Perhaps Trump should refuse to honor Mueller's subpoena

[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.

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.

Oh, wow! My mistake. I had them backwards! I beg your forgiveness!

 

[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.

Oh, wow! My mistake. I had them backwards! I beg your forgiveness!

Actually, not only did you have the names backwards, you also appear to be confused as to what the decision in United States v. Nixon was.

SCOTUS ruled against Nixon, stating that he did not have the executive privilege he was trying to claim - and ordered him to turn over the tapes.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Oh, wow! My mistake. I had them backwards! I beg your forgiveness!

Actually, not only did you have the names backwards, you also appear to be confused as to what the decision in United States v. Nixon was.

SCOTUS ruled against Nixon, stating that he did not have the executive privilege he was trying to claim - and ordered him to turn over the tapes.

Hello Doofus! We have been arguing that no crime has been committed. Try to keep up!

The reasoning was that executive privilege did not apply to criminal charges. Where are the criminal charges? No criminal charges equals no right to demand he provide evidence.

That's a fishing expedition.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Oh, wow! My mistake. I had them backwards! I beg your forgiveness!

Actually, not only did you have the names backwards, you also appear to be confused as to what the decision in United States v. Nixon was.

SCOTUS ruled against Nixon, stating that he did not have the executive privilege he was trying to claim - and ordered him to turn over the tapes.

Hello Doofus! We have been arguing that no crime has been committed. Try to keep up!

The reasoning was that executive privilege did not apply to criminal charges. Where are the criminal charges? No criminal charges equals no right to demand he provide evidence.

That's a fishing expedition.

That wasn't what the ruling said - particularly since (like so far with Trump) no criminal charges were ever brought against Nixon.

The court shot down the idea of a generalized privilege of confidentiality in the face of a legal court order (subpoena).

In other words, if there's a subpoena, the burden is on the President to demonstrate why the requested information should not be produced (national security, or other reasons).

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Oh, wow! My mistake. I had them backwards! I beg your forgiveness!

Actually, not only did you have the names backwards, you also appear to be confused as to what the decision in United States v. Nixon was.

SCOTUS ruled against Nixon, stating that he did not have the executive privilege he was trying to claim - and ordered him to turn over the tapes.

Hello Doofus! We have been arguing that no crime has been committed. Try to keep up!

The reasoning was that executive privilege did not apply to criminal charges. Where are the criminal charges? No criminal charges equals no right to demand he provide evidence.

That's a fishing expedition.

That wasn't what the ruling said - particularly since (like so far with Trump) no criminal charges were ever brought against Nixon.

The court shot down the idea of a generalized privilege of confidentiality in the face of a legal court order (subpoena).

In other words, if there's a subpoena, the burden is on the President to demonstrate why the requested information should not be produced (national security, or other reasons).

You just have to prove to everyone that you simply cannot read? Is that some sort of weird compulsion for you?

There were criminal charges filed against OTHER people. There was a crime alleged to have occured.

My God, I wish I could put your dumb ass on ignore!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Oh, wow! My mistake. I had them backwards! I beg your forgiveness!

Actually, not only did you have the names backwards, you also appear to be confused as to what the decision in United States v. Nixon was.

SCOTUS ruled against Nixon, stating that he did not have the executive privilege he was trying to claim - and ordered him to turn over the tapes.

Hello Doofus! We have been arguing that no crime has been committed. Try to keep up!

The reasoning was that executive privilege did not apply to criminal charges. Where are the criminal charges? No criminal charges equals no right to demand he provide evidence.

That's a fishing expedition.

That wasn't what the ruling said - particularly since (like so far with Trump) no criminal charges were ever brought against Nixon.

The court shot down the idea of a generalized privilege of confidentiality in the face of a legal court order (subpoena).

In other words, if there's a subpoena, the burden is on the President to demonstrate why the requested information should not be produced (national security, or other reasons).

You just have to prove to everyone that you simply cannot read? Is that some sort of weird compulsion for you?

There were criminal charges filed against OTHER people. There was a crime alleged to have occured.

My God, I wish I could put your dumb ass on ignore!

Aha. Other people, you say.

You mean like Flynn, Manafort and Gates?


Let me enlighten you on how our justice system works.

Subpoenas are court orders, issued by Judges (or in some cases, Congress) that demand production of people or information relating to an ongoing case.

In order for a subpoena to exist, there must be court (or Congressional) proceedings already ongoing.

This thread is a hypothetical discussion of what would happen, should Trump refuse to respond to a (hypothetical) subpoena. No such subpoena exists at this time, and none shall exist, unless related court proceedings were to start.

In order to answer the hypothetical that this thread puts forth, as with any other hypothetical discussion, the hypothesis must be assumed.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Oh, wow! My mistake. I had them backwards! I beg your forgiveness!

Actually, not only did you have the names backwards, you also appear to be confused as to what the decision in United States v. Nixon was.

SCOTUS ruled against Nixon, stating that he did not have the executive privilege he was trying to claim - and ordered him to turn over the tapes.

Hello Doofus! We have been arguing that no crime has been committed. Try to keep up!

The reasoning was that executive privilege did not apply to criminal charges. Where are the criminal charges? No criminal charges equals no right to demand he provide evidence.

