Home | About | Donate

Lawyer Immediately Claws Back Trump's Offer to Answer Mueller Questions "Under Oath"


#1

Lawyer Immediately Claws Back Trump's Offer to Answer Mueller Questions "Under Oath"

Published on
Thursday, January 25, 2018
by

President says he would "love" to be interviewed by Special Counsel in coming weeks, but lawyers forced to quickly clarify

U.S. President Donald Trump talks with journalists in the Oval Office on December 22, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Letting slip exactly the kind of unscripted and potentially reckless utterance a legal team might fear, President Donald Trump told reporters late Wednesday that he would "love to" be interviewed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team and would so "under oath"—an offer his lawyer later appeared to pull back when he said Trump was "speaking hurriedly" and only meant that he would submit to an interview, but not necessarily under sworn oath or to the grand jury Mueller has convened.

"I would love to do it, and I would like to do it as soon as possible," Trump said from the White House. "I would do it under oath, absolutely."

With reports this week indicating Mueller's team is now in serious talks with the president's lawyers about setting a date to answer questions, Trump on Wednesday denied to reporters that he or his campaign team did anything wrong. "There's been no collusion whatsoever," he said. "There's no obstruction whatsoever, and I'm looking forward to [the interview]."

Here's an extended portion of his remarks:

Pres. Trump told reporters he is "looking forward" to speaking with Robert Mueller and would be willing to do so under oath. https://t.co/o9B2eLgxLv pic.twitter.com/yAOmNQJokl

— ABC News (@ABC) January 25, 2018

During the exchange, Trump asks reporters whether or not Hillary Clinton testified under oath, though it's not clear exactly what testimony of his 2016 campaign rival he's referring to. However, according to the New York Times' Maggie Habberman—the reporter who asked him about taking an oath—it was also unclear whether or not the president understands the possible stakes when he talks to Mueller:

Potus, obsessed with Clinton still, asked me in response to my q about under oath whether she did to the FBI. He doesn’t seem to know that lying to the FBI even without being under oath is a crime. Perhaps Flynn can tell him https://t.co/xwr24iXn8Z

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) January 24, 2018

According to the Washington Post:

Trump's remarks took White House officials by surprise and came as his lawyers were negotiating with Mueller's team on a potential interview. The president's lawyers have repeatedly encouraged him not to post tweets or make comments about the investigation without their knowledge, saying such comments could damage him.

The president's statements suggest that he sees an obstruction-of-justice investigation as an unfair attack on attempts by him or others to mount a defense. It is not a crime for the subject of a criminal probe to assert their innocence or provide additional information to exonerate themselves. However, if a person takes steps to impede or stop such an investigation, that can amount to obstruction of justice.

Of course, given that Trump is a documented serial liar, there was immediate reaction about what it would and wouldn't mean for the president to say he would testify under oath:

I can't fathom why anyone would think it means anything that Trump said he is looking forward to talking to Mueller under oath. It means nothing. https://t.co/CFGlyq4pdJ

— Elizabeth de la Vega (@Delavegalaw) January 25, 2018

Trump made over 2,100 false or misleading statements last year according to the @washingtonpost. Now @realDonaldTrump will potentiality be placed under oath to answer questions about Flynn and Comey firings. https://t.co/3y0pP3lS5g

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) January 23, 2018

Soon after Trump's comments on Wednesday went public, his attorney Ty Cobb told the Times the president was speaking hurriedly and only intended to say he was willing to meet.

"He's ready to meet with them, but he'll be guided by the advice of his personal counsel," Mr. Cobb said.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

#2

Trump’s lawyer is even more ham-fisted than his client.

Firstly - as Trump has stated so many times, he in innocent. He’s not broken any laws, he’s not colluded with anyone, he’s not taken any dodgy money, met or authorised any meetings with dodgy Russian lawyers or nuffink.

Secondly, Trump has never lied. Not to the FBI, not to the American people, not to any of his ex-wives. So why would he not tell the complete truth to the FBI? Trump is so truthful (the most truthful EVER!) that it’s a waste of time even questioning him under oath, because he can be relied on to tell the truth, regardless of whether that conflicts with either testimony from others or actual evidence - that stuff is all FAKE NEWS.


#3

Where are the articles on CD about the coup against a sitting President? Doesn’t anyone on this site care about Democracy?


#4

So post some links to articles you think would influence the discussion.


