Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The President's team has raised the idea of an interview with Trump to determine if they are close to an ending for the President's part in the Russia probe, according to one of the sources. Although most attorneys assume Mueller wants to speak with the President, his attorneys are trying to figure out a way to make that possibility work for their client.
In Trump, they have a client who is eager to get this done, and willing to testify -- although the attorneys are more skeptical about the benefits of talking to Mueller. But if the President knew some form of his limited testimony could signal an end, sources say, he'd obviously be very eager to do it.
Who is Prudence?Prudence advises that:
Prudence, however, is not something Trump is keen to heed; thus one cannot credibly infer by Trump's testifying (or not) whether he did or didn't do something illegal.
- If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
- If he did nothing illegal, he should testify.
As for the notion of offering Trump's testimony in return for accelerating the investigation's pace, well, from where Mueller stands, that's a non-starter. Were Mueller to do agree to that, he'd be derelicting his duty. Criminal investigations go where they go until there's no place left for them to go, at which point they're closed or prosecutors file charges based on the information obtained in the investigation. Besides, (1) Mueller doesn't have to make a deal, as it were; he can have the grand jury subpoena Trump if he wants to force Trump's appearance and corresponding testimony and (2) by the time Mueller wants Trump's testimony/input, he'll be pretty near the end of his investigation.
Who is Prudence?Prudence advises that:
Prudence, however, is not something Trump is keen to heed; thus one cannot credibly infer by Trump's testifying (or not) whether he did or didn't do something illegal.
- If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
- If he did nothing illegal, he should testify.
As for the notion of offering Trump's testimony in return for accelerating the investigation's pace, well, from where Mueller stands, that's a non-starter. Were Mueller to do agree to that, he'd be derelicting his duty. Criminal investigations go where they go until there's no place left for them to go, at which point they're closed or prosecutors file charges based on the information obtained in the investigation. Besides, (1) Mueller doesn't have to make a deal, as it were; he can have the grand jury subpoena Trump if he wants to force Trump's appearance and corresponding testimony and (2) by the time Mueller wants Trump's testimony/input, he'll be pretty near the end of his investigation.
If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
If Trump did nothing illegal (as far as he knows), he should not testify.
There are so many laws on the books that a special counsel could find a broken law investigating almost anyone.
I’ve seen the vid, I am convinced to a point. But I will talk to cops if reporting a crime.Who is Prudence?Prudence advises that:
Prudence, however, is not something Trump is keen to heed; thus one cannot credibly infer by Trump's testifying (or not) whether he did or didn't do something illegal.
- If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
- If he did nothing illegal, he should testify.
As for the notion of offering Trump's testimony in return for accelerating the investigation's pace, well, from where Mueller stands, that's a non-starter. Were Mueller to do agree to that, he'd be derelicting his duty. Criminal investigations go where they go until there's no place left for them to go, at which point they're closed or prosecutors file charges based on the information obtained in the investigation. Besides, (1) Mueller doesn't have to make a deal, as it were; he can have the grand jury subpoena Trump if he wants to force Trump's appearance and corresponding testimony and (2) by the time Mueller wants Trump's testimony/input, he'll be pretty near the end of his investigation.
If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
If Trump did nothing illegal (as far as he knows), he should not testify.
There are so many laws on the books that a special counsel could find a broken law investigating almost anyone.
You never talk to the cops, they are not your friends,
Prudence advises that:
Prudence, however, is not something Trump is keen to heed; thus one cannot credibly infer by Trump's testifying (or not) whether he did or didn't do something illegal.
- If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
- If he did nothing illegal, he should testify.
As for the notion of offering Trump's testimony in return for accelerating the investigation's pace, well, from where Mueller stands, that's a non-starter. Were Mueller to do agree to that, he'd be derelicting his duty. Criminal investigations go where they go until there's no place left for them to go, at which point they're closed or prosecutors file charges based on the information obtained in the investigation. Besides, (1) Mueller doesn't have to make a deal, as it were; he can have the grand jury subpoena Trump if he wants to force Trump's appearance and corresponding testimony and (2) by the time Mueller wants Trump's testimony/input, he'll be pretty near the end of his investigation.
The scope of Mueller's investigation and charge bringing authority is limited to felonious violations of federal law. He is not trying to "throw the book" of misdemeanors at anyone. I can only speak for myself, but I can very safely assert that I have committed no criminally prosecutable felonious acts. I would think that most people can quite sincerely and accurately make that same attestation, thus having no reason to demur from testifying before a grand jury.Who is Prudence?Prudence advises that:
Prudence, however, is not something Trump is keen to heed; thus one cannot credibly infer by Trump's testifying (or not) whether he did or didn't do something illegal.
- If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
- If he did nothing illegal, he should testify.
As for the notion of offering Trump's testimony in return for accelerating the investigation's pace, well, from where Mueller stands, that's a non-starter. Were Mueller to do agree to that, he'd be derelicting his duty. Criminal investigations go where they go until there's no place left for them to go, at which point they're closed or prosecutors file charges based on the information obtained in the investigation. Besides, (1) Mueller doesn't have to make a deal, as it were; he can have the grand jury subpoena Trump if he wants to force Trump's appearance and corresponding testimony and (2) by the time Mueller wants Trump's testimony/input, he'll be pretty near the end of his investigation.
If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
If Trump did nothing illegal (as far as he knows), he should not testify.
There are so many laws on the books that a special counsel could find a broken law investigating almost anyone.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump doesn’t have some skeletons in his closet similar to Bill Clinton. Might get impeached because of lying about an incident involving a blue dress.The scope of Mueller's investigation and charge bringing authority is limited to felonious violations of federal law. He is not trying to "throw the book" of misdemeanors at anyone. I can only speak for myself, but I can very safely assert that I have committed no criminally prosecutable felonious acts. I would think that most people can quite sincerely and accurately make that same attestation, thus having no reason to demur from testifying before a grand jury.Who is Prudence?Prudence advises that:
Prudence, however, is not something Trump is keen to heed; thus one cannot credibly infer by Trump's testifying (or not) whether he did or didn't do something illegal.
- If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
- If he did nothing illegal, he should testify.
As for the notion of offering Trump's testimony in return for accelerating the investigation's pace, well, from where Mueller stands, that's a non-starter. Were Mueller to do agree to that, he'd be derelicting his duty. Criminal investigations go where they go until there's no place left for them to go, at which point they're closed or prosecutors file charges based on the information obtained in the investigation. Besides, (1) Mueller doesn't have to make a deal, as it were; he can have the grand jury subpoena Trump if he wants to force Trump's appearance and corresponding testimony and (2) by the time Mueller wants Trump's testimony/input, he'll be pretty near the end of his investigation.
If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
If Trump did nothing illegal (as far as he knows), he should not testify.
There are so many laws on the books that a special counsel could find a broken law investigating almost anyone.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump doesn’t have some skeletons in his closet similar to Bill Clinton. Might get impeached because of lying about an incident involving a blue dress.The scope of Mueller's investigation and charge bringing authority is limited to felonious violations of federal law. He is not trying to "throw the book" of misdemeanors at anyone. I can only speak for myself, but I can very safely assert that I have committed no criminally prosecutable felonious acts. I would think that most people can quite sincerely and accurately make that same attestation, thus having no reason to demur from testifying before a grand jury.Who is Prudence?Prudence advises that:
Prudence, however, is not something Trump is keen to heed; thus one cannot credibly infer by Trump's testifying (or not) whether he did or didn't do something illegal.
- If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
- If he did nothing illegal, he should testify.
As for the notion of offering Trump's testimony in return for accelerating the investigation's pace, well, from where Mueller stands, that's a non-starter. Were Mueller to do agree to that, he'd be derelicting his duty. Criminal investigations go where they go until there's no place left for them to go, at which point they're closed or prosecutors file charges based on the information obtained in the investigation. Besides, (1) Mueller doesn't have to make a deal, as it were; he can have the grand jury subpoena Trump if he wants to force Trump's appearance and corresponding testimony and (2) by the time Mueller wants Trump's testimony/input, he'll be pretty near the end of his investigation.
If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
If Trump did nothing illegal (as far as he knows), he should not testify.
There are so many laws on the books that a special counsel could find a broken law investigating almost anyone.
