Honestly, I don't think this bill is as necessary as Flake keeps making it seem. I do think he's making Mitch go on record for blocking it, though.The Senate on Wednesday rejected Sen. Jeff Flake for the third time as he tried to pass a bill to protect special counsel Robert Mueller from being fired by President Trump.
Flake has been pushing for weeks to pass a bill that would keep Trump from firing Mueller before the end of his investigation into Russian election influence.
[...]
On Wednesday, Flake tried again by asking senators to agree unanimously to pass the same bill. But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said quickly, "I object," which blocked the move.
Washington Examiner
You mean like the Judicial and Legislative branches?In late November, Flake was blocked by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who said he worried the bill was unconstitutional because it would create a branch of government that isn't answerable to the president.
If Kavanaugh sits on the Supreme Court, and this case gets fast-tracked, I suppose it's possible he'll be hearing it. Guess how he'd vote.Special counsel Robert Mueller cited more than a century’s worth of presidential scandal on Friday as part of a sweeping legal defense of his own authorities.
The lead Russia prosecutor made the historical references — that attorney generals have needed special investigators dating back to the 1870s — in a legal brief to a federal appeals court considering the case of a reluctant witness tied to a longtime supporter of President Donald Trump who is seeking to have Mueller’s appointment thrown out on constitutional grounds.
“These instances—involving appointments by Attorneys General under Presidents Garfield, Theodore Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton—span nearly 140 years and include some of the most notorious scandals in the Nation’s history, including Watergate,” wrote Michael Dreeben, the deputy solicitor general on loan to the Mueller team.
At issue is the case of Andrew Miller, a former aide to Trump confidante Roger Stone who has so far failed in his bid to knock Mueller out of his post by challenging the legitimacy of several subpoenas seeking his documents and testimony in connection to the Russia probe.
A federal district court judge rejected Miller’s bid last month to quash the string of grand jury subpoenas, and the ex-Stone aide was later held in contempt of court — a precursor to his current appeal.
Politico
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.While Mueller reports to Rosenstein, Miller's lawyers argue that Justice regulations prevent the deputy attorney general from overturning many of the special counsel's decisions. That authority, they argue, should only be permitted for individuals appointed by the president.
[...]
In Friday's brief, Dreeben ticked through the history of Mueller's appointment — including Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recusal from all investigations tied to the 2016 presidential election because of his work on the Trump campaign — in arguing that special counsel was indeed properly appointed under Justice Department regulations.
Mueller is subject to routine supervision and oversight — from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein because of Sessions' recusal — on everything from his budget to hiring personnel and other key decisions.
[...]
Two federal judges earlier this year rejected efforts by former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort to have Mueller’s appointment invalidated. A Trump-appointed federal judge last month also rejected a bid by the Russian company Concord Management that challenged Mueller's jurisdiction after it was charged in connection to a Kremlin-linked online troll farm accused of targeting the American elections.
Miller's appeal leans on many of the same arguments raised by Concord.
[...]
Miller's defense team has an October 9 deadline to file its reply brief. Oral arguments are scheduled for November 8 — just two days after the upcoming midterm election.
On the other hand, even if he does manage to protect himself from Mueller, he's now facing other legal problems from the Trump Foundation corruption investigation in the Southern District of New York and from Stormy Daniels (and perhaps more similar cases). Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Mueller eventually (and particularly before Trump might have him fired) turns over money laundering and other personal criminal conduct cases against Himself and the whole Trump family to New York AGs. I think he'll be saving those for last.The implication of recent reporting is that [Trump's steps to protect himself from Mueller] will include, at a minimum, pardoning Manafort and firing Sessions. We can see his intentions both in overt and behind-the-scenes steps he’s taken against McGahn and Sessions in recent days, and in reports that he has consulted with his personal, criminal lawyers about both pardoning Manafort, firing Sessions, and impeachment.
[...]
