A few questions reveal that Mr. Mueller is still investigating possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. In one of the more tantalizing inquiries, Mr. Mueller asks what Mr. Trump knew about campaign aides, including the former chairman Paul Manafort, seeking assistance from Moscow: “What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?” No such outreach has been revealed publicly.
Jay Sekulow, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, declined to comment. A spokesman for the special counsel’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
The questions serve as a reminder of the chaotic first 15 months of the Trump presidency and the transition and campaign before that. Mr. Mueller wanted to inquire about public threats the president made, conflicting statements from Mr. Trump and White House aides, the president’s private admissions to Russian officials, a secret meetings at an island resort, WikiLeaks, salacious accusations and dramatic congressional testimony.
The special counsel also sought information from the president about his relationship with Russia. Mr. Mueller would like to ask Mr. Trump whether he had any discussions during the campaign about any meetings with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and whether he spoke to others about either American sanctions against Russia or meeting with Mr. Putin.
Through his questions, Mr. Mueller also tries to tease out Mr. Trump’s views on law enforcement officials and whether he sees them as independent investigators or people who should loyally protect him.
For example, when the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, was fired , the White House said he broke with Justice Department policy and spoke publicly about the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email server. Mr. Mueller’s questions put that statement to the test. He wants to ask why, time and again, Mr. Trump expressed no concerns with whether Mr. Comey had abided by policy. Rather, in statements in private and on national television, Mr. Trump suggested that Mr. Comey was fired because of the Russia investigation.
Many of the questions surround Mr. Trump’s relationship with Mr. Sessions, including the attorney general’s decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation and whether Mr. Trump told Mr. Sessions he needed him in place for protection.
Mr. Mueller appears to be investigating how Mr. Trump took steps last year to fire Mr. Mueller himself. The president relented after the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, threatened to resign, an episode that the special counsel wants to ask about.
“What consideration and discussions did you have regarding terminating the special counsel in June of 2017?” Mr. Mueller planned to ask, according to the list of questions. “What did you think and do in reaction to Jan. 25, 2018, story about the termination of the special counsel and Don McGahn backing you off the termination?” he planned to ask, referring to the Times article that broke the news of the confrontation.
Mr. Mueller has sought for months to question the president, who has in turn expressed a desire, at times, to be interviewed, viewing it as an avenue to end the inquiry more quickly. His lawyers have been negotiating terms of an interview out of concern that their client — whose exaggerations, half-truths and outright falsehoods are well documented — could provide false statements or easily become distracted. Four people, including Mr. Flynn, have pleaded guilty to lying to investigators in the Russia inquiry.
The list of questions grew out of those negotiations. In January, Mr. Trump’s lawyers gave Mr. Mueller several pages of written explanations about the president’s role in the matters the special counsel is investigating. Concerned about putting the president in legal jeopardy, his lead lawyer, John Dowd, was trying to convince Mr. Mueller he did not need to interview Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the matter.
Mr. Mueller was apparently unsatisfied. He told Mr. Dowd in early March that he needed to question the president directly to determine whether he had criminal intent when he fired Mr. Comey, the people said.
But Mr. Dowd held firm, and investigators for Mr. Mueller agreed days later to share during a meeting with Mr. Dowd the questions they wanted to ask Mr. Trump.
When Mr. Mueller’s team relayed the questions, their tone and detailed nature cemented Mr. Dowd’s view that the president should not sit for an interview. Despite Mr. Dowd’s misgivings, Mr. Trump remained firm in his insistence that he meet with Mr. Mueller. About a week and a half after receiving the questions, Mr. Dowd resigned , concluding that his client was ignoring his advice.
Mr. Trump’s new lawyer in the investigation and his longtime confidant, Rudolph W. Giuliani, met with Mr. Mueller last week and said he was trying to determine whether the special counsel and his staff were going to be “truly objective.”
