Trump's lawyers want him to refuse Mueller interview request -NY Times

[Ron19]

A flame post has been removed

[riclag]

23 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

The Special Counsel is not the Congress--they don't leak.  We know what they want us to know.  Surely you would've figured this out by now.

This looks like a drip "CNN reported that anyone charged by the grand jury could be taken into custody as soon as Monday, though it did not report names or specific charges. On Monday, Oct. 30, former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his associate Rick Gates were indicted on a dozen felony counts, including money laundering. Both pleaded not guilty".

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/31/did-criminal-leak-land-cnns-story-mueller-probe-no/

[Berkshire]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

This looks like a drip "CNN reported that anyone charged by the grand jury could be taken into custody as soon as Monday, though it did not report names or specific charges. On Monday, Oct. 30, former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his associate Rick Gates were indicted on a dozen felony counts, including money laundering. Both pleaded not guilty".

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/31/did-criminal-leak-land-cnns-story-mueller-probe-no/

Did you even read the entire article?

 

[When asked if concerned about illegal leaking on Reliable Sources, Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein said he "would doubt very seriously that it comes from Mueller's office."

In fact, it appears Mueller is doing a good job keeping the grand jury’s proceedings under wrap.]

[sirineou]

42 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No, there is nothing in the "Russia collusion" area to find after all this time, so they are going on fishing trips. The only indictments so far are nothing to do with Russia, and the main character investigated hasn't even been charged.

Just like that horrible man Starr did in his witch hunt on Clinton. Was supposed to be about Whitewater and ended up about a womaniser doing what womanisers do.

 What do womanisers do? 

Do they  bold face lie to the American people? in essence calling a true accusation a lie, which is what Clinton did.

Is that the defence we are going to use for this womaniser? 

He did what womanisers Do! Is that a quality you find desirable in a president.  

Do you like being lied to? if so why do you complain about the" fake" media?

Edited February 6, 2018 by sirineou

[riclag]

10 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Let me qualify that.

 He will use whatever The Supreme Court decides the Constitution provides. 

Hmm, how does the SC react to the law,the truth, with a majority vote.

[siamike]

4 hours ago, hstew said:

Dumb or smart, ANY lawyer would advise exactly that~ "keep your mouth shut". That is plain  ole good advise. It goes to preventing investigators attempts to promote "white lies" by the subject, so they can at least find so ANYTHING to charge them with in the absence of proof of a crime. Feds love charging folks for lying to a federal prosecutor. Just ask Papandapolous. So, if we cant get em for "hookin up with Putin", we'll get him on some false statement made to a fed.investigator. Thats how it works...normally. Happy now?

You're right when it comes to Joe citizen testifying, but politicians face a good deal of political backlash if they take the fifth.  Trump is unlikely to ever lose his base of 34% to 36% supporters, but everyone else, dems, independents, and moderate republicans wont be so faithful.  The republican party is already in fear of a "Blue Wave" in the coming mid-term elections, if Trump refuses to answer Mueller's questions, and the republican party fails to impeach him,...that Blue Wave will become a Tsunami.   

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Did you even read the entire article?

 

[When asked if concerned about illegal leaking on Reliable Sources, Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein said he "would doubt very seriously that it comes from Mueller's office."

In fact, it appears Mueller is doing a good job keeping the grand jury’s proceedings under wrap.]

I agree with Bernstein. Mueller seems like a straight arrow, but the people he has on his team are not, as has come out over the past few weeks.The leaks probably come from them, or their staff.

[riclag]

10 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Did you even read the entire article?

 

[When asked if concerned about illegal leaking on Reliable Sources, Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein said he "would doubt very seriously that it comes from Mueller's office."

In fact, it appears Mueller is doing a good job keeping the grand jury’s proceedings under wrap.]

Yup I read it.Consider the source a journalist.Hardly conclusive . Besides the fact of the matter was it was leaked and they are responsible  for keeping it private.

Edited February 6, 2018 by riclag

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree with Bernstein. Mueller seems like a straight arrow, but the people he has on his team are not, as has come out over the past few weeks.The leaks probably come from them, or their staff.

 Bersteen did not comment on Muller's integrity, he said "Mullers office" 

[Berkshire]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree with Bernstein. Mueller seems like a straight arrow, but the people he has on his team are not, as has come out over the past few weeks.The leaks probably come from them, or their staff.

Some of the news that we've had in the past from the Special Counsel, e.g., Manafort, Flynn, et al, came out of the blue.  No one saw it coming, so safe to say that leakage from Mueller's office is pretty rare.  But yes, always possible from witnesses, lawyers, etc.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, riclag said:

Hmm, how does the SC react to the law,the truth, with a majority vote.

