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: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus




A) Comey had the ability to end an investigation. Thus the ask to "Let Flynn Go"


Comey didn't end the investigation. Neither did Wray or Trump for that matter.




B) Obstructing Justice does not have to be successful, intent is all that matters.


Here is more to fan your unfounded claims:

Other ways an individual may commit this offense include, but are not limited to, the following acts:
Influencing or injuring an officer or juror generally (18 U.S.C. § 1503)
Obstruction of criminal investigations (18 U.S.C. § 1510)
Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant (18 U.S.C. § 1512)
Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant (18 U.S.C. § 1513)
Destruction of corporate audit records (18 U.S.C. § 1520)

criminal.findlaw.com...

Now, I want to also go back to your Politico source:

“Based only on what we know now in public, a reasonable prosecutor might bring this case against an ordinary person, but a prudent prosecutor would want more facts before bringing this case against a president.”



2 sets of rules, clearly. Now I ask you, who is obstructing justice here?




posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: soberbacchus

So please, inform me as to what he did for the investigation and how his removal (which is completely within the PotUS' power) hindered or obstructed justice.

Here is a link you can refer to:
www.law.cornell.edu...

"I hope you can let this go." is the statement Comey claims Trump said (Trump denies). That's the evidence. In it's entirety.

Good luck!


And, let us remember that he has the Constitutional authority to provide such direction.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

stonecoldtruth.com...

Enter Lisa Barsoomian, wife of Rod Rosenstein. Lisa is a high-powered attorney in Washington, DC, who specializes in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the Deep State, err, I mean, the Intelligence Communities.

Lisa Barsoomian works for R. Craig Lawrence, an attorney who has represented Robert Mueller three times, James Comey five times, Barack Obama forty-five times, Kathleen Sebellius fifty-six times, Bill Clinton forty times, and Hillary Clinton seventeen times between 1991 and 2017.

Barsoomian participated in some of this work personally and has herself represented the FBI at least five separate times. It would be great to research the specifics of the cases she worked in, many of the documents from the Court Docket relating to these cases have been removed from the D.C. District and Appeals Court, including her representation for Clinton in 1998’s case Hamburg. V. Clinton.


imgur.com...
She was Bill's lead attourney in one lawsuit, the others she was part of the R. Craig Lawrence legal team.

and... AND... AND since you're playing the "Firing Comey was obstruction" card, *who* was the leading influence behind firing James Comey to begin with?
hmmm...
Oh, that's right... Rod Rosenstein!
www.bbc.com...

Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.


So the guy holding final say over the prosecution and even the reporting on this case is the dude who used his position to influence the POTUS to fire the FBI Director, which then lead to accusations of obstruction of justice, which the damn close to a kangaroo court shifted over to following all of their other narratives and accusations finding zero joy.

Exactly what the hell type of asinine dog and pony show are these people running here? Mueller needs to be snipcanned, Rosenstein needs to be shipped out to serve his remaining years before retirement somewhere in the Marshall islands, and Congress needs a firm bitchslap across their jowels for wasting taxpayer resources and precious time on a set-up witch hunting exercise. This entire investigation is farcical.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: soberbacchus

His lawyers will tell him to pull a Lois Lerner and just refuse to answer. I know I wouldn't say anything on record to anyone regardless of my situation.


Trump pleading the 5th might be where this lands.

It would be a damaging PR move for him and the GOP though.
His core 25-30% wouldn't abandon him, but he'd lose the rest and take a significant chunk of the GOP who have lashed themselves to his boat with him.


I suspect that you have no basis other than you partisan gut on predicting damage cause by Trump pleading the 5th. My partisan gut says the exact opposite. I think he gets on TV and does a typically great job of explaining away any evil thoughts.
edit on 6-2-2018 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: soberbacchus

stonecoldtruth.com...

Enter Lisa Barsoomian, wife of Rod Rosenstein. Lisa is a high-powered attorney in Washington, DC, who specializes in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the Deep State, err, I mean, the Intelligence Communities.

Lisa Barsoomian works for R. Craig Lawrence, an attorney who has represented Robert Mueller three times, James Comey five times, Barack Obama forty-five times, Kathleen Sebellius fifty-six times, Bill Clinton forty times, and Hillary Clinton seventeen times between 1991 and 2017.

Barsoomian participated in some of this work personally and has herself represented the FBI at least five separate times. It would be great to research the specifics of the cases she worked in, many of the documents from the Court Docket relating to these cases have been removed from the D.C. District and Appeals Court, including her representation for Clinton in 1998’s case Hamburg. V. Clinton.


imgur.com...
She was Bill's lead attourney in one lawsuit, the others she was part of the R. Craig Lawrence legal team.

and... AND... AND since you're playing the "Firing Comey was obstruction" card, *who* was the leading influence behind firing James Comey to begin with?
hmmm...
Oh, that's right... Rod Rosenstein!
www.bbc.com...

Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.


So the guy holding final say over the prosecution and even the reporting on this case is the dude who used his position to influence the POTUS to fire the FBI Director, which then lead to accusations of obstruction of justice, which the damn close to a kangaroo court shifted over to following all of their other narratives and accusations finding zero joy.

Exactly what the hell type of asinine dog and pony show are these people running here? Mueller needs to be snipcanned, Rosenstein needs to be shipped out to serve his remaining years before retirement somewhere in the Marshall islands, and Congress needs a firm bitchslap across their jowels for wasting taxpayer resources and precious time on a set-up witch hunting exercise. This entire investigation is farcical.




posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:46 PM
link   
There are a few things to consider:

A sitting president is normally shielded from most lawsuits and legal proceedings. This has been a standard, and it isolates a sitting president from any sort of legal proceedings as well, while he is in office.

There are several problems that comes up, the first is that there is the fear that the Mueller will set a perjury trap and catch the president in a lie. However, if that is the case, then why are the pushing back so hard where Mueller when he wants to talk to the President, may have to issue a subpoena to the President to appear before a grand jury? Or do they think that Mueller will not have to say anything and the President will hang himself?

Now some people will hold out the 5th amendment, that the President can use that. That is true, he could hold out the 5th amendment for himself. So if Mueller was to ask him, Did you have any knowledge about the meeting in June, 2016 where there were people offering information about Clinton from the Russian government. And the President could plead the 5th or say no. And he would be within his right.

However, what if the questions Mueller asks, he cannot use the 5th to not answer and has to answer? If they ask him questions about his children and their activities, and they know where he knows, that could be a bit of different case and much more serious.

Asking him a question about himself and he lies about himself, that is a censor at the most. Does not warrant a removal. Asking him about someone he knows, and he lies, that would be something else.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus




SCOTUS didn't limit the ruling

Yes, in fact they did. That ruling was specifically for CIVIL lawsuits. You do realize a special prosecutor investigates CRIMINAL activities, right?


Nixon was not subject of a lawsuit when the courts ruled he would have to testify.

Nixon was never subpoenaed to testify.

Nice try, but a big swing and a miss there.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

As of January 8th, Mr. Mueller has not requested an interview with the President written or otherwise, reports from anonymous sources claim he is likely to do so, so your statement...




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


.

Is simply not true. The President has stated that he would sit down with Mueller but predicated that statement with depending on what the lawyers said which is wise.

Your whole OP is written based on unsubstantiated news articles...Trumps lawyers have never said publically about if he would testify, how he would testify either written or in person.

Your credibility suffers just like much of the MSM when they rely on the anonymous sources just as you have.

www.google.com... 73-11e7-beb6-c8d48830c54d_story.html

Mueller may be likely but has yet to ask for an interview but has certainly not "repeatedly" asked for an interview. At least try to get it right.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig




However, what if the questions Mueller asks, he cannot use the 5th to not answer and has to answer? If they ask him questions about his children and their activities, and they know where he knows, that could be a bit of different case and much more serious.


Since his kids were working for him and under his direction, and the only relevant questions would be used to hang him through them, my guess is that a judge would see how not answering the question falls under his privilege.

Moreover, he doesn't need to prove to the court that he deserves privielge (ie - he ordered them to do something) because that defeats the point of the privilege, the judge only needs to see how an answer might tend to incriminate him. It's a very weak legal standard to attain. They could offer him immunity, but then that defeats the whole point.
edit on 6-2-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Funny thing is that in a grand jury, the judge is not present when the person is being questioned. It would be Trump, the court reporter, and 16 to 23 Jurors, who all would be allowed to ask questions. Trumps Lawyers and Mueller would be outside of the court. Now Trump could go out and talk to his lawyers, but go back in alone.