Mr. Mueller’s endgame remains a mystery, even if he determines the president broke the law. A longstanding Justice Department legal finding says presidents cannot be charged with a crime while they are in office. The special counsel told Mr. Dowd in March that though the president’s conduct is under scrutiny, he is not a target of the investigation, meaning Mr. Mueller does not expect to charge him.
The prospect of pardons is also among Mr. Mueller’s inquiries, and whether Mr. Trump offered them to a pair of former top aides to influence their decisions about whether to cooperate with the special counsel investigation.
Mr. Dowd broached the idea with lawyers for both of the advisers, Mr. Flynn and Mr. Manafort, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. Mr. Manafort has pleaded not guilty on charges of money laundering and other financial crimes related to his work for the pro-Russia former president of Ukraine.
Mr. Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general who was ousted from the White House in February 2017 amid revelations about contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States, ultimately pleaded guilty last December to lying to federal authorities and agreed to cooperate with the special counsel.
“After General Flynn resigned, what calls or efforts were made by people associated with you to reach out to General Flynn or to discuss Flynn seeking immunity or possible pardon?” Mr. Mueller planned to ask.
Trump does not understand or believes in knowledge.
Besides, 'Alternative Facts' are the new normal. More importantly, The Trump Base does not care. It is time to deal with it.
“What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?”
What if Trump answers "None", but Mueller has evidence from other sources that Trump had some knowledge?
Most of the 48 questions give Trump the opportunity to deny all knowledge, and in doing so he could be walking into the trap.
So, the best thing for Trump is simply not falling into that baited trap. As a sitting president he can ignore Mueller.
Sure. Mussolini also ignored the advancing Allied Armies and didn't get a bagel with cream cheese either.
Sure he could ignore Mueller and, then Mueller could subpoena him and, then there would be a political fight in the courts with the president then having to still go and, answer questions from Mueller.
Can Mueller really do that to a sitting president? What's the law and procedure on this? I would think there has to be absolutely clear and convincing evidence of a high crime and/or misdemeanor.
Maybe you should revisit the 1990's.
Get ready Trumpians … brace yourselves … the legal day-of-reckoning is near.
There will not be enough "fake news" cries, nor consolation derived from whistling past the grave yard.
"Jess Willard" will not be your savior.
No further comment.
I'm really starting to feel kind of sorry for them.
Trump's response today to all this news was kind of pathetic.
He's the only one I don't feel sorry for, he did this shit and, he deserves what he gets.
Or telling the truth....
Almost kept a straight face when I typed it.
No trap. If Trump answers that he has, "No knowledge," then that answer will be undoubtedly true.
Besides, it could be fairly argued that to provide 'this president' with a questionnaire is in itself an unfair trap because 'this president' does not read and the little reading he does do is fraught with comprehension issues.
A picture book with multiple choice answers would be much more fair for 'this president.'
It isn't a trap, if the president has no knowledge of any of it but, then you have to ask yourself this question, if Mueller has evidence and, I'm going with thinking he does, that Trump does know something about it and, Trump answers he doesn't then that in and, of itself is perjury and, is a crime. Now, here's something to think about, Mueller already has the answers to these questions and, they are the questions which will lead to more questions, this question which you have posted John has follow up questions, Trump answers that he did have some knowledge, (assuming he is truthful), follow up question, "Why didn't you inform the FBI of this?", he gets deeper and, deeper into trouble with each question and, answer, whether that answer is truthful or, not. As I said, Mueller has the answers already.
"The open-ended queries appear to be an attempt to penetrate the president’s thinking, to get at the motivation behind some of his most combative Twitter posts and to examine his relationships with his family and his closest advisers"
Really? That's odd - examining his "motivations". What is even stranger is the leaking by the Mueller investigators. What would be Mueller's motivation for doing such a thing? It's kind of ironic that those charged with investigating on "the side of the law" would violate the law.
"Leaks in the Mueller probe have been suspected for several months, leading The New York Post to ask last year if Mueller is "playing politics with his prosecutions."
I haven't heard of any "leaks" coming out of the Mueller probe, however, I have seen and, heard of leaks coming out of the presidents lawyers offices when Mueller's team has sent information over to them, that they requested.
