Someone should use Stein’s quote above in a college logic course. Each premise is true, yet the conclusion is false.
NYT says it has the list of what Mueller wants to ask Trump - they’re in the link:
Looks like Giulini leaked these questions, but why?
He’s trying to define the scope of the Mueller investigation in the minds of the public. It’s like keeping the Nunes memo classified, but in reverse.
-
So they can turn around, point to the Mueller team, and scream, “Leakers!” Team Trump has done this several times in the past - for some reason they seem to to think being called a leaker is the worst slur imaginable. Mind you, nobody seems to care about the leakers of non-classified stuff like this other than the true believers who are already on Trump’s side. But preaching to the converted seems to be enough for Team Trump.
-
So they can have a talking point about how Mueller has overstepped his bounds. “So many questions! And so many different topics! All those people and places and dates. It’s confusing and complicated - worse than doing your taxes. How can anyone expect that poor man to remember all that? There should be only one question, ‘Did the president personally collude with Putin to change the vote totals?’ That’s the only thing that matters. Any other subject is out of bounds and shouldn’t be asked.” Again, not a convincing point to anyone who has two neurons to scrape together. It’s not aimed at those people.
-
So they can get other people to do their work for them. If everyone knows what the questions are, it’s a matter of public discussion. Conservative lawyers whose firms wouldn’t officially touch Trump with a ten mile pole can now write long blog posts analyzing Trump’s legal position, Trump’s attorneys can freely ask anyone about them, conservative PR flaks can formulate strategies to counter the questions, etc. And best yet, Trump doesn’t have to pay a dime for the efforts of public-spirited conservatives!
-
Most importantly, so they can feed the beast when it comes to the press. Trump’s legal team has no defense and no strategy other than “deny and delay.” But even though they’re empty handed they still want to keep the press as happy as they can. So they might as well give this stuff away: it won’t stop anything, but it will make the reporters view them as good sources. (Unlike that tightlipped jerk Muller.)
Edit: 5. So Trump can spew out some nonsensical word salad tweet relating to one-half of one question. Then when Trump refuses to let Mueller interview him formally, Team Trump can claim, “He already answered Mueller’s questions on Twitter. Stop persecuting him!!!1.”
The actual questions are very interesting, especially when viewed through the lens of a Prosecutor - does Mueller already have a really good idea of the answers to all of the questions?
A couple of ones I hadn’t seen yet.
The backdoor Ukraine peace offer through Cohen.
Outreach by the campaign, especially Manafort, for Russian assistance.
The latter is huge as it is saying outright that the campaign tried to collude with Russia.
“How about that Wikileaks? Great stuff, am I right?”
A lot of the questions seem to take the form of “What did you know about this illegal thing which [X] did.” Where X = {Jared, Manafort, Cohen, Stone, Prinze, etc}. The framing itself paints a pretty damning picture it will be hard to “witch hunt” away, I hope.
One would expect so, at least to the best of their ability. That’s why you start with the little fish and work your way up.
The SCO already has the answers. If trump was as innocent as his supporters claim, these would be easy topics to address. Yet it’s universally acknowledged that it would be suicide for trump to agree to an interview. He would lie or at best (for trump) invoke the fifth.
WITCH HUNT! and NO COLLUSION! is sufficient for MAGA cultists, but here’s fuckwit Hugh Hewitt with right wing brain logic:
In the end, Mueller releases his findings to Congress, Republicans shrug, “nothing to see here” and the beltway media can return to being outraged, outraged! over the lack of civility from America’s comedians.
Given what people who deal with the FBI have said… yes. The FBI almost always asks a question they already know the answer to, so that when you lie to them about it, they can throw you in prison for it.
Nah - not a chance. They wouldn’t do that!
Oh, wait…
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/991267863674675200
Edit-misread the moron
IIRC, this is the first time Team Trump has tipped its hand about their endgame strategy around the word “collusion.”
For months and months Trump and his allies been trying to make the specific word “collusion” a thing, repeating, “But what about COLLUSION? You have to find proof of COLLUSION or it means nothing.”
Now they’re saying, “Ha ha! There’s not actually any such crime on the books called collusion. Made you look! This investigation is based on collusion and therefore meaningless.”
Again, no one capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time has been fooled by this - the order authorizing the Mueller investigation never uses the word collusion and instead says Mueller & co. has the authority to investigate, “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and … any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation;”
Yeah, it’s almost like we simplify things with words or something and the law tends not to.
Oh really?
• During a 2013 trip to Russia, what communication and relationships did you have with the Agalarovs and Russian government officials?
• What communication did you have with Michael D. Cohen, Felix Sater and others, including foreign nationals, about Russian real estate developments during the campaign?
• What discussions did you have during the campaign regarding any meeting with Mr. Putin? Did you discuss it with others?
• What discussions did you have during the campaign regarding Russian sanctions?
• What involvement did you have concerning platform changes regarding arming Ukraine?
• During the campaign, what did you know about Russian hacking, use of social media or other acts aimed at the campaign?
Not being a lawyer perhaps I don’t understand, but if you obstruct an investigation that’s the potential crime, isn’t it. Doesn’t matter if the investigation results in a criminal charge.
Who talks like that? I don’t walk into a meeting:
“Your site would do way better if you had more content! SEO!” walks out
And another interesting question that bugs me–and brought up by Popehat today–why would the NYT publish the report on those questions without also disclosing the source of the leak?
Guess you lose those stenographer privileges if you do that.