Usual Name... I appreciate your post. It was reasonable. But, I think you are making the assumption that Mueller has something on Trump. There still needs to be some evidence a crime before you can indict a ham sandwich. Collusion is not a crime, if it were a crime, Hillary and the FBI leadership would be in jail for colluding with Russian for dirt against Trump. We have evidence hillary and her team colluded with Russia. I have seen nothing on Trump. Again... Trump's lawyer should find out if there is a crime. If there is evidenceof a crime negotiations should happen vs the self pardon. If no crime... no testimony. If subpoenaed.. take the fifth... and outside the courtroom say anything I say would have been used against me. who would argue with that? .
Much like with this dossier thing. You may not get any indictments there too but you give the public a front row seat to the fact that Clinton corruption has no bounds. And that, yes, there truly has been collusion and conspiracy with with foreign agents- by the fbi, the dnc, and Clinton. Worth every dollar to expose that, whether it ends in indictments or not. Same with the fbi coverup for Hillary, same with the corrupt pay to play between the Clinton foundation and the state department. Convictions are a plus. Exposure of the scumbags pulling strings in this country behind the curtains is necessary to protect the Republic. Your ilk makes that argument every day to justify witch hunting trump but looks the other way with Hillary. And yes, Hillary has NOT BEEN investigated for real many times before.
I think I said that several times and is one of the reasons why trump should not walk into a meeting with Mueller beating his chest about how he knows he has done nothing wrong. Mueller may go into several other scenarios that he does not even know about- unless attorneys and the government have stipulated to the topics in advance.
You launched into some statements about how it would be better for trump to go in and talk to Mueller rather than go in as a result of a subpoena .....etc. My answer to that was: NO. WRONG. Don't go in and see him. And if he is subpoenaed for the grand jury or for deposition or something like that, just plead the fifth and let them go from there. John Dowd can give him high level advice there. And Trump is free to reject it but Dowd will leave. The best attorneys will not proceed if the client thinks he is going to run the show rather than go down that road. The client should hire someone else then. .
Mueller will try to make Trump believe this would be like the cursory chat they had with Hillary before clearing her. I mean, if you haven't done anything wrong, why not take this chance to clear it all up? And if you refuse to cooperate, you realize that makes you look guilty. Don't fall for it. Mueller is not interested in getting to the truth. He wants to make a name for himself as the swamp creature who took Trump down.
There is no benefit for President Trump in being questioned by Muller, tell him to pound sand. Maybe he should hire a team of lawyers and spend millions hiding every aspect of his public life like his predecessor.
Trump is not prepared for the fact that Mueller has done a complete psychologically profile on him and knows that he is counter-puncher and tough guy but can be had with a simple compliment that touches his ego. So Trump goes in ready to absolutely defend himself thinking if Mueller gets tough "well I will be tougher in standing my ground." Then Mueller asks him several questions and instead of getting tough he just says "thank you President Trump for your candid answers. I wish every person we spoke with did as good a job as you in being responsive to our questions." Bingo, Trumps brain just lit up like a shot of cocaine and he cant wait to twitter out that meuller said he was the best witness he ever had. Meanwhile, Mueller just shifted Trump's entire brain over to thinking that blabbing on is a sign of greatness and no one does it as great as trump and then he is off and running. Trump will exaggerate and over-answer every question that comes up. There used to be a saying among the fisherman along the Maine coast: "If you don't spout, they can't harpoon you." Trump is paying Dowd a pantload for that same advice.
That’s one way to go. Then the situation on the ground will be a sitting president who pled the fifth after saying only guilty people plead the fifth. That would be ugly.
Yes but what is also ugly is that when Trump defends his actions by saying that the fbi/justice system has been corrupted and that he has been singled out for a witch hunt while they worked overtime to give Hillary a pass- many people will believe him. And for good reason. Ugly. Trump can handle hits from the public and the media. He specializes in that. He needs to do what he needs to do to survive legally. Under no circumstances should he let a bunch of lefty faux outrage force him into the lion's den, only to re-discover that the lefties will always have some kind of faux outrage going. If Mueller wants to go full legal, then that is where we are. Let's go. Trump can worry about what CNN and Shep Smith say as he goes along. So far having the half the country outraged over him and some flap has not damaged him yet and he thrives on it. The legal process is not like that. That is why the swamp kept Hillary protected from it.
It sounds like Mueller gets a double free-roll if he can interview Trump without charging him. If Mueller charges Trump and it ends up ultimately being considered under false pretenses, he could face legal liability. If Trump makes any statement that can be taken out of context, is inconsistent, or reflect new knowledge not known at the time of a previous statement, Mueller will probably be able to safely charge Trump for perjury without taking an legal risk himself. They were able to go after Bill Clinton not for his B.J. in the oval office, but for lying about it. It seems to me there is probable cause that Mueller is being used as a political tool as revenge for the prosecution of Bill Clinton. The Russia investigation is an obvious sham, but if they can get Trump to be defensive on it and tell an obvious lie regarding an uncomfortable situation, they will have him. I remember Jimmy Carter talking with foreign leaders while Bush was President about issues that were inconsistent with the sitting administration objectives. Carter could have been easily charged with sedition. It would not have been easy for Carter to get out of it. What little Trump did, if anything, would certainly not even come close to Carter’s moves. An investigation into Democratic source of political campaign contributions is what really should be investigated. Find the shell companies, trace the funds, and we are sure to find Russian involvement in partially funding the Democratic party. We have seen the so-called “evidence proving” that Trump is a liar during a recent media campain against Trump. They took statements out of context, subjective statements, and even true statements and attempted to use them as evidence of Trump lying. Based on the above, Trump’s stance should be: “You want to talk one on one about this sham investigation?” “Then show me you have the balls to charge me.”