Mueller tells Trump’s legal team that he will accept written answers

[beowulf10]

Trump doesn't even have to respond to sh!t. In fact he has the authority to fire Mueller right now if he so wishes to. lol @ you, sitting here thinking like Trump owes you something.

He doesn’t owe me anything, but he does owe the Republic the following:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.“

Article II, Section One, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution.

[acrawlingchaos]

Good response, conned little tard. But trumptards like you are lying about Hillary testifying because youire too phkng ignorant to even know the details, even as you constantly whine about "fake news."


And YOU are the one with mad man-love for a dotard who won't even be allowed to testify because his lawyers know what a lying retard he is, and he'll have to give one word answers in crayon. Sux2bu.

#SAD !!

Well, I really don't know how to tell you this; but I didn't vote for President Trump, I'm critical of his behavior, I don't bring up Hillary Clinton in any threads pertaining to President Trump and I certainly don't use the term fake news.

I actually agree with some of the things you say, but what you say is lost in a sea of rhetoric and your message is completely lost between insults. Additionally, you Stole Valor. I'm sure you thought it was funny to make a Mueller account, but adding awards into your sig where most people would take it seriously, is wrong. Until you can grow up and settle down, your opinion is worthless.

youre an idiot. acrawl isnt even close to being a trumpard. oh and another thing acrawl isnt, is a person that pretends to have a Purple Heart or Bronze Star.

Sometimes it's tough being a moderate.

[SillieBazzillie]

lmfao. The only way the idiot won't perjure himself.

lmfao

[dakensta]

He doesn’t owe me anything, but he does owe the Republic the following:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.“

Well, there's his getout there.

Uhhhhh I tried my best!!

[beowulf10]

Trump’s team now definitively asserting questions related to Obstruction are off limits, which makes him look guilty as hell.

Expect them to drag out the negotiations related to questions regarding conspiracy for another 15 months with silly assertions that the special counsel cannot ask follow-up questions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...499_story.html


NEW YORK — President Donald Trump will not answer federal investigators’ questions, in writing or in person, about whether he tried to block the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, one of the president’s attorneys told The Associated Press on Thursday.

Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani said questions about obstruction of justice were a “no-go.”

Giuliani’s statement was the most definitive rejection yet of special counsel Robert Mueller’s efforts to interview the president about any efforts to obstruct the investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and Russians. It signals the Trump’s lawyers are committed to protecting the president from answering questions about actions the president took in office.

It’s unclear if Giuliani’s public position has been endorsed by Trump, who has said he wants to answer questions under oath. Negotiations about the scope and format of an interview are still ongoing. If the legal team holds its stance, it could force Mueller to try to subpoena the president, likely triggering a standoff that would lead to the Supreme Court.

Mueller’s office has previously sought to interview the president about the obstruction issue, including his firing last year of former FBI Director James Comey and his public attacks on Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Trump’s legal team has argued that the president has the power to hire and fire appointees and the special counsel does not have the authority to ask him to explain those decisions. Giuliani said Thursday the team was steadfast in that position.

“That’s a no-go. That is not going to happen,” Giuliani said. “There will be no questions at all on obstruction.”

In a letter last week, Mueller’s team said it would accept written responses from Trump on questions related to Russian election interference. Giuliani suggested Thursday that Trump’s lawyers had agreed to those terms but wanted to prohibit investigators from asking follow-up questions.

“It would be in written form and if you want to follow up on our answers, justify it. Show us why you didn’t get there the first time,” Giuliani said. He said he was not categorically ruling out answering a second round of questions but the entire matter of whether there would be follow-up inquiries should be settled before the president answers anything at all.

“We aren’t going to let them spring it on us,” said Giuliani, who has served as lawyer-spokesman for the president’s personal legal team, using television interviews and public comments as a tactic in the negotiations.

In the latest letter to the legal team, Mueller’s office didn’t address obstruction questions, indicating investigators would later assess what additional information it needs from the president after receiving a response about the written submissions, according to a person familiar with the document.

The person familiar with the letter spoke on condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to publicly discuss the negotiations.

