Meh. Trump's lawyers
could argue related to the FBI texts, but
can they
prove the texts went missing intentionally; proof is what courts pretty much insist on, you know, like, evidence...
The main problem Trump, and by extension the GOP, has in trying to make the argument the FBI/Mueller probes are politically motivated is the fact there are three known triggers for the probes; the first was the well-known 'dossier', originally commissioned by GOP opponents to a Trump nomination; the second was the tip from an Australian diplomat to whom Trump campaign advisor Georg Popdopolus drunkenly spilled the beans about the campaign having access to hacked Clinton emails; the third, and the perhaps most damaging to the Trump/GOP claim of political motivation, is the tip given to the FBI by a person in the Trump circle, a tip that came to light when the head of the firm commissioned to gather the data used in the 'dossier' testified the FBI informed him they already had the information he related to the FBI from the Trump insider's tip and met with the Fusion GPS head in order to get corroboration of the insider's tip...
What we have in all this are chains of events running in parallel, three separate sources acting on the old "see something, say something" path of responsible action, not at all acting in concert or in knowledge of each others' disclosures to the FBI; with three separate and distinct sources of expressed concern (one of them being someone within the Trump camp), it would be a dereliction for the FBI to have not launched an investigation. We know who are the persons involved in the Fusion GPS 'dossier', and we know the name of the Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer; it will be interesting to see who the Trump insider is...
As I've said before, there is nothing fully known at this time that ties Trump directly to the whole Russia mess and, if he had just done the smart move and just kept quiet and stayed out of it, he wouldn't be where he is; unless there is a whopping 'smoking gun' related to Trump and Russia, this won't directly cost him his office. However, in a truly 'shoots himself in the rump' Trump move, Trump has left himself open to obstruction of justice charges over the firing of Comey, a decidedly politically motivated action; if it turns out to be true he did take further by personally dictating the memo/statement containing false information and released to the press as an effort to derail further investigation (which really didn't work), then he is very vulnerable to possible action...
A little while back, there were reports Mueller may ask to depose Trump about subjects being covered in Mueller's investigations. At first Trump indicated he would be more than willing to be deposed; then, in true Trump fashion, he began to hem and haw and fudge about doing a deposition; at last reports, it looks like Trump has lost his enthusiasm about meeting with Mueller, particularly under oath. This link is to an article perhaps explaining why Trump and his lawyers have lost their nerve:
Trump Under Oath Is a Different Person --
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...mensch/550073/
From the above:
Quote:
As The Washington Post noted in a 2016 piece, Trump’s tendency to back off his most obviously fake statements was especially pronounced in a December 2007 deposition. Trump had sued the journalist and author Tim O’Brien, who had written a book saying Trump’s net worth was far less than the billions he claimed. Trump sued O’Brien for libel and defamation. The Post found 30 occasions in that deposition alone where Trump admitted to making false statements.
This being Trump, the acolyte of “truthful hyperbole,” he couldn’t let go entirely. Instead, he found repeated ways to explain his untruths. Why had he claimed to own 50 percent of a business when he only owned 30? Because Trump hadn’t had to put up cash upfront, he said, “the 30 percent equates to much more than 30 percent.” Why had Trump claimed to have been paid $1 million for a speech when, as he acknowledged under oath, he’d actually received $400,000? He had decided that the value to his brand made up another 600 grand.
Was it true that Trump had not received any loans from his father, as he’d told O’Brien? Under oath, he offered a different story: “I think a small amount a long time ago. I think it was like in the $9 million range.” Why had he inflated his net worth? The reason, he said, was that it varied, and just not with the market. “My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings,” Trump said.
Trump had an explanation that would telegraph his approach when he later decided to run for president: “I’m no different from a politician running for office. You always want to put the best foot forward.”
Yet at other times, Trump simply conceded he’d been wrong. Faced with a public statement that membership at a golf course had cost $300,000, 50 percent higher than the real figure—as a Trump Organization document stated. “Correct,” Trump said. He also excused errors in a book published under his name, saying, “I read it very quickly,” even though he was credited as author.
Trump’s suit against O’Brien was dismissed.
The rare aptitude for honesty is not the only thing that’s notable about Trump’s demeanor in depositions. In most cases, videos of his appearances are not available. In a suit over Trump University, for example, transcripts of two depositions were released, but Judge Gonzalo Curiel (yes, the one Trump said was biased against him because of his Mexican heritage) blocked the release of the videos. But in the Trump Hotel case, videos were released.
|
The article brought to mind a lawyer friend and former boss of mine who was assigned a client by his then firm who was 'eccentric', to be kind, and would make wild statements in sworn depositions and then deny the statements and then deny his denials; my friend got so fed up, he requested to be removed from the case, but no one else in the firm wanted to take on the crazy client, so my friend quit the firm (he got a much better position afterward at another firm); it must be a goodly piece of a Dantean Circle of Hell to have a deranged client...
<O>