LOL. The guy Trump nominated may actually vote against Trump if he thinks it's constitutional to do so.. The rest will probably be split on party lines. That would give Trump a 4 to 5 loss, going by previous verdicts. Roberts would, IMO, be the wild card.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, siamike said:

You're right when it comes to Joe citizen testifying, but politicians face a good deal of political backlash if they take the fifth.  Trump is unlikely to ever lose his base of 34% to 36% supporters, but everyone else, dems, independents, and moderate republicans wont be so faithful.  The republican party is already in fear of a "Blue Wave" in the coming mid-term elections, if Trump refuses to answer Mueller's questions, and the republican party fails to impeach him,...that Blue Wave will become a Tsunami.   

They should be worried. Sitting presidents always lose seats in midterms, apparently. Lots of GOP leaving, including Gowdey, which is a blow. 

[sirineou]

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Actually, no one knew because the press covered it up and didn't report it, despite knowing.

 I was not the womanising that was the crime, If Clinton came out and said " I was having problems in my marriage as many people do at a point, pretty young girl came by, I want for it. I realise and regret  my mistake, Me and Hillary have worked out  are trying to move forward and do the work that the people elected as to do"   I would had being fine with it. who among as has not being there? But he played me for a fool. and I don't take kindly to that.

Do you?

Compound that , with the fact that he unjustly accused someone with slander . which is a crime.  

Same with this "womanise" he is playing me for a fool, and I will not have it. 

Kennedy did what he did but as far as I know did not play anyone for a fool. If he had or he did, the I would react the same.

Anyway, these are nonsensical statement designed to distract, next time you get pulled over by a cop for speeding, tell him about all the other cars that were speeding before you, see how far it will get you. 

PS: when I say "you" I dont mean you personally, I understand and agree with your reply

Edited February 6, 2018 by sirineou

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

 I was not the womanising that was the crime, If Clinton came out and said " I was having problems in my marriage as many people do at a point, pretty young girl came by, I want for it. I realise and regret  my mistake, Me and Hillary have worked out  are trying to move forward and do the work that the people elected as to do"   I would had being fine with it. who among as has not being there? But he played me for a fool. and I don't take kindly to that.

Do you?

Compound that , with the fact that he unjustly accused someone with slander . which is a crime.  

Same with this "womanise" he is playing me for a fool, and I will not have it. 

Kennedy did what he did but as far as I know did not play anyone for a fool. If he had or he did, the I would react the same.

Anyway, these are nonsensical statement designed to distract, next time you get pulled over by a cop for speeding, tell him about all the other cars that were speeding before you, see how far it will get you. 

I only used Clinton as an example as how special counsels stray from the objective that they were started to prosecute, by saying Clinton was doing what womanisers do ( and Starr was able to get him to lie about it ), rather than Whitewater.

To take only that one liner from my post and wander off into the weeds with it is surely distraction, yes?

[spidermike007]

This criminal huckster has alot of hide. A guy like Mueller could pick him apart, like the blueberry muffin he is. If I was representing this lying piece crap, I would advise him not to talk to the investigator. There are more skeletons in Trump's closet, than a Papuan Highlander cannibal has.

 

Lock him up. Lock him up. Lock him up! 

 

Donald Trump. Dividing the world. The art of I cannot make a deal to save my life. The art of enriching himself, at the cost of thousands of small contractors. The art of walking away from $4,700,000,000 in debt, in five different bankruptcies. What a man. What a legacy. What a crook. What a charlatan. 

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I only used Clinton as an example as how special counsels stray from the objective that they were started to prosecute, by saying Clinton was doing what womanisers do ( and Starr was able to get him to lie about it ), rather than Whitewater.

To take only that one liner from my post and wander off into the weeds with it is surely distraction, yes?

 If that is all you got from this discussion then I am afraid you are missing the point.

 

[riclag]

56 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Donald Trump. Dividing the world. The art of I cannot make a deal to save my life. The art of enriching himself, at the cost of thousands of small contractors. The art of walking away from $4,700,000,000 in debt, in five different bankruptcies. What a man. What a legacy. What a crook. What a charlatan. 

Have you ever considered what brought PTrump to represent his constituents ?You must understand that,hate him or like him the American people that elected him wanted to blow up the system,the mess. All of this talk of the Art of the Deal this and that, mentally unfit, racist and all the other insults that are assigned to him and supporters still did not distract the ultimate result, The Presidency of the United States. How profound is that! We are soooooo sick of politicians !Look at  what we did to demonstrate that.

 Going forward,the continued assault and demonizing of us by the left will only result in the same outcome,2024 .

Edited February 6, 2018 by riclag

[phkauf]

I once watched a great Youtube video of a former prosecutor telling the audience to NEVER, EVER talk to the police or investigator. Most people think they can talk their way out of things but the police investigators are masters at getting you to trap yourself in a lie or misstatement. That's when they got you for a minor crime and use that to squeeze you for more. Watch Mike Ermentraut on Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul to see how you should answer questions by the police - essentially say nothing other than "Lawyer".