Though the president has publicly said he was eager to face questions from Mueller, his lawyers have been far more reluctant to make him available for an interview and have questioned whether Mueller has the right to ask him about actions that he is authorized, under the Constitution, to take as president.

Mueller’s team raised the prospect in March that it could subpoena the president, though this would unquestionably prompt a court fight.

The Supreme Court has never definitively ruled on the question of whether a president can be forced to testify, though the justices did rule in 1974 that Richard Nixon had to produce recordings and documents that had been subpoenaed.

In addition to questions about Comey and Sessions, Mueller has expressed interest in Trump’s role in drafting a statement to The New York Times about a June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower attended by his son, Donald Trump Jr., and a Russian lawyer.

Trump Jr. took the meeting, emails show, after it was described as part of a Russian government effort to help his father’s campaign by providing derogatory information about Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Trump has said he knew nothing about the meeting before it happened.

Trump and Giuliani have led an onslaught of attacks on Mueller’s credibility, claiming that the special counsel was biased and that the entire probe was a “witch hunt.” Giuliani has also demanded that the probe suspend its activities with the midterm elections approaching, but the former mayor said Thursday he was not certain of Mueller’s intentions.

[NitrogenWidget]

He's the prosecutor, he doesn't know if Trump obstructed justice?
He has to ask him?
seems kinda weak.

[beowulf10]

He's the prosecutor, he doesn't know if Trump obstructed justice?
He has to ask him?
seems kinda weak.

Mueller likely already has enough evidence to prove obstruction. The publicly available evidence on obstruction is fairly damning.

Apparently, Trump is too much of a coward to answer Mueller’s questions. That seems pretty weak to me.

Trump’s participation is important for a variety of reasons. One reason is that he is the chief executive and he has a moral and a legal duty to participate in the legal system. Another reason is that this is an opportunity for Trump to explain his actions and let the prosecutors know why he did not obstruct justice. He won’t do that. Why?

Politically, it’s a stupid thing for Trump to do because it makes him look guilty.

[NitrogenWidget]

Mueller likely already has enough evidence to prove obstruction.

Apparently, Trump is too much of a coward to answer Mueller’s questions. That seems pretty weak to me.

Trump’s participation is important for a variety of reasons. One reason is that he is the chief executive and he has a moral and a legal duty to participate in the legal system. Another reason is that this is an opportunity for Trump to explain his actions and let the prosecutors know why he did not obstruct justice. He can’t do that. Why?

Was he subpoena'd?
If he was then he should definitely answer those questions.
But if he wasn't, why the fuk would you waste your time on something that wasn't important enough to get a subpoena for?
If he has enough evidence, just go get that subpoena.
right?

[darknessmanX]

He's the prosecutor, he doesn't know if Trump obstructed justice?
He has to ask him?
seems kinda weak.

it's a legal case, everybody deserves to be questioned ad nauseam on every aspect of the case. there's not really a stupid question in this situation. asking Trump if he even thinks he's obstructed justice is a fair question. you must be seriously guilty if you're trying to avoid a question as simple as that.

[Cleveland33]

Mueller likely already has enough evidence to prove obstruction. The publicly available evidence on obstruction is fairly damning.

Apparently, Trump is too much of a coward to answer Mueller’s questions. That seems pretty weak to me.

Trump’s participation is important for a variety of reasons. One reason is that he is the chief executive and he has a moral and a legal duty to participate in the legal system. Another reason is that this is an opportunity for Trump to explain his actions and let the prosecutors know why he did not obstruct justice. He won’t do that. Why?

Politically, it’s a stupid thing for Trump to do because it makes him look guilty.

He doesn't have to.

And what public evidence?

[darknessmanX]

He doesn't have to.

if he's tried he might have to. then what?

[NitrogenWidget]

it's a legal case, everybody deserves to be questioned ad nauseam on every aspect of the case. there's not really a stupid question in this situation. asking Trump if he even thinks he's obstructed justice is a fair question. you must be seriously guilty if you're trying to avoid a question as simple as that.

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”

Which had nothing to do with anything really but he still got impeached.

don't act like this isn't a perjury trap.
you'd have to be really fuk'n dumb in today's day and age to voluntarily be questioned under oath if you are in politics.
also, FYI, everyone on this planet is guilty of something.

If someone knows what you are guilty of it doesn't matter how inconsequential, if they can get you to lie about it under oath you are done.
Trump is making the smart move.

[NitrogenWidget]

if he's tried he might have to. then what?

they don't seem to have evidence to question him under oath.
what makes you think he will see a trial?

[Cleveland33]

if he's tried he might have to. then what?

Uh, no he won't

[5x10]

Mueller likely already has enough evidence to prove obstruction. The publicly available evidence on obstruction is fairly damning.

Apparently, Trump is too much of a coward to answer Mueller’s questions. That seems pretty weak to me.

Trump’s participation is important for a variety of reasons. One reason is that he is the chief executive and he has a moral and a legal duty to participate in the legal system. Another reason is that this is an opportunity for Trump to explain his actions and let the prosecutors know why he did not obstruct justice. He won’t do that. Why?

Politically, it’s a stupid thing for Trump to do because it makes him look guilty.

lol, no he doesn’t

He has the authority to fire the head of the fbi
Period

[darknessmanX]

don't act like this isn't a perjury trap.

Trump is making the smart move.

there's not really any such thing as a perjury trap, you either lie or you don't. Bill Clinton lied about having sexual relations, it was clear cut perjury. it was not that big of a deal so Clinton remained in office ultimately.

I agree with you, Trump is making the smart move. he's making the smart move if you truly are guilty and you're trying to avoid conviction, which could be the case here. say Trump commits serious perjury in relation to subverting an American election, that's a serious crime and he will not be getting off as easily as Bill Clinton did in his case.

Trump could feasibly be tried for perjury and obstruction of justice at this rate. even his own lawyers agree that he will get dominated if he's forced to take the stand in court. say he does face a subpoena and he has to talk, do you think he'll get out of it totally clean? doesn't seem likely.

[NitrogenWidget]

there's not really any such thing as a perjury trap, you either lie or you don't. Bill Clinton lied about having sexual relations, it was clear cut perjury. it was not that big of a deal so Clinton remained in office ultimately.

I agree with you, Trump is making the smart move. he's making the smart move if you truly are guilty and you're trying to avoid conviction, which could be the case here. say Trump commits serious perjury in relation to subverting an American election, that's a serious crime and he will not be getting off as easily as Bill Clinton did in his case.

Trump could feasibly be tried for perjury and obstruction of justice at this rate. even his own lawyers agree that he will get dominated if he's forced to take the stand in court. say he does face a subpoena and he has to talk, do you think he'll get out of it totally clean? doesn't seem likely.

You avoided the most important part of my post.
Everyone is guilty of something.
If someone knew your secrets and got you to voluntarily go under oath for one thing, then started questioning you about something different, would you come out totally clean?
I doubt it.
Not many people on this planet would.

[darknessmanX]

You avoided the most important part of my post.
Everyone is guilty of something.
If someone knew your secrets and got you to voluntarily go under oath for one thing, then started questioning you about something different, would you come out totally clean?
I doubt it.
Not many people on this planet would.

yeah, that's a fair point. nobody is clean under this level of scrutiny.

he doesn't really have any excuses though. all of this calling out people left and right has put the target on his back, it's his fault and it's his problem. Mueller probably has enough to subpoena him eventually, and if he does, perjury or obstruction of justice might materialize.

i'm just saying things don't look spectacular for President Trump. everyone is guilty of something sure, but not everyone is guilty of subverting an American election, or committing perjury, or obstructing justice. these are serious crimes to be guilty of, it's not like it's a minor tax violation or something.

[beowulf10]

lol, no he doesn’t

He has the authority to fire the head of the fbi
Period

The President’s authority is not unlimited. It has certain constraints. The most relevant example is Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre. This event, where he kept firing people until he found one that would end the investigation became one of the things for which an article of impeachment on Obstruction of Justice was based on, and which passed the House committee immediately preceding Nixon’s resignation.

[beowulf10]

Was he subpoena'd?
If he was then he should definitely answer those questions.
But if he wasn't, why the fuk would you waste your time on something that wasn't important enough to get a subpoena for?
If he has enough evidence, just go get that subpoena.
right?

So if someone broke into your house and stole something you would call the police.

If a neighbor or a friend of yours was murdered and you caught a glimpse of the killer you’d talk to the police so justice could be served.

Trump may very well be subpoenaed eventually. But this is not something Mueller should have to do.

Why?

Because he’s the President and he took an oath and he has an obligation to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Fundamentally, he has an obligation to support and perpetuate the Rule of Law.

And this means that if there is an investigation of which his testimony is important he should testify without being compelled. That’s what a real American leader would do.

[BadMonkeyFunker]

lol, no he doesn’t

He has the authority to fire the head of the fbi
Period

LOL. Fire the cop investigating you. Def doesn't look guilty or anything. NOPE!

He fired comey he got muller. If he fires muller, oh boy.. you don't wanna know what he's gonna get.

LMFAO

[beowulf10]

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”

Which had nothing to do with anything really but he still got impeached.

don't act like this isn't a perjury trap.
you'd have to be really fuk'n dumb in today's day and age to voluntarily be questioned under oath if you are in politics.
also, FYI, everyone on this planet is guilty of something.

If someone knows what you are guilty of it doesn't matter how inconsequential, if they can get you to lie about it under oath you are done.
Trump is making the smart move.

It’s not a trap. All he has to do is tell the truth. That’s it. Nothing more and nothing less. It’s an obligation every citizen has in every single instance they have to provide testimony under oath. The President is no different than any other citizen in this regard and does not get some sort of special pass because you somehow think everyone is some sort of secret criminal.

If Trump didn’t want this scrutiny, the kind of scrutiny that befits the worlds most powerful political role then he should not have spoken the oath he did when he took office. He should have stepped aside and let someone else assume the responsibility. Clearly, he isn’t fit for it.

This is yet another example that Trump supporters have lost their moral compass.

[acrawlingchaos]

It’s not a trap. All he has to do is tell the truth. That’s it. Nothing more and nothing less. It’s an obligation every citizen has in every single instance they have to provide testimony under oath. The President is no different than any other citizen in this regard and does not get some sort of special pass because you somehow think everyone is some sort of secret criminal.

If Trump didn’t want this scrutiny, the kind of scrutiny that befits the worlds most powerful political role then he should not have spoken the oath he did when he took office. He should have stepped aside and let someone else assume the responsibility. Clearly, he isn’t fit for it.

This is yet another example that Trump supporters have lost their moral compass.

I think any politician that volunteers information under oath is an idiot.

The reason should be clear, the prosecutor does not have the a defendants best intentions at heart.



EDIT, I wouldn't talk to LEO without a lawyer present. I certainly wouldn't being guilted into waiving the rights I have.

[beowulf10]

He doesn't have to.

And what public evidence?

This is a small fraction of what’s available to the public and it’s very likely Mueller knows a whole lot more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ucted-justice/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/28/u...john-dowd.html

The fact Trump won’t even put down in writing his responses to questions about Obstruction makes him look even more suspicious.

I predict he won’t even respond to questions about conspiracy or collusion either. He will try to drag out those negotiations for another 15 months.

[beowulf10]

I think any politician that volunteers information under oath is an idiot.

The reason should be clear, the prosecutor does not have the a defendants best intentions at heart.

EDIT, I wouldn't talk to LEO without a lawyer present. I certainly wouldn't being guilted into waiving the rights I have.

Every moment of life carries risk with it, but that doesn’t mean you stop trying to do the right thing. This is what helps us tell the difference between a hero and a coward.

Trump should not just sit down with Mueller for himself. He should do it for the Republic. He’s the President for god’s sake. That’s his job.

Specifically with regard to Trump no one is suggesting he talk to Mueller without a lawyer present. He has basically refused to talk at all. And with regard to your personal example, depending on the circumstances having a lawyer present is a good idea, especially if you’re suspected of having committed a crime.

Further, you are not the leader of our country. Trump is and he has a higher obligation than an ordinary citizen by virtue of the oath he took and the office he inhabits.

