President Trump’s attorneys panicked when Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller sent over a list of possible questions for the main focus of their investigation.
Have an Enlarged Prostate? Urologist: Do This Immediately
Your Health Today
Top Doctor Reveals Why Metformin Makes You Sick
Vibrant Health Network
13 Things Costco Secretly Refuses To Sell
However, now, the legal team’s impulsive comments have forced them to turn over the documents on the firings of convicted former National Security adviser, Michael Flynn, and former FBI director James Comey, whom the president had unsuccessfully asked to shut down the Russia investigation.
After Trump lawyer John Dowd invited heat over the weekend for saying Mueller’s investigation should shut down, he relinquished the requested documents today, doing an about-face:
“We have very constructive, productive communications with the special counsel and his colleagues . . . We’re blessed to have them, I think it’s helpful to them and of course I think it’s very helpful to us.”
They are hoping that their one-eighty from attack dogs to brown-nosers will ingratiate them with the unflappable Special Counsel, enabling them to limit the scope of his inquiry. Not very likely.
Furthermore, they hope their surrender of the documents will prevent Mueller from sitting down with Trump in a face-to-face interview that will inevitably lead to him perjuring himself since he cannot open his mouth without lying.
What’s more, the Trump team has to work damage control after the president attacked Robert Mueller in a tweet today, after he saw what Mueller intends to ask him.
A total WITCH HUNT with massive conflicts of interest!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 19, 2018
Trump’s unhinged response flew in the face of his previous claims that he was “looking forward” to testifying under oath to Mueller.
Even Republicans, like House Oversight Committee chairman, Trey “Benghazi” Gowdy, have suggested Trump and his lawyers tone down their defensive rhetoric:
I think the President’s attorney frankly does him a disservice when he says that, and when he frames the investigation that way . . . If you have an innocent client, Mr. Dowd, act like it.
Dowd’s team have admitted to reporters that they see the Special Prosecutor forcing them into “crunchtime” with the questions they sent over about Trump’s alleged conspiracy with Russia to undermine U.S. democracy, his obvious obstruction of justice, and his possible international money laundering.
After calling a NY Times report that Trump was unhappy with his Russia legal team “Fake News,” the president belied his own point by hiring a new lawyer eight days later — former U.S. attorney and known conspiracy theorist, Joseph DiGenova.
The addition of DiGenova to Trump’s legal team should only serve to further alienate the Special Counsel’s office, as DiGenova has said on FOX News: “Make no mistake about it: A group of FBI and DOJ people were trying to frame Donald Trump of a falsely created crime.”
Strangely, DiGenova also represents former White House staffer Mark Corallo, who resigned after witnessing what he felt was “obstruction of justice,” when Trump Sr. tried to cover up the truth about Trump Jr.’s infamous Trump Tower meeting with Kremlin intelligence officials. Conflict of interest, much?
According to today’s Washington Post:
Special counsel investigators have told Trump’s lawyers that their main questions about the president fall into two simple categories, [sources] said: ‘What did he do?” and “What was he thinking when he did it?’
Trump’s lawyers expect Mueller’s team to ask whether Trump knew about Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition, for example, and what instructions, if any, the president gave Flynn about the contact, according to two advisers.
Despite mounting evidence showing Trump and his inner circle conspired with Russians to tip the 2016 presidential election away from Hillary Clinton, the president and his new lawyer, DiGenova, line up in their claims that it’s all a Justice Department set-up.
However, in 1997, DiGenova argued that a sitting president could be indicted for crimes — that is, when Democrat Bill Clinton sat in the Oval Office. That stance could come back to bite him and his client now.
“The nation, in fact, could conceivably benefit from the indictment of a president,” DiGenova wrote in the Wall Street Journal. “It would teach the valuable civics lesson that no one is above the law.”
How right he is. Considering how guilty the president is behaving, the depth of the evidence against him, the documents his lawyers have been forced to turn over, and his inevitable meeting with Mueller, Trump — by his new lawyer’s logic — could very well be indicted.
In order to show foreign adversaries that they can’t attack our democratic institutions with impunity, and future American leaders that our nation will not accept treason, our legal system must set a dramatic example when levying consequences against Trump and his inner circle, proving emphatically that we are a nation of laws that will protect the People, not a crass, wealthy demagogue.