Should Trump agree to an interview with Mueller? (w/poll)

[bripat9643]

I wouldn't and would strongly advise Trump to refuse, and take the 5th if forced. Mueller already has all the information he needs to make a decision. Nothing Trump says will magically change his mind. The IG report has illustrated strong bias against Trump, with Mueller himself having to remove people from his investigation for that reason. If I were Trump, I take my chances in Court, or with the impeachment process.

It comes down to these 2 scenarios.

Trump is innocent and Mueller is on a witch hunt. If this is a case, Trump should refuse Mueller and demand his day in court, as every American has the right to do. Mueller is not judge, jury and executioner. Call his bluff.

If Trump is guilty, the decision remains the same. A Mueller interview has no upside and every attorney will tell you that testifying is almost always a bad idea for the defendant.

Whether he is guilty or innocent, Trump should not allow Mueller to dictate. Take it to court. This case has been being tried through leaks to the media for the past year.

His day in court starts with our next election Repubs lose stand by for impeachment process

There won't be any impeachment, moron. Even many Democrats don't want it, so how would it pass the House?

 

[bripat9643]

Not after the IG report....he would be crazy to sit with that snake Mueller and his den of vipers...

Exactly what did the IG report have to do with Mueller?

Strozk was the one that originally started the phone investigation that eventually became the Mewler witch hunt. Her Mewler had to get rid of him because he was such an obvious partisan who tainted all the evidence.

 

[bripat9643]

I wouldn't and would strongly advise Trump to refuse, and take the 5th if forced. Mueller already has all the information he needs to make a decision. Nothing Trump says will magically change his mind. The IG report has illustrated strong bias against Trump, with Mueller himself having to remove people from his investigation for that reason. If I were Trump, I take my chances in Court, or with the impeachment process.

It comes down to these 2 scenarios.

Trump is innocent and Mueller is on a witch hunt. If this is a case, Trump should refuse Mueller and demand his day in court, as every American has the right to do. Mueller is not judge, jury and executioner. Call his bluff.

If Trump is guilty, the decision remains the same. A Mueller interview has no upside and every attorney will tell you that testifying is almost always a bad idea for the defendant.

Whether he is guilty or innocent, Trump should not allow Mueller to dictate. Take it to court. This case has been being tried through leaks to the media for the past year.

He should just refuse to answer, as is the right of every American.

AS far as I know, there's no law that says you have to answer questions from the FBI.

 

[Care4all]

His day in court starts with our next election Repubs lose stand by for impeachment process

For what?

The emolument clause among a few other charges

Seriously? That's what you came up with? Emolument clause? Oh, "among a few other charges"? I'm laughing at you as I'm typing this

And then there's this
A lawsuit against the Trump Foundation filed by New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood has forged a path to felony criminal charges and civil charges against the president and his family, charity law experts said. Based on a review of the attorney general’s state court petition, the petition could open the door for prosecutors to pursue cases on the federal, state and local level.

A potential federal criminal case against the president “appears to be extraordinarily strong,” said Marcus Owens, who led the Internal Revenue Service charities enforcement division for 10 years. What the lawsuit alleges, including filing inaccurate federal tax returns and using charity funds for personal or business purposes, could be the basis of felony theft or fraud charges if prosecutors could show criminal intent.

While several of Trump’s children are named in the lawsuit – including Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump – Owens said the strongest case would be against the president himself. “They even include photographic images of some of the documents signed by Donald Trump. It’s hard to put that into anything other than a negative light,” Owens said.

If federal prosecutors chose to pursue a case arising from this evidence, the next step would likely require both the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Justice Department working together on an investigation and potentially a referral to Justice Department prosecutors.

But Owens said he does not know if the federal officials would prosecute the president the way he has seen them prosecute others for similar crimes. “I’ve seen the government in action,” he said. “Now, the question is whether the government will have the backbone to take on the president.”

