An article in Vanity Fair asks various lawyers to provide experienced speculation about a presumed Trump interview by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Should he or shouldn't he? (It is taken as a foregone conclusion that Mueller will demand such an interview.) The consensus of the experienced speculation is that such an interview is a "perjury trap." I am not down with perjury traps.
Mr. Mueller has run a leak-proof investigation. No one, no matter how experienced, can offer anything but speculation on what evidence Mueller has against Trump, of what crimes, and what Mueller's end game is.
The undersigned offers this uninformed, barely experienced, speculation: It is an insult to Robert Mueller, and to this investigation into an attack on the United States that resulted in the demise of the United States and the advent of America 2.0, something the War of 1812, the Civil War, the attack on Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks did not do, to assume even for the purposes of a journalist's question that Mueller has nothing substantive on Trump and must therefore spring a "perjury trap" on him as if this is a cousin of Kenneth Starr's Whitewater investigation that went nowhere substantively and devolved into perjury for the cumshot on Monica Lewinsky's sweater. The Senate rightly refused to convict President Clinton based upon Starr's perjury trap. Semi-informed, semi-experienced speculation: In this most serious investigation in the country's history Robert Mueller will charge Trump with obstruction of justice and with substantive crime(s).
Mr. Mueller has run a leak-proof investigation. No one, no matter how experienced, can offer anything but speculation on what evidence Mueller has against Trump, of what crimes, and what Mueller's end game is.
The undersigned offers this uninformed, barely experienced, speculation: It is an insult to Robert Mueller, and to this investigation into an attack on the United States that resulted in the demise of the United States and the advent of America 2.0, something the War of 1812, the Civil War, the attack on Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks did not do, to assume even for the purposes of a journalist's question that Mueller has nothing substantive on Trump and must therefore spring a "perjury trap" on him as if this is a cousin of Kenneth Starr's Whitewater investigation that went nowhere substantively and devolved into perjury for the cumshot on Monica Lewinsky's sweater. The Senate rightly refused to convict President Clinton based upon Starr's perjury trap. Semi-informed, semi-experienced speculation: In this most serious investigation in the country's history Robert Mueller will charge Trump with obstruction of justice and with substantive crime(s).