If Republicans do well in the elections, all this scheming will have proved unnecessary, and Trump will be given a free hand to obstruct any investigation he’d like. But if Republicans lose one or both houses of Congress, the lame-duck period will be the critical window during which Trump can take corrupt steps to insulate himself from justice. By the time Democrats took control, their ability to set things right would be limited. They could conduct oversight, which would damage Republicans politically, but Republicans would at the very least have the power to block impeachment and the restoration of the Mueller investigation.
[...]
Trump’s best laid plans could come undone if Mueller secures more indictments between now and the election. But on the current course, a crisis appears inevitable.
Crooked
I have a guess.Lawyers for a Russian company accused of financing a massive political influence operation in the United States urged a federal judge Friday to “be brave” and declare special counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment invalid.
At a federal courthouse just steps from the U.S. Capitol, the Russian firm’s attorney — James Martin, an appellate lawyer with the Pittsburgh-based firm Reed Smith — urged District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich to look past Supreme Court precedent recognizing the appointment of the Watergate special prosecutor in the 1970s.
Mueller indicted the Russian company, Concord Management, in February along with 13 individual Russians.
[...]
The company contends that his appointment violates the Constitutions’ “appointments clause” because he was picked by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein instead of Trump or Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The company also asserts that the regulations governing special counsels — set out in 1999 — are “unlawful” and usurp congressional authority. Finally, Concord maintains that Rosenstein’s order to appoint Mueller last year improperly gave him nearly unchecked authority.
[...]
Concord, through its attorneys, has pleaded not guilty in the case.
[...]
Courts have already ruled twice to uphold Mueller’s appointment, most recently this week when the D.C. District Court’s chief judge Beryl Howell rejected an effort by Andrew Miller — a longtime associate of Trump confidant Roger Stone — to invalidate a Mueller-issued subpoena to testify. Miller's attorney had incorporated many of Concord’s arguments into his own briefs.
[...]
During Friday's hearing, Friedrich at times appeared open to Martin’s legal argument, even calling it “compelling” at one point, but underscored the significance of that Supreme Court precedent.
“Don’t I as a district court judge have to follow that?” she asked.
Martin argued that the Watergate precedent didn’t apply in this case because it was an acknowledgment made “in passing” by the Supreme Court at the time. As Friedrich wondered aloud about whether she should consider contradicting that precedent, Martin offered her advice.
“Well,” he said with a slight smile, “be brave.”
[...]
Friedrich, the first Trump-appointed judge to weigh the matter, gave few clues as to how she would ultimately rule on the question.
Politico
I see some saying this is expected, because the Justice Department guidelines prohibit indicting a sitting president. I have seen other people arguing this case. I've also seen arguments that Mueller wouldn't indict anyway (and heard the same from Preet Bharara, who was a US attorney with the Southern District of New York until Trump fired him) - that his preferred move would be to report to the AG (or in this case Rod Rosenstein) for an impeachment referral.Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has informed President Donald Trump's attorneys that they have concluded that they cannot indict a sitting president, according to the President's lawyer.
"All they get to do is write a report," Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani told CNN. "They can't indict. At least they acknowledged that to us after some battling, they acknowledged that to us."
CNN
As to whether the special prosecutor's team told Giuliani (or Trump lawyers) that there would be no indictment, we won't know, because Mueller's team doesn't leak, and whenever anyone asks for anything, Mueller's spokesman politely declines to comment.A lack of an indictment would not necessarily mean the President is in the clear. Mueller could issue a report making referrals or recommendations to the House of Representatives.
The inability to indict a sitting president has been the position of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department since the Nixon administration and reaffirmed in the Clinton administration, but it has never been tested in court.
2. And don’t forget the source: Giuliani. He’s not exactly a stickler for details.
3. Context may really matter here. Why did Mueller say this? Is it because Trump’s lawyers said they were thinking of taking 5th Am priv against self incrimination, and Mueller said there can be no "incrimination"?
4. If so, the DOJ policy against indictment of a sitting President may actually hurt Trump, and be an argument against his ability to stay silent. It might be a way to ferret out truth.
