In subpoena fight, Trump lawyer told Mueller: ´You want to do it, you´ve got yourself a war´
Washington Examiner,
by
Byron York
Original Article
Posted By: Judy W.,
3/29/2019 1:46:02 PM
Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller completed his investigation without ever interviewing President Trump. The two sides wrangled over the issue for much of the Mueller investigation before Trump finally agreed to answer questions in writing. Now, in a new podcast interview, a former lawyer for the president, John Dowd, said the wrangling became so contentious that he threatened Mueller with "war" if the special counsel subpoenaed the president. Dowd, who was Trump´s lawyer from June 2017 to March 2018, said Mueller was hampered by two daunting problems. The first was that Mueller could not establish that a crime had occurred
Reply 1 - Posted by:
IowaDad 3/29/2019 1:50:27 PM (No. 17063)
The only result from an in-person interview would be an allegation of perjury -- so (in the absence of collusion) why even consider an appearance?
33 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
TulsaTowner 3/29/2019 1:50:59 PM (No. 17056)
More likely to spring a perjury trap --
36 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Newtsche 3/29/2019 2:12:34 PM (No. 17061)
It´s funny, I was just thinking how Trump never sat down with the Mueller Inquisition and a conclusion was still reached. I expect the usual suspects to bring this up and demand some sort of legal interrogation. Having no basis for such demands wouldn´t be a factor for the loudmouths.
16 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
dman 3/29/2019 2:18:04 PM (No. 17064)
Thank God that President Trump had Guiliani et al on board to avoid Mueller´s perjury trap. Where, indeed, was Mueller´s sit down with Hillary and Obama?
Now about the Jarvanka/Goldman-Sachs crowd still infesting the West Wing ..
24 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
zephyrgirl 3/29/2019 2:22:25 PM (No. 17069)
Trump´s lawyers were smart - Mueller had no basis for a subpoena. The only reason for an interview was to try to trap Trump with a bogus process crime. For once, Andrew Weissmann met his match.
35 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
bhkat 3/29/2019 2:26:22 PM (No. 17055)
They wanted to get him on perjury, no doubt about it.
24 people like this.
That Trump´s lawyers vigorously defended him, and his rights, is not news. It´s what you pay a lawyer to do for you.
32 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Quigley 3/29/2019 2:47:01 PM (No. 17060)
I can’t imagine what evidence of obstruction would be.
First I’d need to know what was obstructed and when. What’s the corpus delicti? In a murder case there’s a body. In a burglary there’s stolen goods. Prosecutors don’t just start investigating a burglary because there’s somebody in town they don’t like. (Unless s/he is a dimoKKKrap).
What was obstructed? When? How? Who was prevented from investigating what?
16 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
TLCary 3/29/2019 2:50:53 PM (No. 17062)
By the time they even talked about it Muller knew there was no collusion and the charges were from a bogus source. The coup d´é·tat was failing so they wanted Trump to help them with the cause. He declined.
Schiff will claim this is grounds for Impeachment.
Thwarting a Democratic coup d´é·tat is of course an impeachable offense.
21 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Pepper Tree 3/29/2019 3:05:48 PM (No. 17066)
Obstruction of Justice democrat-style means some republican or other is not enthusiastically enlisting to join in on his own witch hunt.
Democrat Justice, on the other hand, is a full exoneration of a high democrat official who has destroyed subpoenaed evidence or dropping charges on a stupid hate crime hoaxer who has been fully busted.
22 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Geoman 3/29/2019 4:04:47 PM (No. 17065)
York is muckraking, trying to prolong the sense of Inquisition.
14 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
bighambone 3/29/2019 4:28:09 PM (No. 17058)
By not making the decision to exonerate President Trump on the obstruction of justice claim relating to Trump firing James Comey, Robert Mueller and his Democrat legal crew were throwing a bone to Comey and the Democrats. As why would the President or anyone else need to be exonerated by the US criminal justice system if they were never charged with a specific offense in the first place?
20 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
caljeepgirl 3/29/2019 4:32:05 PM (No. 17057)
Sounds to me like Mr. Dowd earned every penny of his fees.
14 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 3/29/2019 4:39:09 PM (No. 17067)
"[Mueller] said, ´Well, John, I need to know what was in the president´s head,´"
What arrogance. Was Mueller going to prosecute Trump for inappropriate thoughts? I didn´t matter what Trump was thinking, it mattered what he did. Mueller was at a dead end and he thought he could pressure Trump. But Mueller wasn´t going to get away with storm trooper raids of Trump´s house. And Trump had the financial and legal resources to make Mueller look like a moron in court.
"By early December, he had exhausted all of the evidence and the witnesses"
So for 14 months they tried unsuccessfully to strongarm people into lying about more serious crimes than the petty baloney they had.
""While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Dowd said he was perplexed by Mueller´s decision not to make a decision."
It´s not surprising. Mueller didn´t like Trump. He didn´t like that Trump fought back and often made Mueller´s efforts seem incompetent. This "no exoneration" was deliberately left as a loose end to keep things roiled up. Mueller had no evidence of obstruction or he would have said he did. So he weaseled the possibility of "something" so that Trump couldn´t claim total victory. Barr saw that Mueller was selling garbage and closed it off. The dems are squealing about it but they would have been squealing about something no matter what.
It´s great to have a president who fights.
23 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Mass Minority 3/29/2019 6:29:55 PM (No. 17059)
Muellar knew there was no crime to investigate by at the very latest, March 5th las year. 9 months before the election.
Let that sink in, 9 months before a crusial election, one in which every dem candidate was running on collusion, collusion, collusion, Muellar KNEW there was no crime.
Heres the dem track record.
Benghazi.. ISIS is dead to give Obama a re-election win.
IRS willfully and methodically refuses 501c3 status to Conservatie tea party grous to keep them from raising money during an election cycle.
The entire Clinton fiasco, need I say More?
And now Muellar extending a bogus fraud of an investigation in order to protect the democrat election platform of fake Trump corruption.
There is a pattern here, a very Ugly pattern.
16 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Judy W."
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
This also gives details of the amount and kind of information the Trump people gave to Mueller -- it was extraordinary cooperation and Mueller didn´t have a good reason to subpoena Trump except, I suppose, to try to intimidate him.