Flout.
Yes. I thought about this last night. But then again I could make it “flaunt their contempt for…”
I propose to coin a new word, “flount” which is to express an extremely exhibitionistic and publicly aggressive contempt for something. Sorry about my mispelling of that in the prior posts. Now if I walk out of the room backwards I think I can make this work.
How about flart, which is expressing public contempt for something while producing a loud noise and a bad smell?
Personally I think it’s retarded to think that an interview 1) was necessary, 2) would have accomplished anything, or 3) would have been agreed to.
Well, what are you gonna do? Mr. “I’m not talking about breaking the law”, what exactly are you proposing? Besides whining and making dumbass claims about how if Mueller had worn a different tie Trump would have been executed by now and thus the fact he DIDN’T wear a different tie means that he’s secretly a Trump supporter who just compiled that all that evidence into a report by accident.
Sure it would have. 2) specifically. There is no way that Trump would have handled quesioning of that sort without lying. No chance in hell, not a chance at all. Mueller got convictions in actual courts because people (Trump’s people) lied to him.
2 iff 3, eh?
Mueller could have pushed for that. He could have tried to push, anyway. Or even glanced at the thought of trying to push. Instead, he made it known that written answers would suffice. Shit, Mueller even stated in his congressional appearance that the written replies were incomplete, and IIRC he even said untruthful.
I think the part that’s not understood by those saying Mueller should have subpoenaed Trump is how long it would have taken to get a dispositive ruling on that subpoena.
Since it is an unsettled area of the law, SCOTUS would have taken it up, and it would have taken forever to get to SCOTUS. Between general stonewalling (asking for continuances, etc.), briefing schedules, rulings and appeals, the delay could easily have lasted well into 2021 if not longer. And in the end, all Trump would have done is appear and responded, “I assert my rights under the Fifth Amendment,” in response to every question.
Does anyone really feel it would have been useful to await that outcome until long past the 2020 election?
So what you’re saying is, he got a written record of Trump hedging and lying, on the record. Mission complete!
Sure, have a look around. It’s complete.
It’s as complete as it would have been if he’d gotten Trump in front of him in person.
What you nimrods are forgetting is he couldn’t indict Trump. So even if you willfully ignore the fact that Trump wouldn’t have deigned to appear before we all died of old age, it remains an indisputable fact that all Mueller would have done with such an interview would be to write it into his fucking report. Where it would boil down to a footnote* that would be buried under all the piles of evidence of wrongdoing much worse than “gibbered incoherently and lied some in an interview”.
There is no sane interpretation of events where such an interview would make a difference where the incredibly damning contents of the report did not. You insane fuckers are just pretending otherwise to grasp at straws and find something, anything you can point at to try and frame the current events as the result of, literally, a fucking conspiracy.
- Note: Trump’s response to the questions posed was mostly incoherent, and is demonstrated to be lies. See all the other evidence in this report.
Flart sounds like something that goes away eventually. We can only hope…
-
It was necessary to have an interview, if it is a full investigation of a “crime of intent.” It was.
-
You have no idea of what it might accomplish at all. Maybe donald will run rings around those high tone lawyers. Maybe not? But why are you so triggered by it? Most would say dt is not up to it and so such an interview would be supportive of democracy. We don’t know yet.
-
I have no thoughts on whether he would agree. It’s irrelevant, unless we are going to go all “dear leader” about dt.
So he wastes time. When someone fails to testify under order that can be taken as a sign of guilt. We should have been keeping track of every one of these instances from the beginning.
It’s a question of the “oath” not the law. He was in violation of it on day 1 or so. So after that I don’t give him a pass on anything. He is dead man walking in the government to me.
If Mueller had held out for an interview we have no idea the kinds of things that would ensue. But it would not be a lost opportunity to get dt. As it happened, even without an interview, they spun away from it and it seemingly worked. There would be no opportunity cost for telling dt that he needs to come in and talk, or else resign.
Conspiracy. That’s cool. Nobody is or has claimed there was a conspiracy. Did Mueller conspire with Trump? And you call someone else insane? No, there was just one man who tried to do his best, but he could not.
I thought we already had a word for that: trump. And if it’s really egregious, then it’s presidentin’ trump.
An “investigation” is when you work and find out where things go in the scheme, in a way that might surprise you. Whether you can indict or not, whether they are cooperative or not.
What you are talking about is where you already know what is going to happen and nothing can be done, so you just punch the clock and mark time until you can retire. Why did we have to hear all the claptrap about how he was a marine and he was in viet nam if he couldn’t even manage a subject who was reticent?
Open up the tired eyes
Imagine if Mueller came into the job by implying that any real investigation, by a real American and a real marine, needs an interview to be done, and dt was in the barrel?
Could that have been a way to save a year or two of dt in the white house? If it had jump started the impeachment it might have.
(He gets it. 
Hey Mikey, he gets it!)