Except, the agents who interviewed him said he didn't.

aggiehawg said:

---

Starr likely would have been successful had he pressed the subpoena, which is why Clinton folded, IMO. Jones was before he was President but Lewinsky was during his Presidency. And Clinton was facing witness tampering and subornation of perjury charges in relation to Starr's investigation. (Having his secretary, Betty Currie lie for instance.)

The only thing Mueller has while Trump has been in office is the firing of Comey being twisted to some type of obstruction of justice charge. One which SCOTUS will likely pooh-pooh, immediately.

---

Candidly, the Dems would scream Obstruction of Justice if Trump put the wrong kind of gas in his car!

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Except, the agents who interviewed him said he didn't.

---

Comey told the HPSCI under oath that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe that Flynn had lied to them, or that any inaccuracies in his answers were intentional.

The ***** is trying to troll you

Did you read Michael Caputo's statement to Senate?

Tough to get through

Yeah. Sad how many people have gotten entangled in this.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Did you read Michael Caputo's statement to Senate?

Tough to get through

---

Definitely feel for him.

aggiehawg said:

---

Dershowitz just had a great idea. Trump should answer those questions in writing, publicly. (Very carefully, of course, asserting Executive Privilege and Article II Powers where appropriate.) Dare Mueller to get the grand jury to issue a subpoena, then move to quash.

He's already answered the questions to the extent he can, he has Article II powers to pardon and to fire whomever he so chooses. Moreover, Comey was fired on the recommendation of Mueller's boss, Rosenstein. Hammer that point.

---

Has it been determined the questions really are from the SC? Rather embarrassing legal work if they are.

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Dershowitz just had a great idea. Trump should answer those questions in writing, publicly. (Very carefully, of course, asserting Executive Privilege and Article II Powers where appropriate.) Dare Mueller to get the grand jury to issue a subpoena, then move to quash.

He's already answered the questions to the extent he can, he has Article II powers to pardon and to fire whomever he so chooses. Moreover, Comey was fired on the recommendation of Mueller's boss, Rosenstein. Hammer that point.

---

Has it been determined the questions really are from the SC? Rather embarrassing legal work if they are.

---

I guess so. Mueller's spokesperson has not denied it, yet. The NYT has said the source was not Trump's legal team. So those were either made up by the Times or they got them from Mueller, I suppose.

And yes, those are awful questions. Poorly worded and devoid of any foundation.

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Dershowitz just had a great idea. Trump should answer those questions in writing, publicly. (Very carefully, of course, asserting Executive Privilege and Article II Powers where appropriate.) Dare Mueller to get the grand jury to issue a subpoena, then move to quash.

He's already answered the questions to the extent he can, he has Article II powers to pardon and to fire whomever he so chooses. Moreover, Comey was fired on the recommendation of Mueller's boss, Rosenstein. Hammer that point.

---

Has it been determined the questions really are from the SC? Rather embarrassing legal work if they are.

---

At this point it doesn't matter. They are in the loop. Mueller hasn't denied they are. So treat them as such, answer them and release them publicly and that will check Mueller's oil. Had he come out and denied their veracity, that make's them worthless and no longer a talking point as far as content. Certainly the MSM will then pivot to conspiracies of who planted or leaked them, they are doing that anyway. WGAF. But as long as Mueller's stay's silent they have a degree of veracity so answer them and throw them in his face and say "your move Lurch"

Ty Cobb out Emmet Flood in

That kills the wish washy Ty Cobb stance on the POTUS being interviewed. Food is not going to et that happen period.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Ty Cobb out Emmet Flood in

That kills the wish washy Ty Cobb stance on the POTUS being interviewed. Food is not going to et that happen period.

---

Emmet Flood has worked with the Clintons for decades. Can he be trusted?

That is a terrible idea, unless you can avoid answering because of executive privilege or other methods. Those questions are a minefield of perjury traps, and any wrong answer has his ass in a heap of trouble. Plus, you have to assume that any question they are asking they already know what the answer to. So there's no point in answering them to begin with.

Really with the OIG report would drop. Yesterday.

Meh_ said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Ty Cobb out Emmet Flood in

That kills the wish washy Ty Cobb stance on the POTUS being interviewed. Food is not going to et that happen period.

---

Emmet Flood has worked with the Clintons for decades. Can he be trusted?

---

Decades? not even one decade

He was the WH counsel for GWB
He also represented Dick Cheney

He's a deep swamp lawyer and he's fighting in the deep swamp

Is that good?

Your emoticon doesn't suggest that.


Addendum: It's hard not to believe that Cobb isn't an aggressive attorney. The "original" Cobb was such a *******, that some of that HAS to go with the name!

HTownAg98 said:

---

That is a terrible idea, unless you can avoid answering because of executive privilege or other methods. Those questions are a minefield of perjury traps, and any wrong answer has his ass in a heap of trouble. Plus, you have to assume that any question they are asking they already know what the answer to. So there's no point in answering them to begin with.

---

If you can't provide proper answers to your client for those lame ass poorly worded question, you need to turn in your bar card and burn your shingle.

What were your thinking..... What were you feeling.......? laughable

fasthorses05 said:

---

Is that good?

Your emoticon doesn't suggest that.

---

Just not surprised

Flood is a good attorney

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

That is a terrible idea, unless you can avoid answering because of executive privilege or other methods. Those questions are a minefield of perjury traps, and any wrong answer has his ass in a heap of trouble. Plus, you have to assume that any question they are asking they already know what the answer to. So there's no point in answering them to begin with.

---

If you can't provide proper answers to your client for those lame as poorly worded question, you need to turn in your bar card and burn your shingle.

What were your thinking..... What were you feeling.......? laughable

---

Precisely. Those questions are so broad, easy to choose how to frame an answer, assert Executive Privilege and Article II powers to many of them.

Roscoe? Did you see my post in the Rosenstein thread about Tapper's co-hort in the award winning dossier report on CNN, Evan Perez, being a former colleague and long-time friend to the founders of Fusion, GPS?

I don't think those are the actual questions though. There's some scuttlebutt that those are the questions that were transcribed over a phone call. So they won't have the legalease that you would expect.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Feeding the seagulls

---

It's really feeding the MRSA.

So now you have Flood who has dealt with Mueller for years and is an expert in interactions of the government and you have Rudy Giuliana who was Mueller's boss for years and has dealt with him in a lot of sketchy times in Mueller's career. I think the rpm's just ramped up under Mueller's feet.

McCarthy sure is fired up today.

LINK

aggiehawg said:

---

McCarthy sure is fired up today.

LINK

---

This

Quote:

---

Justice Department indifference

I am not a Trump fanboy. The administration's conflicting explanations for Comey's firing, which Mueller wants to inquire about, were an embarrassment and the president's badmouthing of the former director for the consumption of Kremlin emissaries was a disgrace. Trump's Twitter tirades demanding investigations inject politics into law enforcement and undermine the administration of justice. His conception of the loyalty he is entitled to demand from law-enforcement officials is skewed his citation of Eric Holder as a model attorney general (the only AG ever held in contempt of Congress) is repugnant. His orchestration of Donald Trump Jr.'s misleading statements to the Times (and thus to the public) regarding the Trump Tower meeting with a Kremlin-tied lawyer was unseemly.

None of this, however, is a basis for criminal prosecution. Being inconsolably upset about the outcome of the 2016 election does not entitle Democrats to an Oval Office minder with subpoena power. The actions and intentions Mueller seeks to probe are bases for political opposition to Trump, not prosecution. If you think his derelictions outweigh the positive policy outcomes of his presidency, then work to defeat him in the coming election cycles. But that is not prosecutor work.

---

About a year late IMO.

Quote:

---

If you think his derelictions outweigh the positive policy outcomes of his presidency, then work to defeat him in the coming election cycles. But that is not prosecutor work.

---

When Republicans get upset they form the Tea Party...when Democrats get upset, well, you know the rest.

I really chuckle at those getting excited about this impeachment talk by the House. I mean as much as I would be in favor of them going after Rosey but let's be honest. Even if the House impeached Rosenstein, the closely divided Senate would never convict him, It takes a two-thirds majority to convict someone in a Senate impeachment trial. Republicans hold a slim 51-49 majority (actually 50 with McCain), and many of the Republicans would side with Democrats against conviction. I'm sure McConnell is rolling his eyes and looking at Ryan and saying, 'get your guys under control'.... This is an empty wagon making a lot of noise.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

That is a terrible idea, unless you can avoid answering because of executive privilege or other methods. Those questions are a minefield of perjury traps, and any wrong answer has his ass in a heap of trouble. Plus, you have to assume that any question they are asking they already know what the answer to. So there's no point in answering them to begin with.

---

If you can't provide proper answers to your client for those lame ass poorly worded question, you need to turn in your bar card and burn your shingle.

What were your thinking..... What were you feeling.......? laughable

---

Heh.

"Well, during part of the conversation my mind turned briefly to my wife and....well, that's not appropriate for public discourse."

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

I really chuckle at those getting excited about this impeachment talk by the House. I mean as much as I would be in favor of them going after Rosey but let's be honest. Even if the House impeached Rosenstein, the closely divided Senate would never convict him, It takes a two-thirds majority to convict someone in a Senate impeachment trial. Republicans hold a slim 51-49 majority (actually 50 with McCain), and many of the Republicans would side with Democrats against conviction. I'm sure McConnell is rolling his eyes and looking at Ryan and saying, 'get your guys under control'.... This is an empty wagon making a lot of noise.

---

If they actually managed to convict I think you'd have an honest revolt on your hands. For decades we have sat quietly watching Dems and the media push us around, cheat, lie, embezzle, line their pockets and in the process eroding the very pillars of what this country was built on.

Now, finally...it looks like something will be done about it. Trump comes along and says "Let's drain the swamp!" And it appears he just might be doing it.... and at the last second, Dems throw a hail Mary and end it? So they can get back to their dirty work? I don't think so.

Release the damn OIG report. Let's get the ball into the damn end zone. It's time to fight.