Our legal research department (Zoltar, my stalker) has sent me some amazing evidence that shows that President Trump’s written testimony to Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller will be sworn under oath.
Check out this gem that he dug up from CNN, featuring Trump’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani, batting around the old footy with Chris Cuomo. Keep in mind that it’s from September.
[wpvideo xbhzSp3K ]
Wait, did you hear that? I did.
Fast forward to the very end and listen to what Giuliani says about Trump’s written testimony.
Before you call me Nostradamus, read this boring legal text that Zoltar sent me to explain why there is basically zero argument left about how this market will resolve.
You need to understand the difference between the technical definitions of “perjury” and “false statements.”
PerjuryÂ is a lie under oath and is governed under 18 U.S.C. Â§ 1621.Â Â Previous presidents have been subject to perjury charges as a result of independent counsel (or special counsel) investigations.Â Â For example, Clinton was found to have committed perjury when he was interviewed under oath and asked about his affair with Monica Lewisnky.Â Â President Reagan provided sworn, written answers to questions submitted in the Iran-Contra investigation by Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh.Â Â If he was found to have lied in those answers, he would have committed perjury.Â Â http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-04/news/mn-17717_1_iran-arms
AÂ false statement or materialÂ omission, is governed by 18 U.S.C. Â§ 1001, andÂ is basically a lie told to government investigators when no oath has been administered. Former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to after lying to the FBI during unsworn interviews in connection with the investigation by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III.
So the key to this market is a determination as to whether the written answers provided by Trump are sworn (so that 18 U.S.C. Â§ 1621 applies) or the equivalent of an informal interview (18 U.S.C. Â§ 1001).Â Â Â If sworn, the market resolves as Yes.Â Â If unsworn the market resolves as No.Â
The answer to this riddle can be found by looking at the negotiations that took place in order to get to the point where Trump was providing written answers.Â Â Mueller had the option of subpoenaing Trump and requiring his in person under oath testimony.Â Â However, that would like require litigation that could take nearly a year to resolve, and Mueller risked losing when the matter went before the Supreme Court.Â Â On the other hand, Trump could have gone the way of Clinton and fought the subpoena only to have to testify on camera under oath and get caught in a lie in an embarrassing public format.Â Â So both parties had strong motives to avoid a legal battle and instead reach an agreement to the terms for Trumpâ€™s interview.Â Â
The video above was from a few months ago.Â Â In it Trumpâ€™s lawyer confirms that they extended an offer to Mueller to have Trump provide testimony through written questions, UNDER OATH, and limited to the Russia collusion matter.Â Â Giuliani advocates for this offer as reasonable pointing to the historical precedent set by Ronald Reagan and Independent Counsel l Lawrence E. Walsh who agreed to have Ronald Reagan provide written answers, under oath to assist in the Iran Contra investigation.Â http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-04/news/mn-17717_1_iran-arms.Â
A few weeks after this video, news reports confirmed that Mueller agreed to accept the terms for Trumpâ€™s testimony so long as Mueller had the option to follow up and pursue subpoena for obstruction questions and/or follow up questions if he chose to do so in the future.Â Subsequently, Trump and his attorneys indicated that they accepted Muellerâ€™s terms while repeatedly referencing their desire and focus on avoiding a ‘perjuy trap’ when drafting and submitting Trumpâ€™s written answersâ€¦indirectly confirming that the answers would be given UNDER OATH.
This market resolves as a ‘Yes.’
Animals, that does it for me. Based on all observable evidence, President Trump is in the process of handing over sworn testimony to Mueller’s team. I’m HOLDING my YES’s, waiting for the Brinks truck to arrive, and face-palming myself because I’m that SHOCKED that you can still get in at this price.
Sure, there is always the chance that Trump will pull a fast one and refuse to confirm his testimony, but this is gambling, right? I don’t know about you, but I generally prefer to make decisions based on what I know, and not based on the fear that some ridiculous ghoul of political improbability is going to rip my face off. The facts support this. Do you think that when President John F. Kennedy said that the USA, “Should commit itself to achieving theÂ goal, before this decadeÂ is out, of landing a man on theÂ MoonÂ and returning him safely to the Earth,” he was worried about the opinion of some scientist who screamed, “Wait, we shouldn’t go to the moon because we don’t understand black holes yet?”
No, of course not. That’s exactly the moment that JFK doubled-down and ordered Robert McNamara to invent space ice cream, so that the astronauts could have a tasty, dairy-based snack to remind them of home while on the long trip to the moon. The rest is history.
This market is way under-priced. Buy at 50. And if you’re scared, sell when it pumps up in the 80s as soon as this post hits.
***New to PredictIt? ClickÂ hereÂ to get your first $20 matched by the house.***
***Have a hot take? Hit me in the DMs on our contact form and maybe Iâ€™ll publish it.***