Agreement to interview Trump by the Mueller team would undercut Trump's statements that he himself isn't under investigation. Interviewing him, which they haven't done yet, puts him in the cross hairs. 2/
-
Show this thread
-
It also creates clear legal and political jeopardy for the President. Lying to federal investigators would be a crime. Not only a regular one, but as shown in the Clinton impeachment, a high crime. 3/
4 replies 18 retweets 42 likesShow this thread -
Given the President's repeated misstatements of fact, or as some would call them, lies, about things big & small, some of which don't even seem relevant (the size of crowds, buttons, hands...) its unlikely he could stick to the truth through a long interview. 4/
5 replies 11 retweets 46 likesShow this thread -
False statements about his meetings with the Russians in Trump tower, the genesis of Don Jr.'s statement about same, his efforts to fire Comey can themselves be crimes, even if the underlying actions weren't. 5/
1 reply 8 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
One thing we've learned over time is that Trump can't stick to a consistent story about anything. And another thing we've learned, Mueller has the receipts. He has the emails. He has the phone records. He has the interviews of other participants. 6/
2 replies 9 retweets 36 likesShow this thread -
Inevitably, when Trump does lie to the Mueller investigators, and the Mueller report comes forward detailing the particulars, we will be faced with an uncomfortable political truth, does our political system even care? 7/
4 replies 14 retweets 44 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @MiekeEoyang
You're assuming the only crime here will be lying. Or even will be obstruction.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
Well, the possibility of financial crimes is also out there. If brought under NY state law, then it's a whole other ball game.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @MiekeEoyang
There's also obstruction and conspiracy. Consider what happens if Trump is named unindicted c-c on a nasty conspiracy indictment.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
Conspiracy to what? To obstruct? Obstruction seems pretty clear, given the NYT story, but still, that's actions while in office, so impeachment.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
No. Conspiracy tied to the hack and leak, with a quid pro quo attached.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel @MiekeEoyang
I found this angle interesting: Former federal prosecutor Seth Waxman on MSNBC latest reports about Trump obstructing justice could be, in fact, far more damaging: could be seen as direct evidence of orig. conspiracy
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.