Problem is Mueller and much/most of congress are not his supporters...especially if things get rough.I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump doesn’t have some skeletons in his closet similar to Bill Clinton. Might get impeached because of lying about an incident involving a blue dress.The scope of Mueller's investigation and charge bringing authority is limited to felonious violations of federal law. He is not trying to "throw the book" of misdemeanors at anyone. I can only speak for myself, but I can very safely assert that I have committed no criminally prosecutable felonious acts. I would think that most people can quite sincerely and accurately make that same attestation, thus having no reason to demur from testifying before a grand jury.Who is Prudence?Prudence advises that:
Prudence, however, is not something Trump is keen to heed; thus one cannot credibly infer by Trump's testifying (or not) whether he did or didn't do something illegal.
- If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
- If he did nothing illegal, he should testify.
As for the notion of offering Trump's testimony in return for accelerating the investigation's pace, well, from where Mueller stands, that's a non-starter. Were Mueller to do agree to that, he'd be derelicting his duty. Criminal investigations go where they go until there's no place left for them to go, at which point they're closed or prosecutors file charges based on the information obtained in the investigation. Besides, (1) Mueller doesn't have to make a deal, as it were; he can have the grand jury subpoena Trump if he wants to force Trump's appearance and corresponding testimony and (2) by the time Mueller wants Trump's testimony/input, he'll be pretty near the end of his investigation.
If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
If Trump did nothing illegal (as far as he knows), he should not testify.
There are so many laws on the books that a special counsel could find a broken law investigating almost anyone.
Nah, that won't happen. He was right about shooting people on 5th. His supporters honestly do not care. If he does it, it's not a problem.
Problem is Mueller and much/most of congress are not his supporters...especially if things get rough.I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump doesn’t have some skeletons in his closet similar to Bill Clinton. Might get impeached because of lying about an incident involving a blue dress.The scope of Mueller's investigation and charge bringing authority is limited to felonious violations of federal law. He is not trying to "throw the book" of misdemeanors at anyone. I can only speak for myself, but I can very safely assert that I have committed no criminally prosecutable felonious acts. I would think that most people can quite sincerely and accurately make that same attestation, thus having no reason to demur from testifying before a grand jury.Who is Prudence?Prudence advises that:
Prudence, however, is not something Trump is keen to heed; thus one cannot credibly infer by Trump's testifying (or not) whether he did or didn't do something illegal.
- If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
- If he did nothing illegal, he should testify.
As for the notion of offering Trump's testimony in return for accelerating the investigation's pace, well, from where Mueller stands, that's a non-starter. Were Mueller to do agree to that, he'd be derelicting his duty. Criminal investigations go where they go until there's no place left for them to go, at which point they're closed or prosecutors file charges based on the information obtained in the investigation. Besides, (1) Mueller doesn't have to make a deal, as it were; he can have the grand jury subpoena Trump if he wants to force Trump's appearance and corresponding testimony and (2) by the time Mueller wants Trump's testimony/input, he'll be pretty near the end of his investigation.
If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
If Trump did nothing illegal (as far as he knows), he should not testify.
There are so many laws on the books that a special counsel could find a broken law investigating almost anyone.
Nah, that won't happen. He was right about shooting people on 5th. His supporters honestly do not care. If he does it, it's not a problem.
Oh, they will scatter like cockroaches when the lights are turned on if Impeachment seriously comes up. Trump is an outsider and many of the republicans would had rather had HRC as president.Problem is Mueller and much/most of congress are not his supporters...especially if things get rough.I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump doesn’t have some skeletons in his closet similar to Bill Clinton. Might get impeached because of lying about an incident involving a blue dress.The scope of Mueller's investigation and charge bringing authority is limited to felonious violations of federal law. He is not trying to "throw the book" of misdemeanors at anyone. I can only speak for myself, but I can very safely assert that I have committed no criminally prosecutable felonious acts. I would think that most people can quite sincerely and accurately make that same attestation, thus having no reason to demur from testifying before a grand jury.Who is Prudence?
If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
If Trump did nothing illegal (as far as he knows), he should not testify.
There are so many laws on the books that a special counsel could find a broken law investigating almost anyone.
Nah, that won't happen. He was right about shooting people on 5th. His supporters honestly do not care. If he does it, it's not a problem.
Most of Congress are GOP so yes, most ARE his supporters. They didn't buck him once, no matter what he did or said, until he said "tariffs."
