• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Initial talks underway about Trump interview in Mueller Russia probe

j-mac said:
I certainly don't want him deposed...Especially considering the absolute bias of the team investigating.
Click to expand...

Right... the FBI director who has served under Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush (and was appointed by Trump's lieutenant) has "absolute bias" against the Republican president.

Give me a break.
 
Cardinal said:
Um...no.
Click to expand...

We disagree on this point....My point of view is that most, if not all of this is an emotional reaction to Donald Trump beating Hillary Clinton in the election.

What's an "utterance?" I know what it means in the dictionary, but how are you using it here? And what does the law have to say about "utterances?"
Click to expand...

ut·ter·ance
ˈədərəns/Submit
noun
plural noun: utterances
a spoken word, statement, or vocal sound.
synonyms: remark, comment, word, statement, observation, declaration, pronouncement; More
the action of saying or expressing something aloud.
"the simple utterance of a few platitudes"
synonyms: remark, comment, word, statement, observation, declaration, pronouncement; More
LINGUISTICS
an uninterrupted chain of spoken or written language.

https://www.google.com/search?ei=UK...2.8.1421...0i131k1j0i3k1j0i67k1.0.Nfe8Mm0FdaU


In general "utterances" are indeed accepted into evidence with an exception to the hearsay rules. However, context matters.

That's the funny thing about corruption when it's out in the open. We as a society know how to react when corruption is carried out in secret, but when it's done for all to see we're baffled about how to react. That "circumstantial" evidence would have been enough to end any other political career in American history.
Click to expand...

It didn't end Obama era corruption did it? Maybe the Trump administration should start adopting the Obama strategy, and just start mocking any scandal thrown up.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes, that is absolutely a possible outcome, one which in my opinion is not likely. I give that outcome a 40% likelihood. However, your outcome ignores what he may have to say about obstruction of justice and money laundering.



That would be a 0% likelihood since it's a straw man.



Considering the three issues being levied against Trump right now, I give that outcome a 20% likelihood.
Click to expand...

Ok then, we have your predictions...Now we just have to wait and see.
 
JANFU said:
Could be, and he has not walked away fro the business- has he been interviewed by Mueller? Did he testify before a House-Senate committee?
Click to expand...

I believe he did testify behind closed doors to the Senate, but I don't know, I don't think he has talked to any investigators connected with Muller.
 
j-mac said:
You forgot a 5th reason....Muller comes out and says "Although there are concerning elements that circumstantially point to improper contact between Russian interests, and both campaigns, there was clearly no intent obtain the office of the President through criminal means by the Trump campaign. Also due to Article 2 powers of the President, the dismissal of James Comey from the position of Dir. of the FBI, neither stopped, nor impeded any investigation ongoing. Therefore, we are concluding that no action at this time be taken against the President of the United States."
Click to expand...
Really, is that why that when trump thought he was off mike he told the russians he had fired.comey so the investigation was over?
 
j-mac said:
Ok then, we have your predictions...Now we just have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

Yup, I don't mind making predictions. I think it's fun. And of course I will be fully accountable for any predictions that are wrong. That's how the game is played.
 
Gaea said:
Right... the FBI director who has served under Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush (and was appointed by Trump's lieutenant) has "absolute bias" against the Republican president.

Give me a break.
Click to expand...

Give you a break? No. Muller was also the man in the know overseeing the FBI when the whole Uranium one deal was ongoing, and turned a blind eye...This whole thing about Muller being a republican means nothing considering the corruption we are seeing uncovered during the Obama administration...
 
Cardinal said:
Yup, I don't mind making predictions. I think it's fun. And of course I will be fully accountable for any predictions that are wrong. That's how the game is played.
Click to expand...

Well, hat tip for that one...
 
GDViking said:
Really, is that why that when trump thought he was off mike he told the russians he had fired.comey so the investigation was over?
Click to expand...

Bull ****ting is still bull ****ting no matter what you think it means....just like this little ditty...

 
justabubba said:
your question then appears to be "is the president above the law?"
the special counsel was authorized investigative powers for matters related to the presidential campaign. did the authorization exclude access to the president?
Click to expand...


