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: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 07:58 AM
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.




Nope, Mueller has a long resume that speaks to his integrity.

Born in NYC to A Navy Veteran of WW2
Graduated Princeton University

1968 Enlisted in the Marine Corps, Parris Island, Officer Candidate School, Army Ranger School, and Army jump school

Served in Viet Nam, receiving the Bronze Star Medal with Combat "V" for heroism and the Purple Heart Medal
In July 1968, he was sent to South Vietnam where he served as a rifle platoon leader with Second Platoon, H Company, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 3rd Marine Division
In December 1968, he earned the Bronze Star with 'V' distinction for combat valor for rescuing a wounded Marine under enemy fire during an ambush that saw half of his platoon become casualties
In April 1969, he received an enemy gunshot wound in the thigh, recovered, and returned to lead his platoon until June 1969.
For his service in and during the Vietnam War, his military decorations and awards include:
the Bronze Star Medal with Combat "V",
Purple Heart Medal, two Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medals with Combat "V",
Combat Action Ribbon,
National Defense Service Medal,
Vietnam Service Medal with three service stars,
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal,
and Parachutist Badge.

1973 Graduated Virginia Law School
US Attorney
US Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division
During his tenure, he oversaw prosecutions that included
Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega,
the Pan Am Flight 103 (Lockerbie bombing) case,
and the Gambino crime family boss John Gotti.

Acting Attorney General

2001-2013 Director of the FBI, Appointed by Pres. Bush,
The confirmation vote on the Senate floor on August 2, 2001, was unanimous, 98–0
the longest serving FBI Director since Hoover.

Lifelong Republican.



edit on 7-2-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: soberbacchus

stonecoldtruth.com...


The fact that you just used Roger Stone's BLOG as a citation to support a claim tells me just how insanely not-credible that claim is and how little you care about truth.

THIS IS YOUR SOURCE:


THIS IS ROGER STONES PROUD TATOO


Not surprised though.

Trumpites have cast aside whatever honor they had in trade for affirmation of their identity-politics.

History won't be kind to propagandists and criminals.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 08:04 AM
link   
And this in Politico this AM

Trump allies urge compromise with Mueller
www.politico.com...

This is heating up.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
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 ?


Who knows?

If I was Mueller I would keep it simple.

At any time during the 2016 Presidential campaign were you aware of any offers to receive direct or indirect assistance from representatives of the Russian Government, financial or otherwise, in your bid for President?

At any time during the 2016 Presidential campaign were you aware of the campaign receiving direct or indirect assistance from representatives of the Russian Government?

At the end of the day Mueller either has hard evidence implicating Trump or he does not.

Trump just needs to go on record under oath and let the facts play out.

If his answers are "no" and there is direct hard evidence to the contrary, Trump can clear his name and bemoan the horrible "witch hunt" he has had to endure.

If there is hard evidence to the contrary, emails and sealed depositions and other communications with Trump, then he is in impeachment territory.

If Trump is innocent this should be as simple as checking the box.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

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?



Correct.

No one can attest to the activities of the Donald Trump for President Campaign as authoritatively as Donald Trump.

The Special Counsel has not charged, indicted or even accused President Trump of any wrongdoing.

If they are to sign off on the Donald Trump Campaign not conspiring with Russia, the need Donald Trump legally on record telling them it did not happen.

Pretty simple.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

I have given you the legal definition. I have provided you what the best legal minds in the country have stated. I have shown what judges have stated. The way you are stating, it does not work that way. The reality is that there are only 2 people that Trump can not be compelled to testify against, nor can the courts compelled to testify against him. Just 2, all others are fair game in this.

That means that if he is asked about the actions of Don Jr, or Jared, or Eric, under oath, he has to answer. If he pleads the fifth, then his attorneys would have to explain why it would lead to legal jeopardy, and it opens up a legal door that he may not want to go down. And of course there are legal precedents that have already been set by prior court cases, where staff who knew and participated in said misdoings, had to testify in court against their boss, and vice versa.

So yes the President will have to answer questions about the actions of those who worked for him in the campaign, and his 5th will only be used if it is a direct question about himself. His wife and youngest son are safe from answering questions about him.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig




That means that if he is asked about the actions of Don Jr, or Jared, or Eric, under oath, he has to answer.
...
If he pleads the fifth, then his attorneys would have to explain why it would lead to legal jeopardy, and it opens up a legal door that he may not want to go down. 

