- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: It's Mueller's burden to prove the necessity of an interview with President Trump
Posted on 1/27/18 at 6:45 pm to Sentrius
Posted on 1/27/18 at 6:45 pm to Sentrius
I’d need to see the case law and the code pointing to that. Mueller can issue the subpoena and Trump can move to have to quashed and I’m even good with your national security/ compelling reason to compel Trump to do so argument, but to suggest Mueller has to show anything before issuing the subpoena is erroneous. Let Trump fight it and then the judiciary would weigh in.
I’d also be interested to see the official Presidential schedule. I don’t know if the executive time that’s been reported would bode well for Trump.
I’d also be interested to see the official Presidential schedule. I don’t know if the executive time that’s been reported would bode well for Trump.
1
Posted on 1/27/18 at 6:46 pm to Godfather1
quote:
It's the exact same reason that no defense lawyer worth his law license will put a defendant on the stand if he doesn't have to.
It's comical that there's anyone alive with half a brain that doesn't readily acknowledge this.
It's the state's burden to prove their case. If they've got it 100% nailed down, they have zero need to talk to you. So, if they want to talk to you, that's your first sign(and a HUGE ONE) that you shut the frick up.
There are a LOT of people in jail in America today for ONE reason. They couldn't shut the frick up.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 6:46 pm to Godfather1
quote:
It's the exact same reason that no defense lawyer worth his law license will put a defendant on the stand if he doesn't have to.
It's even funnier when you consider that Boosie is a lawyer himself and likely has given the same advice to clients before.
Burden of proof belongs to the Prosecutor. Keep your contact with him as limited as it can be and do not say anything that will incriminate you.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 6:48 pm to Sentrius
quote:
It's even funnier when you consider that Boosie is a lawyer himself and likely has given the same advice to clients before.
If Boosie is a lawyer then the fact he's downvoting my posts is even more comical.
He knows you shut the frick up. 100% of the time(absent my exception).
If I'm on Trump's team, I tell him to keep 1000 yards between him and Mueller's team at all times.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 6:49 pm to Sentrius
You’re misguided in what process we’re currently in. We’re are the GJ stage, not a trial. Trump is not on trial. Mueller can not compel him to testify at trial. But Trump is certainly subject to the subpoena power of the S.C. to bring him before the grand jury.
Let me or whomever else be a witness to a possible crime and you bet your boots I can be compelled to testify in front of a grand jury.
Let me or whomever else be a witness to a possible crime and you bet your boots I can be compelled to testify in front of a grand jury.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 6:49 pm to Sentrius
quote:The SC in of itself is a joke. What crime is named?
A president of the United States should never be the subject of a criminal investigation, and should never be asked to provide testimony or evidence in a criminal investigation, in the absence of two things: solid evidence that a serious crime has been committed and a lack of any alternative means to acquire proof that is essential to the prosecution.
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 6:50 pm
Posted on 1/27/18 at 6:49 pm to Sentrius
Trying to create a crime where none has been committed in the process of investigation is plain low down as far as I am concerned.
That is what this is. Trump should tweet stick to investigating what you're supposed to. If there's no evidence then shut it down.
I don't speak to them. They can compel me to appear but I hold up 5 fingers and that's all they get.
That is what this is. Trump should tweet stick to investigating what you're supposed to. If there's no evidence then shut it down.
I don't speak to them. They can compel me to appear but I hold up 5 fingers and that's all they get.
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 6:51 pm
Posted on 1/27/18 at 6:50 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
You’re misguided in what process we’re currently in. We’re are the GJ stage, not a trial. Trump is not on trial. Mueller can not compel him to testify at trial. But Trump is certainly subject to the subpoena power of the S.C. to bring him before the grand jury.
You can bring me wherever the frick you want to bring me.
You can't force me to talk.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 6:50 pm to ShortyRob
Check my posts in the Gasser thread on the OT
Trump doesn’t need to go before the SC without an army of lawyers present. But he can either be interviewed voluntarily or he can be subpoenaed and then move to quash it. Optics are good on one and not so good on the other. His choice.