Trump with his penchant for diarrhea of the mouth would dig his own grave under questioning.  

[dunroaming]

6 hours ago, hstew said:

Dumb or smart, ANY lawyer would advise exactly that~ "keep your mouth shut". That is plain  ole good advise. It goes to preventing investigators attempts to promote "white lies" by the subject, so they can at least find so ANYTHING to charge them with in the absence of proof of a crime. Feds love charging folks for lying to a federal prosecutor. Just ask Papandapolous. So, if we cant get em for "hookin up with Putin", we'll get him on some false statement made to a fed.investigator. Thats how it works...normally. Happy now?

 

9 hours ago, webfact said:

Citing four people briefed on the matter, the newspaper said the lawyers were concerned that given Trump's penchant for making false statements and contradicting himself, he could be charged with lying to investigators.

If only Trump's lawyers had as much faith in him as you have 

 

It always amazes me how loyal the Trump apologists are.  They will dig away desperately trying to defend the Moron In Chief.

[ilostmypassword]

33 minutes ago, phkauf said:

I once watched a great Youtube video of a former prosecutor telling the audience to NEVER, EVER talk to the police or investigator. Most people think they can talk their way out of things but the police investigators are masters at getting you to trap yourself in a lie or misstatement. That's when they got you for a minor crime and use that to squeeze you for more. Watch Mike Ermentraut on Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul to see how you should answer questions by the police - essentially say nothing other than "Lawyer".

Trump with his penchant for diarrhea of the mouth would dig his own grave under questioning.  

If you're given a subpoena, you have no choice.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and deflections removed.  

[phkauf]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

If you're given a subpoena, you have no choice.

Very true, but you can and should simply answer "On the advice of counsel I decline to answer that question" to every question asked. That is the best and smartest strategy for anyone in this situation, not just Trump.

I rewatched the Youtube Video and it is remarkable how your seemingly harmless answers can be turned against you in court. This is just good advice for anyone.

[ncc1701d]

2 hours ago, phkauf said:

Very true, but you can and should simply answer "On the advice of counsel I decline to answer that question" to every question asked. That is the best and smartest strategy for anyone in this situation, not just Trump.

I rewatched the Youtube Video and it is remarkable how your seemingly harmless answers can be turned against you in court. This is just good advice for anyone.

Saying those things won’t necessarily keep you out of jail though.

[F4UCorsair]

9 hours ago, sirineou said:

 I was not the womanising that was the crime, If Clinton came out and said " I was having problems in my marriage as many people do at a point, pretty young girl came by, I want for it. I realise and regret  my mistake, Me and Hillary have worked out  are trying to move forward and do the work that the people elected as to do"   I would had being fine with it. who among as has not being there? But he played me for a fool. and I don't take kindly to that.

Do you?

Compound that , with the fact that he unjustly accused someone with slander . which is a crime.  

Same with this "womanise" he is playing me for a fool, and I will not have it. 

Kennedy did what he did but as far as I know did not play anyone for a fool. If he had or he did, the I would react the same.

Anyway, these are nonsensical statement designed to distract, next time you get pulled over by a cop for speeding, tell him about all the other cars that were speeding before you, see how far it will get you. 

PS: when I say "you" I dont mean you personally, I understand and agree with your reply

 

Man our standards are different.....Lewinsky was a 'pretty young girl'.    That's a joke.

 

I agree with your last para, too many distractions on here.

[F4UCorsair]

9 hours ago, riclag said:

Have you ever considered what brought PTrump to represent his constituents ?You must understand that,hate him or like him the American people that elected him wanted to blow up the system,the mess. All of this talk of the Art of the Deal this and that, mentally unfit, racist and all the other insults that are assigned to him and supporters still did not distract the ultimate result, The Presidency of the United States. How profound is that! We are soooooo sick of politicians !Look at  what we did to demonstrate that.

 Going forward,the continued assault and demonizing of us by the left will only result in the same outcome,2024 .

 

Exactly riclag.  The dems have learned nothing, still pouring scorn on Trump, innuendo, rumour, and there is nothing but that.   There may be, but at this stage there isn't, and repeating the same old mantra won't change that. 

 

The people are thoroughly sick to death of the pettiness, so when a guy like Trump comes along, not politically correct, seems to be one of them, he's the man they vote for.  Clinton did untold damage with the 'deplorables' tag, and still they continue.   Beats me.

 

Certainly those political analysts on Thai Visa, regardless of how long they maintain the rage, will have no effect, except to build up anger in themselves.

 

Currently, in spite of the 'polls', Trump is the man in 2024, if he chooses to stand.

