NYT: Fearing Perjury Trap, Trump Lawyers Say Don't Meet Mueller

[mystery-ak]

By Cathy Burke    |   Monday, 05 Feb 2018 09:08 PM



President Donald Trump's lawyers are advising him to refuse an interview with Russia investigation special counsel Robert Mueller, The New York Times reported Monday.

The decision — expected in the coming weeks — could trigger a long court battle over whether Trump must answer questions under oath, and could wind up being decided by the Supreme Court, the Times reported.

According to the Times, the president's lawyers are concerned he could be charged with lying to investigators; Trump himself has announced he looks forward to talking with Mueller as part of the probe into Russia's interference in the 2016 election.

more
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/lawyers-jay-sekulow-testify-fbi/2018/02/05/id/841612/

[WingNot]

Lawyers don't ask questions of people they don't already have the answers to. I'd say it would be prudent for Trump to listen to the advice of his legal team. 

[Bigun]

Lawyers don't ask questions of people they don't already have the answers to. I'd say it would be prudent for Trump to listen to the advice of his legal team.

I strongly second the motion!

[Sanguine]

I strongly second the motion!

And, I'll third it. 

[aligncare]

I’ve gone back and forth on this but finally settled on no, President Trump shouldn’t wade in to these murky waters with scaly swamp creatures, no matter how confident he is of his position. The Special Counsel has far more discretion and far less legal restraints than your average run-of-the-mill prosecutor. I hope the president stays away.

[Oceander]

I agree as well. 

[skeeter]

Don't do it.

It'd be like throwing Mueller a ring bouy.

[edpc]

If the president refuses to sit for an interview, Mueller could subpoena the president to testify before a grand jury. A subpoena could trigger a court fight that might ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.

John Dowd and Jay Sekulow, who lead a team of lawyers advising Trump, want the president to refuse an interview request, the Times said.

The lawyers and some Trump aides believe Mueller might be unwilling to subpoena the president and set off a showdown with the White House that the special counsel could lose in court, the Times reported.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-lawyers-want-him-refuse-mueller-interview-request-025246892.html?.tsrc=bell-brknews


I think they’re wrong and Mueller would issue the subpoena for the public pressure, if nothing else.

[bilo]

Why in the world take questions under oath from the former head of the FBI. The same FBI that is so corrupted with political operatives that they use phony documents to get surveillance warrants. The same FBI that ignores the law in order to protect candidates they support. Taking questions from these people makes no sense.

Hopefully Trump will listen to his attorneys.

[aligncare]

If the president refuses to sit for an interview, Mueller could subpoena the president to testify before a grand jury. A subpoena could trigger a court fight that might ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.

John Dowd and Jay Sekulow, who lead a team of lawyers advising Trump, want the president to refuse an interview request, the Times said.

The lawyers and some Trump aides believe Mueller might be unwilling to subpoena the president and set off a showdown with the White House that the special counsel could lose in court, the Times reported.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-lawyers-want-him-refuse-mueller-interview-request-025246892.html?.tsrc=bell-brknews


I think they’re wrong and Mueller would issue the subpoena for the public pressure, if nothing else.

Could backfire on Mueller big-time. None of this exists in a vacuum. Mueller is well aware of his team’s weaknesses, especially the Steele dossier’s role in obtaining the FISA warrant which had been signed by four high level people four separate times, including James Comey who first described the dossier directly to the president as baseless junk, yet he still signed the application.

[edpc]

Could backfire on Mueller big-time. None of this exists in a vacuum. Mueller is well aware of his team’s weaknesses, especially the Steele dossier’s role in obtaining the FISA warrant which had been signed by four high level people four separate times, including James Comey who first described the dossier directly to the president as baseless junk, yet he still signed the application.

The subpoena would more likely be used as a tool to negotiate some sort of Q&A, as it did in this case…

Bannon also told the panel that he’d also been served with a subpoena earlier from the grand jury working with special counsel Robert Mueller. Bannon seems to be taking that a little more seriously. According to NBC News, Bannon plans to cooperate fully with Mueller, which may relieve him of the need to go to the grand jury at all.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/01/17/nbc-bannon-will-answer-questions-mueller-wants-ask/

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

One thing about Trump that I do know, he almost always listens to his lawyers. No joke either.

[Concerned]

I think the only thing worse for the President than voluntarily answering questions under oath with his attorneys present would be being subpoenaed and answering questions before a grand jury without his attorneys present.

[skeeter]

Could backfire on Mueller big-time. None of this exists in a vacuum. Mueller is well aware of his team’s weaknesses, especially the Steele dossier’s role in obtaining the FISA warrant which had been signed by four high level people four separate times, including James Comey who first described the dossier directly to the president as baseless junk, yet he still signed the application.

There's no good reason not to accept answers in writing.

[edpc]

There's no good reason not to accept answers in writing.

Similar to the Judicial Watch request to have Hillary sit for a deposition.

The judge denied that request, but granted the conservative group’s separate request for interrogatories, the legal term for written questions that the other side must answer in writing. This will give Clinton several weeks to work with her lawyers to carefully craft her responses in an effort to avoid a “smoking gun” moment, but they are still answers given under oath.

Sullivan’s approach here is reasonable. Depositions and interrogatories are both under oath, so if Clinton lies, it’s perjury either way. The judge is doubtless sensitive to the fact that allowing videotaped depositions would instantly translate to political attack ads. He’s trying to keep the case from becoming a media circus, but still moving the litigation forward into dangerous territory for Clinton.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/21/judge-orders-hillary-clinton-to-answer-questions-under-oath-in-email-lawsuit/

However, if Trump wants to stay true to form, he should tweet the answers.

[Oceander]

It’s worth the fight, to the Supreme Court it need be, for Trump to refuse to talk to Mueller, but agree to answer written questions with written answers.  That way, Trump and his lawyers can do their damnedest to make sure that they avoid any perjury-trap land mines, because I think it’s correct that Mueller would most likely try to catch Trump in a perjury snare, and as well all know from both Trumps own prior experiences of testifying, where he likes to shoot from the lip, so to speak, expatiate, and defend himself, and as we should all know from our own experiences of getting tripped up by others when in conversation, answering questions orally is most likely going to cause Trump to say something that will technically fit a very narrow definition of perjury. 

Trump and his team should fight for written answers to written questions, or nothing at all. 

[Right_in_Virginia]

There's no good reason not to accept answers in writing.

I agree @skeeter   

[Hoodat]

Speaking of perjury, can we see Rosenstein's sworn statement before the FISA court?

[Bigun]

Speaking of perjury, can we see Rosenstein's sworn statement before the FISA court?

That would be very informative I think!

[WingNot]

I think it’s correct that Mueller would most likely try to catch Trump in a perjury snare, and as well all know from both Trumps own prior experiences of testifying, where he likes to shoot from the lip, so to speak, expatiate, and defend himself, and as we should all know from our own experiences of getting tripped up by others when in conversation, answering questions orally is most likely going to cause Trump to say something that will technically fit a very narrow definition of perjury. 

Trump and his team should fight for written answers to written questions, or nothing at all.

 

[anubias]

It’s worth the fight, to the Supreme Court it need be, for Trump to refuse to talk to Mueller, but agree to answer written questions with written answers.  That way, Trump and his lawyers can do their damnedest to make sure that they avoid any perjury-trap land mines, because I think it’s correct that Mueller would most likely try to catch Trump in a perjury snare, and as well all know from both Trumps own prior experiences of testifying, where he likes to shoot from the lip, so to speak, expatiate, and defend himself, and as we should all know from our own experiences of getting tripped up by others when in conversation, answering questions orally is most likely going to cause Trump to say something that will technically fit a very narrow definition of perjury. 

Trump and his team should fight for written answers to written questions, or nothing at all.

Great comment @Oceander 

[edpc]

It’s worth the fight, to the Supreme Court it need be, for Trump to refuse to talk to Mueller, but agree to answer written questions with written answers.  That way, Trump and his lawyers can do their damnedest to make sure that they avoid any perjury-trap land mines, because I think it’s correct that Mueller would most likely try to catch Trump in a perjury snare, and as well all know from both Trumps own prior experiences of testifying, where he likes to shoot from the lip, so to speak, expatiate, and defend himself, and as we should all know from our own experiences of getting tripped up by others when in conversation, answering questions orally is most likely going to cause Trump to say something that will technically fit a very narrow definition of perjury. 

Trump and his team should fight for written answers to written questions, or nothing at all.

This would be the best approach, but you had better hope it's someone other than Sekulow and Dowd heading it up.  On separate occasions, they both botched the handling of tweets that were 140 characters, or less.  Hard to say what they'd do with pages of questions.