Trump doesn’t need to go before the SC without an army of lawyers present. But he can either be interviewed voluntarily or he can be subpoenaed and then move to quash it. Optics are good on one and not so good on the other. His choice.
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 6:52 pm
Posted on 1/27/18 at 6:50 pm to boosiebadazz
He's got to answer questions about Russian hacking?
Hahahahahha
Hahahahahha
Posted on 1/27/18 at 6:51 pm to ShortyRob
Sure. Sit here in jail in contempt then
Posted on 1/27/18 at 6:52 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:I venture to the OT VERY infrequently.
Check my posts in the Gasser thread on the OT
quote:
Trump doesn’t need to go before the SCnwithiut an army of lawyers present. But he can either be interviewed voluntarily or he can be subpoenaed and then move to quash it. Optics are good on one and not so good on the other. His choice.
Optics schmoptics.
If I'm the object of an investigation, I'm not going to talk to you about jack shite. I'm not going to tell you what time I brush my teeth.
You can put me in whatever chair you like. I ain't answering shite.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 6:53 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:LOL. Oh, so you only plan to ask me questions wholly unrelated to ME being the target?
Sure. Sit here in jail in contempt then
Cause otherwise, good luck with that.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 6:55 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Trump to do so argument, but to suggest Mueller has to show anything before issuing the subpoena is erroneous.
You seriously think a credible court of law is just going to issue a subpoena to the President of the United States when there's no compelling evidence for the need for such an interview? The judge may or may not be a big lefty but I doubt he's willing to bark up a tree that big.
Oh and btw, I forgot to mention that the author of this column used to be a pretty good federal prosecutor in the Chicago area and I think he knows what he's talking about more than you do.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 6:55 pm to ShortyRob
I’m not sure what your point is here. Can Trump be forced to testify before the grand jury? He can be subpoenaed and if that subpoena is not quashed then the answer is yes. He can sit there silent and after awhile he’d be held in contempt.
Ask Bill Clinton about being forced to testify as President
Ask Bill Clinton about being forced to testify as President
Posted on 1/27/18 at 6:58 pm to boosiebadazz
Find me in contempt then. I will win that argument soonest, you cannot compel me to incriminate myself and that is what Mueller is doing.
NEVER talk. N-E-V-E-R.
NEVER talk. N-E-V-E-R.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 6:59 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
I’m not sure what your point is here. Can Trump be forced to testify before the grand jury? He can be subpoenaed and if that subpoena is not quashed then the answer is yes. He can sit there silent and after awhile he’d be held in contempt.
He is perfectly well allowed to exercise his 5th Amendment rights. Even before GJ.
quote:He wasn't FORCED to TESTIFY. Just sayin.
Ask Bill Clinton about being forced to testify as President
Posted on 1/27/18 at 6:59 pm to Sentrius
quote:
The burden should be on Mueller to demonstrate the necessity of questioning the president in any form, not on the president to provide reasons for not submitting to questioning. Being president is reason enough.
That'd play better if Trump hadn't publicly said twice that he'd be happy to talk to Mueller under oath.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 6:59 pm to Sentrius
Mandate of the SC isntoninvestiagte Russian meddling in the election. The guy he wants to subpoena is one of the candidates in that election. I can see how the two are related. Can you?
Now sure, I know he’s got a busy schedule and he’s the President and all, but to suggest he doesn’t have a few hours over a few weeks to answer questions is a stretch. Again, those official presidential schedules would be interesting. Also ask ya boy Clinton about giving a deposition while President
precedent is there.
Now sure, I know he’s got a busy schedule and he’s the President and all, but to suggest he doesn’t have a few hours over a few weeks to answer questions is a stretch. Again, those official presidential schedules would be interesting. Also ask ya boy Clinton about giving a deposition while President
precedent is there.
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 6:59 pm
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:00 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Ask Bill Clinton about being forced to testify as President
He wasn't FORCED to TESTIFY. Just sayin.
Clinton could have perfectly well invoked the 5th.
Instead, he chose to lie.
Now, I suppose he figured the 5th would look bad. But, that's different than being forced.
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News