Charter Member
^^^
It was as close as I could make it, but I couldn’t figure out how to make your accuser’s “evidence” consist of a dossier of Russian rumors. That would be too rediculous.
My point being, if you missed it, that any inquisition with Andrew Weissmann in the lead is not a fair and honest exercise to be cooperating with.
...............
“You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out.” — Too fundamental to have an attribution
Charter Member
I see. So you have decided the results must be unfair even before the investigation is finished? Because of who someone is, not because of the work he produced?
As I said before, it seems impossible in these hyperpartisan times to credit it but when I was a fed, I was constantly reminded not to allow my personal feelings affect how I did my work. Would you allow your personal feelings to color the performance of your work? I don't think so. So why not wait until the evidence is presented before determining if Weissmann has?
Guest
Well the history of Weismann is no where near snow white.
Could somebody please tell me where I missed the subpoena being issued to Trump for him to talk?
Did he not tell everybody he did not collude with Russia? Until he has been formally summoned and made to testify I would not do a thing. I guess I missed where the charges against him were filed and the evidence has proved that he is guilty and must get in front of this bunch of Salem with judges.
Charter Member
The topic of this thread was waco saying he would advise Trump not to cooperate.
You are the only one who has mentioned a subpoena.
Guest
Why should he, he has already told them he did not collude with the Russians, so he cooperated. Until they build a case, that is something more than a bunch of crybabies whining because they lost, he does not legally have to do anything else. What is the big deal?
Charter Member
Because as I've said many times in this thread, if asked, he owes it to the public trust he holds from us to be open and transparent, no matter if the request is by subpoena or a letter. All politicians owe that to us.
Or do you think politicians should be allowed to hide and obfuscate, as long as it is legal? I have a somewhat different expectation of the people to whom I trust the governance of the nation. I kind of expect them to honor the trust I've given them.
After all, they expected it of me for 33 years. Why should Trump be held to a lesser standard than I was?
Guest
He is right there, not hiding. Ask him the question and see what you get. H E A L R E A D Y S A I D H E D I D N ' T C O L L U D E W I T H R U S S I A N S . WHat else does he need to say?
Charter Member
It is just not that simple. When a prosecutor is out to get you at all costs, he can. Ask Scooter Libby, who they ran up the flag pole despite knowing who the perp was three years earlier from the first day the Special Prosecution started...and it was never Libby.
They ran Gen. Kelly to ground by first financially breaking him, then indicting him for charges of misleading the FBI in what he was led to believe was a mere conversation, and in which even McCabe testified the FBI that was allegedly misled thought he did not do so. Guess who interviewed Kelly and reported “no misleading?” Does the name Petter Strozk ring a bell. Only Mueller’s merry band could find something misleading. The ground rules are that the feds can lie and mislead you, but it’s a crime the other way ‘round.
Trump is a sitting duck to these people with his fat mouth, and I suspect only Trump does not know it. My advice stands.
Somehow shade is being thrown my way for thinking like a lawyer rather than in a pollannaish way about how The Truth Will Out. If you think that, call me before you traipse into the IRS office when they call you up. I have some advice you need to hear.
...............
“You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out.” — Too fundamental to have an attribution
Charter Member
He hasn't said it under oath, to a person that can prosecute him if he lies.Originally Posted by TxMusky
And he lies when it is easier to tell the truth.
Charter Member
If he did nothing wrong, he has nothing to worry about.
If he has done something wrong, he needs to resign his office anyway.
If he needs a lawyer to keep his office, he has no business being in office. And me going to the IRS is not applicable - I'm not a holder of a public trust.
Guest
Only a fool volunteers himself as a sacrifice when he knows they can not make him at this point. That is one reason why we have the 5th.
Trump just needs to get back to work and let Mueller do the same. SO far all that Mueller has done is strike out in the big game. ANybody can hit some in batting practice.
Guest
After this why would he fall into the trap. Trump expelled 60 Russians ans closed an embassy.
Why would he need to know whether Trump was going to put a halt to the Russia investigation in an interview. Walk up and ask him, it's not that tough, besides, if he said he would or would not, what does it matter to Mueller? He was hired to find collusion, this admission tells me he has found none and sees none on the horizon, turn the sign over, hit the lights and lock the door on your way out.Special counsel Robert Mueller told President Trump's attorneys last month that Mueller does not consider Trump to be a criminal target in his investigation of Russian actions during the 2016 campaign, The Washington Post reported Tuesday night.
The paper, citing "three people familiar with the discussions," reported that Mueller made the comments while negotiating with Trump's attorneys about a potential interview with the president. The Post also reported -- citing "two people with knowledge of the conversations" -- that Mueller reiterated his need to interview Trump to determine whether the president intended to halt the Russia investigation while in office.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...port-says.html
Charter Member
I never took you to be naive, Kevin, so it must be something else to actually put that in print.
A lawyers job often is to save a client from his own worst instincts.
...............
“You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out.” — Too fundamental to have an attribution
Charter Member
Neither you nor waco get it. This isn't about legalities. It is about the duty and burden of bearing a public trust. If you have to take the 5th, you've already violated that trust.
Charter Member
I am separating the issues of public trust and personal jeopardy. This is what neither you nor Tx are cottoning onto here.
If you have to worry that your answers may place you in personal legal jeopardy, you've already violated the public trust given you. It is the difference between taking the oath of office and feeling the spirit of it written on your bones. Lawyers focus on the letter of the law. After 33 years of service to the people of the United States, my understanding of what that means goes a bit further and that is the nub of the disagreement betwixt thee and me.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote