Ann Coulter has been behind President Trump since the beginning.

The famous unforgettable clip when asked of the candidates running who would win… she accurately predicted “Donald Trump.” Then, she was ridiculed and laughed at.

She correctly predicted Trump would win and was laughed at by hundres of liberals in the crowd. Now she’s getting the last laugh!

As the smart woman she is, Ann just rang the alarm bells and issued a sheer WARNING to President Trump tweeting the following about the Special Counsel and Robert Mueller. She tweeted a message along with an article about Robert Mueller’s ‘Witch Hunt.’

“Please read this, @ realDonaldTrump! “… the interrogators are not disposed to view misremembered statements as accidents.” DON’T TALK TO MUELLER.”

(See Below)

Please read this, @realDonaldTrump! "… the interrogators are not disposed to view misremembered statements as accidents." DON'T TALK TO MUELLER. https://t.co/Qr1Ke6RwPn — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) February 9, 2018

In an article titled, “Donald Trump Shouldn’t Talk to the Feds. And Neither Should You,” Ken White writes that when the feds interview a subject or target, their goal is not fact-finding or “clearing a few things up.” Their goal is the hunt.

Ken White continues by saying, “that he gave up early on predicting what this administration will do. But I say this with complete confidence, based on my 23 years in federal criminal practice: There is absolutely no good reason for Trump to talk to Robert Mueller and his investigators voluntarily.”

To understand why, you have to understand the goal of a conversation like the one Mueller proposes.

The president is no mere witness. He is at least a subject, and likely a target, of the special counsel’s investigation. In federal criminal parlance, a witness is someone not suspected of wrongdoing who has useful information, a subject is someone suspected of wrongdoing who may well be charged if the evidence supports it, and a target is someone whose indictment is actively sought as a purpose of the investigation. When the feds interview a subject or target, their goal is not mere information-gathering or fact-finding or “clearing a few things up.” Their goal is the hunt.

When special counsels or FBI agents ask questions of one of these powerful people, they are not fact-finding. They’ve already done their homework. They’ve already gathered facts—almost certainly many more facts than the interviewee knows. They are asking questions the answers to which they can already prove, hoping that the interviewee will tell a provable lie, and thus commit a crime, or at least lock themselves into a feckless story that ties their hands later.

The law that makes it a crime to lie to federal investigators does not require the lie to fool the investigators for a nanosecond. A lie must be “material” to be criminal, but that only means that the lie is the kind of statement that could conceivably influence the government, not one that actually did. The FBI can roll up with irrefutable proof of something, ask the target a question hoping for a lie, collect the lie they wanted, and reap a felony conviction.

Trump’s case, of course, is somewhat different. Many legal scholars think that he cannot be indicted for false statements under Section 1001, or obstruction of justice, or perjury, unless and until he is impeached— at least not under this special counsel . But he has no good reason to hand Mueller an opportunity to build a lie-based case for impeachment, nor a lie-based indictment in the event he’s impeached.

If the president refuses to submit to a voluntary interview, Special Counsel Mueller could conceivably subpoena him to testify before the grand jury. That would require Mueller to tip his hand about the president’s precise status: Department of Justice regulations require prosecutors to warn targets or subjects of their Fifth Amendment rights when subpoenaing them before a grand jury, and to advise targets of their status as targets. Trump might defy such a subpoena, and Mueller might seek to enforce it in court.

If he refuses to submit to an interview with Robert Mueller, under oath or not, absolutely nothing in the last year suggests that he will face debilitating political consequences. The president will crow that he has refused to cooperate with a biased and meritless investigation calculated to harass him, and he will do so with political impunity. The proverbial camel is in its cold grave; this additional straw upon its back cannot trouble it.