Part 120, some of Russian meddling, and related, material from F6 big ones. These from a second on Saturday, 01/20/18, headed, Statement from the Press Secretary on Libya’s Successful Destruction of its Chemical Weapons Stockpile https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=137845156
Trump Says He Is Willing to Speak Under Oath to Mueller
"Part 119, some of Russian meddling,"
By MAGGIE HABERMAN and JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVISJAN. 24, 2018
President Trump on Wednesday at the White House. Credit Pete Marovich for The New York Times
WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Wednesday that he was willing and eager to be interviewed by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign, insisting that he has done nothing wrong.
“I’m looking forward to it, actually,” Mr. Trump said of talking to Mr. Mueller, answering months of speculation over whether he was willing to submit to questions from the special counsel, who is also believed to be looking into whether the Trump campaign aided Moscow’s effort and whether the president sought to thwart the inquiry itself.
“Here’s the story, just so you understand,” Mr. Trump said during an impromptu question-and-answer session with reporters in the West Wing. “There’s been no collusion whatsoever. There’s been no obstruction whatsoever, and I’m looking forward to it.”
Mr. Trump suggested that his efforts to defend himself against damaging allegations had been unfairly misinterpreted as wrongdoing.
“You fight back,” the president said, and such a response is characterized as, “‘Oh, it’s obstruction.’”
The president’s lawyers have been negotiating for weeks with Mr. Mueller’s team about the prospect of having him answer questions in the inquiry, including what topics would be covered. Mr. Trump said last year he would be willing to do speak with Mr. Mueller, but has more recently suggested that should not be necessary because the allegations being examined were baseless.
While there are risks for the president submitting to such an interview, some senior White House officials have argued that Mr. Trump should do so in the interest of bringing a swift end to an investigation that has cast a shadow over his presidency.
“I’d like to do that as soon as possible,” the president told reporters on Wednesday, adding that his lawyers have told him it would be “about two to three weeks” until it takes place.
Many of the potential questions relate to whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice, people briefed on the discussions have said. They have said they expect the interview to be completed by the end of February or early March.
Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer leading the response to the investigation, said Mr. Trump was speaking hurriedly and intended only to say that he was willing to meet. “He’s ready to meet with them, but he’ll be guided by the advice of his personal counsel,” Mr. Cobb said. He said the arrangements were being worked out between Mr. Mueller’s team and the president’s personal lawyers.
Mr. Cobb said the president was not trying to volunteer to testify before a grand jury, which is how prosecutors speak to witnesses under oath, but was merely speaking off the cuff. Interviews with agents and prosecutors are not conducted under oath, but lying to the F.B.I. is a felony.
Pressed on whether he would be willing to answer questions under oath, Mr. Trump first asked a reporter whether Hillary Clinton, his 2016 campaign rival, had spoken under oath to the F.B.I. in the investigation into her use of a private email server while she served as secretary of state. Mrs. Clinton gave a voluntary interview .. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-emails.html .. to investigators in July 2016, and was not under oath, as is typical for such sessions.
President Bill Clinton testified under oath in 1998 about his relationship with a White House intern. He was questioned on camera in the White House Map Room and the testimony was broadcast to a Washington grand jury room.
Mr. Trump spoke with reporters in the doorway of his chief of staff’s office, holding a brief, informal news conference before he departed for the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
Mr. Trump also said he did not recall questioning Andrew G. McCabe, the deputy F.B.I. director, during a job interview about how he voted in the 2016 presidential election, after White House officials conceded on Tuesday that the president had, in fact, asked the question.
“I don’t think so; no, I don’t think I did,” Mr. Trump said, adding, “I don’t know what’s the big deal with that.”
Added Mr. Trump: “I don’t remember asking him the question.” The two met after the president fired the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, as the president was deciding that he would name Mr. McCabe the acting director of the bureau. “I think it’s also a very unimportant question.”
But Mr. Trump appeared to concede that he was concerned about Mr. McCabe’s political affiliation, noting that his wife ran for office in Virginia in 2015 with political support from Terry McAuliffe, a close ally of the Clintons.
Former Watergate Prosecutor Believes Case for Trump Obstruction Is 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt'
"I'm very confident," he said during an interview.
By Bob Brigham / Raw Story January 24, 2018, 10:52 PM GMT
Former Watergate prosecutor Nick Ackerman bragged that he could convict Donald Trump of obstruction of justice, while explaining the White House paradox over invoking the Fifth Amendment, during a Wednesday interview with MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes.
“It really does look like you’ve got a plausible case for obstruction,” Hayes noted.
“Beyond a reasonable doubt,” Ackerman replied.
“That’s very confident of you,” Hayes noted.
“I’m very confident,” Ackerman admitted.
The former federal prosecutor explained that Mike Flynn was at the center of an obstruction case.
“He knows that Flynn lied. That lie is extremely material because it relates to what occurred during the campaign and the coordination between Russia and the campaign and Trump knows it,” Ackerman predicted.
“I think you’re going to have proof of the underlying crime and the cover-up because when Flynn pled guilty to the lie about sanctions, it related to the coordination between Russia and the campaign,” Ackerman continued. “So he’s got a lot to say.”
Hayes wondered about the whether legal advice to invoke the Fifth Amendment, and refuse to testify on the grounds of self-incrimination, might come up against the political reality of it looking like an admission of guilt, like in the Watergate scandal.
“That’s why they all went in and testified before the grand jury and got convicted of perjury,” Ackerman explained. “They were stuck between a rock and hard place.”
“Because they didn’t take the Fifth, you can’t take the Fifth because you look guilty,” Hayes observed.
Ackerman said there was no other option than invoking the Fifth Amendment. “It is United States v. Nixon all over again where they forced President Nixon to produce tapes,” Ackerman noted.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
