Mueller raises possibility of Trump subpoena - former Trump lawyer

By Karen Freifeld

 

FILE PHOTO: FBI Director Robert Mueller testifies before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Federal Bureau of Investigation oversight on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, U.S., June 13, 2013. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas/File Photo

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Special Counsel Robert Mueller, in a meeting with President Donald Trump's lawyers in March, raised the possibility of issuing a subpoena for Trump if he declines to talk to investigators in the Russia probe, a former lawyer for the president said on Tuesday.

 

John Dowd told Reuters that Mueller mentioned the possibility of a subpoena in the early March meeting. Mueller's subpoena warning was first reported by the Washington Post, which cited four people familiar with the encounter.

 

"This isn't some game. You are screwing with the work of the president of the United States," Dowd said he told the investigators, who are probing possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Dowd left the president's legal team about two weeks after the meeting.

 

The Post said Mueller had raised the possibility of a subpoena after Trump's lawyers said the president had no obligation to talk with federal investigators involved in the probe.

 

After the March meeting, Mueller's team agreed to provide the president's lawyers with more specific information about the subjects they wished to ask Trump, the Post reported.

 

With that information, Trump's lawyer Jay Sekulow compiled a list of 49 questions the president's legal team believed he would be asked, according to the Post.

 

That list, first reported by the New York Times on Monday, includes questions on Trump's ties to Russia and others to determine whether the president may have unlawfully tried to obstruct the investigation.

 

Trump on Tuesday criticized the leak of the questions.

 

"So disgraceful that the questions concerning the Russian Witch Hunt were 'leaked' to the media. No questions on Collusion," Trump wrote on Twitter. "It would seem very hard to obstruct justice for a crime that never happened!"

 

Russia has denied interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, as U.S. intelligence agencies allege, and Trump has denied there was any collusion between his campaign and Moscow.

 

Sekulow did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesman for Mueller declined to comment.

 

(Reporting by Karen Freifeld; Writing by Eric Beech; Editing by Tim Ahmann and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-05-02

 

It is not OK for the USA President to lie.

 

He must follow the law as all citizens are expected to do.

 

I detest seeing things get to this point.     I feel de ja vue as in Watergate.

 

3 minutes ago, watcharacters said:

 

It is not OK for the USA President to lie.

 

He must follow the law as all citizens are expected to do.

 

I detest seeing things get to this point.     I feel de ja vue as in Watergate.

 

Lying by itself is not against the law. Lying to avoid criminal prosecution is. It seems unlikely that Trump fully understands the difference.

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Lying by itself is not against the law. Lying to avoid criminal prosecution is. It seems unlikely that Trump fully understands the difference.

 

Well,  lying to any federal agent while being interrogated is in fact a felony in the USA  punishable  with some substantial penalties.    Even lying to a local cop is a felony.  ( and of course they are permitted to lie to you)

 

Come back?

 

Edit:     I forgot to mention regarding lying the word "while under oath" , but I think it goes beyond that.

Edited May 2, 20188 yr by watcharacters

2 minutes ago, watcharacters said:

 

Well,  lying to any federal agent while being interrogated is in fact a felony in the USA  punishable  with some substantial penalties.    Even lying to a local cop is a felony.  ( and of course they are permitted to lie to you)

 

Come back?

Both your examples qualify as "lying to avoid criminal prosecution"

Edit: Come to think of it I should have qualified it as lying to avoid criminal prosecution for oneself or others.

Edited May 2, 20188 yr by bristolboy

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Both your examples qualify as "lying to avoid criminal prosecution"

Edit: Come to think of it I should have qualified it as lying to avoid criminal prosecution for oneself or others.

 

I'm revolted by the thought that any POTUS would need to even come under such a cloud.

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Both your examples qualify as "lying to avoid criminal prosecution"

Edit: Come to think of it I should have qualified it as lying to avoid criminal prosecution for oneself or others.

 

 

I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure if a person lies to an agent of the USA  to protect another person, it would  STILL be a very serious crime.  

 

You agree or disagree?

 

Edit:   FBI,   Treasury,  ATF,  or any other.    You get the idea.    It is a serious offense.

 

The simple fact is the POTUS is not allowed to lie to Federal agents.     I hope he avoids trying to do so.

Edited May 2, 20188 yr by watcharacters

15 minutes ago, watcharacters said:

 

 

I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure if a person lies to an agent of the USA  to protect another person, it would  STILL be a very serious crime.  

 

You agree or disagree?

 

Edit:   FBI,   Treasury,  ATF,  or any other.    You get the idea.    It is a serious offense.

 

The simple fact is the POTUS is not allowed to lie to Federal agents.     I hope he avoids trying to do so.

Isn't that what I wrote?

" Come to think of it I should have qualified it as lying to avoid criminal prosecution for oneself or others."

Actually. there was a Supreme Court case recently in which someone successfully appealed being found guilty for lying to Federal or state agents. The court overturned the conviction on the grounds that the lie had no criminal intent behind it. I think the defendant was lying about a previous marriage. I'm trying to find it.

"With that information, Trump's lawyer Jay Sekulow compiled a list of 49 questions the president's legal team believed he would be asked, according to the Post.

 

That list, first reported by the New York Times on Monday, includes questions on Trump's ties to Russia and others to determine whether the president may have unlawfully tried to obstruct the investigation.

 

Trump on Tuesday criticized the leak of the questions."

 

He should check with his legal team. So far the special prosecutor has not been leaking, and this list was compiled by his team.

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Lying by itself is not against the law. Lying to avoid criminal prosecution is. It seems unlikely that Trump fully understands the difference.

But dam right lies, even misleading information is making his position untenable as POTUS.

