Either one may be openly daring Trump to fire them for dereliction of duty.

Many of those questions could be objected to on the basis of form. You have to establish foundation before you ask about say "news reports on X date." Which news reports?

Remember the old Perry Mason scenes where he would hold up a piece of paper and bark out, "What if I told you this document says..." and then the witness would crumble? Yeah, that stuff never happens because the witness has no idea what that document says until it is given to them to review.

That being said, those questions are designed to elicit Trump's inner thoughts and intents. Something that Mueller cannot obtain from any other source. A requirement a judge would consider in a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena.

(Edit: Added another tweet posted on the thread.)

aggiehawg said:

---

Many of those questions could be objected to on the basis of form. You have to establish foundation before you ask about say "news reports on X date." Which news reports?

Remember the old Perry Mason scenes where he would hold up a piece of paper and bark out, "What if I told you this document says..." and then the witness would crumble? Yeah, that stuff never happens because the witness has no idea what that document says until it is given to them to review.

That being said, those questions are designed to elicit Trump's inner thoughts and intents. Something that Mueller cannot obtain from any other source. A requirement a judge would consider in a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena.

---

I'm a firm believer when you start a question in a cross examination or an interrogation with "What were you thinking...?" You're an idiot and you are incompetent. There's no way to disprove what he was thinking so why waste your time asking if you are trying to build a case against someone.

Your assessment is spot on. I agree with Rex this stuff is crap planted by the media to start the narrative.

Quote:

---

I agree with Rex this stuff is crap planted by the media to start the narrative.

---

And reporters will bark out these questions and Trump will be baited to respond.

drcrinum said:

---

---

Idiots in another thread are claiming Trump outed these question because his investigation has been sealed tight.

What a joke

The very first move he made after being appointed was leaked to CNN.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/27/politics/first-charges-mueller-investigation/index.html

And he has leaked selective things off and on when it worked to his advantage to drive a public narrative with the media to punch Trump's buttons because he knows he will react. Sure hasn't leaked anything that showed no collusion or anything favorable to the POTUS

Note: I added another tweet to Techno Fog's post to which you responded. BTW, Techno Fog is an attorney, just like the former Imperator Rex.

Yep. I'm no lawyer but asking someone to express their thoughts about something gives them carte blanche to lie or fabricate anything they believe is plausible because nobody else could possibly determine what an individual is thinking to themselves unless they carefully recorded it in a journal at the time and that evidence is obtained. It's a question with an unknown answer at the time it would be asked.

Yeah I saw the, Frog is a sharp person as well. It's pretty fascinating to see the level of quality level grassroots investigating going on cross the web. Even in this forum thread there has been some real quality stuff done. I'm trying to keep up an archive on this, who knows it may come in handy later.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Yep. I'm no lawyer but asking someone to express their thoughts about something gives them carte blanche to lie or fabricate anything they believe is plausible because nobody else could possibly determine what an individual is thinking to themselves unless they carefully recorded it in a journal at the time and that evidence is obtained. It's a question with an unknown answer at the time it would be asked.

---

You can ask, "Why did you take X action?" Invariably, subsequent events will impact the answer. It is very difficult to craft questions based solely on knowledge they had at the time of the act, however. Indeed, it is nearly impossible for the person to filter subsequent events out of their own recollection.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Many of those questions could be objected to on the basis of form. You have to establish foundation before you ask about say "news reports on X date." Which news reports?

Remember the old Perry Mason scenes where he would hold up a piece of paper and bark out, "What if I told you this document says..." and then the witness would crumble? Yeah, that stuff never happens because the witness has no idea what that document says until it is given to them to review.

That being said, those questions are designed to elicit Trump's inner thoughts and intents. Something that Mueller cannot obtain from any other source. A requirement a judge would consider in a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena.

---

I'm a firm believer when you start a question in a cross examination or an interrogation with "What were you thinking...?" You're an idiot and you are incompetent. There's no way to disprove what he was thinking so why waste your time asking if you are trying to build a case against someone.

Your assessment is spot on. I agree with Rex this stuff is crap planted by the media to start the narrative.

---

Those questions are clearly not the work of someone who has ever practiced law.

That is the work of a foaming-at-the-mouth leftist "journalist" that watched too many legal procedural tv shows.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Yeah I saw the, Frog is a sharp person as well. It's pretty fascinating to see the level of quality level grassroots investigating going on cross the web. Even in this forum thread there has been some real quality stuff done. I'm trying to keep up an archive on this, who knows it may come in handy later.

---

PAJAMAHADEEN!!!!!!

Took down Dan Rather.

Quote:

---

Those questions are clearly not the work of someone who has ever practiced law.

---

After the original Manafort pleadings, I am not so sure. There are some pretty crappy (even if well-paid) lawyers out there.

Remember the Art Briles suits against Baylor? That was real foaming-at-the-mouth crap by his lawyer. Stormy Daniels' lawyer, Avenatti, isn't impressive either. How do you craft a defamation claim of a porn star based on an opinion in a tweet about a sketch that has been lambasted as a meme all over social media? And how has she been damaged?

aggiehawg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Yeah I saw the, Frog is a sharp person as well. It's pretty fascinating to see the level of quality level grassroots investigating going on cross the web. Even in this forum thread there has been some real quality stuff done. I'm trying to keep up an archive on this, who knows it may come in handy later.

---

PAJAMAHADEEN!!!!!!

Took down Dan Rather.

---

Back when Free Republic was worth something. It was two of their members who noticed something was wrong with the documents.

Now the site is just a lunatic asylum.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Those questions are clearly not the work of someone who has ever practiced law.

---

After the original Manafort pleadings, I am not so sure. There are some pretty crappy (even if well-paid) lawyers out there.

Remember the Art Briles suits against Baylor? That was real foaming-at-the-mouth crap by his lawyer. Stormy Daniels' lawyer, Avenatti, isn't impressive either. How do you craft a defamation claim of a porn star based on an opinion in a tweet about a sketch that has been lambasted as a meme all over social media? And how has she been damaged?

---

Where do these idiots come from?

Not to sounds like a pompous ass about it, but is this just the quality of legal representation that you get when you're an individual writing checks out of your personal account for a lawyer instead of a corporation that wires fees from the treasury?

As for the government lawyers...I'm at a loss. Positions in the AUSA office in my district are highly competitive and working for the DOJ is supposed to be some great honor/capstone/career achievement. But the dreck coming out of these places is embarrassing.

Avenatti's job is to set a perjury trap for Cohen and Trump, nothing more.

The porn ***** is only a means to an end. If we could see who is paying his bills, it sure as hell isn't her.

He's ineffective as an advocate at a basic level.

And frankly, I see this all the time. Big name partners at brand name law firms with all glass offices in Midtown Manhattan. They show up acting like their dicks drag on the floor. But after 5 minutes, you realize its all just a show. Their reputation is based on their firm and someone that came before them. They got hired because of the JD from Yale (which they got into because they were a legacy) and they stuck around at the firm long enough for everyone to think they did something right. It turns out they're completely feckless and easy to beat. It's such a common tale.

Quote:

---

Avenatti's job is to set a perjury trap for Cohen and Trump, nothing more.

---

Yeah well, Mueller and the SDNY sure screwed that plan up.

It could be that Trump's legal team leaked the questions so the questions would be debated in the public in an attempt to persuade the POTUS not to be interviewed.

Meh_ said:

---

It could be that Trump's legal team leaked the questions so the questions would be debated in the public in an attempt to persuade the POTUS not to be interviewed.

---

Or to expose the poor quality of lawyers Mueller has on his team.

(Not my position as I genuinely have no idea if these questions even originated from Mueller. If they are legit, they are garbage.)

And we have a drive by troll statement from the other thread.

aggiehawg said:

---

Meh_ said:

---

It could be that Trump's legal team leaked the questions so the questions would be debated in the public in an attempt to persuade the POTUS not to be interviewed.

---

Or to expose the poor quality of lawyers Mueller has on his team.

(Not my position as I genuinely have no idea if these questions even originated from Mueller. If they are legit, they are garbage.)

---

Do you think they are likely fake?

Meh_ said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Meh_ said:

---

It could be that Trump's legal team leaked the questions so the questions would be debated in the public in an attempt to persuade the POTUS not to be interviewed.

---

Or to expose the poor quality of lawyers Mueller has on his team.

(Not my position as I genuinely have no idea if these questions even originated from Mueller. If they are legit, they are garbage.)

---

Do you think they are likely fake?

---

That's my take. Those questions aren't structured or organized correctly to be remotely effective at a deposition. And that is just assuming that the various foundational issues can just be ignored.

