It's always been a mindless chant to warm up the crowd for the great Trumpolini. Go team go! Sis-boom-bah! Rah-rah-rah! Block that kick! Hold the line! Drain the swamp!
He'll probably be using live cheerleaders before it's over.
so, we're like, locking her up...right?
probably, dancing on the wall that mexico is gonna pay for.It's always been a mindless chant to warm up the crowd for the great Trumpolini. Go team go! Sis-boom-bah! Rah-rah-rah! Block that kick! Hold the line! Drain the swamp!
He'll probably be using live cheerleaders before it's over.
I don't see how this is significant. Trump was told by Comey 3 times that he wasn't under investigation. Looks to me that he was pissed Comey didn't go public with that info. Does this rise to the level of obstruction? Not a lawyer...but I would think not.More data coming into alignment on Trump from the Comey and Priebus notes.
Trump's lawyers won't let Mueller within a country mile of Trump. It would be criminal incompetence on their part to allow such a meeting.
Trump's lawyers won't let Mueller within a country mile of Trump. It would be criminal incompetence on their part to allow such a meeting.
I'm sure they will try their best to avoid it but in the end Trump will have to comply if Mueller presses the issue. Bill Clinton was forced to give a deposition and that was in a civil case. For a criminal, national security case like this the odds of Trump getting away with refusing are zero. This is why they are trying to convince Mueller to let Trump respond in writing as opposed to an in-person deposition. They know they can't avoid it completely so they are trying to make it into a take home test so it's much harder to catch Trump perjuring himself. (because he won't actually write any of the answers)
As a criminal defense lawyer though yes, I can't imagine a more stressful situation than having my client deposed by the FBI in a criminal investigation when my client is Donald Fucking Trump. He's not just a degenerate liar in general, it appears he's almost completely uncoachable. Maybe he would take it more seriously if they can impress upon him that this could likely end with him in prison? Maybe?
What about the 5th and self-incrimination? When did we forfeit that right?
I'm sure they will try their best to avoid it but in the end Trump will have to comply if Mueller presses the issue. Bill Clinton was forced to give a deposition and that was in a civil case. For a criminal, national security case like this the odds of Trump getting away with refusing are zero. This is why they are trying to convince Mueller to let Trump respond in writing as opposed to an in-person deposition. They know they can't avoid it completely so they are trying to make it into a take home test so it's much harder to catch Trump perjuring himself. (because he won't actually write any of the answers)
As a criminal defense lawyer though yes, I can't imagine a more stressful situation than having my client deposed by the FBI in a criminal investigation when my client is Donald Fucking Trump. He's not just a degenerate liar in general, it appears he's almost completely uncoachable. Maybe he would take it more seriously if they can impress upon him that this could likely end with him in prison? Maybe?
We didn't! The 5th amendment doesn't prevent him from being deposed, it just means that he doesn't have to answer specific questions from Mueller if doing so would implicate him in a crime.
I would have to say though in the list of things a president could do to get himself impeached coming straight out and saying 'I have committed a crime' has to be up there.
Ok then, if his lawyers have any competence whatsoever, Trump will plead the 5th on everything. It is common knowledge that the entire point of these things is for the FBI to catch the person in a lie so they can prosecute him for that. Ask Martha Stewart about that.
Trump isn't going to get impeached. His supporters would run the Republicans out on a rail if they did such thing.
If that were a viable legal strategy everyone ever questioned by the FBI would do that. It is not. If I'm not mistaken the next step would be Mueller going before a federal judge to have the judge compel Trump to testify. Basically he would be asserting that Trump is asserting 5th amendment protection where none exists. (ie: to avoid answering questions as opposed to not answering a question that could actually incriminate him) One of two things would result from that, both of which are very bad for Trump. Either the judge would find that Trump was falsely invoking the 5th amendment, thus forcing him to testify, or they would say he had correctly invoked it, meaning a federal judge has just come out and said the president is a criminal.
As for if Trump will be impeached or not if you think that nothing he does will merit his removal from office then this investigation doesn't matter anyway. I mean why waste time invoking the 5th when you can just say whatever you want and it won't mater?
So if they override your 5th amendment protection and force you to testify against your will and what you testify to incriminates you, they can imprison you for that? WTF kind of country do we live in? We really don't have protections against self-incrimination, we just say we do?
Just say "I don't recall" and nobody can do a damn thing about it.So if they override your 5th amendment protection and force you to testify against your will and what you testify to incriminates you, they can imprison you for that? WTF kind of country do we live in? We really don't have protections against self-incrimination, we just say we do?
I look forward to this person with the best memory once again finding it difficult to remember anything.Just say "I don't recall" and nobody can do a damn thing about it.
Just say "I don't recall" and nobody can do a damn thing about it.
Huh? No, precisely the opposite. Again, this is all from my layman's understanding but I believe in this case after reviewing the evidence a judge determines your testimony is actually likely to incriminate you or not. If it isn't then no 5th amendment protection exists because...well... the 5th only protects against self incrimination. It does not protect against questions you just don't want to answer so if no crime were implicated by Trump's answers he cannot take the 5th. Think about it, if you can just invoke the 5th amendment any time you want, regardless of whether or not your answer would incriminate you, then no one would ever answer any adversarial question in any legal proceeding... ever. In a divorce: were you sleeping with someone else? Plead the fifth. In a contract dispute: is that your signature on the contract? Plead the fifth. See what a disaster that would be?
Mueller could also grant immunity to Trump and then he would be forced to answer as well, which would be an interesting play. It would mean that Trump couldn't be (federally) prosecuted but assuming the conduct was bad enough it could dramatically increase the odds of impeachment.
“It’s a pretty easy charge,” white collar defense attorney Solomon Wisenberg told Newsweek, explaining why a false statement rap is so useful to prosecutors: “All you have to prove is that they lied to a federal agent about a material matter. It doesn’t have to be under oath.”
He added, “They didn’t charge Martha with insider trading, that’s a hard thing to prove. It’s a lot easier to say she came in and lied to us.”
Defense attorney Wisenberg, who was Ken Starr’s deputy in the Monica Lewinsky investigation and questioned President Bill Clinton in a grand jury, criticized the false statement charge. He said that prosecutors can use the charge to prosecute someone who misremembers a small detail in an interview with FBI agents.
Agree...but even he can't hold a candle compared to Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.Jefferson Davis Sessions has that down pat!
Just say "I don't recall" and nobody can do a damn thing about it.
Agree...but even he can't hold a candle compared to Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-in-her-fbi-interview/?utm_term=.f938cb75a2dd
Well my argument would be that in this situation, the entire point of the interview is to catch me in a lie. I could point out the stats indicating the number of times that FBI has convicted on nothing except a lie told to them. I am not perfect and neither is my memory. If I misremember any detail no matter how small, I am going down. Basically a forced interview by the FBI is barely above entrapment. I am not aware of a case were the FBI were going after somebody where they didn't eventually get them via this method if they were unable to get them for the purported reason for the interview. This method appears escape proof. Even if I was completely innocent of any criminal wrongdoing, I would be terrified of a forced interview by the FBI where they were trying to nail me for something I did not do. Pretty sure they would get me on the lying bit.
http://www.newsweek.com/michael-flynn-martha-stewart-charged-lying-fbi-728874
Not sure why I didn't put it together sooner, DSF is a Trump U graduate with a BS in Whataboutism.Agree...but even he can't hold a candle compared to Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-in-her-fbi-interview/?utm_term=.f938cb75a2dd