Forum: Political Forum - Spirited Political comedy. All serious political and World Event posting is also to be posted in this forum.

Thread: Who didn't see THIS coming? Trump’s Lawyers Want Him to Refuse an Interview in Russia Inquiry

  1. #1 Who didn't see THIS coming? Trump’s Lawyers Want Him to Refuse an Interview in Russia Inquiry 
    RX Wizard
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    bronx, ny
    Posts
    9,670
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/u...interview.htmlTrump’s Lawyers Want Him to Refuse an Interview in Russia Inquiry

    By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and MAGGIE HABERMANFEB. 5, 2018


    WASHINGTON — Lawyers for President Trump have advised him against sitting down for a wide-ranging interview with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, according to four people briefed on the matter, raising the specter of a monthslong court battle over whether the president must answer questions under oath.
    His lawyers are concerned that the president, who has a history of making false statements and contradicting himself, could be charged with lying to investigators. Their stance puts them at odds with Mr. Trump, who has said publicly and privately that he is eager to speak with Mr. Mueller as part of the investigation into possible ties between his associates and Russia’s election interference, and whether he obstructed justice.
    Mr. Trump’s decision about whether to speak to prosecutors, expected in the coming weeks, will shape one of the most consequential moments of the investigation. Refusing to sit for an interview opens the possibility that Mr. Mueller will subpoena the president to testify before a grand jury, setting up a court fight that would dramatically escalate the investigation and could be decided by the Supreme Court.
    Rejecting an interview with Mr. Mueller also carries political consequences. It would be certain to prompt accusations that the president is hiding something, and a court fight could prolong the special counsel inquiry, casting a shadow over Republicans as November’s midterm elections approach or beyond into the president’s re-election campaign.
    But John Dowd, the longtime Washington defense lawyer hired last summer to represent Mr. Trump in the investigation, wants to rebuff an interview request, as do Mr. Dowd’s deputy, Jay Sekulow, and many West Wing advisers, according to the four people. The lawyers and aides believe the special counsel might be unwilling to subpoena the president and set off a showdown with the White House that Mr. Mueller could lose in court.

    They are convinced that Mr. Mueller lacks the legal standing to question Mr. Trump about some of the matters he is investigating, like the president’s role in providing a misleading response last summer to a New York Times article about a meeting Mr. Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. had with Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. The advisers have also argued that on other matters — like the allegations that the president asked the former F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to end the investigation into the former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn — the president acted within his constitutional authority and cannot be questioned about acts that were legal.
    One of the few voices arguing for cooperating with Mr. Mueller is Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer whom Mr. Trump also brought on to deal with Mr. Mueller’s investigation. Since Mr. Cobb was hired in July, he has argued that the White House should do everything possible to cooperate with Mr. Mueller’s investigation.



    But Mr. Dowd has taken the lead on dealing with the special counsel about an interview and has been discussing the matter with Mr. Mueller’s office since December.
    Others close to Mr. Trump have also cautioned him against a freewheeling interview. Marc E. Kasowitz, the president’s longtime personal lawyer from New York who initially dealt with the special counsel after Mr. Mueller took over the Russia investigation last May, has also consistently said that the president should not agree to the interview.
    Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey who led the presidential transition until just after the election, bluntly said last week that Mr. Trump should reject a request to be questioned.
    “I don’t think the president of the United States, unless there are credible allegations — which I don’t believe there are — should be sitting across from a special counsel,” he said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
    Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and an informal adviser to Mr. Trump, echoed that advice.
    “The idea of putting Trump in a room with five or six hardened, very clever lawyers, all of whom are trying to trick him and trap him, would be a very, very bad idea,” Mr. Gingrich said last month on “Fox and Friends.”
    Presidents have often agreed to speak with federal prosecutors who are investigating their actions or those close to them. But Richard M. Nixon refused to turn over to the special prosecutor investigating him tapes of incriminating conversations with aides. The matter eventually went before the Supreme Court, which ruled in 1974 that the president, like every American, was not above the law and had to comply with the special prosecutor’s request.
    “The upshot of the Nixon tapes case was that any president is going to have an extremely hard time resisting a request from a law enforcement officer,” said Neal K. Katyal, an acting solicitor general in the Obama administration and a partner at the law firm Hogan Lovells.
    “In general,” he added, “presidents do sit for interviews or respond to requests from prosecutors because they take their constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws seriously, and running away from a prosecutor isn’t consistent with faithfully executing the laws.”
    Photo

    Since Ty Cobb was hired as a White House lawyer in July, he has argued that the White House should cooperate with the special counsel investigation. Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times Mr. Trump’s penchant for bravado has been a factor that his lawyers must contend with. The president has bragged to some aides that he would be able to clear himself if he talked to Mr. Mueller’s team.
    “I’m looking forward to it, actually,” Mr. Trump told reporters at the White House last month, though he added, almost as an afterthought, that an interview would be “subject to my lawyers, and all of that.”
    When pressed, he also said he would be willing to be questioned under oath. Questioning by Mr. Mueller would not be under oath, though lying to federal investigators is a crime.
    Despite his penchant for exaggerations and falsehoods in public remarks, Mr. Trump has appeared far more aware of the legal risk of making false statements when he has been deposed in civil cases related to his businesses.
    In one deposition related to a libel case that Mr. Trump brought against the journalist Tim O’Brien, Mr. Trump admitted more than two dozen times under oath that he had lied in the past about a range of subjects. Mr. Trump ultimately lost the case.
    Since last summer, the White House has been in what Mr. Cobb has called “total cooperation mode.” He has issued few, if any, objections as Mr. Mueller’s team interviewed senior White House officials and reviewed reams of emails and other internal documents. The White House was operating on a strategy that, since Mr. Trump had nothing to hide, full cooperation was the best chance to bring the investigation to a quick, decisive end.
    Mr. Cobb had told the president and the public that the Mueller inquiry would be over by the end of 2017, or soon after. But a month into 2018, it remains unclear when Mr. Mueller will wrap up the bulk of his work.
    Privately, people close to the president have conceded that assuring Mr. Trump that the investigation would end by a certain date was primarily aimed at keeping him from antagonizing Mr. Mueller on his Twitter feed or in interviews.
    Michael S. Schmidt reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York. Matt Apuzzo contributed reporting from Washington.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    RX Wizard NFLTrends's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    9,824
    Who are the people reporting this?