Ironically, you just showed why it would fall under his privilege. He also doesn't have to prove he ordered them to do anything. He just has to show it may tend to incriminate him. Meaning any one of several answers might provide a link to his own prosecution. He doesn't have to prove he's guilty to assert his fifth amendment privileges! Any "reasonable person" can see the potential conflict that might exist, which may be used as part of a link to aid prosecution against himself.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

...said by someone who used the NYTimes as a source. You amuse me greatly, soberbacchus.

The court cases Stone speaks of are public record. The source is solid.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: soberbacchus

...said by someone who used the NYTimes as a source. You amuse me greatly, soberbacchus.

The court cases Stone speaks of are public record. The source is solid.



The court cases involved a huge law firm that Rosenstein's wife worked at once upon a time.
Not her on the case.

Roger Stone is proud "cuck" to use right wing lingo.
He is also a proud liar and has a rotten soul.

BTW - Did you respond to me directly? Because I didn't see this post in "Thread Replies".

Almost as if someone opted to avoid direct response and quotes a post rather than replied.

THIS IS YOUR HERO






edit on 7-2-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

No, I am not saying that they are going to ask him to prove anything, but answer questions about those on his campaign, such as Don Jr, Eric, Ivanka and Jared. So if he is asked if he knew that there was a meeting in June of 2016, and he did not know, what is the harm of him saying I don't know, I was not there? If he was not there, it is not lying, unless someone else who was there placed him in the same room at the time. He would not be violating his 5th amendment.

He, by very definition of his position, is in charge of enforcing the laws of this country. He can not just merely pick and choose which laws to enforce, nor can he neglect his duties.

What conflict could there be if he is asked about the activities of those under him? If they broke the law, do you think that they should get a free pass all cause he is their children? Or do you think he should uphold on his actual job and actually enforce the law?

But then again if he does use the 5th, it would go against him, as then it shows that he is hiding the truth, and was participant in what could be a crime. And by hiding a crime, that shows intention, and thus validate those who would say the man is obstructing justice.

Here is what most experts will tell you, it is never the crime that is what gets politicians into serious trouble, it is always the cover up.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig




So if he is asked if he knew that there was a meeting in June of 2016, and he did not know, what is the harm of him saying I don't know, I was not there? If he was not there, it is not lying, unless someone else who was there placed him in the same room at the time. He would not be violating his 5th amendment. 


When you don't know what information the prosecutor has and you know that you are a target or subject in front of the grand jury (they don't have to disclose like in a trial), you should simply plead. Again, you are asking questions that could incriminate him. It doesn't have to actually incriminate him, and he doesn't have to explain how it would/could incriminate him. He is obviously at minimum a subject. He is probably the target. He could probably plead the 5th to asking his name and still be allowed privilege (though you'd make the prosecutor mad, and that's probably not wise). If they ask him questions that have zero relationship to him (not familial, but factual relationship), then he would not have a privilege. He is obviously at the center of the investigation. He doesn't lose his rights in front of a Grand Jury.




He can not just merely pick and choose which laws to enforce, nor can he neglect his duties. 

We just had a POTUS who did just that. Most of them do. He can choose to not enforce the law so thoroughly he can issue a pardon for absolutely anything. There is no law forcing him to relinquish his 5th amendment rights. He does have to follow a law to show up, if they subpoena him (usually a prosecutor won't bother when he hears you intend to exercise your right to remain silent).




What conflict could there be if he is asked about the activities of those under him? If they broke the law, do you think that they should get a free pass all cause he is their children? 

You just gave several examples, ironically, of potential conflicts of his own interest in answering those questions. And no, they should absolutely not get a free pass, but that doesn't mean people should be forced to incriminate themselves so they can be charged if they did something. Mueller is free to investigate. He'd be foolish not to ask for an interview. Trump's job is not to help him investigate himself. That's not how the law works.




But then again if he does use the 5th, it would go against him, as then it shows that he is hiding the truth, and was participant in what could be a crime

No, it would show he wisely listened to council. I hope if you're ever arrested or pulled in front of a grand jury as a target or subject, you'll acquire and listen to council even if (especially if!) you're innocent.


ETA: www.justice.gov...-11.154


A question frequently faced by Federal prosecutors is how to respond to an assertion by a prospective grand jury witness that if called to testify the witness will refuse to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds. If a "target" of the investigation and his or her attorney state in a writing, signed by both, that the "target" will refuse to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds, the witness ordinarily should be excused from testifying unless the grand jury and the United States Attorney agree to insist on the appearance. In determining the desirability of insisting on the appearance of such a person, consideration should be given to the factors which justified the subpoena in the first place, i.e., the importance of the testimony or other information sought, its unavailability from other sources, and the applicability of the Fifth Amendment privilege to the likely areas of inquiry.


As he is the subject or target, the likely areas of inquiry (indeed the only ones relevant) will be those that tend to incriminate him. The fifth is entirely applicable. So they could conceivably force him to appear, he asserts his rights, a federal judge will rule if a dispute over application exists. It is certain to be upheld as he is at minimum a subject of the investigation (pretty obviously the target, but we can pretend). Are they going to offer him immunity to force him to testify? Ha! Doubt it.
edit on 7-2-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

If you are innocent, why are you taking the Fifth?

Those words were spoken by Trump, not too long ago. And it will be his downfall, and a trap of his own making.

If Mueller, gets enough permission and issues a subpoena to Trump to appear before a Grand Jury, it will not be for Trump to talk about himself, but others. No prosecutor is going to do that, nor would Mueller. More like it would be to talk about other people. Now if the president, cannot ignore a subpoena, he will lose in court on that one.

His council is giving him bad advice, and that is the shame of it all. What would be better for Trump, to have attorneys there, where they can stop him from saying anything incriminating, or where he could incriminate himself and not know it?

Personally if I was in his position, I would want attorneys there to protect me and not on my own.

Trump, in order not to avoid this, needs to talk to Mueller. If he takes the 5th, then the claims will be his own words used against him and he is guilty cause he is hiding something. And they will play that clip over and over.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig




If you are innocent, why are you taking the Fifth? 


Same reason Flynn would've been told to if his lawyer had been present for his unannounced interrogation.




If Mueller, gets enough permission and issues a subpoena to Trump to appear before a Grand Jury, it will not be for Trump to talk about himself, but others. 

He is at minimum a subject of the investigation. It was his campaign being investigated. He is probably the target. Either way, he cannot be compelled to help the prosecution under those circumstances. Mueller will probably eventually get an in person interview with lawyers in attendance on a slew of questions of preagreed scope. That is what is being reportedly negotiated. The same arrangement HRC agreed to. He may get a sworn written statement (produced by lawyers in collaboration with and signed by Trump) in response to written queries, which is also a frequent request from lawyers. It is obviously even less desirable than an interview. Grand Jury subpoena is the best way to get absolutely nothing at all from the President, but you're welcome to clamour for it.
Does anything about the past two years suggest Trump cares about opinion polls and his words being used against him? Moreover, I'm not sure how recommendations for indictment or a report to congress as a result of a perjury trap might be the better alternative to more bad press (already at 90% negative coverage).



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 12:09 AM
link   
I'll try another angle since you aren't getting it. Would Mueller be willing to offer Trump immunity in exchange for asking the hypothetical questions you think he will be asking? That would remove his privilege.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: sdcigarpig




If you are innocent, why are you taking the Fifth? 


Same reason Flynn would've been told to if his lawyer had been present for his unannounced interrogation.




Flynn was a former Director of National Intelligence and Chief National Security Advisor to the President at the time.

The suggestion he needed a lawyer to inform him that lying to the FBI was illegal is a special kind of desperate stupid.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot

No he doesnt. Her have shut this thing down a year ago if that was even remotely true.
He doesn't not have the authority to end the investigation.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Yeah, because facing a perjury trap in an unannounced interrogation is completely the same thing as deciding to lie to the FBI. Speaking of special kind of stupid...



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Boy I wonder if William Jefferson Clinton knew this? It would have made his impeachment hearing so much easier if he could have limited Ken Stars scope of questions.

Where did you hear that Hillary had such an arrangement or are you making that part up?



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Well tell it to the judge Bobby boy cuz he's been found guilty of lying to a federal officer. You don't need to be under oath.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Yeah I'm of the opinion. Me and everybody else.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join