Giuliani: Mueller must show evidence of crime before Trump agrees to interview

CNN via KCRA Sacramento ^ | July 7th, 2018 | Eli Watkins

[Mariner]

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's legal team demanded that before the president agrees to an interview, the special counsel's team must prove it has evidence of Trump committing a crime and that it needs testimony from the president to conclude its probe, The New York Times reported Friday.

According to the Times, Trump's legal team set its new conditions on Friday with the special counsel team led by former FBI Director Robert Mueller. The demands mark further reason to believe the president will not submit voluntarily to an interview with the special counsel.

The Times account painted a picture of Trump's legal team as increasingly willing to combat the Mueller investigation while seeking to influence public opinion.

Rudy Giuliani told the Times that Mueller probably would not agree to these conditions. He conceded it was still possible the president would agree to an interview and continued to question the objectivity of the investigators.

"If they can come to us and show us the basis and that it's legitimate and that they have uncovered something, we can go from there and assess their objectivity," Giuliani said.

The same report said Trump's lawyers had contested a request from the special counsel team to interview White House chief of staff John Kelly, with White House lawyer Emmet Flood seeking to learn what investigators plan to ask and to narrow the topics of an interview.

[Kid Shelleen]

Giuliani has lost his mojo. He needs to go on offense and DEMAND Mueller answer for all the crimes the FBI has committed in this investigation.

[ghost of nixon]

Any action by Mueller that remotely smells like an October surprise will be the final nail in this investigation

[morphing libertarian]

That’s not his responsibility. His client Tump is responsible for not making them answer, RR and the love couple for example. Obama abused FISA and participated in a coup d’tat stared by clinton. Until Trump gets to the initiators and fires the rest of the FBI and DOJ involved, Guiliani is pissing in the wind.

[Okeydoker]

Well, about 70% of the public think the mueller scam is a sham. So rudy gets no credit for any of this?

[Savage Beast]

Why would President Trump agree to an interview with Mueller AT ALL?

[Kid Shelleen]

I agree 100% but until the day that Trump cleans house Giuliani should be roasting Mueller and Rosenstein and not even dignify the suggestion that Trump should be interviewed.

[wbarmy]

Why is it, that Democrat POTUS, seem to have so much power, and Republican POTUS don’t .????

When Obama suggested or wrote an executive order, every single government office, consular office, embassy, whatever, had dozens of supporters who would jump at initiating it, not even waiting for official status.

Now, Trump gives a directive to the Federal Government and every single office asks for a committee to study how to implement it, a lawyers brief on how to implement without breaking official laws, and secondary timelines to make sure achieving the intent is not too stressful.

When Obama was elected, official portraits sprang up the next morning, before he was actually inaugurated. At the embassy where I am, they just got the official portraits in May.

[Rockingham]

Note that Giuliani has not promised that if such evidence is provided, Trump will sit for an interview.

[upchuck]

I maintain nothing earthshaking will happen until after the November, 2018 elections. Once the makeup of the House And Senate are known (surely with Republican majorities), we’ll see some action. But not until then.

[Bonemaker]

“Giuliani, take your head out and just say that there will be no interview. Period!”

He shouldn’t even give Mueller the steam off a San Francisco street turd.

[Terry Mross]

If they issue “ham sandwich” type indictments in October they should be charged with interfering with the election. Not accused like the Russians. Charged with an easily proven crime.

[Bonemaker]

“A Special Prosecutor should NEVER have been appointed.”

This whole filthy train wreck stems from the most worthless attorney general in world history recusing himself.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“Why is it, that Democrat POTUS, seem to have so much power, and Republican POTUS don’t .????”

Because Democrats weaponize the DoJ when they are in power and cripple the DoJ when they are not in power. I’m still surprised no one has figured this out yet.

[MayflowerMadam]

Some conservative media guy was talking about this book this week. He said it isn’t even possible to buy this book on Amazon - maybe because it’s too honest and it scares TPTB.

[DoughtyOne]

While I would agree with that, playing along with Mueller is not a game I would play. Nobody is too savvy to avoid being caught in some of these traps they set.

[lee martell]

I agree. I was just thinking how this whole week has gone by without hearing Rudy make some kind of ridiculous statement to the press. The less on air time he gets
the better for both Trump and the GOP.
Rudy can “advise” just as well from New York.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks. Exactly!

[DoughtyOne]

Exactly!

[Terry Mross]

Since the Constitution says you don’t have to testify against yourself, why do you have to assert your right by appearing in court and saying under oath that you’re not going to answer any questions. Why not answer a subpoena by saying “Since I refuse to answer questions I’m not going to show up?”

And it sure doesn’t make since that you have claim your constitutional rights UNDER OATH! Do they think you might like about asserting your rights?

Witness: I take the 5th.”

Lawyer: Are you telling the truth”

Witness: “You got me!”

Where in the Constitution does it say you have say “I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it might incriminate me?” Who came up with that stupid question? A lawyer no doubt.

[elbook]

good move.

leftists dont believe in due process though

Due process will see Hillary and Obama and half these othe swamp dwellers in prison.