He’s the president, there is a certain level of respect afforded that role.
Is he really going to bluntly ask, “did you break the law”. It is presumed the president upholds the law. If he did ask questions that bluntly “the right” would be up in arms about innocence until proven guilty and how dare they publish questions meant to taint trumps presidency.
His thinking directly supports the case for obstruction of justice. If he fires Comey because he thought the guy was incompetent, then that is all good. If he fired the guy because he thought it would stop the Russian investigation, then that is obstruction.
The main fear that Trump’s lawyers have with him being questioned is the uncontrolled answers the guy gives. He has no filter, so could easily inadvertently give evidence that supports the obstruction charges.
What he thought is neither here nor there.
Its the action that is important.
Its not an offence to think something.
Wow your right, and here I was thinking motive was a cornerstone of the legal system.
“He’s thinking to blow up the building!”
“Yeah but he hasn’t done anything yet. He’s allowed to think.”
Anyway what is more interesting is the Republicans who are coming out stating that the tax cuts only have helped the rich and did nothing for the middle class…
‘Intent’ is not something to be waved a way because it’s inconvenient.
Working as intended.
Coal miners are rich, now, right?
The investigation is focused on 2 potential charges:
You can put a partisan spin on this if you like, but if this is a professional FBI investigation, they are the basic questions that a non-partisan investigation should ask to prove or disprove the charges being investigated. If Trump answers them right, it hurts the case against him.
FYI I don’t think he will be impeached and the best thing he could do is get this investigation to clear him without any hint of him trying to manipulate the outcome. Attacking the investigation supports his enemies.
Bloomberg are reporting that’s Trump’s personal legal team lack the security clearances necessary to be properly briefed on some issues that the potential interview by investigators could cover. John Dowd did but he walked/was pushed away from the job, and Ty Cobb does but his role is to represent the office of the President not Trump personally. Jay Sekulow is waiting for clearance.
The Special Counsel has told Trump’s lawyers that he will consider a grand jury subpoena if an interview can’t be agreed upon. The power to compel a sitting President to testify is not something that has been tested legally.
On a lighter note the personal doctor who gave Trump that glowing pre-election health report (“amazing strength and stamina”, “will be the healthiest person ever to be elected to the role”, etc”) has admitted that it was dictated to him by Trump. Which I guess we already knew - though it is something to fake a doctor’s report while disparaging your opponents health, in addition to be the oldest person elected to a first term.
On a related doctor note the President’s official doctor, Rear Admiral Ronnie Jackson, has withdrawn from consideration to be the new Secretary for Veteran’s Affairs after being nominated by Trump. He won’t be returning to his former role as Presidential Doctor.
Pompeo was confirmed as the new Secretary of State.
Been listening to a podcast with Yascha Mounk who has done some great analysis on not just the US elections but the rise of populism around the globe. He made a point (hopefully half in jest) that the candidate most likely to win the US elections in 2020 is the one who will promise to “let you forget about politics for 4 years”.
Some truth in that!
On a Q&A here there was some defensiveness from a US journalist about breathless reporting on so-called scandals at the expense of policies. The more responsible analysis on policies was to a more limited audience.
Well Trip, must be a blue moon, because I do agree with you regarding these alleged questions, which are not what a criminal investigator would ask.
However if you have a closer look at the article, they are not "verbatim " what Mueller said he would ask, so it is a reporters narrative.
In my experience Investigators have an interest in motive, but want to know what actions were taken, not about feelings and reactions.
Where once again, we are in violent disagreement, is your calling it a Left imperative to hear this nonsense. Oprah appeals much more to the mindless, both Left and Right. Maybe you should keep your politics out of it and try to allay your fears of a Socialist takeover of the US Government. Can’t happen as there are no socialists in the USA, and very few here.
Ty Cobb has now left from the President’s legal team. Sad to see an epic mustache go. Cobb was in disagreement with the tweets attacking Mueller.
Emmet Flood, a lawyer that was with Clinton during his impeachment proceedings is joining the team. It was reported some time back that Flood was being considered and this prompted Trump to go on a fake news rant and to say that the reporter, Haberman of the NY Times, knew nothing.
The best part of the questions is the high likelihood that the leak came from Trump’s team, or at least the part of that team who absolutely do not want him to be interviewed by Mueller. His legal allies definitely think he’ll incriminate himself.
Pompeo, freshly minted Secretary of State, with the US position to be taken to the NK summit:
“We are committed to the permanent, verifiable, irreversible dismantling of North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction program, and to do so without delay”
So nuclear, chemical, and biological. Very similar to the Bush era phrasing of “complete, verifiable, and irreversible”.
He paid the hush-money, but he didn’t have an affair with her…
Oh, and it wasn’t campaign money, so what’s the big deal?
He really could “shoot someone on 5th avenue” and his ratings would not suffer.
A really really smart, like total genius, admits he was dumb enough to get blackmailed.
He’s also the healthiest individual, ever!
Strange, strange cat.