The NYT reports.
“If they can come to us and show us the basis and that it’s legitimate and that they have uncovered something, we can go from there and assess their objectivity,” Mr. Giuliani said in an interview. He urged the special counsel to wrap up his inquiry and write an investigative report. He said Mr. Trump’s lawyers planned to write their own summary of the case.
Posts
87 comments:
If they cannot find a crime, they will manufacture one.
Only if he gets the same deal as Hillary.
Let's see THAT transcript!!!
LOL!
Boiled down, the message to Mueller is "piss up a rope."
This will force Mueller to demonstrate a crime was committed or show this is just your normal witchhunt by the Swamp.
When is Mueller gonna interview the 13 Russian Trolls?
Any day now, they will figure out what the crime was and then they can find the evidence and then they will have him!
Just you wait! You will see!
The real crime was beating Hillary. You never topple the deep state.
Why does Strozk still have a job?
Trump is too busy building up the House and Senate majorities to bother.
Presumably, if Trump speaks off the cuff at his interview, nobody will understand what the fuck he's saying.
An interview never was particularly likely. Mueller was pretty transparent in his desire to play “gotcha games” with the President of the United States.
The warlock that would not confess. What is a hunter to do? Find other witches and warlocks to burn. A familiar tail, tale.
building up the House and Senate majorities
And filling judicial vacancies with American character. Progress (fun (sic) intended).
I am not clear on what is being discharged ...
Is Trump in front of jury for this?
Does he have counsel at his side?
Is a judge present?
If not can he make those his requirements??
What are the optics and due process standards?
..Discussed..
Why let Mueller decide the rules of the game?
The Consortium News website has published an article titled "Former US Envoy to Moscow Calls Intelligence Report on Alleged Russian Interference ‘Politically Motivated’", written by Jack Matlock, former US Ambassador to the Soviet Union.
Matlock criticizes the report that the US Intelligence Community published on January 6, 2017, accusing Russia of meddling in our 2016 election.
Matlock's article includes the following passage.
[quote]
.... I spent the 35 years of my government service with a “top secret” clearance. When I reached the rank of ambassador and also worked as Special Assistant to the President for National Security, I also had clearances for “codeword” material. At that time, intelligence reports to the president relating to Soviet and European affairs were routed through me for comment. I developed at that time a “feel” for the strengths and weaknesses of the various American intelligence agencies. It is with that background that I read the January 6, 2017 report of three intelligence agencies: the CIA, FBI, and NSA.
This report is labeled “Intelligence Community Assessment,” but in fact it is not that. A report of the intelligence community in my day would include the input of all the relevant intelligence agencies and would reveal whether all agreed with the conclusions. Individual agencies did not hesitate to “take a footnote” or explain their position if they disagreed with a particular assessment. A report would not claim to be that of the “intelligence community” if any relevant agency was omitted.
The report states that it represents the findings of three intelligence agencies: CIA, FBI, and NSA, but even that is misleading in that it implies that there was a consensus of relevant analysts in these three agencies. In fact, the report was prepared by a group of analysts from the three agencies pre-selected by their directors, with the selection process generally overseen by James Clapper, then Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Clapper told the Senate in testimony May 8, 2017, that it was prepared by “two dozen or so analysts—hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies.” If you can hand-pick the analysts, you can hand-pick the conclusions. The analysts selected would have understood what Director Clapper wanted since he made no secret of his views. Why would they endanger their careers by not delivering?
What should have struck any congressperson or reporter was that the procedure Clapper followed was the same as that used in 2003 to produce the report falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein had retained stocks of weapons of mass destruction. That should be worrisome enough to inspire questions, but that is not the only anomaly.
The DNI has under his aegis a National Intelligence Council whose officers can call any intelligence agency with relevant expertise to draft community assessments. It was created by Congress after 9/11 specifically to correct some of the flaws in intelligence collection revealed by 9/11. Director Clapper chose not to call on the NIC, which is curious since its duty is “to act as a bridge between the intelligence and policy communities.”
