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: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Now you're simply making biased assumptions.




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






posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

The problem with this entire OP is the fact that the President is not personally being sued nor has he been charged with committing a crime. This is an inquiry by a special counsel in regards to whatever fishing expedition they are trying to drag out. That makes this distinct from Clinton v. Jones. Nothing has formally been alleged against the President, himself.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

We'll just take it out of his Twitter time. No loss of time being president. He already has that time cleared.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Mueller will not accept written answers. He wants face time and follow up.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: soberbacchus

The problem with this entire OP is the fact that the President is not personally being sued nor has he been charged with committing a crime. This is an inquiry by a special counsel in regards to whatever fishing expedition they are trying to drag out. That makes this distinct from Clinton v. Jones. Nothing has formally been alleged against the President, himself.


Again, compelling testimony in an investigation does not require that the subject be accused of anything beyond having relevant and unique knowledge.

Nixon was not charged with a crime, nor being sued and he lost in the courts trying to duck a subpoena.
edit on 6-2-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: soberbacchus

Now you're simply making biased assumptions.




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




Mueller has a VERY long record of prosecutions and investigations.

It is an objective assumption.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:54 PM
link   


Must the president comply with a subpoena to testify before a grand jury?

The answer is probably yes.

It has been settled law for some time that the president is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances.

Presidents from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton unsuccessfully opposed subpoenas.
...
There is enough guidance from prior cases to conclude that the Mueller team could force the testimony of the president.

www.nbcnews.com...



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TDawg61

No one is talking indictment....yet. Just an interview.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

The SCOTUS ruling in Clinton v Jones clearly defines the scope as applying to civil lawsuits. The Mueller probe is neither civil nor a lawsuit. Further, only Congressional Committee chairmen can issue subpoenas since Congress redefined the "Special prosecutor" role to the current "Special Counsel" role following Ken Starr's attempted prosecution of Bill Clinton in 1999. The GOP controls the House and Senate... no subpoena will be issued to Trump largely because there's zero reason or evidence present to go down that dead end alleyway.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:56 PM
link   
And here is another potential scenario:

Trump Will Refuse To Testify With Mueller; If Compelled He Will Take The Fifth
www.realclearpolitics.com...

He could plead the 5th and take his chances it would not harm him politically.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Between firing Comey the meeting in trump tower the cover story concocted on air force one just as a start I'd say he has ample reason to talk to him.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: soberbacchus

The SCOTUS ruling in Clinton v Jones clearly defines the scope as applying to civil lawsuits.


SCOTUS didn't limit the ruling and Nixon was not subject of a lawsuit when the courts ruled he would have to testify.


Further, only Congressional Committee chairmen can issue subpoenas since Congress redefined the "Special prosecutor" role to the current "Special Counsel" role following Ken Starr's attempted prosecution of Bill Clinton in 1999.


Not accurate. The Grand Jury has Subpoena authority and Rosenstein signs off on any resulting charges or conclusions.

Congressional Committees have no authority over the Mueller Probe, that is the whole point.

BTW - I would be curious as to why you thought Congress signed off on Mueller's several dozen Subpoena's thus far? Do you have a link? Or did you come up with that on your own?
edit on 6-2-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Lots of people STILL have not figured out the strategy 😆

Don't look now Clyde, but there are trees in that forest ☸

👑🤘👑




posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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.


He doesn't have to answer questions after a subpoena or summons either... He can simply show up according to the summons and assert the fact he has a fifth amendment privilege as the investigation is into him. They can either give him immunity or tell him, "thanks for coming down; have a nice day."



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: JinMI

Between firing Comey the meeting in trump tower the cover story concocted on air force one just as a start I'd say he has ample reason to talk to him.


Sounds like you're of the opinion that there was some obstruction going on. So where exactly was Comey involved in the investigation?

If were going to use AF1 meetings as basis for question answering, will we see something from Lynch and ol' Billy?



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: soberbacchus

The problem with this entire OP is the fact that the President is not personally being sued nor has he been charged with committing a crime. This is an inquiry by a special counsel in regards to whatever fishing expedition they are trying to drag out. That makes this distinct from Clinton v. Jones. Nothing has formally been alleged against the President, himself.


Not to mention the SCOTUS could possibly reverse the 1997 decision if it's ever challenged 😈



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

www.nbcnews.com...


The "author" of that article is a known Left Wing hack 😆

🤦‍♀️




posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Right. I posted that above already.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
And here is another potential scenario:

Trump Will Refuse To Testify With Mueller; If Compelled He Will Take The Fifth
www.realclearpolitics.com...

He could plead the 5th and take his chances it would not harm him politically.


Seriously ?

a STEPHANOPOULOS/KRISTOL exchange of ideas 🤡



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: JinMI

Between firing Comey the meeting in trump tower the cover story concocted on air force one just as a start I'd say he has ample reason to talk to him.


If were going to use AF1 meetings as basis for question answering, will we see something from Lynch and ol' Billy?


But...HILLARY!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join