Well, let me enlighten you:
"Mueller and his team have for roughly the past five months been leading a Justice Department investigation into whether anybody associated with the President Trump’s 2016 White House campaign colluded with Russia to influence the election outcome. On Friday night, CNN reported that Mueller’s team has filed the first charges in the case with a federal grand jury."
???? The filing of charges isn't a "leak", it's a public action by the government.
However based on the language used and the various misspellings, it's almost certain that the NY Times source for the questions submitted to the Trump admin is someone in the administration itself.
This isn't a leak, Geez, get it right, a leak is something like, "The Mueller probe wants to ask the president 49 questions and, here they are." Which by the way didn't come from Mueller's team but, from the White House. Telling the public, who is interested in what is going on, that they are filing charges in a case is something that is normally done in cases like this, again, reference what went on during Bill Clintons impeachment and, Richard Nixon's impeachment.
Richard Nixon was never impeached, he would have been but he resigned. Clinton was impeached but not convicted by the Senate, via Senate democrats.
Telling the public, who is interested in what is going on, that they are filing charges in a case is something that is normally done in cases like this,
Wev'e been here before with Mueller, have we not? :
"Just last night, Mueller leaked court sealed information to CNN"
Yes, Richard Nixon did resign but, not before charges for his impeachment were brought before the House.
This was July 24, 1974.
Wev'e been here before with Mueller, have we not? :
"Just last night, Mueller leaked court sealed information to CNN"
I don't even need to look up mediabiasfactcheck to tell this is a very biased blog site, biased to the Alt-Right. Just because this site says that the information was "leaked" doesn't mean it is an actual leak of information, as I said, the courts can tell the public of a filing of charges against someone, a special counsel can do the same damned thing and, it is not a leak, no matter how much you wish it was, it is not a leak.
Yup they were brought but Nixon resigned during that process. From the article you submitted:
"On July 24, 1974, the Supreme Court rejected Nixon’s claim of executive privilege and ordered him to turn over the remaining tapes. When he refused to do so, the House of Representatives passed the first article of impeachment against Nixon for obstruction of justice. On August 5, with the impeachment process already underway, Nixon reluctantly released the remaining tapes.
On August 8, 1974, Nixon avoided a Senate trial and likely conviction by becoming the first president to resign."
I don't even need to look up mediabiasfactcheck to tell this is a very biased blog site, biased to the Alt-Right. Just because this site says that the information was "leaked" doesn't mean it is an actual leak of information,
Ok, how about the story right from CNN (A CNN Exclusive, mind you) itself:
"Washington (CNN) A federal grand jury in Washington on Friday approved the first charges in the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller, according to sources briefed on the matter.
So, what, do you think they wouldn't have impeached him with all the evidence they had at the time? The only reason he resigned was to keep from going to prison, people say it was to save the democracy but, I believe he wanted to save is own fucking ass.
I just want to get it all straight. All three cases are very different.
do you think they wouldn't have impeached him with all the evidence they had at the time?
They absolutely would have
The only reason he resigned was to keep from going to prison, people say it was to save the democracy but, I believe he wanted to save is own fucking ass.
I disagree because it wasn't the first time he made a decision to avoid crisis for the nation. If you recall there were concerns about fraud in the 1960 election, specifically in the all important places of Illinois and Texas. Nixon said many times that he wouldn't contest it for the sake of the nation.
Things are much different today. I cant think of either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump resigning. Please note Bill Clinton would never resign, but he cut a deal so he wouldn't have to face a grand jury AND he was lucky that Ken Star told him about the "blue dress evidence". He didn't have to do that, I'm sure Mueller wouldn't do that.
Also you may recall that Al Gore had no problem with contesting the 2000 election.
There was an excellent reason for Gore to contest the 2000 election, the only reason that it was never resolved was because George H. W. ran interference with the SCOTUS.
And Nixon had reason to contest the 1960 election. He chose not to. Do you think Gore's decision had an effect on the nation?