During my time in government, a judgment regarding national security would include reports from, as a minimum, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) of the State Department. The FBI was rarely, if ever, included unless the principal question concerned law enforcement within the United States. NSA might have provided some of the intelligence used by the other agencies but normally did not express an opinion regarding the substance of reports.
What did I notice when I read the January report? There was no mention of [the State Department's] INR or DIA! ...
[end quote]
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/07/03/former-us-envoy-to-moscow-calls-intelligence-report-on-alleged-russian-interference-politically-motivated/
We need a new reality show called “Celebrity Torture”. Each week a national celebrity would be kidnapped and tortured until they tell the truth about the situation of interest. Mueller would make a good contestant.
"The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, needs to prove before Mr. Trump would agree to an interview that he has evidence that Mr. Trump committed a crime and that his testimony is essential to completing the investigation,“
Entirely reasonable.
@originalmike...
You are falling for NYT attempt to frame a conflation of issues to deny Due Process to Trump.
If Mueller has evidence he doesn't need testimony from Trump which would be Trump's defence in judicial or Congressional forum.
If the proposed question list that was published a couple of months back was authentic (I believe it was considering the papers that published it first do have sources inside Mueller's team), then it was clear to me that the only thing Mueller has on Trump is the obstruction of the Flynn investigation by firing Comey; and the nature of the questions seemed designed to create potential "contradictions" between what Trump might say about his internal thoughts and the testimony of other people's beliefs about what was going on during a particular event.
I have written it many times- if the goal of getting Trump's testimony is to uncover facts, then written questions and written answers is the way you go about it. Oral testimony only has additional use in trying to create process crimes. In other words, it is harder to trip someone up with a written question and with the time to answer it. Your goal here as the prosecutor shouldn't be trying to induce someone to lie or make a mistake. I often criticize Congress for this exact same thing- they don't use written questions and answers enough either, but in that case, the Congresscritters are additionally showboating for cameras- it degrades the quality of both the questions the information obtained. In addition, lying on a written question carries a lot more weight with me, and thus is less likely to happen in the first place.
I have no idea what Mueller is investigating, so I have no idea why Trump should testify.
When is this circus going to end? My guess is October. Just in time for the usual election year "October surprise".
@Narayanan Subramanian - The quote is from Giuliani.
Translation: So never.
Entirely reasonable. Prove it isn’t a witch hunt. Simple, no? But Mueller can’t show the lameness of his hand.
If Trump is subpoenaed, he should appear with his lawyers and they should simply write down the questions as they are asked with Trump saying to each one "I will have to consult my records since I can't quite recall."
It will be written questions and answers, or nothing.
I never understood why Mueller doesn't simply subpoena him to testify before the grand jury (w/o his lawyer present). Trump can contest the subpoena in court though he will likely lose given Nixon/Clinton precedent. If he takes the Fifth, compel his testimony. If he then lies about material facts, go after him for perjury. If he tells the truth, he may avoid conviction for any crimes he may have committed, but its worth it if the truth comes out.
This back and forth re whether he will sit for an interview and the conditions of any such interview is getting old.
Steve,
You can't compel his testimony. He doesn't even have to take the 5th- a simple "I don't recall" works just fine as Hillary proved over and over. However, I think you are perfectly mimicking the thought process of Mueller and his team- it was never about getting to the truth.
Of course you can compel his testimony if he asserts the Fifth. If he doesn't take the Fifth and says he doesn't recall anything, the prosecutor will have to decide whether he is lying and whether they could prove that to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Same thing should happen with Hillary.
Original Mike said...
"The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, needs to prove before Mr. Trump would agree to an interview that he has evidence that Mr. Trump committed a crime and that his testimony is essential to completing the investigation,“
Entirely reasonable.
No. He should give Mueller until tomorrow to provide the evidence that was used to start the independent council investigation.