A spokesman for Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who was appointed by Trump in January, said, “We do not confirm or speak about ongoing investigations.”

An IRS spokeswoman declined to comment.

A request for comment from the White House also went unanswered.

A spokesperson for the Trump Foundation called the state attorney general’s lawsuit “politics at its very worst” and said the foundation had donated over $19 million to charitable causes, with over $8 million coming from Donald Trump or his companies. The foundation spokesperson also said it currently has $1.7 million – “which the NYAG has been holding hostage for political gain.”

“This is unconscionable – particularly because the Foundation previously announced its intention to dissolve more than a year and a half ago,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “The prior NYAG, who was recently forced to resign from office in disgrace, made it his stated mission to use this matter to not only advance his own political goals, but also for his own political fundraising. The acting NYAG’s recent statement that battling the White House is ‘the most important work [she] have ever done’ shows that such political attacks will continue unabated.”



But Sean Delaney, a former charities bureau chief for the New York attorney general’s office and current executive director at Lawyers Alliance for New York, which provides pro bono legal services to charities, said the lawsuit presented a stark picture of a charity that was nothing more than “a shell” used for personal and business advantage. “This is a remarkable lawsuit in a number of respects,” Delaney said. “It alleges that the Trump Foundation had no charitable purpose and was nothing more than a tool for Mr. Trump and his organization’s business and personal interests. That’s extreme and a new allegation.” Delaney said the allegations described in court documents were the most egregious charity fraud by a major public figure that he has ever seen.

You sure this isn't the Clinton Foundation?
Seriously, the guy even says that the feds may not prosecute....code talk that this is a bogus suit made for optics.

But did you actually read it, before making up your mind that it is merely for optics?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Excuse me. I thought you were saying the DOJ

Gotcha

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

why would someone be a subject of something and still not a target? are you into semantics?

Because those two words mean very different things, in a criminal investigation

AGAIN...PLEASE go look up the answers to your very basic questions so that you can be a somewhat informed participant in this discussion, instead of wasting everyone's time with your inane questions.

 

[hunarcy]

Tell me ONE person that Mueller has indicted in regard to collusion by the Trump campaign and the Russians. Not Russians interfering with the election, but for collusion. When you can, I'll take your point of view seriously. Until then, stop wasting my time with your childish sarcasm.

Is that Mueller's charge, indictments "in regard to collusion by the Trump campaign and the Russians?" We already know some people 'colluded with Russian agents, but to and on what? Will you attack any evidence that says there was collusion to commit crimes?

" The Justice Department appointed Robert S. Mueller III, a former F.B.I. director, as special counsel on Wednesday to oversee the investigation into ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russian officials, dramatically raising the legal and political stakes in an affair that has threatened to engulf Mr. Trump’s four-month-old presidency."

Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

Tell me ONE person that Mueller has indicted in regard to collusion by the Trump campaign and the Russians. Not Russians interfering with the election, but for collusion. When you can, I'll take your point of view seriously. Until then, stop wasting my time with your childish sarcasm.

Is that Mueller's charge, indictments "in regard to collusion by the Trump campaign and the Russians?" We already know some people 'colluded with Russian agents, but to and on what? Will you attack any evidence that says there was collusion to commit crimes?

" The Justice Department appointed Robert S. Mueller III, a former F.B.I. director, as special counsel on Wednesday to oversee the investigation into ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russian officials, dramatically raising the legal and political stakes in an affair that has threatened to engulf Mr. Trump’s four-month-old presidency."

Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

Why would I attack such evidence?

That's evidence of nothing, you fucking douchebag.

Why would I attack such evidence?

That's evidence of nothing, you fucking douchebag.

Stop, take a couple of breaths, reread the thread and realize that I was responding to someone who was saying I would "attack" real evidence if it was presented. I will attack things that are not fact based or that are not truthful, but I won't ignore facts.

 

[Mike473]

I wouldn't and would strongly advise Trump to refuse, and take the 5th if forced. Mueller already has all the information he needs to make a decision. Nothing Trump says will magically change his mind. The IG report has illustrated strong bias against Trump, with Mueller himself having to remove people from his investigation for that reason. If I were Trump, I take my chances in Court, or with the impeachment process.

It comes down to these 2 scenarios.

Trump is innocent and Mueller is on a witch hunt. If this is a case, Trump should refuse Mueller and demand his day in court, as every American has the right to do. Mueller is not judge, jury and executioner. Call his bluff.

If Trump is guilty, the decision remains the same. A Mueller interview has no upside and every attorney will tell you that testifying is almost always a bad idea for the defendant.

Whether he is guilty or innocent, Trump should not allow Mueller to dictate. Take it to court. This case has been being tried through leaks to the media for the past year.

He should just refuse to answer, as is the right of every American.

AS far as I know, there's no law that says you have to answer questions from the FBI.

There is no reason at all. As for the NY charity case, at least we actually know what is alleged in the case. We don't even know if Trump is actually a target in the Meuller case.

 

[hunarcy]

It sounds pretty innocent when you call it an "interview". Not many people would be willing to testify in a case where they were the targets of an investigation unless they were compelled by a subpoena. Congress couldn't even get Barry Hussein's IRS chief to testify even when she was subpoenaed

I seriously believe that IF Mueller interviews Trump, Trump should smile at each question and exercise his 5th Amendment rights as an answer to each question.

Why should he do that? Why not just tell Mueller that it's none of his business? That's his executive privilege. In fact, Trump is Mewler's boss. Why not just tell Herr Mewler he's not allowed to ask that question?

Why shouldn't he? As an American citizen, he's not required to answer ANY question if he feels it might be used against him.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He should tell Mueller to go

Then,

A) it looks like he has something to hide

and

B) He misses his opportunity to clear up things that may look bad for him. And, without that clarification, coupled with him looking like he has something to hide, he may lose some of his political heft and calital

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As an American citizen, he's not required to answer ANY question if he feels it might be used against him

I think some clarification is required here.

If Trump is subpoenaed, he is required to answer questions, unless he takes the 5th amendment. Taking the 5th amendment isn't a way of avoiding giving information that "may be used against him", but rather a way not to directly incriminate one's self. Subtle difference, but it is a difference nonetheless.

 

[bripat9643]

I wouldn't and would strongly advise Trump to refuse, and take the 5th if forced. Mueller already has all the information he needs to make a decision. Nothing Trump says will magically change his mind. The IG report has illustrated strong bias against Trump, with Mueller himself having to remove people from his investigation for that reason. If I were Trump, I take my chances in Court, or with the impeachment process.

It comes down to these 2 scenarios.

Trump is innocent and Mueller is on a witch hunt. If this is a case, Trump should refuse Mueller and demand his day in court, as every American has the right to do. Mueller is not judge, jury and executioner. Call his bluff.

If Trump is guilty, the decision remains the same. A Mueller interview has no upside and every attorney will tell you that testifying is almost always a bad idea for the defendant.

Whether he is guilty or innocent, Trump should not allow Mueller to dictate. Take it to court. This case has been being tried through leaks to the media for the past year.

He should just refuse to answer, as is the right of every American.

and every american that has something to hide

Every American does have something to hide, especially lying leftwing douchebags like you.

Maybe a pos like you does,,,,,not I Matter of fact I'm sure a scumbag like you does

Of course you have things to hide. Who do you think you're fooling?

BTW, learn how to use periods and commas. Then you won't come off like such a dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

As an American citizen, he's not required to answer ANY question if he feels it might be used against him

I think some clarification is required here.

If Trump is subpoenaed, he is required to answer questions, unless he takes the 5th amendment. Taking the 5th amendment isn't a way of avoiding giving information that "may be used against him", but rather a way not to directly incriminate one's self. Subtle difference, but it is a difference nonetheless.

