Posted on 08/09/2018 8:29:08 AM PDT by Kaslin
When federal prosecutors are nearing the end of criminal investigations, they often invite the subjects of those investigations to speak with them. The soon-to-be defendants are tempted to give their version of events to prosecutors, and prosecutors are looking to take the legal pulse of the subjects of their work. These invitations should always be declined, but they are not.
Special counsel Robert Mueller -- who is investigating President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice, pre-presidential banking irregularities and conspiracy to solicit or receive campaign aid from foreign nationals (the latter is what the media erroneously call collusion) -- has made it known to former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the head of Trump's legal team, that he wants to speak to the president.
Should Trump voluntarily speak with Mueller? In a word: No. Here is the back story.
Though I have been critical of some judgment calls made by Giuliani in his representation of Trump, I recognize, like anyone who has watched him or worked with or against him, that Giuliani is a smart and experienced lawyer. He has prosecuted directly or indirectly more than 5,000 criminal cases. He knows the criminal justice system, and he understands the power of prosecutors.
Yet the advice of most criminal defense lawyers and legal commentators familiar with the situation in which Giuliani finds himself today is to keep his client far away from the prosecutors. Here's why.
Thanks to Giuliani's numerous television appearances during which he has forcefully defended his client, Giuliani and Mueller have engaged in a very public series of negotiations on the limits, if any, that they might agree to as ground rules for an interview of the president.
Giuliani wants to limit the subject of questions to the alleged conspiracy between Trump's campaign and Russians. After all, he argues, this is the stated purpose given by the Department of Justice for starting the special counsel's investigation. And he wants to limit the number of questions and the time for all questions and answers. He argues that the president's constitutional obligations transcend the needs of Mueller's probe.
Mueller argues that he has an ethical obligation to follow whatever evidence of criminal behavior lawfully comes into his hands, about the president or his colleagues. As such, because he does not know in advance what Trump's answers to his questions will be, he cannot consent to any limitations on his follow-up questions.
If I were Giuliani, I would tell Mueller that the negotiations are terminated and the president will not voluntarily sit for an interview with him. There are paramount and prudential reasons for this.
First, when prosecutors want to talk to a person they are investigating, the talk is intended to help the prosecutors, not the subject of the investigation. So why should Trump engage in a process that could only help those pursuing him?
Second, the prosecutors know their evidence far better than the president or his legal team possibly could know it, and these prosecutors know how to trip up whomever they are interviewing. So why should Trump give prosecutors an opportunity to trap him into uttering a falsehood in an environment where doing so can be a criminal act?
I recognize that Giuliani's client is the most powerful person on earth, someone who is accustomed to having his way followed. And he has said countless times that he wants to talk to Mueller. Yet President Trump does not use an economy of words. Experience teaches that the undisciplined use of words by the subject of a criminal investigation is a prosecutor's dream when it takes place in an official inquiry.
It is Giuliani's job to prevent that dream from becoming reality by convincing his client, perhaps through an aggressive mock question-and-answer session conducted by Giuliani himself, that no good for Trump could come from a Mueller interview. I have seen many criminal cases in which potential defendants who thought they could talk prosecutors out of an indictment tried to do so and made matters worse for themselves.
But there is an elephant in the room.
That elephant is a grand jury subpoena. The Mueller interview is voluntary. If Trump agreed to it, he would not be under oath, and he could consult with counsel during it. Also, he could leave it whenever he wished. A grand jury subpoena compels a person to testify. The testimony is under oath, takes place without counsel present and can go on for as long as prosecutors and the grand jurors want to question the person. And they can ask him any questions they want to ask.
Surely, Trump would challenge a subpoena before a federal district court, and the challenge might land in the Supreme Court. Yet the controlling case, United States v. Nixon, is a unanimous 1974 Supreme Court decision requiring President Richard Nixon to surrender his infamous Oval Office tapes.
Though not directly on the point of compelled presidential personal oral testimony, the language in the Nixon case and the values underlying it all favor enforcement of a subpoena requiring personal testimony by the president. When the Ken Starr grand jury served a subpoena for the president's testimony on Bill Clinton, whose crimes it was investigating, Clinton and his lawyers concluded that he needed to comply with it, which he did.
Surely, Trump would challenge a subpoena before a federal district court, and the challenge might land in the Supreme Court. Yet the controlling case, United States v. Nixon, is a unanimous 1974 Supreme Court decision requiring President Richard Nixon to surrender his infamous Oval Office tapes.
Though not directly on the point of compelled presidential personal oral testimony, the language in the Nixon case and the values underlying it all favor enforcement of a subpoena requiring personal testimony by the president. When the Ken Starr grand jury served a subpoena for the president's testimony on Bill Clinton, whose crimes it was investigating, Clinton and his lawyers concluded that he needed to comply with it, which he did.
President Trump should agree to talk to Meuller but demand video because the FBI has had problems with the honesty of their written 302 reports. At the beginning of the meaning President Trump should say “Your fired” and have Meuller and every one of his stooges booted from the FBI, DOJ, and State.
Do you think it's beyond consideration that the notorious RBG would be scalia'd? What about any of the plotters, including many of the leaders, simply disappearing in the middle of an ocean? Black ops work both ways - the left has been utilizing these tools for a long time.
I wish posters would proof read their work before posting text with duplicate content.
Nyet.
Only to serve the arrest warrant.
Ohhhhhh, I’d pay to see that! Pay per view! With the proceeds going to build the wall!
Maybe AFTER he gets FULL immunity for any Perjury charges.
A no questions on obstruction.
Yes, he should say “Turn around, hands against the wall, feet back and spread ‘em. Any needles or switchblades in your pockets? You have the right to remain silent.”
To borrow from a typical Miranda warning, 'Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court...' of public opinion, by the left wing media who are attempting in any and all ways to destroy you!
Herr Müeller and his band of Demonrat, Hitlery supporters that make up the 'investigative team', have found absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing by PDJT nor his campaign despite an investigation now running into its 15th month! The American people, at least those who are not guzzling the Demonrat Koolaid (the majority of Americans), are realizing more and more, just how much of a political hachet job this investigation is, and they do not like it.
The more the Hellarycrats running the Trump investigation hatchet job spin their wheels, grasping at thin air, the more people see through their charade and the less likely they'll be to vote Commiecrat in the mid-terms and 2020. President Trump, it is human nature to want to stand up to these liars but appearing before the 'Special Counsel' is a sure means to lose support and possibly the mid-terms. Keep sniping back on Twitter and let THEM screw up even more! You are winning, and so is America!
As a Canadian, I wish we had a Prime Minister who had even a smidgen of testosterone and intelligence. Instead, we have a 'soy boy', forty something year old, teenage 'Peter Pierre Pan' leading us. (Typical of Lieberals, he leads from the rear!) The good news for Canadians is that when the US economy surges, generally the Canadian economy also grows.
no
ping
Hell NO.
Trump should address the nation. He should state that existing evidence already indicates that he was not involved in any illegal activity. Although he like to provide any further information to help resolve any remaining issues, the prosecutors behavior indicates his interest in an interview is solely to elicit some response that could be characterized as lying or perjury. Since he is not guilty of anything at this time, he cannot submit himself to a process whose sole intent is to trap him into illegal activity. If subpoenaed upon the advice of council he will assert his 5th amendment rights.
Because there are something called elections every 2-4-6 years.
That is too complicated for 75% of voters to comprehend. Trump is a master of timing. He will expose the fraud investigation when it will be most beneficial.
Yep.
Trump should attack Mueller on his withholding of Russian felonies committed in pursuit of Uranium One from the Congress and the public to allow Hillary’s deal to go through. At a minimum he should have recused himself. Rosenstein was involved with it as well.
They withheld real information and buried a conviction for 4 years so that the deal could get done.
Read it here:
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration
They will not have the senate seats to remove him.
Trump needs to attack Mueller and Uranium One.
They buried Russian felonies that should have kabashed the deal.
Mueller, Rosenstein and Holder.
Trump needs to diminish this fraud and put him on the defensive. Let the public see what he has done.
When in doubt, ATTACK!
Simple answer: NO!
Now in the fetid ethical swamp that the legal business has become, none of that necessarily holds, and any of it can be ignored at will. Mueller has authority from Rosenstein to go rogue and yes the fact is, it truly is a “witch hunt.”
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.