You cannot start an investigation without a specific crime.
If they cannot provide this information they should all be arrested and deposed including Muller, Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe, Strzok et al as there is more than enough evidence of conspiracy.
You can't prove someone remembers something or not, Steve, without them admitting they lied in saying so. That is why the statement is effective and a better reply than taking the 5th.
”…but its worth it if the truth comes out.”
Truth about what? Trump has a right to know what this is even about before ever sitting down with Mueller.
Achilles; the crime was beating hillary. That much is obvious
Steve; I don't recall has ALWAYS worked for hillary, and it always will.
Here's from 2016 hillary excuse
here's from back in 1996, back when the washingtonpost tried to pretend to seem to be impartial:
whitewater
she's NEVER had a problem with it
"The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, needs to prove before Mr. Trump would agree to an interview that he has evidence that Mr. Trump committed a crime and that his testimony is essential to completing the investigation,“
Wishing doesn't make it so. He doesn't have to tell GJ witnesses anything but the time and place of their testimony.
"You cannot start an investigation without a specific crime."
Sure you can. In white-collar cases you often don't know if any crime has been committed when you start the investigation. The GJ is a tool to FIND evidence.
Steve,
Do you know what "probable cause" means?
In other words, could I open a grand jury investigation of you just because I wanted to and had the power to do so?
steve uhr said...
.
"You cannot start an investigation without a specific crime."
Sure you can. In white-collar cases you often don't know if any crime has been committed when you start the investigation. The GJ is a tool to FIND evidence.
I appreciate you admitting your absolute and complete ignorance in this situation and your Stalinist propensities in using the grand jury to find crimes.
Leftists are awful people and stupid to boot.
Doesn’t change the absolute fact that in order for Rosenstein to appoint a special counsel investigation he had to name crimes Trump committed and there was probable cause for and why the DOJ was unable to perform the investigation on It’s own.
steve uhr said...
"Sure you can. In white-collar cases you often don't know if any crime has been committed when you start the investigation. The GJ is a tool to FIND evidence."
As Achilles points out, the law authorizing the appointment of special prosecutors includes the requirement that a specific crime be investigated. It was ignored by Rosenstein in his appointment of Mueller. Rather than point this out, Trump's lawyers are making it a requirement of his testimony. They are probably hoping he will call them on it, so they can cite the law his appointment violates.
Chuck said...
Let's see THAT transcript!!!
LOL!
I would rather watch you defend the appointment of the Mueller witch hunt.
You are a lawyer. A stupid lawyer but a lawyer none the less. According to you...
What statutes did Rosenstein use to appoint Robert Mueller special counsel?
What justification does Robert Mueller have to investigate Manafort's activities when he was working for the Podesta group in 2012?
Be specific.
"This back and forth re whether he will sit for an interview and the conditions of any such interview is getting old."
So is Mueller. He is getting older as we watch.
I think Trump may have decided to let him twist slowly in the wind while the Democrats, like Steve here, go insane.
Mueller should be prepping for the Russian company that demanded their right to a speedy trial. If he was ready to indict them, he should be ready to go.
Why is Manafort in solitary custody?
The prison warden says because he cannot guarantee his safety otherwise.
In a Federal prison? Who do you think you are kidding, Sir?
Original Mike... It's paraphrase by NYT, not a quote of Giuliani words. My point stands.
Mueller has nothing. Zip. Nada. Diddly-squat. If he had anything, anything at all on collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign, it would already have leaked from his leaky sieve of an investigation, probably to that trollop at the New York Times. The fact that no leaks have occurred proves it. It's the dog that hasn't barked in the night.
What rules of process permit the judge to tag along with Mueller to deny speedy trial to Russian defendants?
There is absolutely no need for Trump to talk with Mueller and his crew. If I were his counsel I would not allow it under any circumstances.
Here's the link to Mike Sylvester's Matlock article.
Mike and others: Here's the link to "how to link". If I can do it anyone can!
