Potential Trump testimony at center of his attorneys' strategy to gauge Mueller investigation status

[JoeMoma]

Prudence advises that:

• If Trump did something illegal, he should not testify.
• If he did nothing illegal, he should testify.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

??? What?

Members of Congress aren't supposed to be supporters of Trump's or any other person who is POTUS. They're supposed to be supporters of the Presidency, the U.S. and it's laws and the order deriving from them. Supporting the Presidency and the supporting the person who happens to be POTUS are two very different things.

And to beleive that members of congress meet that ideal is to deny partisan politics. Also, you might want to read the statement I was replying to for context.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

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.

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.

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.

??? What?

Members of Congress aren't supposed to be supporters of Trump's or any other person who is POTUS. They're supposed to be supporters of the Presidency, the U.S. and it's laws and the order deriving from them. Supporting the Presidency and the supporting the person who happens to be POTUS are two very different things.

And to beleive that members of congress meet that ideal is to deny partisan politics. Also, you might want to read the statement I was replying to for context.

Off-Topic:

I did read it. The point of my remark is that those members of Congress, in their official capacity, aren't supposed to be Trump supporters. Because they aren't supposed to be Trump supporters, when they don't act as Trump supporters isn't noteworthy, for that's as it should be. When they act as Trump supporters, however, that is noteworthy because they aren't supposed to be.

Members of Congress aren't supposed to be supporters of Trump's or any other person who is POTUS. They're supposed to be supporters of the Presidency, the U.S. and it's laws and the order deriving from them. Supporting the Presidency and the supporting the person who happens to be POTUS are two very different things.

Obviously, members of Congress are humans to, but part of what they're paid to do is subordinate their personal views and partisan preferences to the sovereignty and well being of the nation, two main elements of which are the integrity and honor of the Presidency and of the Congress. To wit:

• Things like the House and Senate investigations of Executive Branch principals (i.e., governmental/electoral actions thereof) should be exerting the procedural rigor and discipline the minority party members demand, regardless of whether the majority party members are also in the party of the POTUS. Sure, the majority party should still control whether an investigation commences, but once it does, procedural control should shift to the opposition.
• Whether impeachment proceedings occur and how they play out shouldn't be a matter of whether the majority party is the POTUS' party.
• To increase Congress members' independence from the POTUS and Executive Branch, a sitting POTUS shouldn't be allowed to stump for or air tacitly or explicitly a stance with regard to any members of Congress or state government or any other candidate, excepting, of course, the ones in the POTUS' own voting district(s). If candidates are of a mind to attach themselves to a POTUS' coattails, well, fine, but they shouldn't be in a position of having to be electorally concerned with whether the POTUS favors them or doesn't. Elected officials' political fortunes should rise and fall entirely on the officials'/candidates policy positions, and in no part on their fealty to the POTUS.
  
  That independence works both ways, of course. A POTUS that cannot stump for another politician need only concern him-/herself with pushing policies on their intrinsic merit, not on their ability to garner voting-booth approbation for anyone else. It eliminates the need for a POTUS to support or reject bills as part of "wink and nod" quid pro quo.
  
  In addition to the matter of independence, another basis for my normative idea above is that the Presidency (the POTUS) is the only elected office obtained on a national basis, that has a national constituency, and that must necessarily include everyone or as close to everyone as s/he can get. The same simply isn't the case for any Representative, Senator or state-level elected official. You see, it doesn't bother me that lower level candidates/politicians align themselves with the POTUS. I have a problem with their feeling as though they must do so or suffer political retribution from the POTUS for not doing so.

 

[JoeMoma]

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.

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.

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.

??? What?

Members of Congress aren't supposed to be supporters of Trump's or any other person who is POTUS. They're supposed to be supporters of the Presidency, the U.S. and it's laws and the order deriving from them. Supporting the Presidency and the supporting the person who happens to be POTUS are two very different things.

And to beleive that members of congress meet that ideal is to deny partisan politics. Also, you might want to read the statement I was replying to for context.

Off-Topic:

I did read it. The point of my remark is that those members of Congress, in their official capacity, aren't supposed to be Trump supporters. Because they aren't supposed to be Trump supporters, when they don't act as Trump supporters isn't noteworthy, for that's as it should be. When they act as Trump supporters, however, that is noteworthy because they aren't supposed to be.

Members of Congress aren't supposed to be supporters of Trump's or any other person who is POTUS. They're supposed to be supporters of the Presidency, the U.S. and it's laws and the order deriving from them. Supporting the Presidency and the supporting the person who happens to be POTUS are two very different things.

Obviously, members of Congress are humans to, but part of what they're paid to do is subordinate their personal views and partisan preferences to the sovereignty and well being of the nation, two main elements of which are the integrity and honor of the Presidency and of the Congress. To wit:

• Things like the House and Senate investigations of Executive Branch principals (i.e., governmental/electoral actions thereof) should be exerting the procedural rigor and discipline the minority party members demand, regardless of whether the majority party members are also in the party of the POTUS. Sure, the majority party should still control whether an investigation commences, but once it does, procedural control should shift to the opposition.
• Whether impeachment proceedings occur and how they play out shouldn't be a matter of whether the majority party is the POTUS' party.
• To increase Congress members' independence from the POTUS and Executive Branch, a sitting POTUS shouldn't be allowed to stump for or air tacitly or explicitly a stance with regard to any members of Congress or state government or any other candidate, excepting, of course, the ones in the POTUS' own voting district(s). If candidates are of a mind to attach themselves to a POTUS' coattails, well, fine, but they shouldn't be in a position of having to be electorally concerned with whether the POTUS favors them or doesn't. Elected officials' political fortunes should rise and fall entirely on the officials'/candidates policy positions, and in no part on their fealty to the POTUS.
  
  That independence works both ways, of course. A POTUS that cannot stump for another politician need only concern him-/herself with pushing policies on their intrinsic merit, not on their ability to garner voting-booth approbation for anyone else. It eliminates the need for a POTUS to support or reject bills as part of "wink and nod" quid pro quo.
  
  In addition to the matter of independence, another basis for my normative idea above is that the Presidency (the POTUS) is the only elected office obtained on a national basis, that has a national constituency, and that must necessarily include everyone or as close to everyone as s/he can get. The same simply isn't the case for any Representative, Senator or state-level elected official. You see, it doesn't bother me that lower level candidates/politicians align themselves with the POTUS. I have a problem with their feeling as though they must do so or suffer political retribution from the POTUS for not doing so.

Rainbows and unicorns.