In theory the president could be forced to testify, like anyone else. However, it would raise so many legal issues that the scope would have to be narrowly defined. No judge is going to allow a fishing expedition. It could also be tangled up in procedural issues for a long time, so the parties would try to work out an arrangement (which is what they are doing now). A big issue also is that Mueller would likely get one shot -- one chance -- at an interview. Anything else is going to get denied as harassment and/or fishing. He won't want to waste that unless all the other pieces are lined up.

The biggest question mark is that they haven't yet substantiated that a crime occurred, much less that it involved the President. Without that, they have no real leverage to compel testimony.

My guess is that they'll work out a deal to send responses via an his lawyer.
 
j-mac said:
Ok, so clearly by the details given in this article the people telling NBC that the legal team is preparing for interview by Muller's lynch mob are within the President's legal team itself....Now, with what looks like in the investigation starting to move toward a close, the question would be for those following, as those surrounding the President, do you let him make the same mistake as Clinton, and submit to interview? Or, do you find a way to avoid...?

Now, I know those haters will flood this thread with a spew of nonsense, but I'd like to if I can have a real conversation of what people truly think will happen from here on out....So, let's try and keep the inflammatory crap to a minimum...k?

My thought is that there is NO WAY his lawyers allow him to give on the record interview...He's too much of a loose cannon when it comes to him talking about this....Now, we also know that Trump is one to brush off advise and do what he want's so we could see it....Either way, this type of thing signals the closing days of an investigation like this, so let's get it on....:)
Click to expand...



What exactly was said that makes you believe that “clearly” members of Mueller’s team provided the details given? It could have been either or both.

You ask for a “real conversation” and to “keep the inflammatory crap to a minimum” having preceded those words with such words as “Muller’s (sic) lynch mob” and accusing others come onto this thread, assumedly, as “those haters”, who “spew nonsense”. So much for real conversation and minimizing inflammatory discourse.

As far as your thought that “there is NO WAY his lawyers allow him to give on the record interview”, Trump’s lawyers can try to have it their way, but it’s Mueller who decides whether or not Trump gets personally interviewed for the record, not Trump’s lawyers. As is the upshot of the article, my thought is he gets interviewed.
 
j-mac said:
I believe he did testify behind closed doors to the Senate, but I don't know, I don't think he has talked to any investigators connected with Muller.
Click to expand...

So we need to clarify for me who we are chatting about-
Jared, Eric and Don Jnr

Jared-- lying to the Senate- money laundering- and he was interviewed by Mueller- and I set my money on lying to the FBI.

Eric- Not yet interviewed by Mueller???- I think he did testify before the House, but that committee is off the rails and dysfunctional- He had invoked (IIRC) lawyer client privilege when asked about who was involved with the memo ref Russian meeting, and his discussions wwith Trump Snr/ and his lawyers - Reason 1 lawyer quit- he as rumor has it, believe it was obstruction of justice. - Could be lying to Congress.


Don Trump Jnr- not sure if he testified before a Congressional committee.
 
Anthony60 said:
The DOJ would have to reverse it's policy, in the face of Constitutional implications that the President can't be indicted. It only provides for impeachment.
Click to expand...

Policy is not law. It would end up before the Supreme Court.
And IMHO, would rule that a sitting President can be indicted.
 
j-mac said:
Ok, so clearly by the details given in this article the people telling NBC that the legal team is preparing for interview by Muller's lynch mob are within the President's legal team itself....Now, with what looks like in the investigation starting to move toward a close, the question would be for those following, as those surrounding the President, do you let him make the same mistake as Clinton, and submit to interview? Or, do you find a way to avoid...?

Now, I know those haters will flood this thread with a spew of nonsense, but I'd like to if I can have a real conversation of what people truly think will happen from here on out....So, let's try and keep the inflammatory crap to a minimum...k?

My thought is that there is NO WAY his lawyers allow him to give on the record interview...He's too much of a loose cannon when it comes to him talking about this....Now, we also know that Trump is one to brush off advise and do what he want's so we could see it....Either way, this type of thing signals the closing days of an investigation like this, so let's get it on....:)
Click to expand...

LOL! Really? Keep the 'inflammatory crap to a minimum', and yet you still deluded yourself that Mueller has a 'lynch mob'? Yeah. Sure.

