Donald Trump's attorneys have begun working with special counsel Robert Mueller's team to discuss the parameters of a hypothetical interview with the president about Russian contacts...I can't imagine that interview would go too well for trump
▶️ DTube ▶️ IPFS
One problem that Trump has is that several top-flight law firms in DC refused to represent him, which means that he may not be getting optimal legal help. Why aren't they representing him? Because he doesn't pay his bills. Also, these top-flight law firms were afraid that if they took on Trump, junior staff would revolt.
Hah yeah I remember that, they said it was because (1) he wouldn't listen to them and (2) they were worried he wouldn't pay them
I know people who have worked for him. He is a man in full and it is very hard to change his views. It's like throwing a tennis ball (knowledge) against a wall (his brain). He is set in his ways and not astute when it comes to things with which he is unfamiliar. Since he is in a new climate (Washington) he has gone from being the hunter to the prey. Eventually he will figure this out, but it may be too late for him.
Not only does he not pay his contractors, he doesn't pay his lawyers either.
Mueller should have to show concrete proof that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians ( and which Russians?) before Trump answers any questions. And those questions should be directly related to that proof - to prove or disprove it.
Otherwise it will likely be a very biased effort to try and trick Trump into an unrelated process crime.
that's absurd. that's not how the legal system works.
Not following the logic here. Mueller needs to prove his case while the investigation is still ongoing? That is not how any other criminal investigation works. Not sure why an exception should be made for POTUS.
Also, a "process crime" is still a crime.
criminal investigation means first there has to be a crime to be investigated.
No such crime was identified when Mueller's investigation was initiated.
Primary objectives of a criminal investigstion include both the determination of (1) if a crime was committed and, if so, (2) identification of the perpetrator(s). Regardless, there is no dispute as to whether crimes were committed — DNC and Podesta communications were both stolen, along with two guilty pleas and two indictments.
Even Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley who leans left has an interesting things view on if a crime has been committed:
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/366824-for-president-trump-2017-ends-largely-where-it-began-free-of-charges
Just this week, constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz (who says he proudly voted for Hillary) said now the left "couldn't criminalize political differences" in regard to President Trump. . .
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/01/08/dershowitz_the_left_couldnt_criminalize_trump_now_trying_to_psychiatrize_political_differences.html
Agree, there are plenty of plausible legal arguments as to why Trump cannot be prosecuted. And I still haven’t seen any direct evidence of Trump himself being part of a criminal conspiracy (obstruction/Comey firing may be another matter, however). None of this precludes him from having to be interviewed as part of the broader investigation and current prosecutions. Hell, if President Clinton had to give a deposition in a civil matter over sexual misconduct, then I don’t see any realistic precedent for Trump avoiding this one.
I'm not following the logic here either, what motive does the Republican Mueller have to scapegoat his parties president, He's been a closet democrat his whole life? Also, if we had to have solid proof before an investigation could go underway with an interview, How exactly would you build enough evidence for something like, oh let's say, murder, to start an invesitgation? Also, If you have the evidence at that point why have an interview, just to throw an extra charge on if you lie about it?
Let's think also for a moment, if this was all happening in North Korea, and a high ranking party member were to have dealings with, oh, Bill Gates. Would the charges against them be lowered because it was just Bill, and not a more powerful person or someone in the government? I don't think the sentiment of treason or at least an affront to the nation would change in that situation.
What if we look into which Russians and find that trump was dealing with the mafia or a huge mover in their economy, and not the government, does it really make the situation better at all?
If there is a "murder", then there is a crime. So you have something to investigate.
Compared to some one in the police state saying something like:
"I do not like tronthetechie, lets spend $10 million dollars on a high powered team of investigators to see if we can find if tronthetechie has ever done anything wrong. We could even kick in the front doors of some of his associates and threaten them if they do not say what we want them to say about tronthetechie"
A just system requires the identification of the crime before an investigation is lauched.
Actually, I feel like you misunderstand the nature of policing in the United States. The officer wouldn't have to go through those many steps to legally kick their way into my house, and then use anything as evidence against me, they just have to cite probable cause.
Probable cause can be ridiculously easy to establish "it smelt like marijuana" "I heard someone call for help" "it sounded like there was an altercation" "The evidence we need for our investigation is reasonably in this location"
I'm sorry to break it to you, but even if there were something wrong the state did while policing, it would be very difficult to prove to the state that the state did anything wrong in the first place.
Shitty, I know, but it is how it is right now.
Americans can't define murder.
I don't really know (from my point of view as I live in Europe) what to think of Trump. Only knowledge of him comes from the books I read few years back and from news stations. From the experience with news stations (lack of trust) I don't know what to believe. I know he has a bad reputation and it isn't all for nothing but I would just like for someone to show me objective article regarding him, from someone who is not liberal or nationalist.
Wikipedia will be the closest to objective you can come, but even then, there are people that think that wikipedia is liberal brainwashing that purposefully dilutes the "real" truth to keep you stupid and dependent on the government. If you want to know what those kinds of people have to say here you go, but don't say I didn't warn you.
I suggest before you look too far into conservapedia that you take a moment to compare a few articles between them and wikipedia, the quality difference in Wikipedia's favor is just astonishing.
I researched the links you gave me and I even visited some of the forums talking on the subject of Trump. You have a good point regarding Wikipedia vs. Conservapedia, even though I believe truth is yet undisclosed. Wikipedia definitely is a more credible source, and I also plan watching some of the independent journalist's work regarding Trump, as I notice that anything that happens in the US has a huge impact on the world, thus I need to be on point before I can lead a serious discussion. The only truth that I am certain about is that the world is undergoing a huge political crisis (You can see that in the Europe also) and I think the only true and positive way is to do your research and become active in resolution of problems.
Enjoy the vote and reward!
Saw a post earlier today that said someone should pay per view Trump v Mueller and use the funds to fix Puerto Rico.
that's actually pretty damn clever
i think it will great for president donald trump,,
thanks for sharing a news report.
resteemed followed @davidpakman
I bet at some time there'll be a movie made out of the Trump presidency.
there is ZERO doubt in my mind
ohhh yes! can't wait xD
At least the Simpsons predicted it in one episode already xD
Trump is too scattered and too much of a salesman to engage in such an interview without running into serious trouble. My bet is that the interview will not be under oath, at the very least. Still, making false statements (even if not under oath) is still a crime. Trump has problems, to be sure.
Down goes Trump!!!
Hi sir, i'm here and I see your post, it's really awesome post
It's been inevitable - don't think he could turn down an interview at this point, especially after criticism of Clinton's "interview" line last year...