Here’s why I think Mueller won’t issue a subpoena:
First, it’s going to waste time. The subpoena would immediately become the subject of protracted litigation, all the way to the Supreme Court. As you pointed out, Clinton appeared voluntarily, so the constitutionality of issuing such a subpoena for a sitting president was never completed. Mueller is aware that his timing is critical, and I don’t think he wants to lose control of it.
Second, what will it accomplish? Mueller knows well that if Trump appears, he will do either of two things: a) Lie; or b) Assert his Fifth Amendment privilege. So what new could be learned?
Third, Mueller already knows the answers to his questions. His case is already built. Does any reasonable person have any reasonable doubt about the answers to any of those questions, based just on what we know that’s in the public sphere? Any reasonable doubt about Trump’s state of mind or his intent? I don’t think so.
For these reasons, I’ll be surprised as hell if he tries to subpoena Trump. In the course of any ordinary case, it would be very unusual for a prosecution to proceed in the absence of such a subpoena. But this case requires some special handling, like it or not.
Good catch. Correct, this was not a Mueller leak. However, as you pointed out, Mueller embodies sentiment of not putting something in writing that you’re not willing to see on the front page of the New York Times.
Dunno, but I doubt it. He’s a relentless iron-ass, he has played it strictly by the procedures, he’s had thousands of opportunities to leak stuff. By all appearances, he has held remarkable control. He isn’t allowing any openings, no turn unstoned.
Unless, of course, he already has everything but Trump’s answers. The only questions are whether Trump’s answers align with what he already knows to be true, or not. It is beyond anyone’s power to change the facts already at hand, so it doesn’t matter.
I’d think he would prefer that nothing was ever leaked, but under these presumed circumstances, he wouldn’t need to care all that much. Still, full knowledge and consent? This is not the way of the iron-ass.
I just read that the questions have already been delivered to Trump’s lawyers. Did everybody else already know that? Don’t know why Trump’s lawyers would have leaked it, but don’t know why Mueller would have either.
I don’t know, but it would be hysterical if Trump’s legal team drafted the perfect, non-reply replies for him, agreed for Trump to meet Mueller, and then the real questions were different.
On MSNBC a former prosecutor said that these were just categories of questions, and as answers were given there would be far more questions following up.
As for what Trump would do. Fifth Amendment would look bad, given that he said only mobsters used it, and also because his followers probably don’t get constitutional nuances. Plenty would stay loyal, but it would erode support.
As for lying, Mueller has interviewed plenty of people and as has been mentioned knows a lot of the answers.
As for Trump being given the answers. Of course he will be, but some of the questions will be new, and do you think with his attention deficit he could memorize the answers even to that set?
BTW, one of the interviewees mentioned that 2/3 of the questions were around obstruction of justice. I don’t think Trump can say he isn’t involved any more.
Here’s a snippet of what I suspect the interview might sound like.
What did you know about Sally Yates meeting with Mr. Flynn?.
No collusion, No collusion. It’s just a Democrat excuse for losing an election. They said we couldn’t get to 270. The lying Fake News tried to call me a loser. But did you see the map? The map just turned RED RED RED. You know, many people said my speech to the Boy Scouts was the best speech every made by a President. Many many people. I got so many calls the next day from the Boy Scouts saying it was the best speech ever then the lying fake CNN said it was BAD. But I think they’re BAD. And they’re leakers just like the hookers in the FAKE dossier. So disloyal.
Loyalty is important, right, Mr. Mueller.? Comey was so disloyal even though many many people wanted his job. Many many people have asked me for your job, Mr Mueller. Everyone says I should fire you but I said NO. I trust you to do the right thing. I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, letting this fake Russia investigation go. Hillary should be in jail for selling uranium to child prostitutes in a pizza parlor on Mars.
Or something like that…it funny that they think they could get a responsive answer from Trump.
But they forgot my favorite question - the one I really need answered.
Mr. President - Are the witches hunting you, or are YOU the witch?
This morning, Trump is tweeting that the leaked questions show there was no collusion because there were no questions about collusion. Despite all the questions about collusion.
Also, apparently it is impossible to obstruct justice if the original crime didn’t happen. Another Trump tweet this morning.
Cohen was slammed by The Enquirer on the cover page. When CNN asked him if he thought Trump was trying to send him a message through David Pecker’s Enquirer, Cohen replied “What do you think?”
If so, it looks like Cohen’s cooperation vs. loyalty is in play.
As many of you have undoubtedly noticed, I’m very reluctant to disagree with the overwhelming consensus of opinions in this thread. But nonetheless …
I’m not seeing the big significance of the Manafort question. Those familiar with the Steele dossier will be aware that it alleges that Manafort was the manager of the collusion with Russia, with the various other players working under him. It’s completely natural that Mueller would single him out. (Some seem to be treating this as some sort of left field question which perhaps indicates some hitherto unrevealed knowledge, but I don’t see it.)
More generally, I think people are mistaken in assuming that Mueller must already know the answers to all these questions, let alone in assuming that he knows that the answers are incriminating. Mueller has a responsibility to do a thorough investigation. If he does know the answer to a question he’ll ask it anyway - regardless of what he thinks the answer is - because perhaps Trump’s response will shed further light on the story (leaving aside the “perjury trap” angle) and if he doesn’t know the answer to a question he’ll ask it anyway because perhaps Trump’s response will shed further light on the story.
Most likely he doesn’t conclusively know or not know the answer to many questions, but rather has more or less confidence as to various aspects of the case. But regardless, he is going to ask the same questions anyway, because his job is to do as thorough of an investigation as possible and he would be remiss if he did not ask the most crucial questions to the central figure in the case.
I think the article in the Atlantic reports on the start of the conversation and Mueller’s question is about subsequent parts of that conversation that we haven’t seen yet. However, based on the the bits that we do know, it is completely unsurprising that Mueller has reason to believe that Manafort asked the Russians for help.
Or let me put it this way. The Atalantic article shows a willingness to collude on the part of Manafort. It’s a short trip from there to actual collusion in some form or another.
In defense of Phipps, since Bricker avoids Trump/Russia/Legal issues discussions in the manner of a person quarantining themselves against a cognitive and moral plague, F-P is the most verbose and, yes, interesting of the few defenders remaining.
