But he does keep and feed a deep abiding hate for anyone who refuses to kiss his fat nasty ass sufficiently.
Just a thought. Is Putin going to be at Davos?
It’s been awhile since Trump has had a chance for a strategy meeting with his handler.
He’s had the job for a year. Time for his performance review.
Trump will have to answer questionsabout how he totally didn’t obstruct justice.
ISTM that this is an indication that Mueller does not suspect Trump of being involved in campaign collusion with Russia. Otherwise he’d be asking about that too.
But as I observed upthread, ISTM that Trump is in some jeopardy in being interviewed by Mueller, on any subject. Thinking along the same lines, from the WP:
Maybe Meuller doesn’t want to tip his hand or scare off potential witnesses. Who knows. I keep hoping he already knows everything and is waiting to catch the perps in their own lies.
I’m not sure I see any reason to believe that these two lines require simultaneous action. Plus, seems weird to obstruct justice to cover up something that didn’t happen.
I would consider those peripheral, the central issue being that he’s a liar who doesn’t realize he’s also an idiot.
Any interview with Trump is going to be heavily negotiated down to the last detail. I can’t imagine Mueller is going to lie to Trump’s people about what the subject of the interview is. If he says it’s about those firings, then you would have to think that’s what it will be about.
Not at all. People far smarter than Trump do this all the time.
That’s pretty much the same thing, cutting out the euphemisms.
This IS the central issue of anything concerning him.
Investigations proceed along different tracks. What is needed to prosecute in the conspiracy/“collusion” track is much more involved, time-consuming and international in nature than what is needed to prosecute in the obstruction track, which involves far fewer witnesses and is a local crime, meaning within the borders of our own nation. Much easier to obtain documentary evidence and testimony of witnesses by subpoena here than overseas.
Looks to me like Mueller is getting ready to commence his prosecutions on the obstruction track. In addition to getting that particular train rolling out of the station, it will probably take some heat off the investigators as they work on the more challenging and time consuming track of conspiracy/“collusion,” which by its nature will take much longer to finish up.
Why does it need to be “heavily negotiated”, especially when dealing with a person who is well known for negotiating in bad faith and not honoring the deal? It’s been established his word is worthless and he breaks deals as fast as he makes them.
A guy with a fistful of sealed indictments, who has already made indictments, who has the power to subpoena, and who has a shit load of the dots already connected, does not really have to negotiate. I’m sure his computer experts and “money trail” experts have found plenty too.
This is a criminal investigation. It is light years away from that Senate farce.
Because whether a president can be forced to testify is not settled law. (Bill Clinton had to be forced by court order, but that was a civil suit.)
If you’re talking about the Strzok quote, then it’s worth noting that Strzok is a different person than Mueller and we don’t know how involved he was with any Trump investigations previous to being considered for Mueller’s team.
From the Strzok quotes that have been released to-date, I don’t get the sense that the man is much of an optimist, in general. I don’t think he’s evaluating Trump’s guilt, he’s evaluating the odds that the group will find a smoking gun that will allow them to slam dunk it and have it be good for his career advancement. If it’s just a whole bunch of Benghazi style political nonsense, then it’s just a waste of time to go into. He’s not made up his mind at that time (which is good - other than the desire to use it as a mechanism for career advancement by proving Trump guilty - but even there he’d still need to prove him guilty).
You mean that the crime he admitted to on national television is an easier case than the one involving international money laundering over decades? Surely, you jest!
Why don’t you just click on the linked article and see what it’s about?
It is also not settled law that he can not be forced. It gets interesting if the Dems can actually take the House and Senate (I’m not holding my breath for a gang that likes to shoot their own foot) and manage to impeach/fire him first. Then he is no longer a sitting president and he can no longer use the Nixon Defense (It isn’t illegal if…"). It also should not protect him on things he did before getting elected (and there’s plenty there too).
Personally I don’t think it was ever intended for a president to be totally immune from or above the law. They have leeway to protect them from policy decisions, but not (I hope) when it comes to criminal matters.
<snapping fingers and pointing at Fiveyearlurker…> Yeah!! That’s the one!! 
Right. (That’s implied in the term “whether a …” BTW.)
But since it’s not completely settled one way or the other, that gives the prez some leverage, with which to negotiate terms.
Worth noting, BTW, that whether a president can be indicted is even less settled law than whether he can be forced to testify.
In theory, no president should be above the law. The flip side of that is that you wouldn’t want to give every DA in the country the ability to indict the president (of an opposing party :))