That's a fishing expedition.

That wasn't what the ruling said - particularly since (like so far with Trump) no criminal charges were ever brought against Nixon.

The court shot down the idea of a generalized privilege of confidentiality in the face of a legal court order (subpoena).

In other words, if there's a subpoena, the burden is on the President to demonstrate why the requested information should not be produced (national security, or other reasons).

You just have to prove to everyone that you simply cannot read? Is that some sort of weird compulsion for you?

There were criminal charges filed against OTHER people. There was a crime alleged to have occured.

My God, I wish I could put your dumb ass on ignore!

Aha. Other people, you say.

You mean like Flynn, Manafort and Gates?


Let me enlighten you on how our justice system works.

Subpoenas are court orders, issued by Judges (or in some cases, Congress) that demand production of people or information relating to an ongoing case.

In order for a subpoena to exist, there must be court (or Congressional) proceedings already ongoing.

This thread is a hypothetical discussion of what would happen, should Trump refuse to respond to a (hypothetical) subpoena. No such subpoena exists at this time, and none shall exist, unless related court proceedings were to start.

In order to answer the hypothetical that this thread puts forth, as with any other hypothetical discussion, the hypothesis must be assumed.

Flynn, Manafort and Gates were not and have not been charged with any crime even remotely related to Mueller's investigation.

Your argument falls apart right there!

 

[rightwinger]

Let's not fool ourselves

Any Mueller question will be answered with

I don't remember
I can't recall

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, not only did you have the names backwards, you also appear to be confused as to what the decision in United States v. Nixon was.

SCOTUS ruled against Nixon, stating that he did not have the executive privilege he was trying to claim - and ordered him to turn over the tapes.

Hello Doofus! We have been arguing that no crime has been committed. Try to keep up!

The reasoning was that executive privilege did not apply to criminal charges. Where are the criminal charges? No criminal charges equals no right to demand he provide evidence.

That's a fishing expedition.

That wasn't what the ruling said - particularly since (like so far with Trump) no criminal charges were ever brought against Nixon.

The court shot down the idea of a generalized privilege of confidentiality in the face of a legal court order (subpoena).

In other words, if there's a subpoena, the burden is on the President to demonstrate why the requested information should not be produced (national security, or other reasons).

You just have to prove to everyone that you simply cannot read? Is that some sort of weird compulsion for you?

There were criminal charges filed against OTHER people. There was a crime alleged to have occured.

My God, I wish I could put your dumb ass on ignore!

Aha. Other people, you say.

You mean like Flynn, Manafort and Gates?


Let me enlighten you on how our justice system works.

Subpoenas are court orders, issued by Judges (or in some cases, Congress) that demand production of people or information relating to an ongoing case.

In order for a subpoena to exist, there must be court (or Congressional) proceedings already ongoing.

This thread is a hypothetical discussion of what would happen, should Trump refuse to respond to a (hypothetical) subpoena. No such subpoena exists at this time, and none shall exist, unless related court proceedings were to start.

In order to answer the hypothetical that this thread puts forth, as with any other hypothetical discussion, the hypothesis must be assumed.

Flynn, Manafort and Gates were not and have not been charged with any crime even remotely related to Mueller's investigation.

Your argument falls apart right there!

That is what they plead to

They plea bargained based on what they can testify to regarding other subjects

Trump is shitting his pants

 

[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.


>>>>

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".



>>>>

You folks may want to make up some sort of crime, but the only evidence that you folks seem to have is perjured testimony by Trump haters involved in a criminal conspiracy.

Sorry, but thems the facts.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

So the plan was to set up President Trump by causing him to fire Robert Mueller, who is obviously abusing his authority, which would lead to an impeachment.
Think Trump will fall for it????

 

[easyt65]

Evidence already proves Mueller broke the law / betrayed the country in 2009.

Snowflakes continue to post a lot of things, but one thing they can't post is evidence a crime was ever committed justifying Mueller's Witch Hunt.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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.

If no crime occurred, why have four of Orange's former staffers been criminally charged (2 plead guilty) via the investigation regarding Russia possibly influencing in the 2016 election? Happy coincidence?

 

[WelfareQueen]

With Trump in the WH, this may be the optimum time to finally settle the issue that was poorly addressed by our founding fathers. The question is a rather simple one, but with far-reaching repercussions in defining a social democratic republic:

Do we elect someone who is above the legal standards of all other citizens, or do we elect someone who is a temporary holder of a high executive position, subject to the same standards of any other?

In a monarchy, there has always been this myth that the position of royalty is a "divine disposition"(as Louis XIV asserted, l'etat est moi.) But our wise founding fathers revolted against such a form of government. Nonetheless, they did not precisely restrict the powers invested in a POTUS.

With the advent and ascendancy of a Trump, this issue has reached the point of better defining what the role of a president should be in upholding the tenets of a free democratic republic.

So, let Trump defy the subpoena and let BOTH the people's will and the courts' judicial opinions finally settle this issue. (we had a partial assertion on this issue in the SCOTUS ruling in Nixon v.U.S.)

He should destroy all the evidence like Hillary.

 

[nat4900]

He should destroy all the evidence like Hillary.

very difficult to destroy THIS type of evidence.......

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump told the Russian ambassador, “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”