5. The reporting is clearly incomplete. The Special Counsel regs, which I drafted, do NOT say DOJ policy must always be followed. They say that a Special Counsel can ask Acting AG (Rod Rosenstein) for permission to depart from DOJ policy and rules. [ed: emphasis mine]
6. If Mueller has the goods on Trump, as I’ve said before, I think he will ask Acting AG to indict. The regs put a thumb on the scale in favor of Mueller doing so. If Rosenstein says no, it triggers a report to Congress-both majority and minority parties.
7. Otherwise, there is not necessarily such a report about these matters. The Special Counsel regulations dispensed with the "final report" requirement in the Independent Counsel Act. Reports are permissible, but not mandatory (but they are when Special Counsel overruled).
8. So I do not see this story as good for President Trump, in any way. END
Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, is among those pushing for a vote on the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, which would also give a special counsel the ability to go to court to challenge a firing.
“This compromise bipartisan bill helps ensure that special counsels – present or future – have the independence they need to conduct fair and impartial investigations,” Tillis said last week.
Democrats have also been pushing for action on the bill. But McConnell and other Republican leaders have shrugged off Trump’s comments, saying they don’t believe Trump will fire Mueller so there’s no need for legislation to protect the special counsel.
[...]
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday ruled out a Senate floor vote on legislation to restrict President Trump’s ability to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
[...]
McConnell’s went a step further than he has in the past — saying not only that he does not think the bill is necessary but also ruling out a floor vote even if the measure wins committee approval.
"I’m the one who decides what (bills) we take to the floor," McConnell said.
“We'll not be having this on the floor of the Senate,” McConnell, R-Ky., said during an interview with Fox News.
USA Today
I think we all know who the inferior officer is here.The Supreme Court is set to hear a seemingly minor case later this month on the status of administrative judges at the Securities and Exchange Commission, an issue that normally might only draw the interest of those accused of stock fraud.
But the dispute turns on the president's power to hire and fire officials throughout the government.
[...]
Trump's Solicitor Gen. Noel Francisco intervened in the SEC case to urge the high court to clarify the president's constitutional power to fire all "officers of the United States" who "exercise significant authority" under the law.
"The Constitution gives the president what the framers saw as the traditional means of ensuring accountability: the power to oversee executive officers through removal," he wrote in Lucia vs. SEC. "The president is accordingly authorized under our constitutional system to remove all principal officers, as well as all 'inferior officers' he has appointed."
LA Times
I'd like to put a question to those justices - in particular, Justice Roberts. Are they themselves considered "officers of the United States" and, if so, how do they feel about any future president having the power to fire them at will?The justices said they would focus only on how the SEC in-house judges are appointed. But Francisco is asking them to go further and rule on the "removal" issue.
[...]
In addition to representing the administration before the Supreme Court, Francisco, a former law clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, could be in line to oversee the Mueller inquiry if Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein is fired.
[...]
Francisco points to two provisions of the Constitution as giving the president very broad authority. One says the president shall appoint ambassadors, judges and "all other officers of United States." The other says the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
[...]
Francisco's defense of broad presidential power is likely to win favor with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the court's other conservatives. In 2010, Roberts spoke for a 5-4 majority that struck down a provision in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which created an independent public accounting board at the SEC whose members could be fired only for "good cause."
Roberts said shielding these "officers of the United States" from presidential control was unconstitutional.
[...]
On Friday the court agreed to Francisco's request to participate in the April 23 argument so he can advocate for a ruling on the president's removal power.
My concern here, of course, is that Berman may have reason to help Trump out.Like any good wolf trap, this set-up, first and foremost, protects the hunters. By referring the matter, Mueller and Rosenstein protected themselves from criticism of expanding the investigation. At the same time, they brought into the mix U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman, who Trump interviewed and nominated, as well as a neutral magistrate who signed the search warrant.