Clearly the work of a journalist or someone that hasn't ever practiced law meaningfully.

In my only exposure to court, the attorney for our company said this exact thing. He looked for "real" lawyers he said, and he loved finding guys who had come from small firms who had experience actually going to trial because most big firms just settle. Then his guys from "no name" places, who get sneered at by the big boys, wipe the floor with them.

Quote:

---

That's my take. Those questions aren't structured or organized correctly to be remotely effective at a deposition. And that is just assuming that the various foundational issues can just be ignored.

Clearly the work of a journalist or someone that hasn't ever practiced law meaningfully.

---

^
^
^
This. They wouldn't even pass muster in an interrogatories request.

k2aggie07 said:

---

In my only exposure to court, the attorney for our company said this exact thing. He looked for "real" lawyers he said, and he loved finding guys who had come from small firms who had experience actually going to trial because most big firms just settle. Then his guys from "no name" places, who get sneered at by the big boys, wipe the floor with them.

---

Interesting point you've made here-- actual trial work is rarely done by big firms. Every city has its stable of trial "boutiques" (and there are a few with national presence) whose bread and butter is actually putting a case on for a jury.

It amazes me that the mental giant Judge Napolitano attempted to give these question any level of veracity, when he made the claim that they weren't leaked bt the Mueller team and that it was Rudy that leaked them after he got them from Mueller.


Dershowitz questioned their veracity said they were silly softball questions, that were worthless in a deposition.

Peter King thinks they aren't real questions. He's not a Harvard or Yale guy but he sees through them

Mueller's leaked questions happened for a reason.

I suspect with the OIG report being released in a few days and likely criminal Referrals and possible indictments of some really big fish, there is tremendous pressure on Mr. Mueller. If he had anything on President Trump, he would be blasting with both barrels. Mueller is on a fishing trip and a PR campaign.

It may be me, but the libs have gotten very quiet. Comey has been out, but he is trying to save his butt.

And reflecting on my experience in depositions, are those questions crafted by a competent attorney?

FBI stalling on a FOIA request about CrowdStrike.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/fbi-delays-release-communications-firm-examined-dnc-servers/

Quote:

---

The FBI, which was never granted access to the DNC's servers for inspection, instead relied on the third-party firm that was brought in by the DNC for information regarding the compromised network who concluded that Russia was behind the hack.

The FBI previously awarded an unrelated $150,000 contract to CrowdStrike in July 2015. Details and communications between the firm and the bureau regarding that past contract were requested as part of the FOIA.

---

Quote:

---

The DNC previously claimed that the FBI had never asked for access to its servers. However, former FBI Director James Comey testified that the bureau had sought access to the servers numeroustimes.

"Ultimately, what was agreed to is the private company would share with us what they saw," Comey said last year in reference to CrowdStrike.

---

Infuriating.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

It amazes me that the mental giant Judge Napolitano attempted to give these question any level of veracity, when he made the claim that they weren't leaked bt the Mueller team and that it was Rudy that leaked them after he got them from Mueller.

---

Nap is literally all over the place. One day he is hammering Mueller, Comey, McCabe, etc. and the next he has Trump one step away from being marched out in chains. Then he flips back going after the swamp rats before hitting Trump again.

Quote:

---

It amazes me that the mental giant Judge Napolitano attempted to give these question any level of veracity, when he made the claim that they weren't leaked bt the Mueller team and that it was Rudy that leaked them after he got them from Mueller.

---

Agree. Judge Nap has veered off of the rails lately. He also doesn't seem to like Rudy very much.

Quote:

---

I suspect with the OIG report being released in a few days and likely criminal Referrals and possible indictments of some really big fish, there is tremendous pressure on Mr. Mueller.

---

DOJ has already refused to indict at least one person based on the OIG report, so likely nothing will happen because of it. Sessions is probably not involved (likely still hiding from Al Franken) and letting Rosenstein make all the decisions.

It's still bad that Sessions is seen as hiding under the bed with all this deep state corruption going on.

Quote:

---

DOJ has already refused to indict at least one person based on the OIG report, so likely nothing will happen because of it.

---

I'm still holding out hope that the declination was immunity based and a big bird is singing.

Wray should be up on the carpet in the Oval answering questions on why these are being slow walked, Sessions and this John Lausch are worthless