Is there a "something" he's trying to hide?

I'm not asserting this as fact.  I'm entertaining the thought.  It's my working assumption in this mystery.

[triplehorn 2,664]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

These aren't the types of people to go quietly into the night. They'll regroup unless they're imprisoned.

I this bunch eventually gets the hammer.  What will continue to re-manifest is the weaponized use of social psychology to drive emotion to influence behavior on electoral outcomes.  It's not going away and we need to address this definitively.   It's like the mysterious power of the Arc of the Covenant, and whose hands it falls into determines whether it's used for good or 'evil'.  In this case, there's a handful of bad actors who are about to have their faces melt off.

[David Dennison 18,561]

2 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Hypothesis to consider:

Trump won't get brought down on a technicality, as legal gotcha or even some garden variety crime like lying under oath about sex with an intern.  To get him there will have to be something that disgusts people in the political center and many Republicans.  Clinton didn't get bounced but Nixon did.  People know it when they see it.  To make obstruction charges fly under this scenario the American public must learn about some disgusting act that Trump was trying to hide.  "He's trying to hide something so that's obstruction" is not a storyline which will play.  We must learn the something.  If there's a "something" all the things he's been doing to impede the investigation will mortify us.  If there's no "something" then inappropriate behavior to stop Mueller from fucking with him won't move the needle enough no matter how many details of it emerge.  Are the Russians trying to squeeze him with blackmail material?  Did he negotiate with the Russians to help get elected?  Is there a "something" he's trying to hide?

I'm not asserting this as fact.  I'm entertaining the thought.  It's my working assumption in this mystery.

I think Donald Trump and his organization have been laundering money for years and Mueller knows it. Donald Trump acts like he knows Mueller knows it.

[TwiceHorn 31,169]

26 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

LOL - Special Counsel has list of questions for the President regarding key elements of obstruction of justice (potential) crimes and his knowledge of his own campaign’s contacts/coordination with a hostile foreign power and Twice thinks it’s “nothing”. Read a history book. 

Hurr durr.  Did a single one of those questions surprise you?  Reveal any great legal strategy?  That's what I meant by nothing burger.  Any one of the posters on this thread could have come up with those questions.  Nothing.  Burger.

 

 

[Caracara 41]

Mueller interviewing Trump would not go so great for the maga-hating establishment. 

Hopefully it will be a live event. maybe pay-for-view

[Captainant 27,274]

Ugh can we fucking stop using the phrase "nothing burger"? 

[Fozzz 152]

your posts are nothing burgers

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

11 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Hypothesis to consider:

Trump won't get brought down on a technicality, as legal gotcha or even some garden variety crime like lying under oath about sex with an intern.  To get him there will have to be something that disgusts people in the political center and many Republicans.  Clinton didn't get bounced but Nixon did.  People know it when they see it.  To make obstruction charges fly under this scenario the American public must learn about some disgusting act that Trump was trying to hide.  "He's trying to hide something so that's obstruction" is not a storyline which will play.  We must learn the something.  If there's a "something" all the things he's been doing to impede the investigation will mortify us.  If there's no "something" then inappropriate behavior to stop Mueller from fucking with him won't move the needle enough no matter how many details of it emerge.  Are the Russians trying to squeeze him with blackmail material?  Did he negotiate with the Russians to help get elected?  Is there a "something" he's trying to hide?

I'm not asserting this as fact.  I'm entertaining the thought.  It's my working assumption in this mystery.

What if Mueller rounds up 40 people closely associated with the administration at once?

Because something like that is going to happen sooner or later, just look at who has already been indicted and for what.

It's obvious Mueller is prosecuting an enormous international conspiracy just by the court documents alone.

All the Americans indicted so far (except Manafort) have taken plea deals.

I don't know how to read that any other way than, "A whole bunch of people are going to jail."

 

[TahoeHorn 107]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

I think Donald Trump and his organization have been laundering money for years and Mueller knows it. Donald Trump acts like he knows Mueller knows it.

If you've read my posts I have been suggesting that for more than a year.  I was suggesting that (and poo-pooing election collusion) when nobody else was.  If it can be shown, then Trump will go down.  But knowing he's money laundering and demonstrating it are tough.  I led projects billing millions which investigated financial misdeeds.  You always know the answer right away.  getting the facts for the report is the hard part.

Another big possibility is foreign corrupt practices act violations.  It's tough to believe he's doing these projects with very corrupt people in Third World countries and staying in compliance with the FCPA.  But proving it to the public may be tough.

Then you've got his deals with the mob in NYC developments and Atlantic City casinos.  Again is paying three times market to the Genoveses for cement part of a crime or not?

The story will make all the GOP Senators puke and run or it will make them grit their teeth and do nothing.  We don't have the story.  Until we do we're just guessing.

[TornACL 7,669]

2 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

If you've read my posts I have been suggesting that for more than a year.  I was suggesting that (and poo-pooing election collusion) when nobody else was.  If it can be shown, then Trump will go down.  But knowing he's money laundering and demonstrating it are tough.  I led projects billing millions which investigated financial misdeeds.  You always know the answer right away.  getting the facts for the report is the hard part.

Another big possibility is foreign corrupt practices act violations.  It's tough to believe he's doing these projects with very corrupt people in Third World countries and staying in compliance with the FCPA.  But proving it to the public may be tough.

Then you've got his deals with the mob in NYC developments and Atlantic City casinos.  Again is paying three times market to the Genoveses for cement part of a crime or not?

The story will make all the GOP Senators puke and run or it will make them grit their teeth and do nothing.  We don't have the story.  Until we do we're just guessing.

Why not both.gif ?

[Biff Tannen 45,470]

9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Ugh can we fucking stop using the phrase "nothing burger"? 

How about unhinged?  That word needs to be stricken from the english language.

[Captainant 27,274]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

How about unhinged?  That word needs to be stricken from the english language.

As long as we can also strike "-gate" as shorthand for any scandal while we're at it. But pee-tape-gate does have a nice ring to it...

[TahoeHorn 107]

1 minute ago, TornACL said:

Why not both.gif ?

I'm guessing.  Everybody is.  Guess away.  That's what the board is for.

[kevwun 15,589]

and fake news

[TwiceHorn 31,169]

40 minutes ago, Pods said:

This is a perfect example where the media has not been doing their job. They've let the Trump side spin this for months as Trump really wants to cooperate, but his mean old lawyers just won't let him. 

Except, it doesn't work that way. If he refuses a voluntary interview, Mueller can subpoena him and compel him to cooperate or take the 5th.

The Supreme Court has already established the precedent that he must cooperate with a criminal subpoena. Trump would fight it in the courts, which will delay it. Nothing short of firing Mueller will stop it. If Mueller wants Trump's ass in a chair answering questions, or taking the 5th, he unequivocally has that power. 

If Trump was subpoenaed to appear before the Grand Jury, he will be facing questions without his counsel next to him.

You think he's a perjury trap in a voluntary meeting? 

The only question is whether Mueller wants to fight that in the courts, not whether Mueller has the power to compel Trump to testify or take the 5th. 

Just a nitpick, but Nixon v. US established the viability of a subpoena for documents and things to the President.  A subpoena for testimony is a somewhat different animal and may not necessarily go the same way, because the burden of testimony is generally greater than production of documents and things.  Also, the documents and things subpoenaed were in a criminal trial of the Watergate burglars, rather than a grand jury subpoena. 

Trump can tie up a grand jury subpoena for his own testimony I think quite successfully.  I think the odds of him prevailing are a tad less than 50%, but, it isn't a slam dunk either way.

[TornACL 7,669]

4 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I'm guessing.  Everybody is.  Guess away.  That's what the board is for.

I hope whatever it is, it reveals DJT as a complete piece of shit human being. Because in my mind, there is no doubt he is a complete piece of shit human being and I'd like it to be something that makes that abundantly clear to the rest of the non-believers. Like maybe if the models who gave him golden showers were 11 year old boys. And he killed them afterwards. And then didn't tip the housekeeper despite the horrible mess.

[Pig Bellmont 8,678]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Hurr durr.  Did a single one of those questions surprise you?  Reveal any great legal strategy?  That's what I meant by nothing burger.  Any one of the posters on this thread could have come up with those questions.  Nothing.  Burger.

 

 

You don’t seem to show a strong grasp regarding criminal investigations. It’s not an open ended fishing expedition. Mueller already has evidence. Many of the questions are landmines designed to give Trump an opportunity to be truthful, but inevitably are traps because he won’t be able to do so. Certain state of mind Q’s *have* to be asked. While intent can be inferred, you take the opportunity to ask a direct question of your subject. Even an evasive response can provide value. 

But I’m sorry. You’re unimpressed by the investigation and proposed subjects to be probed? Take your “hot takes” to Brietbart

[TwiceHorn 31,169]

19 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

You don’t seem to show a strong grasp regarding criminal investigations. It’s not an open ended fishing expedition. Mueller already has evidence. Many of the questions are landmines designed to give Trump an opportunity to be truthful, but inevitably are traps because he won’t be able to do so. Certain state of mind Q’s *have* to be asked. While intent can be inferred, you take the opportunity to ask a direct question of your subject. Even an evasive response can provide value. 

But I’m sorry. You’re unimpressed by the investigation and proposed subjects to be probed? Take your “hot takes” to Brietbart

Fuck off.  

The questions were not revelatory, that is my only point.  If you read what I posted on this thread, I say exactly the same thing regarding what the ACTUAL questions may reveal, but these are not them, unless Mueller adopts the strategy of letting Trump hoist himself and the leak of these questions gives no insight on that whatsoever.

The questions are also unrevealing because they came from Team Trump as a transcription/paraphrase of the areas of questioning that Team Mueller was willing to tell them about.  I seriously doubt that Team Mueller revealed anything that Team Trump couldn't figure out for itself.

Edited May 2, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[David Dennison 18,561]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Just a nitpick, but Nixon v. US established the viability of a subpoena for documents and things to the President.  A subpoena for testimony is a somewhat different animal and may not necessarily go the same way, because the burden of testimony is generally greater than production of documents and things.  Also, the documents and things subpoenaed were in a criminal trial of the Watergate burglars, rather than a grand jury subpoena. 

Trump can tie up a grand jury subpoena for his own testimony I think quite successfully.  I think the odds of him prevailing are a tad less than 50%, but, it isn't a slam dunk either way.

We're going to find out unless he agrees to an interview.

[DDD Dad 14,146]

9 minutes ago, TornACL said:

I hope whatever it is, it reveals DJT as a complete piece of shit human being. Because in my mind, there is no doubt he is a complete piece of shit human being and I'd like it to be something that makes that abundantly clear to the rest of the non-believers. Like maybe if the models who gave him golden showers were 11 year old boys. And he killed them afterwards. And then didn't tip the housekeeper despite the horrible mess.

If this hasn't already been revealed to you, you haven't been paying attention for the last 30 years.

[TwiceHorn 31,169]

4 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

If this hasn't already been revealed to you, you haven't been paying attention for the last 30 years.

True dat.  And I suppose nothing will convince the hardcore Trumpkins that haven't paid attention for the last 30 years or liked The Apprentice, that he is, in fact, a piece of shit.  "He wuz framed."

Edited May 2, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[troph 24,544]

14 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

You don’t seem to show a strong grasp regarding criminal investigations. It’s not an open ended fishing expedition. Mueller already has evidence. Many of the questions are landmines designed to give Trump an opportunity to be truthful, but inevitably are traps because he won’t be able to do so. Certain state of mind Q’s *have* to be asked. While intent can be inferred, you take the opportunity to ask a direct question of your subject. Even an evasive response can provide value. 

But I’m sorry. You’re unimpressed by the investigation and proposed subjects to be probed? Take your “hot takes” to Brietbart

I've only tangentially paid attention to the investigation... my gf is rather dialed in on the investigation and I got to the topics before she did.  I told her exactly what you just said.  Mueller has some serious evidence and is using these questions to either (1) corroborate the evidence he has, or (2) establish traps for DJT.  either way, my eyes got big when I saw the topics.  shit's gonna go down.  maybe the public won't care, but this isn't going well for DJT and his allies.

Edited May 2, 2018 by troph

[Biff Tannen 45,470]

5 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

If this hasn't already been revealed to you, you haven't been paying attention for the last 30 years.

