Perhaps Trump should refuse to honor Mueller's subpoena

[easyt65]

There is none...

Mueller does not have the balls to subpoena the President when he can't even prove there was ever a crime committed warranting his witch hunt.

He will try to play on Trump's ego to get him to testify.

 

[PredFan]

There is none...

Mueller does not have the balls to subpoena the President when he can't even prove there was ever a crime committed warranting his witch hunt.

He will try to play on Trump's ego to get him to testify.

I still maintain that this will continue languishing along with nothing at all to show for it, until at least November 2018. It’s only purpose is to win votes.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If he answers the questions , he needs to do it in person, not in writing.

Says who?

 

[PredFan]

What subpoena?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The only way they can compel him to testify is if they have probable cause he committed a crime. They cannot do that at this time. They're trying to entrap him.

Actually, witnesses are subpoenaed all the time to provide testimony and they do not need to be subpoenaed only with probable cause they committed a crime.

I've been subpoenaed myself twice. Once in a criminal case as a witness and once in a civil case to present process information concerning a FOIA request.


>>>>

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If he answers the questions , he needs to do it in person, not in writing.

Mueller wants to get him on a process crime.
He'll question him several times and then charge him with lying.

If I was Trump I'd claim Executive Privilege and tell him to go fuck himself.

Then don't lie. Executive Privilege will not stand up in court or in public opinion.

It was already decided by the Supreme Court dumbass!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Then don't lie. Executive Privilege will not stand up in court or in public opinion.

Some people don't understand that Executive Privilege applies to the President, but Trump wasn't the President during the campaign so Executive Privilege doesn't apply to prior to Noon on January 20th. It also doesn't apply to criminal investigations.


>>>>

Who said anything about before January 20th? You cannot have a crime if there is no law to be broken.

 

[PredFan]

What subpoena?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The only way they can compel him to testify is if they have probable cause he committed a crime. They cannot do that at this time. They're trying to entrap him.

Actually, witnesses are subpoenaed all the time to provide testimony and they do not need to be subpoenaed only with probable cause they committed a crime.

I've been subpoenaed myself twice. Once in a criminal case as a witness and once in a civil case to present process information concerning a FOIA request.


>>>>

Then, in those cases, there was a crime. You just contradicted your reasoning. No one said that he had to commit a crime, but that no crime exists to require him to testify.

 

[mudwhistle]

The only way they can compel him to testify is if they have probable cause he committed a crime. They cannot do that at this time. They're trying to entrap him.

Actually, witnesses are subpoenaed all the time to provide testimony and they do not need to be subpoenaed only with probable cause they committed a crime.

I've been subpoenaed myself twice. Once in a criminal case as a witness and once in a civil case to present process information concerning a FOIA request.


>>>>

This isn't your normal witness. This the president of the United States.
There are protections in the constitution that's prevent political operatives, who harbor malice against the president, from forcing a president to testify.
They're using perjured testimony as a basis to attack the president.
He's not even under investigation yet.
WTF do they want him to testify if they aren't trying to entrap him?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The only way they can compel him to testify is if they have probable cause he committed a crime. They cannot do that at this time. They're trying to entrap him.

Actually, witnesses are subpoenaed all the time to provide testimony and they do not need to be subpoenaed only with probable cause they committed a crime.

I've been subpoenaed myself twice. Once in a criminal case as a witness and once in a civil case to present process information concerning a FOIA request.


>>>>

Then, in those cases, there was a crime. You just contradicted your reasoning. No one said that he had to commit a crime, but that no crime exists to require him to testify.

See bolded and underlined quote above, the quote to which I responded. It specifically says "if he committed a crime".



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

This isn't your normal witness. This the president of the United States.
There are protections in the constitution that's prevent political operatives, who harbor malice against the president, from forcing a president to testify.
They're using perjured testimony as a basis to attack the president.
He's not even under investigation yet.
WTF do they want him to testify if they aren't trying to entrap him?

You mean like Ken Starr calling President Bill Clinton before a Grand Jury on August 17, 1998?


>>>>

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Then don't lie. Executive Privilege will not stand up in court or in public opinion.

Some people don't understand that Executive Privilege applies to the President, but Trump wasn't the President during the campaign so Executive Privilege doesn't apply to prior to Noon on January 20th. It also doesn't apply to criminal investigations.


>>>>

It also doesn't apply to subpoenas originating in the executive branch to begin with.

"Executive privilege" is a response that the President can make against a Congressional subpoena. It's purpose is to protect the separation of powers. Since Mueller is not part of the legislative or judicial branches, and is in fact an agent of the executive branch, executive privilege does not apply.

You are wrong. See Nixon v. United States.

Archibald Cox was a special prosecutor in the Executive Branch, just like Mueller.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The only way they can compel him to testify is if they have probable cause he committed a crime. They cannot do that at this time. They're trying to entrap him.

Actually, witnesses are subpoenaed all the time to provide testimony and they do not need to be subpoenaed only with probable cause they committed a crime.

I've been subpoenaed myself twice. Once in a criminal case as a witness and once in a civil case to present process information concerning a FOIA request.


>>>>

Then, in those cases, there was a crime. You just contradicted your reasoning. No one said that he had to commit a crime, but that no crime exists to require him to testify.

See bolded and underlined quote above, the quote to which I responded. It specifically says "if he committed a crime".