Oh, they will scatter like cockroaches when the lights are turned on if Impeachment’s seriously comes up. Trump is an outsider and many of the republicans would had rather had HRC as president.Problem is Mueller and much/most of congress are not his supporters...especially if things get rough.I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump doesn’t have some skeletons in his closet similar to Bill Clinton. Might get impeached because of lying about an incident involving a blue dress.The scope of Mueller's investigation and charge bringing authority is limited to felonious violations of federal law. He is not trying to "throw the book" of misdemeanors at anyone. I can only speak for myself, but I can very safely assert that I have committed no criminally prosecutable felonious acts. I would think that most people can quite sincerely and accurately make that same attestation, thus having no reason to demur from testifying before a grand jury.
Nah, that won't happen. He was right about shooting people on 5th. His supporters honestly do not care. If he does it, it's not a problem.
Most of Congress are GOP so yes, most ARE his supporters. They didn't buck him once, no matter what he did or said, until he said "tariffs."
Prudence advises that:
Prudence, however, is not something Trump is keen to heed; thus one cannot credibly infer by Trump's testifying (or not) whether he did or didn't do something illegal.
- If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
- If he did nothing illegal, he should testify.
As for the notion of offering Trump's testimony in return for accelerating the investigation's pace, well, from where Mueller stands, that's a non-starter. Were Mueller to do agree to that, he'd be derelicting his duty. Criminal investigations go where they go until there's no place left for them to go, at which point they're closed or prosecutors file charges based on the information obtained in the investigation. Besides, (1) Mueller doesn't have to make a deal, as it were; he can have the grand jury subpoena Trump if he wants to force Trump's appearance and corresponding testimony and (2) by the time Mueller wants Trump's testimony/input, he'll be pretty near the end of his investigation.
Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING I've read indicates that Robert Mueller is a man of honor. What he is investigating is a huge corruption case - not just what happened with Russia and the election, but good lord. Just look at Paul Manafort, and all the illegalities he has literally been committing for decades. So no. This won't be over any time soon, and we couldn't ask for a better man to be doing the legwork.
What I'm not understanding is why so many conservatives want the investigation shut down. The government is corrupt, right? We all know it, yeah? So why don't you want a stellar career lawman who is REPUBLICAN in charge of making things right??
I don't get it.
That truly is the "$60K question."What I'm not understanding is why so many conservatives want the investigation shut down.
The government itself isn't generally corrupt and most people employed in the federal government aren't generally corrupt. Corruption among government employees is overwhelmingly something perpetrated by a small circle of elected and appointed folks who sit at the top of it in the legislative and executive branches. It's that way because, among people of poor integrity, power corrupts. Most government employees haven't real power of note, and insofar as they aren't particularly wealthy, they have fleeting financial cushions, as it were, and need their jobs just like most everyone else. Thus they aren't tempted to be corrupt.The government is corrupt, right? We all know it, yeah?
While I hope Trump gets impeached, what I want is for him to be convicted and removed from office. Impeachment is a nice gesture, but it's rather toothless without a conviction. Insofar as impeachment and conviction by the houses of Congress is a political thing and not a criminal thing, it's unlikely that both actions will happen.I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump doesn’t have some skeletons in his closet similar to Bill Clinton. Might get impeached because of lying about an incident involving a blue dress.The scope of Mueller's investigation and charge bringing authority is limited to felonious violations of federal law. He is not trying to "throw the book" of misdemeanors at anyone. I can only speak for myself, but I can very safely assert that I have committed no criminally prosecutable felonious acts. I would think that most people can quite sincerely and accurately make that same attestation, thus having no reason to demur from testifying before a grand jury.Who is Prudence?Prudence advises that:
Prudence, however, is not something Trump is keen to heed; thus one cannot credibly infer by Trump's testifying (or not) whether he did or didn't do something illegal.
- If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
- If he did nothing illegal, he should testify.
As for the notion of offering Trump's testimony in return for accelerating the investigation's pace, well, from where Mueller stands, that's a non-starter. Were Mueller to do agree to that, he'd be derelicting his duty. Criminal investigations go where they go until there's no place left for them to go, at which point they're closed or prosecutors file charges based on the information obtained in the investigation. Besides, (1) Mueller doesn't have to make a deal, as it were; he can have the grand jury subpoena Trump if he wants to force Trump's appearance and corresponding testimony and (2) by the time Mueller wants Trump's testimony/input, he'll be pretty near the end of his investigation.
If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
If Trump did nothing illegal (as far as he knows), he should not testify.
There are so many laws on the books that a special counsel could find a broken law investigating almost anyone.