It's not clear that Herr Mewler can subpoena the President.

 

[Mike473]

It sounds pretty innocent when you call it an "interview". Not many people would be willing to testify in a case where they were the targets of an investigation unless they were compelled by a subpoena. Congress couldn't even get Barry Hussein's IRS chief to testify even when she was subpoenaed

I seriously believe that IF Mueller interviews Trump, Trump should smile at each question and exercise his 5th Amendment rights as an answer to each question.

Why should he do that? Why not just tell Mueller that it's none of his business? That's his executive privilege. In fact, Trump is Mewler's boss. Why not just tell Herr Mewler he's not allowed to ask that question?

Why shouldn't he? As an American citizen, he's not required to answer ANY question if he feels it might be used against him.

A lot of people think that the prosecutors should be or are fair and unbiased. Remember, the prosecution is not the judge or jury. They make their case. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. For example, it is pretty clear that not many of the people working on the investigation for Meuller would make good members of a jury in a case against Trump, having worked for Clinton and some having strong hatred for Trump. Meuller found in some cases that hatred went too far and he had to move them out. It does not mean that having opinions about the case means you cant prosecute a case. I am pretty sure that the prosecution had pretty strong opinions on OJ, Casey Anthony and other high profile defendants. The judge and jury of a case will decide how convincing the case is and whether a guilty verdict is in order.

I am of two minds on this. First, if Trump is innocent, this has gone on long enough. He has been trashed by the media over this on a non stop basis for his entire first term so far. The time has come to move on either way. Meullers team has said they can finish the report in 90 days once Trump is interviewed. Should be much less if Trump takes a pass.

As an American citizen, he's not required to answer ANY question if he feels it might be used against him

I think some clarification is required here.

If Trump is subpoenaed, he is required to answer questions, unless he takes the 5th amendment. Taking the 5th amendment isn't a way of avoiding giving information that "may be used against him", but rather a way not to directly incriminate one's self. Subtle difference, but it is a difference nonetheless.

It's not clear that Herr Mewler can subpoena the President.

He may not be able to subpoena. If it turns out he can, Trump should just take the 5th and challenge Mueller to get on with it and make his case. See you in court.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As an American citizen, he's not required to answer ANY question if he feels it might be used against him

I think some clarification is required here.

If Trump is subpoenaed, he is required to answer questions, unless he takes the 5th amendment. Taking the 5th amendment isn't a way of avoiding giving information that "may be used against him", but rather a way not to directly incriminate one's self. Subtle difference, but it is a difference nonetheless.

It's not clear that Herr Mewler can subpoena the President.

It seems rather odd that you call him "Herr" Mueller, when it was the President talking about the fine white supremacists in Charlottesville.

But anyhoo...he surely can subpoena Trump. He could subpoena Santa Claus. But, Trump may be able to refuse (which he would absolutely do, regardless of the legality of his refusal).

 

[Care4all]

Not after the IG report....he would be crazy to sit with that snake Mueller and his den of vipers...

Exactly what did the IG report have to do with Mueller?

Strozk was the one that originally started the phone investigation that eventually became the Mewler witch hunt. Her Mewler had to get rid of him because he was such an obvious partisan who tainted all the evidence.

Huh?
Which phone investigation did Strzok start that started the Mueller investigation?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trump should just take the 5th and challenge Mueller to get on with it and make his case. See you in court

No. He would see him in Congress.

 

[Mike473]

Trump should just take the 5th and challenge Mueller to get on with it and make his case. See you in court

No. He would see him in Congress.

True, sorry, I stand corrected

 

[Care4all]

For what?

The emolument clause among a few other charges

Seriously? That's what you came up with? Emolument clause? Oh, "among a few other charges"? I'm laughing at you as I'm typing this

And then there's this
A lawsuit against the Trump Foundation filed by New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood has forged a path to felony criminal charges and civil charges against the president and his family, charity law experts said. Based on a review of the attorney general’s state court petition, the petition could open the door for prosecutors to pursue cases on the federal, state and local level.

A potential federal criminal case against the president “appears to be extraordinarily strong,” said Marcus Owens, who led the Internal Revenue Service charities enforcement division for 10 years. What the lawsuit alleges, including filing inaccurate federal tax returns and using charity funds for personal or business purposes, could be the basis of felony theft or fraud charges if prosecutors could show criminal intent.

While several of Trump’s children are named in the lawsuit – including Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump – Owens said the strongest case would be against the president himself. “They even include photographic images of some of the documents signed by Donald Trump. It’s hard to put that into anything other than a negative light,” Owens said.

If federal prosecutors chose to pursue a case arising from this evidence, the next step would likely require both the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Justice Department working together on an investigation and potentially a referral to Justice Department prosecutors.

But Owens said he does not know if the federal officials would prosecute the president the way he has seen them prosecute others for similar crimes. “I’ve seen the government in action,” he said. “Now, the question is whether the government will have the backbone to take on the president.”

A spokesman for Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who was appointed by Trump in January, said, “We do not confirm or speak about ongoing investigations.”

An IRS spokeswoman declined to comment.

A request for comment from the White House also went unanswered.

A spokesperson for the Trump Foundation called the state attorney general’s lawsuit “politics at its very worst” and said the foundation had donated over $19 million to charitable causes, with over $8 million coming from Donald Trump or his companies. The foundation spokesperson also said it currently has $1.7 million – “which the NYAG has been holding hostage for political gain.”

“This is unconscionable – particularly because the Foundation previously announced its intention to dissolve more than a year and a half ago,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “The prior NYAG, who was recently forced to resign from office in disgrace, made it his stated mission to use this matter to not only advance his own political goals, but also for his own political fundraising. The acting NYAG’s recent statement that battling the White House is ‘the most important work [she] have ever done’ shows that such political attacks will continue unabated.”



But Sean Delaney, a former charities bureau chief for the New York attorney general’s office and current executive director at Lawyers Alliance for New York, which provides pro bono legal services to charities, said the lawsuit presented a stark picture of a charity that was nothing more than “a shell” used for personal and business advantage. “This is a remarkable lawsuit in a number of respects,” Delaney said. “It alleges that the Trump Foundation had no charitable purpose and was nothing more than a tool for Mr. Trump and his organization’s business and personal interests. That’s extreme and a new allegation.” Delaney said the allegations described in court documents were the most egregious charity fraud by a major public figure that he has ever seen.

You sure this isn't the Clinton Foundation?
Seriously, the guy even says that the feds may not prosecute....code talk that this is a bogus suit made for optics.

But did you actually read it, before making up your mind that it is merely for optics?

Phew! It took forever to find it! I had not read it in full either and still haven't, it is 41 pages!!!

here's the link

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/court_stamped_petition.pdf

 

[bripat9643]

As an American citizen, he's not required to answer ANY question if he feels it might be used against him

I think some clarification is required here.

If Trump is subpoenaed, he is required to answer questions, unless he takes the 5th amendment. Taking the 5th amendment isn't a way of avoiding giving information that "may be used against him", but rather a way not to directly incriminate one's self. Subtle difference, but it is a difference nonetheless.

It's not clear that Herr Mewler can subpoena the President.

It seems rather odd that you call him "Herr" Mueller, when it was the President talking about the fine white supremacists in Charlottesville.

But anyhoo...he surely can subpoena Trump. He could subpoena Santa Claus. But, Trump may be able to refuse (which he would absolutely do, regardless of the legality of his refusal).

That's a lie. He didn't refer to any white supremecists as "fine people."

If Trump can refuse, then effectively Herr Mewler can't subpoena him. Playing these word games doesn't help your case.