    He should get the "Hillary Special" for the questioning and then go ahead with it... Not under oath, not recorded or video taped, etc,.
    2014 NFL 51-33-1 62.35%
    2013 NFL 61-34 64.21% Finished 6th place in the LVH Supercontest
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    RX Wizard
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    bronx, ny
    Posts
    9,670
    Whoa, Man Bites Dog! That weird looking, bloodless looking motherfucker, is not in Twittler's camp on this one!

    Gowdy Emerges as Key Challenger to Trump on G.O.P. Russia Memo

    By SHERYL GAY STOLBERGFEB. 5, 2018


    WASHINGTON — Representative Trey Gowdy is known on Capitol Hill as a tough investigator of Democrats and a fierce Republican partisan. He is also the only Republican on the House Intelligence Committee to have read all of the sensitive intelligence underlying a contested Republican memo on the origins of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation.
    So when Mr. Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican, emerged as a strong voice contradicting President Trump’s contention that the memo “totally vindicates” him, his words had particular meaning.
    “I actually don’t think it has any impact on the Russia probe,” Mr. Gowdy said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
    Mr. Gowdy is not alone. At least four other Republicans — Representatives Brad Wenstrup of Ohio, Chris Stewart of Utah, Will Hurd of Texas and Peter T. King of New York — have said they do not believe that the memo necessarily exonerates the president on the question of whether his campaign colluded with Russia to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
    And, they said, it should in no way undermine the continuing investigation of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, into Russia’s effort to influence the 2016 election and whether it involved anyone in the president’s political operation — an investigation that Mr. Trump has repeatedly called a “witch hunt.”



    “It’s a factual answer,” Mr. King said Monday about Mr. Gowdy’s stand. “I’ve said the same thing. I wasn’t surprised at all to hear Trey say it.”
    Mr. Stewart, speaking on Fox News on Sunday, was equally pointed. “This memo has frankly nothing at all to do with a special counsel,” he said.
    The previously classified memo, made public on Friday by the House Intelligence Committee, suggests that the F.B.I. and the Justice Department abused their authority in seeking a warrant to spy on one of the president’s former campaign advisers. It claimed law enforcement officials omitted relevant information in their application for a warrant to wiretap the former campaign adviser, Carter Page.
    But the memo — which Mr. Gowdy said he was “intricately involved” in drafting — did not make the case promised by some Republicans: that the evidence it contained would cast serious doubt on the origins of the Russia investigation and call into question any conclusion that Mr. Mueller might reach.
    “As I watched him on ‘Face The Nation,’ what he said was pretty clear from my perspective,” said Senator Tim Scott, Republican of South Carolina and a close friend of Mr. Gowdy’s. “He put the memo in one tranche and put the Russia investigation in another tranche, and I think one doesn’t cancel out the other.”
    To be sure, the tumult around the memo has had an impact. It has helped bolster the views of Mr. Trump’s most vociferous partisans who insist that the Russia investigation was started under false pretenses by an F.B.I. leadership that favored Hillary Clinton and is hopelessly biased against Mr. Trump. The president has fed that notion with a steady stream of tweets, such as, “Their was no Collusion and there was no Obstruction (the word now used because, after one year of looking endlessly and finding NOTHING, collusion is dead). This is an American disgrace!”
    And the attention on the spectacle surrounding the memo has taken the public’s eye off the Russia investigation itself.
    In that sense, Mr. Gowdy’s public protestations against the president’s conclusions are contradicted by his private involvement in the drafting of the memo.
    But in Republican circles, Mr. Gowdy’s words matter.
    “I don’t think that Trey was looking to contradict anybody,” said Representative Thomas J. Rooney, Republican of Florida. “I think that Trey speaks from a place of judicial and lawyerly knowledge that a lot of people don’t have or comprehend.”
    Mr. Gowdy, 53, is best known on Capitol Hill for two things: his ever-shifting hairstyles and for the way he grilled Mrs. Clinton while leading the House inquiry into the 2012 attacks on Benghazi, Libya. He has a tendency to proclaim bipartisan intentions to reporters before carving up his political opponents.
    Close observers of Mr. Gowdy see him as a man in tension with himself. He is smart about politics and almost certainly knew that the release of the memo — known as the “Nunes memo” after Representative Devin Nunes, Republican of California and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee — would become fodder for Republicans, including Mr. Trump, to undercut the Mueller investigation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    RX Local
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The RX Forum
    Posts
    97,607
    He got this from Slate

    Another fake news report
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    RX Wizard
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    bronx, ny
    Posts
    9,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenbacks View Post
    He got this from Slate

    Another fake news report
    STFU, you brain dead prick, all you do is say "Fake News" like a stupid fucking parrot to any story you don't like. 76,000 brain dead posts, scumbag.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Que pasa? festeringZit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    36,169
    We have found no evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians."
    - House Intelligence Committee, Majority Staff
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •