A New Precedent?

By Mike Rozeff

If I were Trump, I’d take the 5th if I had to and not answer Mueller’s 48 questions. Before doing that, I’d use as many legal grounds as I could find not to respond to these questions in any way. I’d start with the UN Declaration of Human Rights, using those provisions that mirror or relate to our own Constitution. Then I’d reinforce the argument by bringing in these parallel provisions. Finally, I’d bring in any and all pertinent rights that are mentioned in the Constitution or not mentioned.

Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Trump as President retains his rights as a person. His office doesn’t require that he lose or give up those rights.

Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
Trump is entitled to his lawful protections, without being discriminated against because of his position.

Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Trump should argue that the Mueller inquiry has already violated this article in several ways, such as by the raids on his lawyer. He has already argued that the inquiry is built upon insubstantial grounds, which means the “arbitrary interference” with his affairs. Actually, it’s even worse. The interference has been with evil motives against him and his policies.

Article 17: (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
The raids on trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, exceeded legal bounds. Argue against the warrant, and argue that personal property was stolen arbitrarily. Argue that the search and seizure was an illegal “fishing expedition”. Separately, argue again that the entire basis of Mueller’s investigation and this search and seizure are arbitrary as well as the result of a plot against Trump.

Article 19: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Argue that Trump’s communications during the campaign are protected speech. Collusion, whatever it may mean in this context, is not a crime. Trump had every right to confer with others, about Russia, Putin, or anything else. This argument doesn’t admit that he did this, but says that even if he did, it was his right and protected.

Article 20: “(1) Everyone the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Trump, Jr. and others had every right to meet with someone like the Russian lawyer. Manafort had every right to associate with his Ukrainian clients. Trump could associate or not with whom he pleased. Mere association is not a crime. The second part of this article implies that no one may be compelled NOT to associate peacefully with others, as in meetings. There can be no law forbidding peaceful association, chats, dinners, meetings, correspondence, etc. Mueller’s inquiry is indeed a fishing expedition and witch hunt that looks for crimes being committed where there is no probable cause.

Like anyone else, Trump has a right to remain silent. He or his lawyers should invoke it and explain exactly why he’s doing this, despite his lack of guilt. They should argue openly that he wants to avoid false entrapment, to avoid vague or meritless charges like obstruction of justice, collusion and lying under oath. The argument should be that Trump has a right to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing, and that it is all too easy for clever prosecutors to create such an appearance. It is easy for people’s memories to fade, for there to be confusion and disagreement over what was said or done, for witnesses to lie or exaggerate or misinform in order to save their skins, and for patterns to be read into a series of events that were not actually part of any patterned plot. Trump has every reason and right to avoid these pitfalls.

My own opinion is that Mueller’s questions are attempts to trap Trump. Answering them in any way, unless one is extraordinarily clever and careful in one’s choice of words, is almost surely to result in self-entrapment. Trump is not that careful or clever, often far from it. And his speech is often elliptical and curt. He’ll get himself into big trouble unless he remains silent.

The Mueller inquiry against Trump is horrible. It’s part of the Democratic-Deep State coup against Trump. Trump should never ever have been saying he wanted to testify or speak with Mueller about these matters. He should kiss-off Mueller on the 48 questions, even if he doesn’t fire him.
Trump’s rights are being seriously threatened and violated. This is an American version of a Stalin-Beria era interrogation and subsequent show trial.

Trump should not answer Mueller’s questions. He should ignore a subpoena if that happens next. He should make his case as strongly as possible in public, however, not only with brief tweets but with a lawyer’s brief that contains a complete narrative of who dreamed up the Russian angle to smear him and his campaign, who amplified it, what their motives were and how the dossier and other events created the coup against him. Mueller is part of that narrative. He should also take this lynch attempt to the public by speeches. He should use all the rights arguments he can muster. He should make clear that the aim of the anti-Trump conspiracy has been to hound him from office. And if he himself has made mistakes that played into their hands, he should acknowledge that he erred. He should confirm that he will not cooperate with Mueller in any way. He has to make clear why he is not going to answer Mueller, that he won’t cooperate with a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election and remove him from office, that the investigation has no legitimate basis, that the investigation has an illegitimate basis, that the investigation is violating basic rights, that collusion with Russia has been a sham charge from the outset. Trump should argue that he has been defamed and smeared and name the people who have done it and why they did it.

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