>>>>

OK, I retract my claim that no one said it. The fact remains, he does not have to testify as no crime has been alleged or exists.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This isn't your normal witness. This the president of the United States.
There are protections in the constitution that's prevent political operatives, who harbor malice against the president, from forcing a president to testify.
They're using perjured testimony as a basis to attack the president.
He's not even under investigation yet.
WTF do they want him to testify if they aren't trying to entrap him?

You mean like Ken Starr calling President Bill Clinton before a Grand Jury on August 17, 1998?


>>>>

A crime was alleged. Have a nice day!

 

[nat4900]

You mean like Ken Starr calling President Bill Clinton before a Grand Jury on August 17, 1998?

Interesting summary........

Like anyone whose testimony is sought by grand jury subpoena in a criminal case, the president could cite his Fifth Amendment right not to testify against himself. Such a move, however, would carry significant political risk.

The White House has given no indication that the president would refuse to answer Mueller's questions. Trump said in June that he was "100 percent" willing to give Mueller his version of events. "I'd be glad to," the president said when asked at a news conference.

But suppose he changed his mind. Could he decline to respond to a subpoena from Mueller on some other grounds? The answer, in a word, seems to be no.

The Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question about whether a president can refuse to cooperate in a criminal investigation potentially involving his own conduct. That's because no president has ever fought such a request. But in two other cases, the court has suggested that there's no authority to decline.

President Richard Nixon failed when he tried to shield his White House tapes from the Watergate prosecutor who wanted them as evidence in charging presidential aides with crimes related to the scandal. The court rejected Nixon's claim that the recordings were protected by executive privilege.

"The President's generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial and the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice," the court said in 1974.

Twenty-three years later, the Supreme Court ruled that President Bill Clinton was not immune from a lawsuit filed by Paula Jones, who accused him of sexual harassment.

It's settled law, the court said, "that the President is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances."

While that ruling involved a private civil case, the court said the need for evidence in a prosecution is even greater.

"We have made clear that in a criminal case the powerful interest in the 'fair administration of criminal justice' requires that the evidence be given under appropriate circumstances lest the 'very integrity of the judicial system' be eroded."

Two former White House counsels, under Republican and Democratic presidents, agreed Trump would have no legal grounds, other than the Fifth Amendment, to reject a subpoena for his testimony.

Trump probably could not refuse Mueller subpoena to answer questions

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Again, answer questions about WHAT?

It has been over a year now, and Democrats / Mueller have not even proved that a crime has been committed yet...which makes this one huge FISHING EXPEDITION.

Or, as regular folk call it, an investigation.

Mueller and his team have already proven that they are focused on playing 'Gottcha', trying to get people to incriminate themselves under oath during an investigation that has no crime to investigate.

'Collusion' is not a crime.

Obstruction of Justice is tho...

Even if it was, there is no evidence that Trump engaged in any with the Russians...as opposed to all of the evidence proving Mueller, Holder, Comey, Lynch, Hillary, McCabe, and Obama DID!

Do you not understand 'ongoing investigation'?

Trump should declare hew will only honor the subpoena if Mueller can prove that there was a crime committed.

Even then, knowing this is a set up...and knowing Hillary lied her ass off before Congress - being allowed to testify without being under oath so she could get away with lying, Trump should refuse to take part in the Witch Hunt by simply pleading the 5th....like just about all of the Democrats have done to escape punishment for their PROVEN crimes.

Yeah. He should totally do that.

What obstruction of justice? You can't obstruct justice if no crime has been committed.

 

[nat4900]

What obstruction of justice? You can't obstruct justice if no crime has been committed.

At the VERY LEAST, Trump is a witness to a felony involving Flynn.

We WILL have the first ever president pleading the fifth....or answering with a series of "I don't recall"(Reagan did it 88 time)........

Either way, Trump would be DONE.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Then don't lie. Executive Privilege will not stand up in court or in public opinion.

Some people don't understand that Executive Privilege applies to the President, but Trump wasn't the President during the campaign so Executive Privilege doesn't apply to prior to Noon on January 20th. It also doesn't apply to criminal investigations.


>>>>

It also doesn't apply to subpoenas originating in the executive branch to begin with.

"Executive privilege" is a response that the President can make against a Congressional subpoena. It's purpose is to protect the separation of powers. Since Mueller is not part of the legislative or judicial branches, and is in fact an agent of the executive branch, executive privilege does not apply.

You are wrong. See Nixon v. United States.

Archibald Cox was a special prosecutor in the Executive Branch, just like Mueller.

I have a couple of things to say about this.

1. I believe you're talking about United States v. Nixon, not Nixon v. United States. Nixon v. United States is a 1993 SCOTUS case about the impeachment of a Judge in Mississippi named Walter Nixon.

2. Archibald Cox was fired by Nixon prior to United States v. Nixon.

3. The opinion in United States v. Nixon was the opposite of what you appear to believe.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The execution of Mary Queen of Scots settled this matter. No one, not even the government itself embodied in the person of the King or Queen, is above the law.

This is grade-school stuff, to the OP I get your point, but Trump will lose this battle all the same (which I understand is your hope).

Again, how did the US Constitution address the execution of Mary Queen of Scots since it wasn't written until 200 years after her death?

Also, British law does not apply in this country, nor vice versa.