Any evidence gathered by Berman would be shared with Mueller and could be prosecuted directly in the Southern District. Moreover, even if Trump fired Mueller, he would have to move against the Southern District to shut down this investigation. That would play directly into calls for impeachment. The point of a wolf pit is that the more the wolf thrashes around, the more he harms himself.
Jonathan Turley @ The Hill
As I've noted, Trump's very large ass is hanging out in the wind.All of the lawyers around Trump have struggled mightily to control the damage caused by Cohen. Now, Cohen may force the next steps and put Trump at even greater peril. To make matters worse, Trump would fall into this particular trap with a lawyer who may have tossed away any protections for his client.
To use that privilege, you first have to confirm you are acting as a lawyer and not as a friend, fixer or business associate. Cohen seemed to relish his mixing of those roles, and that fluid, ambiguous role could now strip him and his principal client of the privilege. Cohen’s bizarre concept of representation is so convoluted and conflicted that, after months of litigation, we still are unclear as to whether Cohen was acting for himself or his client or his shell company in paying off adult film star Stormy Daniels just days before the election.
[...]
Even when a valid, clear attorney-client relationship exists, that privilege can be set aside in cases of crime or fraud. That is precisely what Cohen is being investigated for, in transactions extending from California to Russia to Ukraine. Already, Mueller not only has used that exception to strip away privilege from Manafort but he effectively turned Manafort’s attorney, Melissa Laurenza, into a witness against her client.
[...]
In running to Cohen’s rescue, the president could easily find himself the prize rather than the predator in this conflict.
Damn! They were hoping to get him occupied somewhere else while Comey makes his book tour.President Trump has scrapped his planned trip to Peru and Colombia, the White House announced Tuesday.
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Trump will remain in Washington to oversee the response to an apparent chemical weapons attack in Syria. Vice President Pence will travel in Trump’s place.
The Hill
Yeah, he wouldn't have had anything to offer on that anyway.The White House had already cut down the number of days Trump planned to spend in South America after Peru’s president resigned over corruption allegations.
[...]
The Summit of the Americas brings together leaders of Western Hemisphere nations to discuss issues facing the region. This year’s summit theme is “Democratic Governance Against Corruption.”
Well, not from the criticism, but from legal repercussions.The image of FBI agents carting away computers and records of Michael Cohen, President Trump’s personal lawyer, is just the latest cringeworthy moment from the life and times of the attorney. Few would be surprised by Cohen being criminally charged. However, Cohen’s greatest danger to Trump may be not as a defendant but as bait.
[...]
Media is reporting that Mueller went to Rosenstein with the evidence against Cohen for fraud and other offenses in Russia and Ukraine, including campaign finance violations in the very election that is the subject of the original mandate. Yet, now, Rosenstein reportedly wanted Cohen investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. If so, why? The offenses are far closer to Trump and the campaign than those allowed against Manafort.
This is why the referral to the Southern District was a move that may be as cunning as it is hostile. The timing and the manner of the raid have all of the characteristics of a wolf pit, and Trump — not Cohen — could prove to be the prize.
[...]
Until the raid, Trump appeared, finally, to be following the advice of his lawyers in the White House and preparing for a negotiated interview with Mueller. One day after reportedly starting to prepare for that interview, the president was thrown into a rage over the raiding of his personal lawyer’s office.
[...]
Like any good wolf trap, this set-up, first and foremost, protects the hunters. By referring the matter, Mueller and Rosenstein protected themselves from criticism of expanding the investigation.
Jonathan Turley @ The Hill
As well as a case in State court that cannot be presidentially pardoned.At the same time, they brought into the mix U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman, who Trump interviewed and nominated, as well as a neutral magistrate who signed the search warrant.
But, here's the clincher:At the time of his appointment, Berman was also a fellow shareholder and law partner of Rudy Giuliani at Greenberg Traurig. Berman has worked there for more than a decade. (Giuliani is a Trump ally and loyalist.) Berman’s LinkedIn profile shows that he remains a shareholder at Greenberg Traurig.
