It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump is going to get a Grand Jury Supoena IMO

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Clinton V. Jones

The Supreme Court ruled that Sitting Presidents can be Subpoenaed to testify for actions that occurred BEFORE they became President.
A rare 9-0 unanimous ruling.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

It is no secret that the Special Counsel's office has repeatedly requested an interview with the President.

Trump's lawyers have tried to significantly narrow the scope of questions.

They have asked that he be able to submit written responses.

They have said that Special Counsel has not met a loose standard that courts have sometimes applied stating that the President only has to testify if the Jury is unable to get the questions answered from other sources or people.
No one can testify as to what Trump knows or the reasoning for his actions and that argument is premised on the President's time being vital to the nation in executing his duties.
Seeing as the President is breaking records with time spent on the Golf Course, no legal scholar thinks that will ever hold up in court.

Now it seems that Trump's Lawyers are leaning toward simple refusal:

Trump still won't commit to testifying under oath in Mueller investigation


Bruce Udolf, who served as an associate independent counsel during the Whitewater investigation, said if Trump attempts to use the Nunes memo as an excuse not to testify, the president would be "asking for a subpoena."

"This memo has no credibility at all," Udolf said. "At least Clinton had the sense of arranging to testify from the White House to avoid the indignity of going to the courthouse.

"Trump seems to think that the rules don't apply to him," Udolf said. "If he pushes it, his options run out. And I'd drag his fanny before the grand jury."

www.usatoday.com...

In Russia Inquiry, Lawyers Tell Trump to Refuse Mueller Interview


WASHINGTON — Lawyers for President Trump have advised him against sitting down for a wide-ranging interview with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, according to four people briefed on the matter, raising the specter of a monthslong court battle over whether the president must answer questions under oath.

His lawyers are concerned that the president, who has a history of making false statements and contradicting himself, could be charged with lying to investigators.

www.nytimes.com...

This is going to end up being a Grand Jury Subpoena IMO.

Interesting times





edit on 6-2-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

More wishful thinking. His written testimony can still be given under oath. Mueller will get all his questions answered whether it's a live interview or written testimony, and it will still have to be truthful testimony. Same standard applies. What do you think they do with witnesses that can't speak?

Source

In this case, it would likely be in the form of an affidavit.
edit on 6 2 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

If we're to use recent history as an indication, we should expect Trump to be questioned. Anywhere that's comfortable for him, while NOT under oath and have a person who is in his corner just take notes instead of record it.

This fishing trip is long overdue for a bite.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: soberbacchus

More wishful thinking. His written testimony can still be given under oath. Mueller will get all his questions answered whether it's a live interview or written testimony, and it will still have to be truthful testimony. Same standard applies. What do you think they do with witnesses that can't speak?

Source

In this case, it would likely be in the form of an affidavit.


Accepting written testimony in the form of an affidavit is at the discretion of the Special Counsel, not Trump, not the courts.

Trump's attorneys can try arguing that written testimony is sufficient in court, but it would be unprecedented.

It is at Mueller's discretion and he wants a sit-down or this would have already been over with.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: soberbacchus

If we're to use recent history as an indication, we should expect Trump to be questioned. Anywhere that's comfortable for him, while NOT under oath and have a person who is in his corner just take notes instead of record it.

This fishing trip is long overdue for a bite.


Any testimony from Trump while NOT under oath is useless.

Mueller would ask the Grand Jury for a Subpoena if non-oath testimony was the best offer.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus


What is the ratio of WRONG predictions to RIGHT predictions, re: President Trump facing Impeachment, or something similar?

Any SANE person would bet against him being subpoened.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

The case of Bill Clinton in Jones v. Clinton really is the best example.

Once the SCOTUS ruled he could be subpoenaed, he negotiated the interview, under oath, at the Whitehouse vs. having to show up in front of the Grand Jury with camera's rolling etc.

In Trump's case the Clinton ruling still stands, so the delay will be brief.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)[1], was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation against him or her, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office.


Talk bout moving goal posts.

Trumps a Russian puppet.

No wait.

Russia rigged our elections no wait.

Trumps obstructing 'justice'.

No wait.


WHAT THE HELL EVER they can pin on him.

Never mind Trumps 5th amendment RIGHT.



A person being charged with a crime that warrants a grand jury has the right to challenge members of the grand juror for partiality or bias, but these challenges differ from peremptory challenges, which a defendant has when choosing a trial jury.


www.law.cornell.edu...

Good luck with that.

edit on 6-2-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus




Any testimony from Trump while NOT under oath is useless.


Couldn't agree more.




Mueller would ask the Grand Jury for a Subpoena if non-oath testimony was the best offer.


Mueller has to have a reason to speak with Trump. Something more than, "hey man, did you commit a crime?"



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

The title of your thread is misleading.
It is your opinion, not fact.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: soberbacchus




Any testimony from Trump while NOT under oath is useless.


Couldn't agree more.




Mueller would ask the Grand Jury for a Subpoena if non-oath testimony was the best offer.


Mueller has to have a reason to speak with Trump. Something more than, "hey man, did you commit a crime?"


He wouldn't be asking if he didn't have a reason.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:26 PM
link   
A grand jury would need actual evidence of wrong doing to indict.Good luck with ridiculous msm speculation.
edit on CSTTuepm2661 by TDawg61 because: (no reason given)

edit on CSTTuepm2661 by TDawg61 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: soberbacchus

The title of your thread is misleading.
It is your opinion, not fact.


If it was fact, I wouldn't have posted in this forum. It is Opinion.

Let me see if I can edit the OP Headline.

There you go.
edit on 6-2-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Publicly available evidence shows a different story.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TDawg61
A grand jury would need actual evidence of wrong doing to indict.Good luck with riculous msn speculation.


Subpoena NOT Indictment

They don't need to think he is guilty to have him answer questions.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Thank you.
Now it slightly less MSM-like

They also tend to broadcast their opinion as fact.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: soberbacchus

Publicly available evidence shows a different story.


Publicly being the operative word.

Mueller shoots straight despite the right wing noise.

He wouldn't be asking for an interview without his ducks in a row.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus




They don't need to think he is guilty to have him answer questions.


Seig Heil!

Seig Heil!



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: soberbacchus

Publicly available evidence shows a different story.


Publicly being the operative word.

Mueller shoots straight despite the right wing noise.

He wouldn't be asking for an interview without his ducks in a row.


Ask Mueller and Flynn...or relatives of those who died in the 9/11 attacks.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Fantastic, Awesome, Great.

SO when this all started there were like 9 agencies vouching for this authenticity, the CIA being in front. Yet, now, no word ever mentioned of the CIA on either side. hmmm.

What ever happened with Turkey invading Syria? Seems awfully quite.
What's going on with the West Bank and Gaza? Not a peep over there either. Strange.

Everything about all of this seems like a Prime Time Soap Opera. Obama and his BC. Bush and 911. Clinton and Monica.

Psychological Operations.




Divide and conquer is an approach to a problem or task, attempting to achieve an objective by breaking it into smaller parts. Often it is used to separate a force that would be stronger if united, or to cause confusion amongst rival factions.


You know.....just saying. But I digress. Let's just keep on keeping on. RINO's keep pointing the finger at the Donkey. Donkeys, feel free to do the same. It will end well, I promise.

edit on 6-2-2018 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join