Trump Sets a Trap for Mueller.

youtube ^ | May 9, 2018 | The Still Report

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Good morning, I’m still reporting on: Trump Sets a Trap for Mueller, 2202 Synopsis: On Monday, Special Counsel Robert Mueller rejected President Trump’s offer to answer questions in writing. This is no surprise to anyone with the letters Esq. appended to their names as the totally Democrat composition of the Mueller team can only mean that this is the most titanic setup for a perjury trap in the history of the republic. The Trump team has now set a May 17th deadline to decide whether or not the President will commit prosecutorial suicide, or force the Supreme Court to decide whether a lot like the Mueller investigation can interrupt a duly-elected President any time they lose an election. Even Judge Andrew Napolitano is warning Trump on this one: [insert] My opinion, and it is not informed by any insider information, is that Trump is a chess player. He’s playing the long game. He’s determined to take down the Deep State. He knows he will win in the Supreme Court, and wants to goad Mueller into taking that route. Trump will tell Mueller, “Nope, so sorry, go away. If you are brave enough, subpoena me to testify.” The Supremes are just waiting to pounce on this obvious coup d’état. Not just for his personal victory – not just for his victory over Deep State – but team Trump wants to set in stone that sore losers cannot assemble a team of rogue prosecutors do this to an American president ever again. An example must be set and this precise question has never been decided by the Supremes.

[JayGalt]

A bit of Reddit chatter was all I found

[rolling_stone]

no crime no foul no special counsel
they have no authority

[qaz123]

Every lamp post on, on every street in DC. Especially the area where all the big law firms, PR firms and lobbyist show up for work. Each person with a sign around around their necks, telling the world what they did.

[qaz123]

Wouldn’t that only hold true if he agrees to the ‘immunity deal’ that they offer?

I can’t say for sure, but under the 5th Amendment, how can you be compelled to testify against yourself? I can understand getting immunity to testify against someone else, but why would he, or anyone else, agree to that?

They’ll give him immunity then ask him all the questions they were going to try and trap him with. So, they don’t prosecute him, but then give all the info to the Dem’s who will then initiate impeachment proceedings.

I think he has a few choices...

Wait for a subpoena and let it play out in the courts. At which time, Mueller and Rosenstein will have to testify to the crime that he committed, evidence they think he has to prove a crime that doesn’t exist and has never existed, and then somehow convince a court that he has no 5th Amendment rights

Hammer Mueller on Twitter, asking why, clinton, he did commit numerous crimes, gets to testify behind closed doors, not under oath, was allowed to destroy evidence, not comply with subpoenas

Or, agree to testify and have four different answers to every and any question they might ask.... I can’t recall ... I don’t remember .... I have no idea what you’re talking about .... At this point, what difference does it make.

He can answer them any way he wants. They don’t get to force him to answer they way they want him to.

Or...Tell them all to F*ck themselves and have them send someone to come get him. A nice standoff between the Secret Service and US Marshal’s would be interesting to watch.

[AlexisHeavyMetal1981]

Who is JQP? Who is JW?

[DannyTN]

If a member of SCOTUS becomes mentally unfit for office (ahem Ginsburg) is there a process for having them evaluated and removed short of a Congressional impeachment?

[Go Gordon]

in the hopes that in the course of the testimony he will make a mistake on something he says. Then a new charge of perjury will be filed. Or obstruction of justice. Or some other 'process crime.' This is a particular risk for Trump because he tends to wander on his comments a lot.

Any witness worth an ounce of dirt knows how to answer questions properly so as not to ever put themselves into that jeopardy. I believe Trump is smart enough to be schooled by his attorneys to be such a witness. I also believe Trump is a loose cannon, so as long as he has his attorney present during questioning, he should have adequate protection from gotcha questions, and being long-winded with answers.

[Boogieman]

“If the Supremes voted against me, I’d plead the fifth and make the courts fight it out.”

Even if the Supreme Court says they have the right to subpoena you, there is still no enforcement mechanism to make the President testify. You want to charge him with contempt? Who is going to do that? Oh yeah, the DOJ, who works for the President. You want to haul him to jail? Who is going to do that? The FBI or US Marshals, who also work for the President.

Just do like Obama did when Congress tried to make Holder talk. Ignore them, because there are no means (short of impeachment) to enforce anything against the Executive Branch unless the Executive chooses to cooperate.

[Stingray51]

I am not a big fan of your strategy because even Executive branch law enforcement agencies are going to follow court orders. But what people here are forgetting is that Trump is Mueller’s ultimate boss and can fire him any time. The old Independent Counsel law was something else; Mueller is just acting with the power of a US Attorney per DOJ regs. So DJT can play this out and see what develops.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

OK....LOL!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I would say JW is Judicial Watch,...no clue on JQP!

Hmmm...John Podesta?

[miniTAX]

“Who is JQP? Who is JW?”

---

Yeah, I hate my guts such dumb writings. Using so stupidly acronyms is evidence of lack of basic good sense and care.

[jazminerose]

JQP=John Q Public

JW=Judicial Watch

[Phlyer]

So, they don’t prosecute him, but then give all the info to the Dem’s who will then initiate impeachment proceedings.

I think this is the most likely scenario - though, like Clinton (the first), there needs to be an underlying charge for the impeachment proceedings. So, perjury or obstruction of justice (do those sound familiar? - again see Clinton the first) are what they are looking to establish.

On whether you can be compelled to testify against yourself: you can't - at least, not according to the Constitution. However, judges seem to think they know better than "We, the People" on what those plain words mean. If they grant you immunity, then you are required to testify because you are not testifying 'against yourself'. However, if you commit (or are accused of committing) perjury in the course of that testimony, then that's on you. You are not - according to the courts - "compelled" to commit perjury. It's just the opposite. You're supposed to tell the truth.

[ClayinVA]

There have been rumors floating around on Twitter/4Chan that she is at home on a ventilator or heart/lung machine. “Somebody knows, but they are keeping it Hush Hush” type of stuff, but SCOTUS has not met in public since the 27th. I also did not see any public appearances since the middle of April. We will find out tomorrow as SCOTUS is supposed to meet for their normal conference, but I don’t think it is public. She could be going in to work everyday, but who knows at this point. There is a hint of something there as this is where things get busy with lots of cases being decided at the end of term.

[Boogieman]

“I am not a big fan of your strategy because even Executive branch law enforcement agencies are going to follow court orders.”

Like they did under the Obama administration?

It’s time to take the gloves off. The judicial branch can’t exert direct authority over the executive, or we might as well just have two branches of government instead of three. That is why the Constitution provided impeachment, so that the law enforcement branch (the executive) wouldn’t be used by the courts as a weapon against their ultimate superior (the President). If there is a conflict between the courts and the President, the executive branch must obey the President. If anyone in the branch decides otherwise, the President should just terminate them, since they serve at his discretion.