Berman is the son of Ronald Berman, a major real estate developer in New Jersey.
Wall Street on Parade
UPDATE: Addressing my concerns about Berman: he is recused.Just two days after Berman was named U.S. Attorney for the SDNY, he named Robert Khuzami to be his Deputy U.S. Attorney for that jurisdiction. More sirens went off. Khuzami was General Counsel to Deutsche Bank-Americas from January 2002 to February 2009. Deutsche Bank has been a major lender to Trump’s businesses for decades, even as other major Wall Street banks refused further lending to him. In January of last year, Deutsche Bank was charged with laundering billions of dollars out of Russia and paid approximately $630 million in fines.
SEBASTIAN GORKA: Lou, first things first, it's truly remarkable, everything that this man has accomplished in 15 months given the depths and the breadth of the swamp, and the lies and resistance to his agenda that we chose as the American people. But now it's war, Lou, this is political warfare. What happened to lawyer-client privilege? What happened the idea that you need a crime before you have a special prosecutor? These things have been thrown out the window, and now we have a fishing expedition that has turned into a witch-hunt. So, I'm glad the president has come out of the corner swinging, but when is the A.G. --
LOU DOBBS (HOST): You wouldn't have expected anything else, would you?
GORKA: No, no, but I want the A.G. to now withdraw his -- his recusal, and say, "This is out of bounds, this has nothing to do with your mandate," and Mueller has to be dealt with. He has to be fired, or he has to be asked, "What are you investigating that has anything to do with Russia?"
Media Matters
Lou Dobbs is a nut job from way back.Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs on Monday tore into the Department of Justice and Robert Mueller.
[...]
Dobbs and his guests launched a series of attacks on Mueller hours after the FBI raided the office and home of Michael Cohen, who made the now-infamous $130,000 payment to adult-film star Stormy Daniels.
"This is now a man that has to be brought under control, it would seem to me," Dobbs said of Mueller. "Frankly, I can’t imagine, because each of us has to come to terms with our own heart and conscience — I would fire the SOB in three seconds if it were me.”
[...]
Dobbs has frequently lavished praise on the president and supported unsubstantiated claims of a "deep state" with the federal government. Trump reportedly speaks with Dobbs for advice from time to time.
The Hill
I don't know who the "average American" is, but if he/she believes this is anything but politically motivated, the average American has been avoiding reality. And if the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has enough on its hands right now, could find otherwise, the average American can be sure there is nothing left of our government worth salvaging.Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday said he believes the Senate Judiciary Committee should hold a hearing on the firing of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
“I think we owe it to the average American to have a hearing in the Judiciary Committee where Attorney General [Jeff] Sessions comes forward with whatever documentation he has about the firing, and give Mr. McCabe the chance to defend himself,” Graham, a member of the panel, said on CNN’s “State of the Union."
“I believe when it comes to this issue we need as much transparency as possible to make sure it wasn’t politically motivated,” he added.
[...]
Graham reiterated on Sunday that he believes [firing Mueller] would be "the beginning of the end" of Trump's presidency.
[...]
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), also a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Saturday the panel should hold an oversight hearing on the Trump administration's attacks on the FBI and Justice Department.
The Hill
But, Christie is still an idiot.“As for Bob Mueller, he’s conducted this investigation so far with great integrity, without leaking and by showing results,” Christie said on ABC's “This Week."
The Hill
That's precisely the kind of person Trump would fire.“I don’t think the president is going to fire someone like that.”
Perhaps he should say it again.House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Sunday that President Trump should let special counsel Robert Mueller carry out his investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
“As the Speaker has always said, Mr. Mueller and his team should be able to do their job,” AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for Ryan, said in a statement issued Sunday.
The Hill
Unless somebody else gets to him quickly, I have a feeling that's coming.President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, John Dowd, told The Daily Beast on Saturday morning that he hopes Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will shut down Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russia’s election interference.
[...]
“I pray that Acting Attorney General Rosenstein will follow the brilliant and courageous example of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility and Attorney General Jeff Sessions and bring an end to alleged Russia Collusion investigation manufactured by McCabe’s boss James Comey based upon a fraudulent and corrupt Dossier,” Dowd then wrote.
[...]
As late as mid-December, another Trump lawyer, Ty Cobb, had brushed aside talk of stopped Mueller’s investigation, stressing that there was "no consideration at the White House of terminating the special counsel." The president himself has called the Mueller probe a “witch hunt,” but has not publicly urged Rosenstein to shutter it.
The Daily Beast
Somebody smarter than either Trump or Dowd stepped in, obviously. And Trump is apparently fuming about it. Add that to the recent subpoena of the Trump Organization, along with the Stormy Daniels interview and James Comey book tour, and there is a grave danger of his head exploding. I just hope it happens before he pulls some other outrageous act.When The Daily Beast initially asked Dowd if he was speaking on behalf of the president, he answered, “Yes as his counsel.” After publication of this story, however, Dowd emailed to say he was actually speaking in his personal capacity, and not on the president’s behalf.
There are some important points in this article, among them the idea that foreigners trolling our elections isn't illegal unless they hide their identities, which the Russians did, and how that ties to Manafort/Gates' failure to register as foreign agents. That sounds to me like the whole operation could have been perfectly legal if the Trump cabal (and its Russian allies) had registered with the USG. Very interesting, if true. I can imagine a disclaimer such as "This ad paid for by the Kremlin" might be problematic in a campaign, but what about "This ad paid for by Israel"? That might actually have a positive effect in large circles.The 13 Russians charged in the IRA [Internet Research Agency, the Russian information warfare (troll) factory] indictment — which include Yevgeniy Prigozhin, the close Putin associate who owns the company, those in charge of the operation (which was not limited to US targeting), down to a few of the analysts who did the troll work — will never be extradited to the US, though the most senior among them will surely be sanctioned. Nor will Putin in any way retaliate against them — they were doing work he approved of! Further, by criminalizing “information warfare” (as the Russians admitted they were engaged in, and as we do too, under the same name) we risk our own information warriors being indicted in other countries.
So what purpose did the indictment serve? Here are some thoughts:
Marcy Wheeler
Or a truck load of coincidence. Not that it would make a difference to whether this was all done to influence the election, but would you organize rallies to be held the day after the public gets a whiff of incriminating Clinton emails, or would you allow more time for that to become more widely known so as to get more attendance? Or am I missing Wheeler's point?The description of a IRA-organized event at Trump Tower the day after WikiLeaks dropped the DNC emails, in particular, suggests the possibility of a great deal of coordination, coordination with people in the US.
Perhaps they were informed by Rick Gates, who is apparently now cooperating with Mueller's investigation.Special counsel Robert Mueller’s office has told a federal judge it has found evidence that Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman, committed bank fraud not addressed by the indictment last October in which he was charged with money laundering and failure to register as a foreign agent.
As legal wrangling continues over a $10 million bail package for Manafort, prosecutors this week accused him of submitting false information to a bank in connection with one of his mortgages.
Politico
Gee, who else do we know who regularly overstates his income and secured a huge loan after being turned down by Deutsche Bank, not from a different bank, but from a different department of Deutsche Bank?No criminal charges are known to have been filed over the alleged fraud, and Mueller’s office does not say in the filing whether it intends to bring any.
The filing by Mueller’s office says Manafort obtained a mortgage using “doctored profit and loss statements” overstating “by millions of dollars” the income for his consulting company, DMP International. Prosecutors appear to be referring to a $9.5 million mortgage that Federal Savings Bank of Chicago extended in late 2016 to a Manafort-linked firm, Summerbreeze LLC.
If you're interested, here's a post from last summer about Mr. Calk, Federal Savings Bank, and Paul Manafort.Prosecutors’ references to “conspiracies” suggest that someone beyond Manafort was involved in the alleged fraud, but no further details were given.