#5

Trump and this travesty of a sham of a performance of a walking talking _____(fill in the blank) is only the latest in generations of games to isolate real human beings from engagement.

I for one regard predatory capitalism as obsolete as is post Citizen United charade of “governance”. The challenge is to beat these distortions at their own game. Keep an eye on this as it plays out, but more importantly ORGANIZE!

Heres one effort underway since 2003 and wisdom from hard knocks can go a long way:
Black Box Voting, founded in 2003, is a nonpartisan investigative reporting and public education organization for elections.


#6

Here you go:


#7

Thanks. I skimmed the article by Justin Raimondo, then went and looked up the author. He’s an Ayn Randian libertarian with a long history of right-wing conservatism. Definitely a opposing view to what we see here on CD, but not, in my opinion, a credible one.


#8

I disagree. I’m no libertarian but I’ve been reading Justin for years and he’s usually spot on. He’s anything but a right wing conservative when it comes to foreign policy.


#9

Hmmmm…now why do you suppose Trump wouldn’t answer questions UNDER OATH…hmm…I just can’t quite guess the answer to that…hmm…it eludes me…especially since he is totally innocent of any wrongdoing…hmm…


#10

hehe Thank you for this, John, I needed a good chuckle with my morning coffee, before another day of Trump-Insanity befalls us all. Your humor is much appreciated!


#11

Looks like the baby-sitter is going to have the last word.


#12

Oh, speechless, you are also clueless, aren’t you…or more like a troll. As the old saying goes: it’s hard to get a man to see the truth when his livelihood depends on him not seeing it. What’s your angle?


#13

Thanks ed, I will…aside from the corrupt entrenched clinton wing of the DP trying to explain away her miserable and corrupt prez run loss, there is much more criminal and treasonous interaction between “Russia” (actually the Russian oligarchs, banks, and mob) and trump’s financial dealings and his refusal to release tax returns. When will trumps “under-oath interview with Mueller” take place? When he releases his smoking-gun tax-returns!

““To understand the roots of the collusion, set aside Putin and follow the money. - the financial roots of the Trump-Russia collusion case.”

“The financial connections between Trump and various Russian banks and oligarchs (business elites with ties to the Kremlin) stretch back decades, which is likely a big reason why Trump won’t release his tax returns. Trump’s election, Gunitsky contends, presented Russian oligarchs with an opportunity to recoup losses and leverage Trump’s debts for political gain.”

"connect(ing) dots that could link Donald Trump, his associates, Germany’s Deutsche Bank, and Russian oligarchs. Now it appears she’s getting some help from Robert Mueller, the Russiagate special counsel, whose office has issued a subpoena to Deutsche Bank over accounts linked to various associates of the president.

The twin efforts could determine whether or not various members of Trump’s inner circle benefited from the flow of money-laundered funds from Russian oligarchs, through Germany and Cyprus, to Trump-linked businesses and people in Trump’s inner circle, including Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law."


#14

Do not forget he’s a Pathological Liar.

Trump will fight tooth and nail to not testify.

He’s got everything to lose from it.


#15

Firstly-Trump is as guilty as a hooker caught on her knees.

Secondly-Trump lies like a “rug.”

I rest my case.


#16

Hopefully Trump will ignore his attorneys and sing like a canary to Mueller anyway. But I am sure Trump will make up some excuse as to why he no longer can do it under oath, absolutely. It’s just another of his endless lies coming from his addled criminal brain.


#17

Of course any and all of us would be allowed to refuse an interview with any and all FBI people.


#18

No angle. Just a seeker of the truth. No easy task these days. Don’t be blind to what your government can and will do. Remember, they told you that Iraq had WMD…and millions died. Now you want to talk about Russian meddling?


#19

Trump has been like a “kid in a candy shop” since he cheated sufficiently to become the “resident of the White House.”

We all know that he truly believes that he is above the law.

Nixon fell and quite hard at that.

Trump will “crash and burn” with “Fire and Fury” like the world has never seen before.


#20

I find it funny that the sources of the above ‘reporting’ are notable for having agendas, from both left and right.

The national security apparatus has had the ability and opportunity to spy on communication between foreign and domestic entities for a long time. So, where’s the evidence of money laundering? They found evidence of that involving several banks, who paid fines and were even prosecuted. The NSA knew about meetings between the Trump campaign and Russians in Trump Tower. So how has Trump, allegedly an abetter of money laundering, not been prosecuted on those charges? One would wonder if those charges hold any water, right?