"“I guess I’d rather do the interview. It gets it over with. It makes my client happy,” he said in an interview with The Washington Post. “The safe course you hear every lawyer say is don’t do the interview, and that’s easy to say in the abstract. That’s much harder when you have a client who is the president of the United States and wants to be interviewed.
Giuliani said he was concerned that the president would become a target or that the interview would be a perjury trap, because the “truth is relative.” The president’s legal team continues to try to set limitations on an interview, including the duration and questions posed, he said.
“They may have a different version of the truth than we do,” Giuliani said.
Alternative facts rear their head once again :grin. They may have a different version of the truth than we do. That isn’t foreshadowing at all is it lol.
And I love that Giuliani has been forced to go from saying that letting Trump talk to Mueller would make him the worst lawyer on the planet to now admitting Trumps probably going to insist on it anyway.
Seems like literally every lawyer on the planet thinks Trump talking to Mueller would be a remarkable stupid move, but Trump has a long long reputation for ignoring his own lawyers so I guess it looks like it’s going to happen regardless.
“Truth is relative,” “alternative facts,” “fake news,” rejection of science/scientific method. The new world we live in. Unless it fits our agenda or confirms a bias, it can’t be true. Not only that, those that try to prove otherwise must be part of the “deep state” or be my enemy.
I think the loss of objectivity we seem to be heading toward is more troubling than anything else. It’s going to be tough going forward when everyone lives in their own subjective reality, rejecting and vilifying any attempt to prove otherwise.
It appears that Trump is attempting to go against his lawyers’ legal advice and do the interview. All I’ve heard from legal scholars concerning this is that it’s a perjury trap and don’t do it if you don’t have to. I think I’d listen to counsel.
Mr. Wisenberg said he was struck by Mr. Mueller’s focus on establishing the president’s mind-set when he weighed whether to fire Mr. Comey, and potential steps like whether to oust Attorney General Jeff Sessions, pardon people charged by Mr. Mueller or force the Justice Department to dismiss the special counsel.
No Supreme Court precedent exists to guide Mr. Mueller on whether obstruction of justice can occur if a president exercises a constitutional power with a bad motive, like firing a subordinate to cover up a crime; Mr. Wisenberg counted himself among those who do not think it can. But Mr. Mueller’s questions, he said, suggest the special counsel has adopted a broader interpretation of the law.
This is actually a good point but that has nothing to do with whether the interview is a perjury trap. If he has already adopted the broader interpretation, he doesn’t need to trap the President into perjuring himself.
Honestly, the biggest problem I see for Trump if he goes forward with the interview is actually figuring out what the truth is. That is one subject where he is most definitely not an expert.
But, if he manages to somehow figure out what the truth really is, all he has to do is tell the truth, and he won’t have to worry about perjury charges.
I think you are on to something here. I am not so sure that Trump even knows what the truth is, due to how frequently he lies. This is typical for pathological liars. They can even convince themselves that the lies they are telling have become the truth. Even when presented with empirical evidence showing definitively that what they are saying is untrue. It i a legitimate psychological disorder.
