Good article by Andrew McCarthy, Why All the Secrecy?
There are thus very good reasons why Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein should step in and prevent Special Counsel Mueller from seeking to question the president. But I want to leave you with a different thought. How are we supposed to grapple with whether the president should be compelled to testify when we don’t know what Mueller is alleging? What crime does Mueller want to ask the president about? And if there isn’t one, why are we even talking about an interview, let alone a subpoena?
Yes, all prosecutors want to maintain investigative secrecy. In the vast majority of cases, the enforcement of the law after a serious crime has been committed outweighs other concerns; secrecy enables prosecutors to investigate without smearing innocent people, so we respect the need for it. But secrecy is not an absolute requirement; it must give way when outweighed by other considerations.
It has become ludicrous. The question of whether a prosecutor should be permitted to interview a president hinges on whether the president is a suspect. There is no public evidence that President Trump is. This raises the patent objection that he should not be asked to be interviewed under those circumstances. What we hear in response is, “How do you know he’s not a suspect?” But the reason we don’t know — other than the lack of evidence after two years — is that Mueller won’t deign to tell us, and Rosenstein won’t deign to comply, publicly, with regulations that required him to outline the basis for a criminal investigation.
That is not acceptable. In every other independent-prosecutor investigation in modern history — Watergate, Iran-Contra, Whitewater/Lewinsky — the president and the public have known exactly what was alleged. The prosecutor was able to investigate with all the secrecy the law allows, but under circumstances in which we all understood what was being investigated and why the president was suspected of wrongdoing.
After two years, we are entitled to nothing less. The president should direct Rosenstein to outline, publicly and in detail, the good-faith basis for a criminal investigation arising out of Russia’s interference in the election — if there is one. If he can’t, Mueller’s criminal investigation should be terminated; if he can, Mueller should be compelled to explain (unless Rosenstein’s disclosure makes it clear) why he needs to interview President Trump in order to complete his work.
If Rosenstein and Mueller are reluctant to do that, it can only be because they’ve decided that not only their investigation but also their desire for secrecy take precedence over every other consideration, including the president’s capacity to govern domestically and conduct foreign policy in a dangerous world. But secrecy is not the nation’s top priority. It’s long past time to lay the cards on the table.
Tapper says why not refer the Manafort case like you did the Cohen case. Doesn't it concern you that a judge thinks Mueller is just out to get Trump? Yes, that seems to question the motives of SC.
Schiff thinks Mueller will prevail, this case will be tried by Mueller.
Next Q is on Mueller subpoena Trump. Is there a circumstance where Trump could dodge a subpoena? Schiff says there is no way to dodge a subpoena.
Wants to know if there is a legal issue on the payment to Cohen. Schiff says of course, it shows that Trump has no credibility. This is corrosive of our democracy in addition to putting Trump in legal jeopardy. Tapper points out that it is legal to lie to the public, and pulls up the legal issue with campaign finance, asks Schiff to spell out the legal jeopardy. Telling false statements about this is consciousness of guilt, which means he is has consciousness of guilt of campaign finance.
No questions on evidence of Russian collusion. Huh.
I think that you and Judge Ellis are on the same page!!