@N.S. - OK, thanks. I was fooled by the quotation marks.
@Jupiter Great point. Perhaps Mueller and Rosenstein are being played a bit. Rosenstein must be getting a bit tired of having his name dragged in the mud.
I predict they'll wrap this up, oh, halfway through Trump's second term.
@Jupiter said...
"As Achilles points out, the law authorizing the appointment of special prosecutors includes the requirement that a specific crime be investigated. It was ignored by Rosenstein in his appointment of Mueller."
Do we *know* this, or is it just speculation? Have we ever seen an unredacted copy of the updated letter Rosenstein issued? All I've seen is this: https://www.scribd.com/document/375478974/Rosenstein-Instructions-Authorizing-Mueller-Investigation
Two allegations against Manafort are specified, along with several redacted allegations against redacted individuals.
Giuliani should request that the FBI write its now standard exoneration letter before interviewing the target. They could throw in that boilerplate about any criminal activity being clearly unintentional and therefore no reasonable prosecutor would charge. That should all be on a preprinted form in the human relations department somewhere in Peter Strzok's desk.
Look, people. The government investigators are just doing their jobs here. If Hillary had won they would likewise be pursuing her issues with the private server, and the Clinton foundation, and people in her campaign. They would be just as dogged and determined, becuase they are working in the best interest of the country and are fair and unbiased patriots.
Hey, can I have another hit off that bong?
Mueller's "interview" is another hail mary pass the left is now pinning its hopes on. If you watch football enough you see how seldom this play ever pays off. Thats why they are on the highlight reels. First it was Flynn then Popadopulous then Manafort and Cohen that were all going to "turn" on Trump. How has that worked out for everyone? And now like the Tell Tale heart Trump is going crack and spill the beans about collusion to Mueller? Really? After all this time this is the silver bullet?
”Hey, can I have another hit off that bong?”
You’ve had enough. Why don’t you go sit down before you hurt somebody.
NFL lawyer Bob Mueller
If they cannot find a crime, they will manufacture one.
I believe the quote in question was something like "show me the man, and I'll find you the crime."
Rosenstein cannot give Mueller power that Rosenstein does not have. People asking what is in the appointment letter are asking the wrong question, entirely.
I think that the difference here is that Mueller works for Trump via and Sessions. This means that if the President says that they need to show a crime before he takes time out of his busy schedule to sit for an interview, etc, then going to the grand jury anyway is insubordination. We elected Trump, not Mueller. This means that Mueller cannot Constitutionally override Trump. The protection that a special prosecutor has here is mostly political - if he has something, and the President tells him to quit to cover it up (like what Obama did with his IGs, and DAG Yates did to prevent the IG from investigating the DoJ National Security Division and FBI equivalent (which were the organizations involved with Crooked Hillary’s emails, abuse of FISA 702 searches, Spygate, etc)), then Mueller could go to the press, Congress, etc. but, so far, we haven’t seen anything that wasn’t completely manufactured against anyone, and esp against the President.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Mueller and his band of ethically challenged partisan hack prosecutors are inferior officers. They were not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Which likely means that they don’t have sufficient independence to even think of going against the President. They would very likely have to get the permission of their supervising principal officer, DAG Rosenstein, to actually make the call.
obstruction of the Flynn investigation by firing Comey
Please show exactly how firing Comey obstructed the Flynn investigation. Step-by-step, please. Include all relevant dates and include your reasoning why Trump should have ignored the advice of Inspector General and D.A.G. Rosenstein vis-a-vis the dismissal.
“If they can come to us and show us the basis and that it’s legitimate and that they have uncovered something, we can go from there and assess their objectivity,”
Last time I checked, potential law violators don't get to assess the evidence collected by investigators prior to charges being made. In my opinion, the drag-your-feet-defense won't work, because of: Trumps's money laundering-adventures with the Russian buyers and investors; combined with Trump's deliberate obstruction of the Mueller investigation, as well as his involvement with Mafia and Russian gangsters; his cheating of Trump University students, of course; and his six bankruptcies where the loser did not include Trump - are prime evidence of a long-standing racketeering lifestyle.
So even if Mueller is not permitted to prosecute a sitting President, that, despite his predictable issuance of pardons to protect the guilty, won't prevent a rash of private civil RICO lawsuits by right-thinking Americans that will bring him down.
Gadfly has the cart in front of the horse. Unexpectedly.
@Birkel said...
"People asking what is in the appointment letter are asking the wrong question, entirely."
Possibly. I was just asking it because people keep claiming the Mueller appointment was illegal because Rosenstein didn't specify a crime in the (redacted) follow-up to the (public) appointment letter.
"Rosenstein cannot give Mueller power that Rosenstein does not have."
What power is that? You mean the power to subpoena the President?
Interesting related news, from a month ago, that I just noticed. Apparently Kaepernick is suing the NFL in the federal courts, and his lawyers want to subpoena President Trump...
Anyone think *that* subpoena should be upheld, if the district court judge issues it? Can you imagine what comes next?
Last time I checked, potential law violators don't get to assess the evidence collected by investigators prior to charges being made.
OK, So if I say you are a pedophile, you have no rights to examine my evidence.
Got it, pedophile.
I think Trump may have decided to let him twist slowly in the wind while the Democrats, like Steve here, go insane
Exactly. Trump is playing Mueller like a piano with his 'maybe/maybe not' routine. Meantime Trump is gathering sympathy from a US public which--largely--is antipathetic to "investigators" who have failed to come up with ANYTHING in 18 months for $20 million ++.
There is bad news, of course. Mueller ran the FBI for 12 years, meaning that a big chunk of the management is Mueller-trained and uses Mueller-techniques. Comey was his disciple and Mueller was Comey's 'godfather' in the Bureau.
With that in mind (and McCabe, Stzrok, HoneyLips, etc.) maybe we should ask this: Why isn't Mueller indicted for training all those jackwads in the ways of unethical and criminal conduct?
I was in taking a CCW class all day today and listening to the instructor, a retired Tucson police officer tell FBI jokes.
Among other things, you never allow your gun out of your sight unless it is locked up. You never drink alcohol while in a public place if you have your gun.
The list of FBI fuckups of these rules is a long one.
There is bad news, of course. Mueller ran the FBI for 12 years, meaning that a big chunk of the management is Mueller-trained and uses Mueller-techniques.
Mueller, of course, like Comey and Wray, was never an agent. This is a very bad precedent.
These lawyers think like lawyers and not agents and that has had very bad outcomes.
clint,
Congrats on your powerful swings and misses.
Rosenstein cannot, under the law for special appointments like this one, do so without evidence of an articulable crime. Rosenstein ignored the law. And that is disgraceful.
gadfly, you're unhinged. That is complete nonsense.
@Birkel-
Then I'm confused.
How do you know that Rosenstein didn't articulate a crime for which there was evidence?
There's a section of "Attachment C" in which he purports to list such crimes, but all are redacted, except for two allegations against Manafort. Again, the redacted "Attachment" is here
Manafort has now been charged with a number of crimes that fit into what Rosenstein alleged in that letter.
What am I missing?
gadfly said...
Last time I checked, potential law violators don't get to assess the evidence collected by investigators prior to charges being made.
Last time I checked it was illegal to pay Russians for garbage political dossiers and use political agitprop to justify spying on political opponents lying to the FISC about the origination of the dossier and lying to judges about the corroboration of the dossier.
I would also expect the investigation into the justification Rosenstein used to not only continue the FISA warrant on Carter Page but also upgrade him from a level 7 investigative target to a level 1 target alleging he was an active foreign agent and allowing the FBI to spy on everyone he talked to and everyone they talked to.
If we have that investigation and all the democrats are quietly thrown in jail we are all good.
Or you can carry off your little coup.
