Trump should meet with Mueller...on a tarmac

As Trump's lawyers continue to negotiate with Mueller's team regarding the specifics of a potential sit-down with Mueller (its location, topics, duration, etc.), conventional wisdom dictates that Trump should avoid such an interview at all costs.

But consider this contrarian view: Trump, in fact, should agree to meet with Mueller, but under the following conditions:

1) that it take place on a tarmac.

We still don't have answers to the following questions:

  • When did Mueller first learn or come to believe that the Steele dossier was funded by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and/or Hillary for America (the Clinton campaign)?
  • When did Mueller first become aware that the Steele dossier was used to obtain a FISA order on Carter Page?
  • When did Mueller first become aware that Obama was emailing Hillary Clinton's non-State Department email address?
  • When did Mueller first learn that Andrew McCabe was overseeing the Hillary Clinton email investigation after his wife received $700,000 from Clinton confidant Terry McAuliffe?
  • When did Mueller first become aware of the "insurance policy" concocted in "Andy's office," which was designed to protect the country in case of a Trump victory?
  • When did Mueller first become aware of the January 5 White House meeting among James Comey, Sally Yates, Barack Obama, and Susan Rice in which Obama was reported to have ordered Comey to "proceed by the book"?
  • When was Mueller first contacted about the possibility that he might be requested to lead a special counsel investigation on Russian interference into the 2016 elections?
  • When did Mueller first learn that Andrew McCabe altered Peter Strzok's 302 notes on his interview with General Michael Flynn and then destroyed the evidence?
  • Given that Peter Strzok concluded that Flynn did not lie to the FBI, and Comey confirmed that to lawmakers, why did Mueller prosecute him for just that?
  • Why did Mueller not previously disclose exculpatory evidence to both Flynn's defense team and to the judge presiding over the Flynn case?
  • Did Mueller personally leak or know the identity of any of the leaker(s) who continue to reveal details of the investigation that are unfavorable to Trump?

The fulfillment of these three conditions would likely yield "political gold."

Yet still, conventional wisdom screams "no."  Mueller is not one to be taken lightly, they say.

This contrarian happens to agree 100%.

Mueller completely destroyed Flynn's life; Mueller likely threatened Flynn with putting his son in jail to get him to cooperate.  In the end, Mueller brought Flynn to financial ruin, all the while almost certainly hiding exculpatory evidence from both Flynn and the judge in the case.

Trump must not forget that Mueller is planning to do the exact same thing to him.  Mueller wants to remove Trump from power, take away his freedom, strip him of his wealth, and wreck his family.

In January of 2017, Trump returned Winston Churchill's bust to the Oval Office.  Today, Trump should draw strength from Churchill's words: "Never give in.  Never give in.  Never, never, never, never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in."  Trump should fight and fight hard.  It is what he does best.

As Trump's lawyers continue to negotiate with Mueller's team regarding the specifics of a potential sit-down with Mueller (its location, topics, duration, etc.), conventional wisdom dictates that Trump should avoid such an interview at all costs.

But consider this contrarian view: Trump, in fact, should agree to meet with Mueller, but under the following conditions:

1) that it take place on a tarmac.

If Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton could schedule such a meeting, then why can't Mueller and Trump?

2) that Trump be sent a draft of his exoneration letter no later than two months prior to the interview.

If Comey could draft one for Hillary Clinton months prior to her interview, then why can't Mueller do the same for Trump?

3) that it coincide with Mueller also answering a few questions under oath regarding corruption at the highest levels of the FBI and Justice Department.

We still don't have answers to the following questions:

  • When did Mueller first learn or come to believe that the Steele dossier was funded by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and/or Hillary for America (the Clinton campaign)?
  • When did Mueller first become aware that the Steele dossier was used to obtain a FISA order on Carter Page?
  • When did Mueller first become aware that Obama was emailing Hillary Clinton's non-State Department email address?
  • When did Mueller first learn that Andrew McCabe was overseeing the Hillary Clinton email investigation after his wife received $700,000 from Clinton confidant Terry McAuliffe?
  • When did Mueller first become aware of the "insurance policy" concocted in "Andy's office," which was designed to protect the country in case of a Trump victory?
  • When did Mueller first become aware of the January 5 White House meeting among James Comey, Sally Yates, Barack Obama, and Susan Rice in which Obama was reported to have ordered Comey to "proceed by the book"?
  • When was Mueller first contacted about the possibility that he might be requested to lead a special counsel investigation on Russian interference into the 2016 elections?
  • When did Mueller first learn that Andrew McCabe altered Peter Strzok's 302 notes on his interview with General Michael Flynn and then destroyed the evidence?
  • Given that Peter Strzok concluded that Flynn did not lie to the FBI, and Comey confirmed that to lawmakers, why did Mueller prosecute him for just that?
  • Why did Mueller not previously disclose exculpatory evidence to both Flynn's defense team and to the judge presiding over the Flynn case?
  • Did Mueller personally leak or know the identity of any of the leaker(s) who continue to reveal details of the investigation that are unfavorable to Trump?

The fulfillment of these three conditions would likely yield "political gold."

Yet still, conventional wisdom screams "no."  Mueller is not one to be taken lightly, they say.

This contrarian happens to agree 100%.

Mueller completely destroyed Flynn's life; Mueller likely threatened Flynn with putting his son in jail to get him to cooperate.  In the end, Mueller brought Flynn to financial ruin, all the while almost certainly hiding exculpatory evidence from both Flynn and the judge in the case.

Trump must not forget that Mueller is planning to do the exact same thing to him.  Mueller wants to remove Trump from power, take away his freedom, strip him of his wealth, and wreck his family.

In January of 2017, Trump returned Winston Churchill's bust to the Oval Office.  Today, Trump should draw strength from Churchill's words: "Never give in.  Never give in.  Never, never, never, never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in."  Trump should fight and fight hard.  It is what he does best.