If the questions are about him directly, then yeah he could plead the 5th, but if it is about other people who he knows and has had contact with, then the 5th would not apply, and he would have to answer.

But there are a few things to consider. Mueller is a special investigator, not an independent investigator. The rules are very much different with both positions. Mueller is not allowed to indict a sitting president, while he is in office. And here is how it will go down. If Mueller comes to the conclusion that Trump did indeed commit a crime, the DOJ under Sessions, could tell him that before congress gets to see the results, as they would be entitled to, would have to wait until all of the other trials involved in this case was done, meaning that the President is last, and as Manafort and Gates are putting up a fight, well that could take a year or 2 at the earliest.

In short, If Trump is innocent, then he has nothing to fear from Mueller, he would have more to fear from Sessions.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig




Funny thing is that in a grand jury, the judge is not present when the person is being questioned. It would be Trump, the court reporter, and 16 to 23 Jurors, who all would be allowed to ask questions

I'm confused. You think the jurors are going to rule on the application of Trump's privilege? Rulings on a legal challenge will come from a federal judge. If he says, "I assert my fifth amendment privileges" and Mueller for some reason thinks it is inappropriate, it goes to a federal judge to decide.




If the questions are about him directly, then yeah he could plead the 5th, but if it is about other people who he knows and has had contact with, then the 5th would not apply, and he would have to answer. 

That would be true if the people were not connected to him (by relevant business, not blood). If you start asking a gang leader specific questions about what his underlings were doing and why and if he was aware they were commuting crimes, and he is smart enough to affirm his privilege, what do you think a judge is going to rule? He doesn't have to prove the answer implicates him or tends to. A reasonable person sees what might result from how he may answer and that it may tend to be incriminating of Trump himself, not just his staff. May the question being answered establish a link that could lead to a Trump indictment or conviction? If the answer is yes, then he has privilege.

If they ask generic questions about what Ivanka's bday is or what tie Don Jr was wearing on Tuesday, then he's not going to have the privilege of not answering, but those questions are also not helpful to Mueller's investigation. That's why when you write a prosecutor informing him you plan to assert your fifth amendment rights, they don't bother wasting everyone's time having you come down and appear in person. If Trump's team elects to offer a letter in its stead, Mueller may be happy enough for something rather than nothing.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

A special counsel is different than an independent counsel. Independent has more power. The special counsel was later created and striped of the same powers. They can not subpoena president, the independent counsel can though.
edit on 7-2-2018 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 12:46 AM
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.




So he is a witness?




posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Two things: One this is a sitting President. And the full force of the DOJ rules would be in effect. And as the standing rules that the DOJ will not indict a sitting President, as the constitution outlines that very carefully. The only trial that a sitting president would be forced to go through would be a sitting president.

The second point is this: Statements that incriminate someone else would not be protected by the Fifth amendment. The example would be this:

You are asked under oath whether or not you saw or know of your best friend commit some crime, for which you are not charged, you cannot refuse to answer on the 5th amendment grounds.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Pssst: because he was the chief executive and they were employees working at his direction, he is probably going to get the privilege of not answering. Asking him whether he knows his employee committed a crime is potentially asking him to incriminate himself. Even the possibility that he ordered them to commit a crime enables him to refuse to answer a question. That question can potentially link him to the crime. It might tend to incriminate him and would be used against him. He does not have to be guilty to make the question an incriminating one. Again: May the question being answered establish a link that could lead to Trump facing legal jeopardy? If the answer is yes, then he has privilege.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

no its written SIEG



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 04:04 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

What Exactly does Robert S. Mueller III want to Ask the President ? Questions pertaining to Fictional Reports , or how is his Golf Game lately ?



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Double Post
edit on 7-2-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 07:38 AM
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.


trump doesn't need to be formally informed he is under oath, it's irrelevant....if he talks to the FBI, lying to them is a crime, if he talks to a grand jury, lying to them is a crime.....no oath is needed



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Unless you are named Hillary, Huma, et al, then it is not lying because there was no intent and no reasonable prosecutor would ever file charges




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join