Mueller is wrapping it up - "I can't subpoena Trump"
- Thread starter Old Man Jingles
- Start date
ImWaitingForTheDay
Annoy a conservative....Think for yourself
What was it Giuliani said when faced with a video of himself saying exactly the opposite of his current defense for Trump?
Oh yeah... "THATS NOT FAIR"
Yellow friggen snowflakes...
newfie
Well-Known Member
trump and giulliani own you snowflake. All you can do is sputter and smash your keys over their latest trolling hook from them.
Old Man Jingles
Rat out of a cage
Liberals today just don't seem to have a sense of humor!
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Why didn't you include TOS level ?
TOS drank so much of the Kool-Aid that the brain ceased to function properly.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Another interesting view on Mueller vs Trump.
Mueller v. Trump
One might imagine based on news reports that Mueller has made or will make a formal request for face-to-face testimony by the president. If so, the president’s lawyers might conceivably advise Trump not to agree to anything like that unless accompanied by a specific commitment from Mueller that the interview would be short, limited, intended simply to wrap up loose ends, part of the process necessary to conclude his investigation, and not intended to be used as a basis for gathering incriminating evidence. Mueller, presumably, would not be inclined to make any such commitments. He may, at that point, proceed with a grand jury subpoena.
Acting on the advice of his lawyers, the president could refuse to comply with the subpoena. Mueller could then go to the court seeking an order compelling compliance with the subpoena accompanied by a threat that the president would be held to be in contempt of court if he continued to refuse.
At this point, the judge would probably require Mueller to show precisely what he wants from the president, why he needs it, why he cannot get the evidence elsewhere, and the importance of that evidence to a specific prosecution. Mueller would have to be highly specific and show that his need for the president’s testimony as a witness—not for the purpose of discovery—was necessary to prosecute specific criminal acts. If the court was convinced by the Mueller showing, it could order the president to comply. And that decision could be appealed by the president to the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court affirmed an order compelling the president’s testimony, President Trump and his lawyers could then decide whether to cooperate, compromise in some fashion, submit to the grand jury, refuse to testify based on his Fifth Amendment rights, or simply refuse and prepare for an impeachment battle.
The importance of all this to the president is that it is unlikely that he can be forced to give grand jury testimony simply to satisfy Mueller’s curiosity and submit to a potential perjury trap. He could, in short, put Mueller to his proof—make Mueller show that the president’s testimony was necessary to prosecute someone else. And that such evidence could not be obtained elsewhere. That is a high bar, indeed, and one that at this point Mueller has not shown he would be able to surmount.
Mueller v. Trump
One might imagine based on news reports that Mueller has made or will make a formal request for face-to-face testimony by the president. If so, the president’s lawyers might conceivably advise Trump not to agree to anything like that unless accompanied by a specific commitment from Mueller that the interview would be short, limited, intended simply to wrap up loose ends, part of the process necessary to conclude his investigation, and not intended to be used as a basis for gathering incriminating evidence. Mueller, presumably, would not be inclined to make any such commitments. He may, at that point, proceed with a grand jury subpoena.
Acting on the advice of his lawyers, the president could refuse to comply with the subpoena. Mueller could then go to the court seeking an order compelling compliance with the subpoena accompanied by a threat that the president would be held to be in contempt of court if he continued to refuse.
At this point, the judge would probably require Mueller to show precisely what he wants from the president, why he needs it, why he cannot get the evidence elsewhere, and the importance of that evidence to a specific prosecution. Mueller would have to be highly specific and show that his need for the president’s testimony as a witness—not for the purpose of discovery—was necessary to prosecute specific criminal acts. If the court was convinced by the Mueller showing, it could order the president to comply. And that decision could be appealed by the president to the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court affirmed an order compelling the president’s testimony, President Trump and his lawyers could then decide whether to cooperate, compromise in some fashion, submit to the grand jury, refuse to testify based on his Fifth Amendment rights, or simply refuse and prepare for an impeachment battle.
The importance of all this to the president is that it is unlikely that he can be forced to give grand jury testimony simply to satisfy Mueller’s curiosity and submit to a potential perjury trap. He could, in short, put Mueller to his proof—make Mueller show that the president’s testimony was necessary to prosecute someone else. And that such evidence could not be obtained elsewhere. That is a high bar, indeed, and one that at this point Mueller has not shown he would be able to surmount.
I don’t think Mueller needs the President’s testimony. In fact, if he could indict, it would be fascinating to watch the president of the UNITED STATES on the stand taking the fifth.
And why talk about impeachment? Just because a sitting president can’t e indicted doesn’t mean a former president can’t be.
Could you imagine the chants by democrats at rallies, “Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up!”
Hell, Trump might wisely ask for the report to go to Congress for impeachment proceedings. At least then he’d get to go home.
And why talk about impeachment? Just because a sitting president can’t e indicted doesn’t mean a former president can’t be.
Could you imagine the chants by democrats at rallies, “Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up!”
Hell, Trump might wisely ask for the report to go to Congress for impeachment proceedings. At least then he’d get to go home.
Indicted for what exactly? And do you still see Mueller in a position to indict anyone AFTER Trump leaves office? In 2021? 2025?
P.S. If Hillary keeps going after the DNC for money it may be Democrats chanting "Lock her up!"
Mueller doesn’t make the indictments. That would be Rosenstein or the next administration’s AG depending on what if any crime is found and it’s statute of limitations.
ImWaitingForTheDay
Annoy a conservative....Think for yourself
And you can't see your hypocrisy...The Republicans and their media have to sell a lie because the truth is not on their side.
Came here to say the same thing. All Presidential testimony would give him is a chance to see whether Trump wants to lie about what he already knows. And by asking Trump to testify, Republicans can’t later scream “YOU DIDN’T EVEN ASK HIM FOR HIS SIDE OF THE STORRRRY!”.
You're openly hoping that after Trump is out of office they nail him for some crime no one has even accused him of yet but all of you on here say Hillary's no longer Secretary of State, no longer a presidential candidate, leave her be. Can't find anything on Trump, totally ignore things we know for a fact she did, but he's the one you want to go after out of office. Yeah, no bias here, move along folks, the irony is over their heads.
Actually they present evidence to a grand jury that then votes on whether to indict.
OMFG! Republicans still control the entire government. If there are things you know for a fact that she did, the Republicans should be releasing the hounds on her! GET HER GET HER GET HER! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!
If Mueller has evidence of a crime he doesn't need Trump's testimony to move forward with a recommendation to impeach. He's already shown he's willing to twist testimony into a supposed lie. The FBI agents who interviewed Flynn said they saw no evidence of deception. They believed Flynn told the truth. Yet somehow Mueller twisted that and has about ruined Flynn financially. My biggest hope out of this is Mueller gets indicted for prosecutorial misconduct.
Last edited:
I have a feeling that Republican, with the blessing of a Republican DOJ, will release an extremely detailed report that’s crossed every t, dotted every i and won’t be very debatable. But it will be fun to see @newfie try!
moreluck
golden ticket member
I always visualize the grand jury as folks who weren't smart enough to get off jury duty. My friend was on a grand jury in Salt Lake and was kind of tied up, on and off, for 18 months.
So if someone has their emails subpoenaed and they delete 33,000 of them and go to great lengths to make them unrecoverable, including smashing her and her aide's BlackBerry's you don't consider that obstruction? If they use a private server at home and classified documents are found on that server you don't think that person is in violation of very strict laws regarded the handling of classifed documents? And yet you're talking about all the lies Trump might tell, the crimes he might have committed, the eventual indictments after he leaves office, the "we'll get him then" rhetoric when so far there's absolutely nothing that's been presented as indictable or impeachable, and acting like I'm the crazy one. Luckily for you if you're ever indicted you can plea insanity.
Similar threads
