Posted on 01/27/2018 11:41:43 AM PST by mojito
...the Justice Department has improperly assigned a prosecutor in the absence of grounds to believe a crime has been committed. “Collusion with Russia” is not a crime, and there are presently no grounds to believe the president conspired with Putin’s regime to violate any American law.
And again, it is not criminal obstruction for a president to weigh in on whether a subordinate...should be investigated, or to fire a subordinate....Whether we think these are foolish things for the president to have done is beside the point. We are talking here about whether they are criminal actions, and they are not....
Every other independent-counsel investigation in which an American president has been a subject was triggered by an actual crime. Those presidents were on notice of the contours of the probe, and of the criminality that rendered it appropriate for a prosecutor to be appointed and for a president to be questioned. That is not the case in Mueller’s probe. It has been formally described as a counterintelligence investigation, which is a national-security inquiry about a foreign country’s designs against the United States, not a criminal investigation targeting an American for prosecution on a known offense.
No competent lawyer would allow the lowliest criminal suspect in the country to testify before a grand jury without a description from the prosecutor of precisely what crime is being investigated, and an explanation of the suspect’s status — target likely to be indicted, subject potentially indictable, or mere witness not in jeopardy of being charged. It would be absurd for a prosecutor to seek testimony from the president of the United States without a compelling demonstration of (a) probable cause that a crime has been committed, and (b) need for information that only the president is in a position to provide.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
As usual, McCarthy's legal reasoning is overpowering.
If his counsel is not saying the same thing they should be dismissed, now.
I disagree.
I think DJT should invite Mueller for the interview.
Mueller: “Hello, Mr. Trump”
Trump: “Hello, You’re FIRED!”
end of interview.
I’m pretty sure that Mr. trump does not need the advice of National Review.
Trump should make a Citizen’s arrest of Weasel Mueller.
However,given that Mueller and his Obama/Clinton supporting subordinates have no interest in seeing that genuine justice is done here I'd tell him not to testify even though he knows he did nothing wrong.
The 4 page memo and ALL the back-up for it needs to come out, then HONEST people in the DOJ need to interrogate ALL involved....SEVERAL times!
Trump needs better lawyers....he needs PIT BULLS!
Or, do exactly as Trump is doing - publicly say, for PR purposes: “I look forward to talking with him!” but in fact, do no such thing.
...and President Trump should have had the Thanksgiving turkey butchered and readied for the evening meal.
But whadda I know?
You fkng morons.
You hand wringing bitches.
(No ref to freepers)
The Trump Deal:
Wall.
No chain
No lotto
DACA with delay to citizenship - 10 years going in position.
By giving Mueller way more than Mueller asked for he set a trap for Mueller and one that Mueller can't get out of.
Mueller will not want this on the record, where he is every bit as much on the record as Trump is and where Trump has a much smarter legal team. Mueller is used to running rigged interviews. He cannot rig this.
Justice Robert H. Jackson quotes:
If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his case, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people he thinks he should get, rather than cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm — in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself
It is my opinion that is already, the greatest man of the 21st Century. (flame me is you want, but tell me your choice). Mueller is less than nothing. There is no crime. There is no evidence of a crime. Why, the name of sweet baby James, should Trump help Mueller in any way? Trump should stand up and say, ‘if you have the goods, prosecute me, if not, shut the fruck up’. He should be under no obligation to do anything. They give that right to even the most base and common criminals. Why not to the greatest man of the century?
I think Trump has been toying with the media for months over this story. By the time Trump has to make a decision about this, Mueller’s investigation will be so badly discredited that half his senior staff will be on suicide watch.
Face it,boys and girls....if,by chance,the Rats take the House DJT *will* be impeached.Every Rat will vote “yes” as will about 20-30 so called Republicans.
Thank you! When will freepers understand that you must watch Trump’s actions and not his words? They never seem to learn.
He has to get convicted. And put that fire out on your hair.
Bears frequent repeating.
Post it on the door to Weasels Mueller’s coven of Witch Hunters.
Trump has Tom Fitton as a legal advisor. I trust this man totally and I think Trump does also.
It is always best to not say anything, even if you are not guilty. That is exactly how guilty people get wrapped up in something they are innocent of in the first place. Who cares if it makes you look guilty to not talk until you have contacted an attorney? It should bother no one. Also, say either charge me or I am walking right now. Trust me, you do not want to get into an interrogation room where anything may end up happening, especially if you are innocent. They cannot hold you just because you refuse to talk, unless they feel they have the evidence to make a case against you. In that case they then have to arrest you. But if they don’t then they cannot hold you at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.