Then the fun and games start.
@MichaelK - how was your CCW class. I went and looked at guns today so I could ask for comments and advice during my class.
Still leaning Glock.
-XC
What power is that? You mean the power to subpoena the President?
The power to investigate anything that was not directly related to the Sessions recusal.
Rosenstein has no authority to authorize Mueller to go after decades old Podesta group operations of manafort. Only Sessions could do that.
The statutes are so crystal clear even terrible lawyers like Chuck could figure them out.
Expat(ish) said....
Still leaning Glock.
-XC
What is your purpose?
There are so many choices now.
"how was your CCW class"
Lots of FBI jokes. Mostly about law and gun safety. I especially wanted to learn about Arizona law and it was good for that. I learned which states to stay out of but I already knew that.
I never put a gun in checked luggage but I learned that, if you got through chicago, or some other gun hating place, and change planes, they will x-ray your luggage and arrest you if they see the checked gun on x-rays.
That was new.
Bought a new (to me) gun today, A Beretta 92s that is a surplus.
I gave my son my Beretta 9mm.
The instructor is good, A retired Tucson cop and instructor at the police academy. I'm going to take his pistol class in September.
I still tend to pull left with pistols.
I’m not a criminal law expert, but my understanding is that DOJ rules about subpoenaing the president , which are binding on Mueller, are pretty much along the lines of what Giulianii said. Andrew McCarthy had discussed the relevant DOJ regs previously,
Donald Trump: I'd bring back 'a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.'
So, no interview is needed, just a board and some water.
Trump should offer to sit for an interview, but in exchange, have Mueller agree to have it take place in mid-November after the elections.
That would deflate some of the politics and convince folks like me that Mueller wasn't just a hack tool for the Dems. And Mueller should state publically whether Trump is a target, subject or merely a witness.
I'd bring back 'a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.'
So, no interview is needed, just a board and some water.
Does the Secret Service have your contact info, crazy ?
“In my opinion, the drag-your-feet-defense won't work”
Mueller has to articulate what Trump’s defending or there’s no need for a defense
Didn’t think it through, did you?
“Still leaning Glock.”
The good is that Glocks are reliable. You can run thousands of rounds through them, and they will still work just fine. Great aftermarket, better than anything except maybe 1911s and AR-15s. For a start, checkout Lone Wolf Distributing, which is maybe 30 miles away from me now, and who sell a 100% non-Glock Glock. Only problem that I have had with 3-4K trouble through a G17 has been an occasional failure to feed the last round using non-Glock magazines. And, and there are plenty of those on the market. I have a 32 round magazine, which is essentially worthless (you never really need that many rounds), but fun anyway. Plus, pretty much anyone who makes any type of accessory, makes them for Glocks.
Several downsides though. First, the factory sights are horrid. Instead of two dots in the back, and one in front, they have that basket, almost a wide U shape in the rear. Sure, it allows to acquire the target quickly, but good luck with much accuracy, since the basket is much broader than the ball on the front sight. I switched to night sights, which work much better. Plenty of aftermarket sights on the market. Secondly, many consider the angle of the handle to not be optimal. I am used to it now, but it took some time to be able to switch back and forth with other guns. Third, Glocks only have a trigger safety. There are times when that may not be optimal. If you catch the trigger on something, Glicks on occasion have fired, and that has been fatal for some who appendix carried, and were reholstering. I much prefer my Springfield XD Mod 2, which also has a grip safety, plus a positive tactile indication that there is a shell in the chamber. XDs also come std with fiber optic front sights, which I like. I like the additional grip safety (plus the trigger safety) because I can safely reholster, etc, by making sure that the grip safety isn’t pressed, which is pretty easy to do. Also, a number of people with a lot of experience don’t like the way the trigger breaks. Guy at the range in the next town east of us, who was a Marine Corp armorer in Vietnam, used a Dremmel to clean up the trigger on my G17, and it does shoot better.
Giuliani is doing his standard of punching back hard, being a stalking horse for Trump with Mueller, and trash talking Mueller's investigation.
And it's working! Mueller's favorable in polls and reputation keeps on going down. And the longer the investigation goes on, the more mud is going to stick to him. And the investigation into the Anti Trump stuff done by the deep state keeps on dripping out, showing how partisan the Jihad against Trump is by the Resistance, including the Trump Dossier. And as more details appear, I believe it will show a lot higher involvement. It's amazing on how much stuff that was tossed off as crazy talk, has proven to be true.
Unless something unexpected comes up, the longer the investigation goes on, stays in the news, the more it helps Trump by making him the victim. As well as the under dog, that is fighting against over whelming odds. I'm amazing that Trump is doing this well, with everything that has been thrown at him.
"So even if Mueller is not permitted to prosecute a sitting President, that, despite his predictable issuance of pardons to protect the guilty, won't prevent a rash of private civil RICO lawsuits by right-thinking Americans that will bring him down."
Much easier said than done. First, you can't sue a sitting President for actions taken while he is in office. He is, essentially, exempt from civil damages while conducting his official duties. And, since he is on duty 24/7, he will have immunity for almost anything he does as President. Which leaves the time before he was sworn in. And, there were no legal victims of anything done during his campaign. Moreover, RICO, civil or criminal, requires predicate crimes. What specifically are the federal crimes being alleged? And alleged Logan Act violations won't work. What is the hard evidence supporting those crimes? Notably, most anything acquired by Mueller and his team is unusable in a civil case, because non-governmental attys possessing such is most likely a feliny violation of the Espionage Act. Mueller's people could maybe use it in a criminal case, because they have the requisite security clearances, etc. the civil attys don't.
Then there are the legal process problems. To get into federal court, there has to be particularized individual injuries. Otherwise, federal courts have no jurisdiction. There likely are none. Moreover, they have to be adequately plead. Asserting "Upon information and belief" is likely insufficient here. I expect any civil complaints would be dismissed on the pleadings, and, if not, then through summary judgment. And, again, no individualized injuries means no case because there is no remedy that the court can provide.
@Achilles-
Ah. That definitely makes sense.
I wish Giuliani had something like this.
The President will agree to meet with Mr. Mueller under these conditions and these conditions only. The interview will be nationally televised on a Sunday night and at a location of the President's choosing. The interview will last one hour exactly. Each question will last no more than 1 minute and no answer may last more than 4 minutes. The Special Counsel will ask the President a question and the President will answer. Then the President will ask a question of the Special Counsel and the Special Counsel will answer. And so on until the hour is over. Both parties will be under oath and will be subject to the penalties of perjury. Each of them may bring one pen and one blank of piece of paper into the briefing room. And the only persons present will the President, the Special Counsel, and the camera operator.
I think that summarizing the whole thing - there is nothing legally keeping Trump from forbidding Mueller from interviewing him, going to the grand jury, etc. Mueller works for Trump, and any prosecutorial discretion or power he might have is delegated to him from Trump. What is keeping Trump from doing that is the politics, and what some call the "optics". This is why Guliani was brought in, to flip this around in Trump's favor, so that the Mueller witch hunt can be shut down, without suffering a political cost for doing so. And he is succeeding. Mueller is, essentially, being relegated to wanting to interview Trump under oath in a fishing expedition because he wants to. And that isn't a good excuse. His job isn't to take down a sitting President. Guliani has put the onus on Mueller to put up or shut up, because going around Trump to the grand jury would now be rank insubordination. And ditto for Rosenstein if he authorized it (which he would have to do). And doing so would be an admission that he has nothing on Trump himself. Maybe he does, but telling the President that he (Mueller) can't tell Trump what he is looking won't fly anymore. Of course, while by all rights, Mueller should wind down his investigation, I don't see it happening yet. But Guliani has done the battle space prep, and I think can now be safely taken out.
Post a Comment