[...]
A report in The Wall Street Journal last year said investigators from the office of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman were examining loans that Manafort obtained in connection with various real estate transactions, including mortgages issued by Federal Savings Bank. That and other articles also noted that the bank’s chairman, Stephen Calk, was an economic adviser to the Trump campaign.
Oh, yes, this is going to drag on forever - at least until he gets his four years in - unless something drastic happens, like Mueller bringing criminal charges for money laundering. Fingers crossed.Lawyers for President Trump have advised him against sitting down for a wide-ranging interview with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, according to four people briefed on the matter, raising the specter of a monthslong court battle over whether the president must answer questions under oath.
NYT
I'd say the chances of that are about 100%.His lawyers are concerned that the president, who has a history of making false statements and contradicting himself, could be charged with lying to investigators.
And that body is no longer reliable. But at least he'd have to go through some lower courts to get there, which presumably would be public.Refusing to sit for an interview opens the possibility that Mr. Mueller will subpoena the president to testify before a grand jury, setting up a court fight that would drastically escalate the investigation and could be decided by the Supreme Court.
That was a different Supreme Court and a time when most Americans still wanted an honest government.Presidents have often agreed to speak with federal prosecutors who are investigating their actions or those close to them. But President Richard M. Nixon refused to turn over to the special prosecutor investigating him tapes of incriminating conversations with aides. The matter eventually went before the Supreme Court, which ruled in 1974 that the president, like every American, was not above the law and had to comply with the special prosecutor’s request.
If Mueller thinks Trump's testimony is necessary, he'll subpoena. I don't imagine at this point he's worried about losing in court. He's not reading all these speculatory articles or watching TV news coverage of his investigation. He's just doing his job. He'll be getting pretty close to some money laundering charges against the Trump organization, and they're still giving him fuel for his obstruction of justice investigation.Rejecting an interview with Mr. Mueller also carries political consequences. It would be certain to prompt accusations that the president is hiding something, and a court fight could prolong the special counsel inquiry, casting a shadow over Republicans as November’s midterm elections approach or beyond into the president’s re-election campaign.
[...]
John Dowd, the longtime Washington defense lawyer hired last summer to represent Mr. Trump in the investigation, wants to rebuff an interview request, as do Mr. Dowd’s deputy, Jay Sekulow, and many West Wing advisers, according to the four people. The lawyers and aides believe the special counsel might be unwilling to subpoena the president and set off a showdown with the White House that Mr. Mueller could lose in court.
Do they really believe that, or is that their public face?They are convinced that Mr. Mueller lacks the legal standing to question Mr. Trump about some of the matters he is investigating, like the president’s role in providing a misleading response last summer to a New York Times article about a meeting Mr. Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. had with Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. The advisers have also argued that on other matters — like the allegations that the president asked James B. Comey, then the F.B.I. director, to end the investigation into the former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn — the president acted within his constitutional authority and cannot be questioned about acts that were legal.
I'm surprised they've kept him around.One of the few voices arguing for cooperating with Mr. Mueller is Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer whom Mr. Trump also brought on to deal with Mr. Mueller’s investigation. Since Mr. Cobb was hired in July, he has argued that the White House should do everything possible to cooperate with Mr. Mueller’s investigation.
These are different times. We're in shark-infested waters without a boat, much less a paddle.“In general,” [said Neal K. Katyal, a partner at the law firm Hogan Lovells], “presidents do sit for interviews or respond to requests from prosecutors because they take their constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws seriously, and running away from a prosecutor isn’t consistent with faithfully executing the laws.”
That last part is key. His bragging is no different than his bragging about his vast riches while refusing to release his tax returns to prove it.The president has bragged to some aides that he would be able to clear himself if he talked to Mr. Mueller’s team.
“I’m looking forward to it, actually,” Mr. Trump told reporters at the White House last month, though he added, almost as an afterthought, that an interview would be “subject to my lawyers, and all of that.”