This kind of attitude of “f the police I ain’t talking to them under any circumstance”, well, this just isn’t how I was raised. Maybe your parents, teachers and church leaders taught you and other Trump supporters to be selfish and amoral jerks, and to generally be an obstacle to police investigations? If someone broke into your house the first call you’d make is to the police. If a neighbor or friend was killed or robbed by a criminal and you saw the criminal and could give police the description of the criminal you’d talk to the police.

Those lessons you espouse, never talk to police, forget about your duty to your community, etc, those were not the lessons I learned.

And if everyone followed your path society would begin to break down.

Our society depends on the Rule of Law and the Rule of Law depends on the individual participation of each citizen. These related to simple things like following traffic laws, or talking to the police to help an investigation, or voting for politicians who will appoint honest judges, or more complex things like sitting on a jury. Or neighbors peacefully resolving a dispute without having to resort to using a the time-intensive tools of a Court. Our system depends on this ongoing and active participation.

As a member of a community every single person has a moral obligation to help law enforcement catch criminals.

The problem in the present case and why normally moral people are making all these asinine excuses for Trump is that they know in their heart of hearts that Trump is guilty.

[dakensta]

You avoided the most important part of my post.
Everyone is guilty of something.

Pretty much all criminals agree with this statement.
That, and "If I hadn't committed that criminal act, someone else would have."
Dishonest people assume everyone is dishonest.

[acrawlingchaos]

Trump should not just sit down with Mueller for himself. He should do it for the Republic. He’s the President for god’s sake. That’s his job.

Specifically with regard to Trump no one is suggesting he talk to Mueller without a lawyer present. He has basically refused to talk at all. And with regard to your personal example, depending on the circumstances having a lawyer present is a good idea, especially if you’re suspected of having committed a crime.

Further, you are not the leader of our country. Trump is and he has a higher obligation than an ordinary citizen by virtue of the oath he took and the office he inhabits.

This kind of attitude of “f the police I ain’t talking to them under any circumstance”, well, this just isn’t how I was raised. Maybe your parents, teachers and church leaders taught you and other Trump supporters to be selfish and amoral jerks, and to generally be an obstacle to police investigations? If someone broke into your house the first call you’d make is to the police. If a neighbor or friend was killed or robbed by a criminal and you saw the criminal and could give police the description of the criminal you’d talk to the police.

Those were not the lessons I learned.

And if everyone followed your path society would begin to break down.

Our society depends on the Rule of Law and the Rule of Law depends on the individual participation of each citizen. These related to simple things like following traffic laws, or talking to the police to help an investigation, or voting for politicians who will appoint honest judges, or more complex things like sitting on a jury. Or neighbors peacefully resolving a dispute without having to resort to using a the time-intensive tools of a Court. Our system depends on this ongoing and active participation.

As a member of a community every single person has a moral obligation to help law enforcement catch criminals.

The problem in the present case and why normally moral people are making all these asinine excuses for Trump is that they know in their heart of hearts that Trump is guilty.

Oldest tactic in the book. Guilt someone into waiving their rights or into incriminating themselves. Not me, apparently not the POTUS either. As far as the rule of law, it is being followed. What you're saying is that you don't like the law. That's a different matter altogether.

And lets not make this personal, my path is just fine. I didn't vote for Trump and I am critical of him.... constantly. My parents taught me to respect LEO and I do.

[KINGFABIAN]

Trump can't even color a flag.

Lol at "written answers". Just lol

Aaayyyy lamayo ~ RekT



I can imagine the answers written in crayon.

[Austanian]

Pretty much all criminals agree with this statement.
That, and "If I hadn't committed that criminal act, someone else would have."
Dishonest people assume everyone is dishonest.

This has nothing to do with criminal or not. We have thousands upon thousands of laws covering real chit to the most trivial bs... Maybe you let your younger brother have a sip of your beer when he was 16... Maybe when you were 18 you banged your 17 year old GF. Maybe your dog chit on someones lawn and you ran out of bags...

Everyone has something. Open ended investigation where they are going after 13 year old crimes to find ANYTHING are bad.

[z4v4]

It's not a perjury trap. You guys are convinced it is a perjury trap because every person on the planet knows Trump is incapable of telling the truth for longer than 5 minutes.