So 60 million + people haven't been paying attention for the last 30 years.  This fuckin' country.

[jimmyjazz 45,494]

So, a question for the litigators:  within a broad range of questions, how difficult is it for the average non-pathological liar to stay out of the weeds?  We all think Donnie will fail to stay on narrative and eventually get himself in serious trouble, but for the rest of us, is this kind of questioning designed to trip us up or is the truth a fairly easy defense?  (Depending, of course, on what the truth is.)

[TornACL 7,669]

 

15 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

If this hasn't already been revealed to you, you haven't been paying attention for the last 30 years.

Can you read?

Were you in a coma during the 2016 election?

[TwiceHorn 31,169]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So, a question for the litigators:  within a broad range of questions, how difficult is it for the average non-pathological liar to stay out of the weeds?  We all think Donnie will fail to stay on narrative and eventually get himself in serious trouble, but for the rest of us, is this kind of questioning designed to trip us up or is the truth a fairly easy defense?  (Depending, of course, on what the truth is.)

How to attack Donald is a fascinating question to me.  One way would be to ask these open-ended questions, thereby inviting him to narrate and almost assuredly causing him to lie about something, whether actually material to the proceedings or not.  But it would take longer probably than anyone cares to sit and listen.**  The other way is to lead him down a primrose path of tight, concise questions with clear answers mandated by other evidence so that he either has to admit wrongdoing or the constituent elements of an offense, or destroy his own credibility.  Or some combination.

**any agreed questioning session one would think would be time-limited to make this difficult.  I would think that the ins and outs of "Presidential testimony" would also encourage the presiding judge of any grand jury to also time-limit the testimony.

Edited May 2, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[WhatTheBuck 28,700]

11 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So 60 million + people haven't been paying attention for the last 30 years.  This fuckin' country.

It would be interesting to know how many Trump supporters only knew about him from The Apprentice prior to him running. I'll bet the number is greater than we might guess. 

[jimmyjazz 45,494]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It would be interesting to know how many Trump supporters only knew about him from The Apprentice prior to him running. I'll bet the number is greater than we might guess. 

I don't know the answer to that question, but their view of him as a mega-successful businessman certainly influenced them.  (Never mind that he's a shitty businessman.)

[TwiceHorn 31,169]

7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It would be interesting to know how many Trump supporters only knew about him from The Apprentice prior to him running. I'll bet the number is greater than we might guess. 

Agreed.  I'm aware of Trump going back 30 years because my law school roommate had a subscription to Spy and that's where the Graydon Carter/"short fingered vulgarian" bit originated.  At the time, he was just a rich dude trying to make an impact on the NY social scene with Ivana.  But it was clear that he was an ostentatious douchebag even then.  I have casually followed his larcenous business career since.

 

The rest of the world has little reason to know of Trump other than through his self-aggrandizing everything and I am sure The Apprentice is the number one thing most people associate with him.

Edited May 2, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Trump isn’t going to answer any questions if possible.  He will fight tooth and nail to avoid it.

This also delays other pending indictments dropping because I don’t think Mueller is going to drop the hammer until he’s exhausted ever avenue trying to get Trump to answer questions.

I still think the hackers will be the next indictments to drop.

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3,867]

40 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

You don’t seem to show a strong grasp regarding criminal investigations. It’s not an open ended fishing expedition. Mueller already has evidence. Many of the questions are landmines designed to give Trump an opportunity to be truthful, but inevitably are traps because he won’t be able to do so. Certain state of mind Q’s *have* to be asked. While intent can be inferred, you take the opportunity to ask a direct question of your subject. Even an evasive response can provide value. 

But I’m sorry. You’re unimpressed by the investigation and proposed subjects to be probed? Take your “hot takes” to Brietbart

Bingo. Good attorneys don't ask questions that they don't already know the answer.

[retread 2,951]

[Tuco 5,076]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Trump isn’t going to answer any questions if possible.  He will fight tooth and nail to avoid it.

 

I agree.  I think he's arrogant and stupid, but I think he has bouts of twitter-rage that probably don't represent his normal state.  I doubt he is normally stupid enough to sit down for an interview with Mueller. 