Edited February 6, 2018 by F4UCorsair

[simple1]

10 hours ago, riclag said:

 Going forward,the continued assault and demonizing of us by the left <snip>

Trump supporters have a blinkered view of the world. Have you been observing Trump comments and those of the GOP sycophants  lately? The Hard Right, (yes I include Trump in the description)  are using their version of PC in an extraordinary endeavour to demonise & shut down their opposition. Within a week of the SOTU speech, Trump Administration has the foot hard on the pedal to widen the divisions within US society, as well as with allies. The negative responses to Trump are of his own making.

[riclag]

24 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Trump supporters have a blinkered view of the world. Have you been observing Trump comments and those of the GOP sycophants  lately? The Hard Right, (yes I include Trump in the description)  are using their version of PC in an extraordinary endeavour to demonise & shut down their opposition. Within a week of the SOTU speech, Trump Administration has the foot hard on the pedal to widen the divisions within US society, as well as with allies. The negative responses to Trump are of his own making.

Shift in meaning in modern English for the word Sycophant according to  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sycophant

What exactly do you mean by sycophants?

I don't look at supporters as narrow minded,.I can't speak for everyone,for me I like the America First policy and bringing jobs back from other countries.Some people like the wall.Some like his tax cut.I can only imagine that some like everything in his agenda..You speak of the  hard right,that's a broad term.If you mean we are all nationalist ,their are some.Nazis and fascist,I don't know anybody in the GOP that fit that term other than what the left claims.

 

I think supporters feel insulted and demonized when the left says we are deplorable ,idiots,racist etc etc  for supporting the message .

 

[simple1]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Shift in meaning in modern English for the word Sycophant according to  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sycophant

What exactly do you mean by sycophants?

I don't look at supporters as narrow minded,.I can't speak for everyone,for me I like the America First policy and bringing jobs back from other countries.Some people like the wall.Some like his tax cut.I can only imagine that some like everything in his agenda..You speak of the  hard right,that's a broad term.If you mean we are all nationalist ,their are some.Nazis and fascist,I don't know anybody in the GOP that fit that term other than what the left claims.

 

I think supporters feel insulted and demonized when the left says we are deplorable ,idiots,racist etc etc  for supporting the message .

 

I use the word sycophant within the meaning below.

 

toady, creep, crawler, fawner, flatterer, flunkey, truckler, groveller, doormat, lickspittle, kowtower, obsequious person, minion, hanger-on, leech, puppet

 

You don't think Trump calling democrats 'traitors' is the greater insult?  The descriptions you use above are responses to actual events and are usually accurate.

 

Trump now wishes to emulate the French Bastille Day military parade, apparently going ahead later this year. Got to admit I believe the generalised media description of the Trump Administration is apt; idiocracy.

Edited February 7, 2018 by simple1

[riclag]

47 minutes ago, simple1 said:

I use the word sycophant within the meaning below.

 

toady, creep, crawler, fawner, flatterer, flunkey, truckler, groveller, doormat, lickspittle, kowtower, obsequious person, minion, hanger-on, leech, puppet

 

You don't think Trump calling democrats 'traitors' is the greater insult?  The descriptions you use above are responses to actual events and are usually accurate.

 

Trump now wishes to emulate the French Bastille Day military parade, apparently going ahead later this year. Got to admit I believe the generalised media description of the Trump Administration is apt; idiocracy.

PTrump fights back,especially when he is attacked  .He talked about helping  millions of American's with tax breaks and other economic accomplishments he has brought about for Americans in the SOTUA.The dems just sat there. Some Texting and playing games on their cell phones and most of them not clapping for his accomplishments for American's.Besides during past admin similar treason attacks were levied on the GOP.

 

 PTrump said “They would rather see Trump do badly, OK, than our country do well…it’s very selfish…even on positive news, really positive news like that, they were like death and Un-American. Un-American. Somebody said ‘treasonous.’ I mean, yeah, I guess, why not? [laughter] Can we call that treason? Why not. [laughter] I mean, they certainly didn’t seem to love our country very much. But you look at that and it’s really very, very sad.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/456123/trump-says-democrats-are-treasonous

Edited February 7, 2018 by riclag

[FreddieRoyle]

Trump is an Alpha male, a business man, a deal maker, an understander of human psychology, and most importantly Trump is a winner. Nowhere or at any time did Trump claim to be a legal expert, so it is the correct choice to listen to his highly paid team of lawyers. Seeing the reaction from the haters, it is clear Trump again made the right choice. As a supporter of Trump(and democracy) I want Trump to take all legal advice very seriously - he knows the knives are always out for him, better safe than sorry. 

 Now quite how the Mueller saga is still dragging on is beyond belief, it can only be a matter of time until it's all called off.