While I hope Trump gets impeached, what I want is for him to be convicted and removed from office. Impeachment is a nice gesture, but it's rather toothless without a conviction. Insofar as impeachment and conviction by the houses of Congress is a political thing and not a criminal thing, it's unlikely that both actions will happen.I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump doesn’t have some skeletons in his closet similar to Bill Clinton. Might get impeached because of lying about an incident involving a blue dress.The scope of Mueller's investigation and charge bringing authority is limited to felonious violations of federal law. He is not trying to "throw the book" of misdemeanors at anyone. I can only speak for myself, but I can very safely assert that I have committed no criminally prosecutable felonious acts. I would think that most people can quite sincerely and accurately make that same attestation, thus having no reason to demur from testifying before a grand jury.Who is Prudence?Prudence advises that:
Prudence, however, is not something Trump is keen to heed; thus one cannot credibly infer by Trump's testifying (or not) whether he did or didn't do something illegal.
- If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
- If he did nothing illegal, he should testify.
As for the notion of offering Trump's testimony in return for accelerating the investigation's pace, well, from where Mueller stands, that's a non-starter. Were Mueller to do agree to that, he'd be derelicting his duty. Criminal investigations go where they go until there's no place left for them to go, at which point they're closed or prosecutors file charges based on the information obtained in the investigation. Besides, (1) Mueller doesn't have to make a deal, as it were; he can have the grand jury subpoena Trump if he wants to force Trump's appearance and corresponding testimony and (2) by the time Mueller wants Trump's testimony/input, he'll be pretty near the end of his investigation.
If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
If Trump did nothing illegal (as far as he knows), he should not testify.
There are so many laws on the books that a special counsel could find a broken law investigating almost anyone.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump doesn’t have some skeletons in his closet similar to Bill Clinton. Might get impeached because of lying about an incident involving a blue dress.The scope of Mueller's investigation and charge bringing authority is limited to felonious violations of federal law. He is not trying to "throw the book" of misdemeanors at anyone. I can only speak for myself, but I can very safely assert that I have committed no criminally prosecutable felonious acts. I would think that most people can quite sincerely and accurately make that same attestation, thus having no reason to demur from testifying before a grand jury.Who is Prudence?Prudence advises that:
Prudence, however, is not something Trump is keen to heed; thus one cannot credibly infer by Trump's testifying (or not) whether he did or didn't do something illegal.
- If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
- If he did nothing illegal, he should testify.
As for the notion of offering Trump's testimony in return for accelerating the investigation's pace, well, from where Mueller stands, that's a non-starter. Were Mueller to do agree to that, he'd be derelicting his duty. Criminal investigations go where they go until there's no place left for them to go, at which point they're closed or prosecutors file charges based on the information obtained in the investigation. Besides, (1) Mueller doesn't have to make a deal, as it were; he can have the grand jury subpoena Trump if he wants to force Trump's appearance and corresponding testimony and (2) by the time Mueller wants Trump's testimony/input, he'll be pretty near the end of his investigation.
If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
If Trump did nothing illegal (as far as he knows), he should not testify.
There are so many laws on the books that a special counsel could find a broken law investigating almost anyone.
Nah, that won't happen. He was right about shooting people on 5th. His supporters honestly do not care. If he does it, it's not a problem.
??? What?Problem is Mueller and much/most of congress are not his supporters...especially if things get rough.
Problem is Mueller and much/most of congress are not his supporters...especially if things get rough.I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump doesn’t have some skeletons in his closet similar to Bill Clinton. Might get impeached because of lying about an incident involving a blue dress.The scope of Mueller's investigation and charge bringing authority is limited to felonious violations of federal law. He is not trying to "throw the book" of misdemeanors at anyone. I can only speak for myself, but I can very safely assert that I have committed no criminally prosecutable felonious acts. I would think that most people can quite sincerely and accurately make that same attestation, thus having no reason to demur from testifying before a grand jury.Who is Prudence?
If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
If Trump did nothing illegal (as far as he knows), he should not testify.
There are so many laws on the books that a special counsel could find a broken law investigating almost anyone.
Nah, that won't happen. He was right about shooting people on 5th. His supporters honestly do not care. If he does it, it's not a problem.
Most of Congress are GOP so yes, most ARE his supporters. They didn't buck him once, no matter what he did or said, until he said "tariffs."