[Anastasis 23,356]

I think that he agrees to written responses to submitted questions. I can't see any scenario where he agrees to sit down with Mueller, even under subpoena. 

[TahoeHorn 107]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So, a question for the litigators:  within a broad range of questions, how difficult is it for the average non-pathological liar to stay out of the weeds?  We all think Donnie will fail to stay on narrative and eventually get himself in serious trouble, but for the rest of us, is this kind of questioning designed to trip us up or is the truth a fairly easy defense?  (Depending, of course, on what the truth is.)

I'm not a litigator but I worked quite a bit with depositions of expert witnesses. 

An unskilled expert witness can get in quite a bit of trouble.  Good ones know how to always tell the truth but not give the other lawyer what he's after.  This doesn't involve hiding the truth or being coy.  They tell them everything, IF THEY ASK.  And not a damn thing they don't. And the transcript is not a simple question with a simple answer.  The expert witness will concede all the uncomfortable facts that need to be conceded.  No more.  And the ones conceded will not be in a good format to use in court.

The behavior in depositions is very different from the witness stand.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Just now, Anastasis said:

I think that he agrees to written responses to submitted questions. 

Yeah, that’s probably not an option.

[Pig Bellmont 8,678]

25 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So, a question for the litigators:  within a broad range of questions, how difficult is it for the average non-pathological liar to stay out of the weeds?  We all think Donnie will fail to stay on narrative and eventually get himself in serious trouble, but for the rest of us, is this kind of questioning designed to trip us up or is the truth a fairly easy defense?  (Depending, of course, on what the truth is.)

A lot depends on the evidence out there and the underlying facts. That said I think generally these sorts of things are slanted in the government’s favor, meaning there is a high likelihood an average person could fuck themselves - even if represented by an attorney. I think a large factor depends on the government’s motives with that person and what the overall purpose of the investigation is. 

Some of the people who screw themselves the most are the ones who think they are the smartest person in the room. It’s incredibly dangerous to underestimate an adversary attorney or make assumptions why they are asking certain questions. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Edited May 2, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[DDD Dad 14,146]

48 minutes ago, TornACL said:

 

Can you read?

Were you in a coma during the 2016 election?

Can you?

I was referring to "you" in general, not you in particular.  And, as noted above, apparently 60 million people weren't paying attention or simply didn't care.

[TornACL 7,669]

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Can you?

I was referring to "you" in general, not you in particular.  And, as noted above, apparently 60 million people weren't paying attention or simply didn't care.

That was exactly my point. That it would take him sexing and murdering young boys for his fan base to move off of their position. Sorry that I was just using humorous exaggeration instead of painting by numbers.

[EMAWesome 101]

2 hours ago, Pods said:

This is a perfect example where the media has not been doing their job. They've let the Trump side spin this for months as Trump really wants to cooperate, but his mean old lawyers just won't let him. 

Except, it doesn't work that way. If he refuses a voluntary interview, Mueller can subpoena him and compel him to cooperate or take the 5th.

The Supreme Court has already established the precedent that he must cooperate with a criminal subpoena. Trump would fight it in the courts, which will delay it. Nothing short of firing Mueller will stop it. If Mueller wants Trump's ass in a chair answering questions, or taking the 5th, he unequivocally has that power. 

If Trump was subpoenaed to appear before the Grand Jury, he will be facing questions without his counsel next to him.

You think he's a perjury trap in a voluntary meeting? 

The only question is whether Mueller wants to fight that in the courts, not whether Mueller has the power to compel Trump to testify or take the 5th. 

Pretty much anything Mueller subpoena's him for he can claim executive privilege.  He also doesn't necessarily have to fire Mueller to stop it.  Courts could rule against Mueller.  Let's say Mueller tells the court he needs Trump to answer these questions because he is investigating Trump for obstruction of justice.  Trump's lawyers could then demand Mueller tell them what justice Trump is obstructing.   In other words obstruction of justice means covering up or destroying evidence of a crime or of an attempted crime.  So far Mueller has not charged Trump with a crime.  If there is no crime then there is no obstruction of justice.  If Mueller can not prove he has sufficient evidence of a crime to begin with the courts can rule that he has no case for obstruction of justice and allow Trump's refusal.