January 24, 2018

"President Trump said on Wednesday that he was willing to speak under oath to Robert S. Mueller III..."

... the NYT reports:

“I’m looking forward to it,” he said.

163 comments:

JPS said...

Wow, that seems like a poor decision to me.

I write that as a Trump skeptic, but one who does not believe that he colluded with the Russians to get elected, nor knowingly tolerated someone's doing so on his behalf.

Mueller will be just aching to get him on something. Trump shoots from the hip and he bullshits. I admire the strengths that have got him this far but careful wording is not among them. The impeachment brigades will pore lovingly over every second of it and they will find something that they insist vindicates their faith.

rhhardin said...

Taunting under oath.

Tim in Vermont said...

Well, this will be something to see. Not going to venture any kind of prediction how this is going to go.

Jersey Fled said...

Not a good idea. He doesn't know what others have previously testified or may testify in the future. Any slight inconsistency will be treated as a lie. Nothing good can come from this.

Birkel said...

Trump is very flexible when it comes to these statements. He's quite skilled at doublespeak. It drives those who can't appreciate it from the other side crazy.

I would demand it be recorded by my people and broadcast on a live feed with all money raised by advertising given to charity.

Tim in Vermont said...

Maybe he figures that he is going to get the same treatment Hillary got, so he isn’t worried about anything!

Birkel said...

The flexibility I mean is saying he will meet and then saying he won't meet.

He doesn't have to meet and he knows it. Why give away his position of strength?

Matthew Blaine said...

No worries, because they drafted the exoneration letter three months ago.

Inga said...

Oath or no oath, lying to the FBI is a crime.

D. said...

Don't take this Trump statement literally.

Big Mike said...

He's got an angle. I just don't see it yet.

David-2 said...

@TimInVermont - he won't be getting the same treatment if he is under oath - she was NOT!

Big Mike said...

Oath or no oath, lying to the FBI is a crime.

So is perjury, but I don't recollect Bill Clinton spending a day in jail.

Inga said...

“He doesn't have to meet and he knows it. Why give away his position of strength?”

Subpoena him, don’t expect him to hold to any agreement to meet. He’ll renege.

Rob said...

Trump is a lawyer's nightmare witness--uncontrollable, prone to run at the mouth, constitutionally incapable of saying, "I don't know," and with zero sense of the difference between truth and lies. This will be a fiasco.

Rabel said...

He caveated that his decision would be “subject to my lawyers and all of that, but I would love to do it.”

dreams said...

Some people say he shouldn't, that it's a trap. I agree because Mueller is dirty, he's corrupt.

Inga said...

I remember the days here in the comments sections when commenters swore Trump wasn’t under investigation, lol.

dreams said...

"Oath or no oath, lying to the FBI is a crime."

It is for Republicans but not for Obama, Hillary and the crooked Dems.

John Tuffnell said...

Trump is negotiating. Same as always. Watch to see what he gets in return and then maybe he goes through with it, maybe not.

Rabel said...

Mueller: Mr. President,

Trump: You're fired.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Unless Melania meet Mueller on a tarmac and Mueller gave her the thumbs-up, I don't think he should do it.

Tell Mueller and his merry band of Democrat operatives to fuck-off.

John Tuffnell said...

Maybe he gets Mueller to also go under oath. Goose, gander.

dreams said...

I'd like to see Mueller and a lot of the other crooked feds go to jail.

n.n said...

The establishment is desperate to cover-up Obama's espionage, Clinton's collusion, DNC's denial of the nomination to a Jew, social justice adventures (e.g. refugee crises, trail of tears, rape and molestation) during the so-called "Arab Spring", the Libya-Rebel Affair, and the Maidan Affair where armed Ukrainian leftists deposed a democratically elected government in a violent coup.

gilbar said...

he could do like Hillary did when she was under oath; and state that he 'could not recollect that' to Every question.

Michael said...

Inga

Many people not under investigation have been interviewed under oath. Many.

mockturtle said...

Some conservative pundits are calling it a 'perjury trap' and advise against it. OTOH, Trump usually knows what he's doing.

traditionalguy said...

As long as the entire interview is video taped with no edits , inserts and alterations, sure. But that would do Mueller's hit team no good. So I predict they will cancel it.

Pettifogger said...

A Democrat's wet dream. Never, never, never, never, never talk to the police. Never. Not ever.

Michael K said...

"Trump is negotiating. Same as always. "

Maybe Mueller thinks he will be asking the questions.

StephenFearby said...

“...subject to my lawyers and all of that, but I would love to do it."

I expect his lawyers will also be in the room. If they don't insist on this, they'd be nuts.

Fusion GPS's Simpson appeared before both the House and Senate investigating committees with a lawyer in tow.

That didn't inhibit Simpson from lying, however.

Carol said...

Testify, get caught in an inconsistency, get impeached, get removed from office, inaugurate the new Trump Media Empire! and take half the country with him.

Win-win!

Christopher said...

Meh, there's no actual commitment here.

All he needs to say to get out of this is to claim that after speaking with his advisers he doesn't feel he would get fair treatment by the same group that let the various Clintonites skate.

johns said...

i have read a few of the news reports. he is quoted as saying he is looking forward to the Mueller interview, and that it will be under oath. That may leave open that it could be responding to written interview questions under oath

Mike Sylwester said...

I recommend that everyone here read an article titled "The incredible timeline of the FBI, DOJ, Democrats, and Hillary in mid-2016", published today on the Liberty Unyielding website.

The article was written by J.E. Dyer, a former Naval Intelligence officer, who has written many articles about the RussiaGate hoax.

https://libertyunyielding.com/2018/01/24/incredible-timeline-fbi-doj-democrats-hillary-mid-2016/

Rory said...

Agree to it, but surprise Mueller with a camera and live feed.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The leftwing collective hivemind are pushing "obstruction1' hard.

How can you obstruct a non-crime?
The left know. A crime will be manufactured, and if that won't stick - you conjure up obstruction!

EDH said...

My guess is Trump believes Mueller will already be knocked back on his heels before the interview.

whitney said...

Mueller is no match for Trump. I hope they televise it. I'll be better than that Jordan Peterson interview by the woman at the BBC

Matthew Sablan said...

This would be dumb to do right as the secret society's insurance policy was self destructing.

Tommy Duncan said...

Perhaps Trumps has cards he's not showing. Could Trump be drawing Mueller into a discussion regarding Comey knowing something Mueller doesn't know about Comey?

What if Mueller asked for the interview fully expecting Trump to say "no" with the hope of creating a "what is Trump hiding" spin. Is Trump calling his bluff saying "you've got nothing"? I doubt if Trump feels any fear of Mueller. If Mueller indicts Trump on some penny ante perjury charge after the FBI let Hillary slide there will be hell to pay. America wins either way as this will show the level of corruption in the FBI.

Tommy Duncan said...

Blogger Inga said...

"I remember the days here in the comments sections when commenters swore Trump wasn’t under investigation, lol."

Inga sweetie, when my daughter's apartment was looted the police interviewed my daughter. Was she under investigation?

Lem said...

This is a terrible precedent.

Inga said...

Tommy darlin’,

If you still think that Trump isn’t under investigation at this time, you are extremely naive, or worse.

Mattman26 said...

The recent buzz has been that Mueller wants to ask Trump about firing Comey (and someone else, I forget). I hope that if he does, Trump tells him "Because I am the President, and under the Constitution I have the absolute right to do so without providing an explanation to you or anyone else," and refuse to answer any other questions on point.

Larry Nelson said...

I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall.
(From Hillary's playbook)

Matthew Sablan said...

Is it really an investigation when Mueller has decided the outcome?

Bay Area Guy said...

The Left - one full year later - has still not processed their huge, epic loss in Nov 2016. They want to re-fight it. They want to resist it. They want to undo it. First, savior Hillary? Nah, she's too compromised. 2nd Savior, Bernie? Too old, not ruthless enough. 3rd Savior, Bob Mueller! He's a Fighter! He's a prosecutor! He's a Republican! He will do our bidding - and then order will be restored in our little universe.

Pathetic. I've never seen a group of scheming losers like this bunch.

Drago said...

Inga: "Tommy darlin’, If you still think that Trump isn’t under investigation at this time, you are extremely naive, or worse"

Where is all the underlying and classified information that you are basing that on?

Has it literally only been 12 hours since you were saying we could not assess anything unless we see all classified information?

LOL

Just as with the fake lefty concern about sexual harassment, the lefties couldn't hold up their newest faux stances for more than 24 hours.

Unexpectedly.

Bad Lieutenant said...


Tommy Duncan said...
Perhaps Trumps has cards he's not showing.

Like the fact that all 17 of those intelligence agencies report to him, and then if he feels the need, he probably has full access to all of Mueller's files and records? Knows exactly what case Mueller has? Probably knows what he ate last night, and whether he wipes his ass right or left handed?

Could Trump be drawing Mueller into a discussion regarding Comey knowing something Mueller doesn't know about Comey?

Could Trump be intending to read into the record, a complete case against Hillary and the Obama Administration's various crimes, from Fast and Furious to Dossiergate, with supporting evidence in neat packages? Possibly including every guilty word O, H, or any of their people have spoken or typed since January 20th?

Imagine Mueller trying to excuse himself and President Trump saying, "No, no, now that you're here, get comfortable, stay a while. Thirsty? Can I get you a cold one? Preston, get Director Mueller a nice cold Fresca. Two Frescas. He's going to be a while."

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

There's no way the Trump people don't have an angle in all this. Mueller can't be so stupid as to enter into this and not realize that he's the target. Bold prediction: Mueller declines to interview Trump, citing blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Derek Kite said...

This tells me that by the time Mueller reaches for the phone to make an appointment, he won't have a job.

Mid-Life Lawyer said...

Trump doesn't want to win (I said this myself).... Trump can't win the primary....Trump can't possibly beat Hillary....The stock market will crash if Trump is elected..... There will not be a tax deal under Trump.....Trump will be a disaster in the Mueller interview.... This shit never gets old. I'm so glad I lived to see this spectacle.

Narayanan Subramanian said...

Are we about to learn how to entrap Republican president

PB said...

Trump said he would be interviewed by Mueller. Likely Mueller will want to assign the job to some of this subordinates. Trump will say, no doing. Mueller alone or no deal. Also, no tapes or transcriptions or anything under oath. Just like the deal Hillary got.

chickelit said...

Mueller's first question will be: "Did you have sex with a porn star?"

Bay Area Guy said...

Trump should sit for an interview, insist that Mueller, himself, conduct the interview, have it videotaped (Clinton's deposition was videotaped), fire Mueller on camera, and walk out humming "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"

Lewis Wetzel said...

FYI, filming yourself masturbating does not constitute having sex with a porn star.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Mueller's first question will be: "Did you have sex with a porn star?""

-- I bet Trump's answer would be something like: "Hell yes, hasn't everyone?"

narciso said...

Mueller is an expert in not finding something (the Tampa tie to 9/11, the uranium on deal) when the info is available, and jumping to conclusions like the jumping frog of calaveras when there is nothing there.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"FYI, filming yourself masturbating does not constitute having sex with a porn star."

Profound, yet somehow...indecent.

Drago said...

chickelit: "Mueller's first question will be: "Did you have sex with a porn star?"

It depends on what the meaning of "with" is.....

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Trumpspeak for never going to happen. I’m guessing the ploy is that he will insist that Hillary Clinton be interviewed under oath first.

Bay Area Guy said...

Mueller first question will be: "Did you have sex with a porn star?"

Trump: "No, but I schlonged your Mama instead."

Matthew Sablan said...

Trump's the sort of guy who'll admit to sleeping with hookers, but insist they paid him for the privilege.

iowan2 said...

The govt usually has an advantage in leverage, when the question people. The govt has the power to make life hell. Flynn, ran out of money. Others have family members threatened with more legal challenges. With that leverage they plead out. So money, and loved ones are nothing but bargining chips. And this is for people that have not committed crimes.

Enter President Trump. 1st there is no crime, let alone something to charge. To make matters worse for Mueller, he has nothing to leverage against him. President Trump, has no fear. Least of all, political fear. I would predict that if this meeting takes place, President Trump is the one asking questions, and using leverage. Mueller has more vulnerabilities than President Trump. If Mueller has skeletons in the FBI closets, President Trump has the keys to them.

anti-de Sitter space said...

"Hell yes, hasn't everyone?"

I know that this is a joke.

But, the real thing is gross. I have a friend used to hang w/ a stripper. She was hot and smart/interesting, not to mention that she had good stories re losers, i.e. the regulars.

But regardless of hotness and such, IMHO, strippers (and especially porn stars) are not appealing re F-ing. I'd rather do a chubby. And, that ain't never ever never gonna happen.


OTOH, dif strokes for dif folks.

anti-de Sitter space said...

IOW,

The somewhat believable evidence that DJT F-ed a porn star is clearly a troubling sign re him re being POTUS. Where decision making matters.

OTOH, it's only one of the many red flags that many of y'all can't grasp w/ the stuff between your ears.

So,



Carry on.

victoria said...

Either he is delusional or just too arrogant for words.

Either way, yuck.


Vicki from Pasadena

anti-de Sitter space said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHBsCwXqGrM

Get this shit started.

BUMBLE BEE said...

RECOVERY OF "MISSING TEXTS" UNDER WAY?

THIS OUGHT TO BE FUN. LETS DANCE!

Comanche Voter said...

The absolutely believable evidence that Bill Jeff Clinton used a young intern's "hoo hah" as his personal cigar humidor in the Oval Office is "clearly a troubling sign re being POTUS".

Does that fix it for you anti-de Sitter space?

Matthew Sablan said...

"The somewhat believable evidence that DJT F-ed a porn star is clearly a troubling sign re him re being POTUS."

-- Consensual affairs have never been a disqualifying factor in presidential decision making before. Hell, we've had known RAPISTS get elected with the blessing of their party. Yes. Trump's a terrible person, but... so what? That doesn't matter to serving as president.

anti-de Sitter space said...

Matt,

I can see you POV. I have friends that have paid for high end prostitutes. Spitzer type gals.

So, why not get a pro for free, like DJT?

To me these gals are hideous. Totally not hot. For many reasons that go well beyond getting Spitzer-caught or the DJT payout ($130,000, plus lawyer fess, plus now it's out anyway).


IMHO.

anti-de Sitter space said...

BTW Com Vot,

I was then (and am now) a huge Bubba hater.

So, I haven't changed.

Have you? Likewise others here who have been hot n' bothered re fibbing about cigar-ing an intern?

Mr. Majestyk said...

To expand on something iowan2 said, Trump should only agree to answer Mueller's questions if Mueller agrees to answer Trump's questions.

Chuck said...

Blogger Rob said...
Trump is a lawyer's nightmare witness--uncontrollable, prone to run at the mouth, constitutionally incapable of saying, "I don't know," and with zero sense of the difference between truth and lies. This will be a fiasco.

There is a track record for this. The transcript of Trump’s deposition in the Trump “University” fraud case has been posted several places online. It is fabulous, and of course exactly as you describe. Trump is one of the most amazing nightmare witnesses I have ever seen on the pages of a transcript.

I’ll bet that the Trump appearance won’t be in front of the grand jury; that Trump’s lawyers will negotiate “no video” for the interview; that the testimony will be transcribed by a court reporter, and it’ll be wonderful.

narciso said...

Mueller put Stephen Hatfield under glass, which coat the bureau 5.5 million dollars, which set back the search of the anthrax mailer by years until he set upon Bruce ivins who also didn't fir the description. Focus chuck

WK said...


Mueller: We believe members of your team were colluding with the Russian government.

Trump: But you can't hold a whole team responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole two part system? And if the whole two party system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our political institutions in general? I put it to you, Robert - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

Tim in Vermont said...

I bet every time Hillary hears that $130K she orders somebody to be killed.

FullMoon said...

Mueller asks Trump a thousand questions. Some answers not exactly the same as others interrogated have answered. Witch hunt goes on and on and on.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger anti-de Sitter space said...
. . .
So, why not get a pro for free, like DJT?
. . .

Trump is Trump, after all, but isn't he supposed to be a germiphobe? And I'm sure that he has had lots of experience with women who want to turn a sexual encounter into a lifetime payout. How well sourced is this rumor?

Ty said...

Exclusive leaked video. Trump interviewed by FBI.

Tim in Vermont said...

Likewise others here who have been hot n' bothered re fibbing about cigar-ing an intern?

Yeah, um.. no. Forcible rape of a supporter he persuaded to go to a private hotel room. We have the testimony to Fedieral investigators, not just of Broaddrick, but of her friend, who found her bleeding, and with torn clothes in that hotel room, and three other witnesses that Broaddrick told at the time.

Saying it’s about a blow job and a “cigar” is just a kind of denial and a defense of the man that you purportedly hate. If you hate him for anything, its for being involved in the election that you consider a debacle.

pacwest said...

"I'll bet that the Trump appearance won’t be in front of the grand jury; that Trump’s lawyers will negotiate “no video” for the interview; that the testimony will be transcribed by a court reporter, and it’ll be wonderful."

Bigly hugely wonderful! That ploy would involve a lot of risk. Of all people, he knows he is playing to the media audience. What the strategy is I don't know, but I'm simply guessing he will kick the can down the road along with the collusion scandal, deferring the interview for as long as it takes to get out the goods on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He's done it with his taxes. Or, in another lens, he could be as dumb as a box of rocks.

pacwest said...

A common sense revolution led by a mad man.

AReasonableMan said...

JAY NORDLINGER said ...

I’ve also thought of the extreme contrast between Clinton and Ken Starr, the independent counsel in a slew of Clinton scandals. There could hardly have been two more different people in America, we all said. It was a clash of cultures.

Starr once allowed that he liked to take a morning run, by the water. He’d stop and sing a hymn and offer a prayer. Do you recall how Clinton’s man James Carville mocked this? “He’s a devout, virtuous, and God-fearing warrior, come to bathe in the healing waters of the Potomac and smite all the sodomites and fornicators from Washington.”

Now, think of Donald Trump and Robert Mueller.

Mueller was a Marine officer who fought in Vietnam. Highly decorated. As a Justice Department official, he took on Noriega, Libyan terrorists, the Gambino crime family, and other such characters. He was a Republican FBI director. He is so straight — so square, you might say — he insists that the men working for him wear white shirts (not blue, for example). He is married to the girl he met when they were both 17. He is a churchgoer. And so on.

This, too, is a culture clash. Mueller and Trump could not be more different in their backgrounds, careers, and ideals. Under ordinary circumstances, Mueller would be conservatives’ cup of tea.

Khesanh 0802 said...

@ARM You obviously have not been reading about the problems the FBI had under Mueller and his followers. The anthrax cases are just one example.

D said...

Answer to the first Q: "at this point, what difference does it make?"
Q2: "What did the previous guy say - oh yeah - not a smidgen of evidence"
Q3: "I was waiting. On a tarmac. In Phoenix. Dont know why the delay"
Q4: "Comey told me during our dinner that he had finished the report before the interview"
Q5: "I understand there is one Russian born employee working as a custodian at Trump tower. Hired 2016. My security thinks he may have placed your illegal wiretaps in my building after your agency conspired with a paid clinton operative to cover up the previous corruption"
Q6: "ok,ok, I cant stand this! I dated a girl from Bucharest 20 yrs ago! Thats close to Russia, I know! I'm not proud, I was at a low point! But I never even tried to get to second base, let alone third! I'm all talk!"

Khesanh 0802 said...

My God, Inga lives. I thought she'd left us given all the revelations of Dem malfeasance over the last week.

Tim in Vermont said...

You are imagining that there is an ARM somewhere who is interested in an honest discussion of all of the facts.

walter said...

Mueller's also a citizen..who probably voted.
So "straight" he would risk Hildebot?

The Godfather said...

a.1. I hope Trump doesn't do it. Although I never handled criminal cases, I did handle some hot civil cases. I remember one in which I defended a corporate CEO in a deposition, and I KNOW how hard it is to "control" a witness who was not anywhere near as egotistical as Trump.

a.2. But it's going to be hard, perhaps impossible, for Trump to "accept the advice of my counsel" and not testify.

a.3 Those Trump jock sniffers who think he can use his magical 5-dimensional chess talents to make a fool out of Mueller need to get back on their meds. This is going to be be a duel to-the-death with a sharpshooter. Remember what happened to Hamilton.


b.1. If Trump does submit to Mueller's questions, the rules of engagement MUST be agreed and clearly spelled out in advance.

b.2 Trump HAS to control the procedings. He (I mean "his lawyers") MUST insist that Mueller and ONLY Mueller ask the questions. The venue MUST be the Oval Office. The proceedings MUST be broadcast LIVE on all news networks. There MUST be a fixed, but reasonable, time period for the interrogation; say 2 hours. A deadline for Mueller's final report MUST be fixed for a specified number of days (e.g. 60) after completion of the Trump interview. I bet Ty Cobb has already worked this up.

Tim in Vermont said...

Kerry, 74, said his advanced age wouldn´t be an impediment to mounting another White House bid, and urged Agha to tell Abbas to ´stay strong´ and ´play for time´ while Trump is in the White House

Well, all I can say is that if he is going to charge Trump with Logan Act violations, he better have a pretty good reason why a lot of other people haven’t been charged. Obama was doing the same thing in the far east, telling people to play for time til they get rid of Trump.

pacwest said...

D@9:48 Comic gold.

walter said...

Lurch lives!
Yeah..Dennis Rodman got away with it.

Inga said...

“a.3 Those Trump jock sniffers who think he can use his magical 5-dimensional chess talents to make a fool out of Mueller need to get back on their meds. This is going to be be a duel to-the-death with a sharpshooter. Remember what happened to Hamilton.”

Finally a comment based in reality! All the commenters dreaming of Trump turning the tables on Mueller and questioning him instead... pure fantasy, lol.

Achilles said...

Blogger Inga said...

"I remember the days here in the comments sections when commenters swore Trump wasn’t under investigation, lol."

We know he is being investigated by a bunch of traitors who have been a part of a conspiracy to remove a duly elected president rom office. They committed fraud in the FISC court in order to spy on political opponents. They have been meeting outside of work. They are all facing numerous charges and will be going to jail.

We know you support spying on political opponents. We know you support Obama's attempt to make a police state.

Inga said...

“We know he is being investigated by a bunch of traitors who have been a part of a conspiracy to remove a duly elected president rom office. They committed fraud in the FISC court in order to spy on political opponents. They have been meeting outside of work. They are all facing numerous charges and will be going to jail.

We know you support spying on political opponents. We know you support Obama's attempt to make a police state.”
———————————————
Did you forget to say they should all be executed?

BarrySanders20 said...

Mueller would never agree to go under oath.

Matthew Sablan said...

Frankly, so long as Abedin and Comey are free, despite committing perjury and stealing from the FBI respectively, I see no reason for Trump to submit to questioning.

Inga said...

“I see no reason for Trump to submit to questioning.”

Oh, undoubtedly he’ll submit to questioning when he gets subpoenaed.

iowan2 said...

President Trump has nothing to lose by waiting to release the memo from the House intelligence committee. If it is a portion of what the Chairman claims, it puts Mueller at a distinct disadvantage. While Mueller can ask away, the President is under no obligation to entertain Muellers heavy handed schtick. The President is there voluntarily. If the questions fall out side the documents used to install the special counsel, he would be within the statute to refuse to answer, as the question does not apply. In short, use the law against Mueller

Achilles said...

Inga said...

Did you forget to say they should all be executed?

All of the People who conspired to commit fraud in the FIS Court to get a FISA warrant and spy on Obama and Hillary's political opponents need to be tried for Conspiracy, Fraud, and Espionage.

Their superiors need to be tried for giving aid and comfort to enemies of the country and attempting to subvert our democracy. Treason.

The people, like you, who support them in their Stalinist attempt to destroy our Republic must be defeated if we wish to remain a country of free people.

Achilles said...

AReasonableMan said...

Mueller was a Marine officer who fought in Vietnam. Highly decorated. As a Justice Department official, he took on Noriega, Libyan terrorists, the Gambino crime family, and other such characters. He was a Republican FBI director. He is so straight — so square, you might say — he insists that the men working for him wear white shirts (not blue, for example). He is married to the girl he met when they were both 17. He is a churchgoer. And so on.

This, too, is a culture clash. Mueller and Trump could not be more different in their backgrounds, careers, and ideals. Under ordinary circumstances, Mueller would be conservatives’ cup of tea.


I love how the left is now building him up. Mueller has a long record of entrapment and bad faith investigations.

I will look forward to him describing his role in the Uranium One scandal. Under Oath. Before/After he is indicted.

Achilles said...

BarrySanders20 said...
Mueller would never agree to go under oath.

Wont matter when he is indicted. How is he going to explain hiring then firing Strzok? He clearly knew what these people's political leanings were. He clearly knew about "dumbledore's army" was. He hired them all for his "team."

FBI has been "losing" a lot of information they were legally bound to keep. Unexpectedly.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Oh, undoubtedly he’ll submit to questioning when he gets subpoenaed."

-- Why should he? The rules are if the FBI subpoenas you, you can destroy the devices requested and lie to them. There's no reason Trump shouldn't follow the Clinton precedents.

Mr. Majestyk said...

Oh, I know Mueller would never agree to be questioned by Trump. After all, there's no evidence he's committed a crime ... just as there's no evidence Trump has. Mueller's investigation was launched in response to hysterical cries of "collusion!"

holdfast said...

I don't think even Mueller would go after a sitting President on a BS process "crime". Not when we're still learning about Hillary Clinton got the tongue-bath treatment from Comey and his FBI. There would be no faster way to discredit the whole Federal law enforcement edifice.

Bob Loblaw said...

He should fire Mueller instead, along with the entire top, oh, about three layers of the FBI. There's no room for secret societies dedicated to kingmaking in US law enforcement.

Earnest Prole said...

Only a fool would consent to questioning under oath by a corrupt prosecutor.

Tom said...

This is a huge risk for Mueller. Bill Clinton was a lawyer to can lie with the best in the world. But Trump will likely take a different approach. I think his approach focuses in three things. One, denying everything forcefully. Two, pointing out the tremendous conflicts of interest Mueller, Comey, and other have. And three, attacking the lack of investigation into Clinton’s many scandals. If I were Trump, I ask for one on one on camera with Meuller and then I’d make him look incompetently and corrupt in front of his supporters. Trump don’t play.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger Earnest Prole said...
Only a fool would consent to questioning under oath by a corrupt prosecutor.1/24/18, 11:36 PM

So, Prole, you think Mueller is a corrupt prosecutor?

Michael Fitzgerald said...

Matthew Sablan said... "Yes. Trump's a terrible person, but..."

1/24/18, 8:31 PM

No, he's not, not by any metric. Donald Trump has made it to the top of two industries notorious for their corruption, sleaze and criminal behaviors, and he made it without compromising his dignity or integrity. Until he ran for president as a republican, Donald Trump was celebrated for his brilliance, generosity, kindness, guts and success by the same scumbags trying to off him now.

Donald Trump is a great man, period, end of story. But chickenshit cowards feel the need to qualify their statements of support with such weak antecedents as "I don't like him but", "He's an asshole but", "He's a terrible person, but" because they don't want to appear supportive of someone who is the public target of blind hatred.

No, You're the terrible person. No ifs, ands, or buts about that.

Yancey Ward said...

This was so funny. There is literally zero chance Mueller gets to interview Trump in person. The very best that Mueller will get is to submit questions that Trump's lawyers will answer or choose not to answer as they think right. Trump was trolling Mueller with that comment, if he actually made it- I haven't seen the video of him saying it, so I will just accept that he did for the sake of argument.

Comey got fired for telling Trump one thing in private, and then telling Congress something completely different in public- that is almost certainly the absolute truth of the matter, and Trump more or less told us that the day he fired Comey. That firing is in no way obstructive, and I don't think Mueller will dare even bring such a charge, interview or not. I do suspect Mueller is hoping for some sort of process crime to charge the very senior members of the Trump Administration, present or past (Pence or Sessions, possibly Priebus or Bannon), but that looks less and less likely to happen by the day. The fundamental problem for Mueller is still the lack of an underlying crime to obstruct in the first place.

Yancey Ward said...

Some of the details of the Nunes memo are starting to leak, and the name that was most interesting is Rosenstein's. He is the link to Mueller, and if he goes down as a corrupt player, then Mueller will get fired. Count on it.

Breezy said...

I agree. Supposedly Mueller wants to know about the Flynn and Comey firings, to see if any obstruction of justice there. However, Rod Rosenstein was a participant in the Comey firing, and it was Rosenstein who hired Mueller as a result of that firing. Could or would Mueller ensnare the guy that hired him? They are friends, right?

Curious George said...

"The fundamental problem for Mueller is still the lack of an underlying crime to obstruct in the first place."

Well, other than his, or Rosenstein, or Comey, or the Hildabeast, or Obama, or Peter Strzok, or....

Tim in Vermont said...

So, Prole, you think Mueller is a corrupt prosecutor?

Prole is so deep in his irony game that he probably doesn’t even know what he thinks, but my guess is that if you took his quote to the body shop, and they had a frame bending machine, it would come out like this “Trump knows Mueller is not corrupt.”

Tim in Vermont said...

I still don’t know what to make of all of this, but if there is a pool, can I have the “indictments rain down days before the elections” square? That’s normally how Democrat prosecutors operate.

AllenS said...

If Trump meets Mueller, Trump has to show up with his own audio and visual people to record the proceedings. Making sure that Mueller understands that after the meeting is over, it will be shown to the public.

Also, he needs to make sure Mueller understands that those missing recordings/emails etc. will be recovered, brought to the White House and placed at Trump's feet.

Phunctor said...

As long as Mueller is under oath too. Question for question. Live streaming.

No, I'm sober, but still hallucinating..

Breezy said...

Firing Comey was obstruction of injustice.

Phunctor said...

As long as Mueller is under oath too. Question for question. Live streaming.

No, I'm sober, but still hallucinating..

If you have the truth on your side, weaponize it.

Tim in Vermont said...

Firing Comey was obstruction of injustice.

LOL, sure. But ten seconds before he fired him, Comey was public enemy number one for interfering with the election! I hope you didn’t suffer any neck injuries that day.

Theranter said...

What Michael Fitzgerald said.

Tim in Vermont said...

What was the actual, underlying crime, Breezy?

Curious George said...

"Inga said...
Oath or no oath, lying to the FBI is a crime."

I see our resident dullard is leap frogging posts.

Robert Cook said...

"Trump is very flexible when it comes to these statements. He's quite skilled at doublespeak. It drives those who can't appreciate it from the other side crazy."

Gee, I wonder why they can't appreciate Trump's double talk? Oh...it's because people who use double talk are accurately seen as deceptive, dishonest, and untrustworthy. Not a lot to appreciate in a double talking con man, especially one who purports to work for the good of others, (but then, isn't this what all con men claim?).

AReasonableMan said...

Lawyer's already walking back the Doofus in Chief's comments:

"Trump’s White House lawyer, Ty Cobb, told the Times the president’s comments were made off-the-cuff and tried to downplay the gravity of the statements.

“He’s ready to meet with them, but he’ll be guided by the advice of his personal counsel,” Cobb told the outlet.

Tim in Vermont said...

Hasn’t started any new wars? Is that the problem you have with him. ARM?

What a glorious world this would be if only Hillary were president!

Tim in Vermont said...

Hillary would be using the military to further whatever her projects in Libya and Syria, that would be so much better than a president who rogers the occasional porn star!

Tim in Vermont said...

“Stronger together” You know, like a bundle of sticks! Wasn’t that the symbol of the last fascist who marched into North Africa?

Maybe somebody can put her under oath and get her to explain what we were doing in Syria and Libya in the first place? “We came! We saw! He died!” - HRC, wasn’t that Italian fellow also a big fan of the glory that was Rome?

Tim in Vermont said...

You know how the FBI could have spared us the Trump presidency? By indicting Hillary on the copious legal grounds they clearly had.

We could all be arguing about President Sanders right now and wondering if the stock market would ever recover.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Obama pulling out of Iraq handed the place to ISIS. ISIS kill whoever they want and take the women hostage for raping. I cannot blame it all on Hillary and Obama. Corrupt leftwing dictatorships in Africa are given millions in aid and it all ends up in the corrupt dictator pockets. Nothing new. Certainly Obama and Hillary kept that tradition alive.

In any case, Good going, Obama.
Best get back to ruining our healthcare system - because *insert leftwing cliche'* "something had to be done!"

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Firing Comey was within the rights of a sitting president. Obstruction of justice is a bullshit charge created by the corrupt leftwing machine.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Mueller filled his team with grade-A leftwing corruption hacks. You know- democrats.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

If I was a Democrat I would be very concerned about the focus being moved from "collusion" to "obstruction". Especially when you consider the alleged obstruction resulted from Trump's reaction to the fake collusion narrative started by Hillary/DNC.

Francisco D said...

"Firing Comey was obstruction of injustice."

The POTUS has the legal right to order the firing of the FBI Director. You can only prove an obstruction charge if Trump stated that he wanted Comey fired because he was closing in on Trump and/or his supporters for a crime they know they committed.

If there was evidence of the above, it would have been leaked to the NYT a long time ago.

The people who need to worry are the Obama and Bush holdovers at the FBI and DOJ. They have committed crimes and the evidence seems to be growing. We live in interesting times!

Qwinn said...

Strzok wasn't fired. He was transferred to HR! He's in charge of firing and hiring now! How that doesn't make even more heads explode is amazing to me.

Molly said...

I lot of commenters here seem to misunderstand the basic dynamics of the discussion. The basis of discussion is "if A then B" where B = "trump must be removed from office." So, if we had A = "Trump colluded with Russia", then the proposition would be "if trump colluded with russia, then trump must be removed from office." Many commenters, here and elsewhere are focussed on the validity of the A statement; so they would argue "trump did not collude with russia, therefore trump should not be removed from office."

Not only is this faulty logic, but it also completely misses the nature of the discussion. Conclusion B is immutable and unchallengeable. The only thing to be determined is the find a statement A that has enough political power to effectively lead to Trump's removal. If "A = collusion" doesn't work, we'll try A = obstruction of justice, or A = lying to Mueller, or A = extramarital sex, or A = emoluments, or A = hair implants, or A = violating Presidential oath, or A = tweets too much.

Francisco D said...

Good lord, Molly!

You may confuse some of the people here with the obvious logic.

Roy Jacobsen said...

holdfast said...
I don't think even Mueller would go after a sitting President on a BS process "crime". Not when we're still learning about Hillary Clinton got the tongue-bath treatment from Comey and his FBI. There would be no faster way to discredit the whole Federal law enforcement edifice.


You talk as if that--discrediting the whole federal law enforcement edifice--hasn't already happened.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The Stench at Obama's DOJ and FBI

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Corrupt democrats never pay the price. Hillary isn't in jail because of Strozk's corruption - Strozk isn't fired because he's a loyal corrupt democrat.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

It's a sham investigation.

"Mr. Johnson’s letter also revealed more reason to believe the FBI’s probe into Mrs. Clinton’s email server may have included political calculations. Congress already knows through internal memos that the FBI watered down the language in Mr. Comey’s July 2016 Clinton exoneration statement—from the legally culpable “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.”

But the latest texts show the FBI also eliminated evidence that Mrs. Clinton compromised high-level communications. A June 30, 2016 draft of Mr. Comey’s statement noted that Mrs. Clinton had engaged in “an email exchange with [President Obama ]” via her private server while on the “territory of sophisticated adversaries.” That same afternoon, Mr. Strzok texts Ms. Page to tell her that, in fact, senior officials had decided to water down the reference to President Obama to “another senior government official.” By the time Mr. Comey gave his public statement on July 5, both references—to Mr. Obama and to “another senior government official”—had disappeared. "

Obama - just another senior government official.


Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Mark Tapescott:



DEVIN NUNES’ MOM DIDN’T RAISE NO FOOL: The House Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman was told yesterday by the Department of Justice that it would be reckless to make public his four-page summary of classified information on FBI surveillance abuses during the 2016 presidential campaign. Let us review it beforehand to remove anything that shouldn’t become public in order to protect U.S. intel “sources and methods,” DOJ said. Right.

Well, that ain’t gonna happen, if Rep. Peter King of New York is to be believed. King, who is a senior GOPer on the intel panel, told Laura Ingraham late last night that Nunes, a California Republican, will send the memo straight to President Donald Trump, pending release. Trump has already said he favors #ReleaseTheMemo, so why circumvent DOJ? Nearly 200 House members have already reviewed the memo in a secure setting (though only a handful of Democrats).

“If we gave them this memo [in advance], what they would do is, it would be passed out to all their friends in the media to tear it down before it even gets out there,” King told Ingraham, LifeZette’s Kathryn Blackhurst reports.

“Everything that’s in that memo is from the Justice Department — information we found. There’s no surprises there to them. They just want to be ready to … make a pre-emptive attack on it. We’re not going to let them,” King said.

Judging by the reaction of DOJ and the onslaught of attacks by Dems and their allies in the Mainstream Media claiming the document is merely a partisan screed, Nunes must have succinctly captured a mountain of information that these people are desperate to keep out of the public’s gaze. You don’t suppose it shows Obama’s coteries at DOJ and the FBI trying to help Hillary gain the Oval Office instead of jail, do you? Really?
35

Kevin said...

I think this is ultimately the way to go.

When Mueller shuts down his investigation with absolutely nothing to show for it, you don't want people on the left clinging to the idea that if only Mueller had been able to get Trump under oath he would have broken down and spilled everything.

YOU WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Kevin said...

Trump's appearance of full cooperation also makes it easier to appoint a second Special Prosecutor to investigate the FBI.

Not only do we need one, but you can't give Trump's haters any excuse to think their appointment is yet another attempt to "obstruct justice".

Because bringing FBI officials to justice will look like obstruction in the bizzaro world in which they live.

mockturtle said...

The only thing to be determined is the find a statement A that has enough political power to effectively lead to Trump's removal. If "A = collusion" doesn't work, we'll try A = obstruction of justice, or A = lying to Mueller, or A = extramarital sex, or A = emoluments, or A = hair implants, or A = violating Presidential oath, or A = tweets too much.

Exactly so. The trap is set. Unfortunately, the fake news media will make sure we believe that 'A' is in there somewhere. We just have to keep looking.

Yancey Ward said...

This thread is probably dead, but I will defend Breezy by pointing out that he wrote:

"obstruction of injustice".

Francisco D said...

Thanks Yancy.

I completely missed that.

It must be the AD/HD.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Those Trump jock sniffers who think he can use his magical 5-dimensional chess talents to make a fool out of Mueller need to get back on their meds. This is going to be be a duel to-the-death with a sharpshooter. Remember what happened to Hamilton.


Hamilton deloped. Trump is not going to delope for nobody.

More likely, in your scenario, while Burr was finding out that he had been equipped with a water pistol, Burr's second would quietly step up behind him and relieve Burr of the burden of existence.

Bad Lieutenant said...

And yes, Breezy's wit sailed over certain heads like a cool sea breeze.

320Busdriver said...

I can't wait to see that FISA memo, or the rest of the recovered texts between Strzok and Page.

What's more upsetting than finding out the highest levels of the nations premier LEA are corrupt? Probably that these same criminals are too stupid to realize that these communications on an employer provided device are NOT secret. Hillary didn't teach them a goddamn thing. Other than you can get away with it.

GWash said...

You folks are a hoot !... always enjoy the 'conversation' here...
The president does have the right to fire the director... however, if the president is aware that one of his direct reports has committed a felony that may involve him and then asks the director to please ignore that felony and then fires the director who has sworn an oath to uphold the laws of the US and is in the middle of an investigation of that felony and the president actually publicly announces that he fired the director because of his investigation into that felony... well i think most would agree that that is clearly obstruction... the president is not the king (yet) and he is not and should not be above the law... this is a protection for you fine folks - you could be on the other end of the spear one day...

Jim at said...

I remember the days here in the comments sections when commenters swore Trump wasn’t under investigation, lol.

And you've been screaming out of your backside for a year now, and you still got nothing.

Jim at said...

FYI, filming yourself masturbating does not constitute having sex with a porn star.

No?

Well, that would explain why Kay Parker won't answer my letters.

Jim at said...

Either he is delusional or just too arrogant for words.

Either way, yuck.


And people like you would be bitching if he didn't want to talk with Mueller.
Heads he loses, tails you win.

Neat trick.

gadfly said...

We must not miss out on Trump's latest stream of consciousness from his visit with unprepared reporters.

First he said that he put out fake news about General Kelly, so fake news is OK if Trump does it.

Then he quickly jumped to his Davos trip which he says will bring barrels of money (and you thought the Dreamers were Mexican).

Then he bragged on his higher tariffs on solar panels and washers which are going to save companies over here (despite the fact that he doesn't understand that we already cannot compete in the solar panel business - remember Solyndra). BTW, the 93,000 employees at Whirlpool are probably surprised today to find out that their appliance company is finished, out of business.

As for the wall, it coming, and we will get "great" border security ... and DACA ... and amnesty for Dreamers, sayeth the King. $25 billion for the wall, BTW, - that we aren't going to spend or something like that.

And the only thing reported by the press is that Trump will willingly testify under oath to Mueller, and McCabe go $500,000 from Hillary (but he forgot that Hillary got $100,000 from the Trumps a few years ago). And of course, no collusion.

"I couldn't have cared less about Russians having to do with my campaign. The fact is, you people won't say this but I'll say it. I was a much better candidate than her. You always say she was a bad candidate, you never say I was a good candidate. I was one of the greatest candidates. Nobody else would've beaten the Clinton machine, as crooked as it was. But I was a great candidate. One day you're going to say that."

I guess you just had to be more crooked than Hillary to win. But he is really sane - honest.

Bad Lieutenant said...


Blogger gadfly said...


Oh who cares what you said? I'm just here to watch you bleed. Whatever your grudge, you gadarene gadabout, I hope he fucked you good, and I hope he does it again, before, during and after completing his second glorious term. Long live President Donald Trump!!!