Jasjyot Singh Hans

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Isn't that what I wrote?

" Come to think of it I should have qualified it as lying to avoid criminal prosecution for oneself or others."

Actually. there was a Supreme Court case recently in which someone successfully appealed being found guilty for lying to Federal or state agents. The court overturned the conviction on the grounds that the lie had no criminal intent behind it. I think the defendant was lying about a previous marriage. I'm trying to find it.

I think maybe I got that wrong because I can't google it. It might be someone told an inconsequential lie on their immigration application. I'm still looking.

3 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

Jasjyot Singh Hans

 

 

 

The noose tightens.

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/robert-mueller-subpoena-trump_us_5ae91361e4b06748dc8d6689

 

Christ,  if he had said in the very  beginning he was turned on by the porn actress (not star as they all call themselves) he would have only needed to deal with his  beautiful wife who is the main player in this IMHO.   He would have had to deal only with her severe  fall out.    Now it is Congress and the American people and the electorate of which I am a part.

 

Instead,  there are lies and more lies  packed onto  it all.    I have to question President Trump's intelligence and that of his inter circle.

 

It's just a matter of time now...

 

 

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I think maybe I got that wrong because I can't google it. It might be someone told an inconsequential lie on their immigration application. I'm still looking.

Trust me there are many and mostly I understand and agree within reason.   

 

Any government application on which one knowingly lies results in a serious offense.   Same applies to a bank loan application or an insurance claim.

 

Best not to lie is what I'd say.

 

Please correct me if you find something contrary to my understanding.

 

 

8 hours ago, watcharacters said:

 

It is not OK for the USA President to lie.

 

He must follow the law as all citizens are expected to do.

 

I detest seeing things get to this point.     I feel de ja vue as in Watergate.

 

 

Bill Clinton seems to have set a precedent. It's OK to lie when your're the POTUS - to the government, electorate and all citizens as long as you say sorry when caught; providing the economies doing well!

5 hours ago, Basil B said:

But dam right lies, even misleading information is making his position untenable as POTUS.

 

Didn't make Clinton's POTUS position as untenable.Precedent been set.

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Didn't make Clinton's POTUS position as untenable.Precedent been set.

A lot depends on the gravity of the lies. And also their frequency.

6 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Didn't make Clinton's POTUS position as untenable.Precedent been set.

He did no lie every time he opened his mouth...

19 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Bill Clinton seems to have set a precedent. It's OK to lie when your're the POTUS - to the government, electorate and all citizens as long as you say sorry when caught; providing the economies doing well!

 

 

You left out RMN who today would also be facing the RICO act among the many charges that could have been brought against the man.

 

He opted to get his pension and  the incredible package offered now to retired US  Presidents.

 

 Presidents  Nixon,  Clinton and  Trump must have spent some time In Thailand and learned the value of repenting and asking for forgiveness.    

So this is the "trump" defense? But but but Clinton, ad nauseum. Good luck. It's gonna need it. 

19 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Bill Clinton seems to have set a precedent. It's OK to lie when your're the POTUS - to the government, electorate and all citizens as long as you say sorry when caught; providing the economies doing well!

 

19 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Didn't make Clinton's POTUS position as untenable.Precedent been set.

Bill Clinton lied about receiving a BJ, something a lot of married men would do, then rationalized it by stating he didn't consider a BJ as "sexual relations".  He was impeached but not removed from office.

 

Trump lies endlessly, attempted to obstruct an investigation of Russian interference in US elections (a far greater threat to democracy than a BJ), and will undoubtedly lie if interviewed by Mueller.  Most people see a difference between the two situations.

A lot depends on the gravity of the lies. And also their frequency.

So now we have 'serious lies' and 'inconsequential lies'???

Then there's the frequency to add confusion.

Who is it who determines the 'gravity' of the lies. The left?

Got it.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

2 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

So now we have 'serious lies' and 'inconsequential lies'???

Then there's the frequency to add confusion.

Who is it who determines the 'gravity' of the lies. The left?

Got it.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

2 lies:  (Both from your hero)

 

Lie A- I didn't sleep with an adult movie star, clumsily attempt to pay her off and then get caught.

 

Lie B- I didn't commit treason by colluding with a hostile foreign power to ensure I became president, damage the very fabric of my country and its populace in my resultant deception, and then get caught.

 

Can you honestly not see the difference?   

 

You must be a Trump apologist.

1 hour ago, F4UCorsair said:

So now we have 'serious lies' and 'inconsequential lies'???

Then there's the frequency to add confusion.

Who is it who determines the 'gravity' of the lies. The left?

Got it.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

You neglected to mention 'dumb lies':

 

"On Wednesday Trump tweeted, "As everybody is aware, the past Administration has long been asking for three hostages to be released from a North Korean Labor camp, but to no avail. Stay tuned!""

"He didn't mention that two of the three people held by North Korea were imprisoned last year during Trump's presidency."    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/05/03/north-korea-prisoners-trump-american-hostages/577056002/

 

The "past Administration" didn't ask for the three hostages to be released, because two of them weren't taken prisoner until after Trump came to office. 

 

Clearly a dumb lie, but is it dumb because Trump thinks his supporters are dumb enough to believe it, or is it dumb because Trump is dumb enough to believe it?

 

As an aside, this story also illustrates how the Washington Times (not the Washington Post) is fake news.  It printed:

 

" North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un has released three U.S. citizens detained for years in his horrific prison camps, surrendering to another of President Trump’s demands in advance of a planned historic summit between the two leaders whose countries have long been adversaries. "    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/2/north-korea-releases-us-detainees-bows-another-tru/

 

Truly sloppy reporting.