And what, specifically, makes you think the investigation is coming to a close?
 
j-mac said:
Could you lay out the legal case for obstruction by firing the FBI director, which is within his power to do?
Click to expand...

Sure. Read the highlighted parts:

Obstruction of justice

Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to interfere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or interfering with the duties of jurors or court officers.
 
yankintx said:
Trump did commit obstruction by firing Comey and the letter full of lies Trump and his sorry excuse for a son crafted. The Adorables are kidding themselves, Mueller has been working on Obstruction from day 1. Donny is screwed.
Click to expand...

At last a member who understands the obstruction of justice law.
 
Anthony60;1068027997 Besides said:
No it's not. He's obstructed justice at least 3 times so far: asking Comey to let the Flynn investigation 'go', firing Comey when he refused to do that, & drafting the lie that the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower was about orphans.

Obstruction of justice
Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to interfere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or interfering with the duties of jurors or court officers.
Click to expand...
 
bluesmoke said:
What exactly was said that makes you believe that “clearly” members of Mueller’s team provided the details given? It could have been either or both.
Click to expand...

No, maybe I wasn't clear...I was trying to say that members of the President's legal team are the ones talking to NBC on this.


You ask for a “real conversation” and to “keep the inflammatory crap to a minimum” having preceded those words with such words as “Muller’s (sic) lynch mob” and accusing others come onto this thread, assumedly, as “those haters”, who “spew nonsense”. So much for real conversation and minimizing inflammatory discourse.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you don't have to participate then....

As far as your thought that “there is NO WAY his lawyers allow him to give on the record interview”, Trump’s lawyers can try to have it their way, but it’s Mueller who decides whether or not Trump gets personally interviewed for the record, not Trump’s lawyers. As is the upshot of the article, my thought is he gets interviewed.
Click to expand...

Like any other investigation, no one can be compelled to talk to prosecutors....
 
Tanngrisnir said:
LOL! Really? Keep the 'inflammatory crap to a minimum', and yet you still deluded yourself that Mueller has a 'lynch mob'? Yeah. Sure.
Click to expand...

Don't like the op, don't participate. It's that simple.

And what, specifically, makes you think the investigation is coming to a close?
Click to expand...

I laid that out already.
 
If Trump's attorney's are smart, they won't let him be interviewed by Mueller. It wouldn't be any "gotcha" questions that Trump's attorney's need be worried about. It's Trump himself. You never know what he'll say. All it would take is for the man to go on some rant or be lulled into an ego-driving discussion and it's over.

My money's on him not giving an interview.
 
JacksinPA said:
Sure. Read the highlighted parts:

Obstruction of justice

Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to interfere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or interfering with the duties of jurors or court officers.
Click to expand...

Ok got it....So, you have to prove corrupt intent....Care to try?
 
j-mac said:
Ok got it....So, you have to prove corrupt intent....Care to try?
Click to expand...

What is CORRUPT INTENT?
This term applies to doing something with the full knowledge that it is illegal.
https://thelawdictionary.org/corrupt-intent/

Trump may be getting senile or suffering the onset of dementia but he's smart enough to know that asking the Director of the FBI to drop an ongoing investigation was illegal. So there's your corrupt intent.
 
j-mac said:
Ok, so clearly by the details given in this article the people telling NBC that the legal team is preparing for interview by Muller's lynch mob are within the President's legal team itself....Now, with what looks like in the investigation starting to move toward a close, the question would be for those following, as those surrounding the President, do you let him make the same mistake as Clinton, and submit to interview? Or, do you find a way to avoid...?

Now, I know those haters will flood this thread with a spew of nonsense, but I'd like to if I can have a real conversation of what people truly think will happen from here on out....So, let's try and keep the inflammatory crap to a minimum...k?

My thought is that there is NO WAY his lawyers allow him to give on the record interview...He's too much of a loose cannon when it comes to him talking about this....Now, we also know that Trump is one to brush off advise and do what he want's so we could see it....Either way, this type of thing signals the closing days of an investigation like this, so let's get it on....:)
Click to expand...

How so? Does Trump have definitive knowledge about whether the Russians did or didn't interfere in the election? I doubt it.
This might decide whether or not Trump and/or his campaign staff knew about it, but that's not what's being investigated. Sessions' office told Mueller to look into interference, all this talk of collusion is a side issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom