- 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 7:20 pm to cajunangelle
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:20 pm to cajunangelle
He’s welcome to challenge the validity of the S.C.
But this thread is whether he’s subject to the subpoena power of the SC as currently constituted.
Using Clinton as precedent, I think he is. You’re welcome to make the case of why he’s not.
If you want to discuss the validity of the SC in general then start a new thread
But really, gonread some of the arguments put forth by Clinton’s people that he should have to testify. I think you’ll see some strange similarities.
But this thread is whether he’s subject to the subpoena power of the SC as currently constituted.
Using Clinton as precedent, I think he is. You’re welcome to make the case of why he’s not.
If you want to discuss the validity of the SC in general then start a new thread
But really, gonread some of the arguments put forth by Clinton’s people that he should have to testify. I think you’ll see some strange similarities.
0
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:21 pm to boosiebadazz
I think he could possibly be compelled to appear. He could merely cite executive privilege or stand on the Fifth Amendment and I don't think Mueller could do much about it.
You were the one that brought up Trump was a candidate and should be questioned about his role, counselor. You opened the door.
You were the one that brought up Trump was a candidate and should be questioned about his role, counselor. You opened the door.
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 7:24 pm
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:22 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
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.
Mueller said he wanted to question Trump simply to see what Trump would say.
Trump should have had one of his lawyers say thanks but no thanks. Because there is no way Trump will testify, and it will look like he backed out.
Eta: But, Trump being Trump won't let him look like he backed down to anyone.
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 7:24 pm
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:23 pm to boosiebadazz
Trump's lawyers should write honest Bob a bigly and strongly worded letter stating that.... Pending the OIG DOJ report and release of evidence that Rosenstein was a part of the sabotage to set up POTUS, that all hereby thereto thus forth 'questioning' or 'interview' shall be postponed until further notice.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:25 pm to antibarner
quote:
You were the one that brought up Trump was a candidate and should be questioned about his role, counselor. You opened the door.
Yes, in the sense that Trump the candidate and Russian meddling have a possible nexus of connectivity and I can see a judge finding such.
Juxtaposed against the murder in Florida while Trump is in Oregon. That subpoena would be quashed as there is no connectivity between the two.
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 7:27 pm
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:26 pm to cajunangelle
quote:
Trump's lawyers should write honest Bob a bigly and strongly worded letter stating that.... Pending the OIG DOJ report and release of evidence that Rosenstein was a part of the sabotage to set up POTUS, that all hereby thereto thus forth 'questioning' or 'interview' shall be postponed until further notice
That’d be a good move and plausible cover. But they risk HB issuing the subpoena anyway and then they’ve either gotta move to quash, appear, or be in contempt. 2/3 of those are bad politically.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:32 pm to boosiebadazz
Like I said, YOU opened the door. Hillary was a candidate in the election, too. She is making the claims of meddling and her server was one that was allegedly trifled with.
She should appear in front of the grand jury and let us all in on why she came to the conclusion it was the Russians that did all these things. It was her hirelings that made the allegations since the FBI didn't get hold of her server until it was subjected to Bleach Bit.
She should appear in front of the grand jury and let us all in on why she came to the conclusion it was the Russians that did all these things. It was her hirelings that made the allegations since the FBI didn't get hold of her server until it was subjected to Bleach Bit.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:33 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Trump the candidate and Russian meddling have a possible nexus of connectivity
Keep telling yourself this, sport. There is no connection between Trump and whatever you've convinced yourself the Russians did to keep your fat whore form becoming President.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:37 pm to antibarner
Opened the door to what? The entire thread is about Trump and the S.C.
But like the simpleton you are, you resort to your safety net of whataboutism (Clinton, this time) any time Trump is scrutinized.
But like the simpleton you are, you resort to your safety net of whataboutism (Clinton, this time) any time Trump is scrutinized.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:39 pm to boosiebadazz
The optics of the politics sucks for most. The delay tactic could still work. Because then honest Bob would have to get a subpoena; and wouldn't even the most leftist corrupt DC judge need an actual crime listed to issue a subpoena? Yes, CNN would come in their pants with the headline, "Trump subpoened by Mueller" but Trump can survive these political optics like no other, while it is proven that Rosenstein is the fox guarding the hen house of sabotage.
If you President Boosie were Trump-- to be questioned by a criminal prosecutor you know damned well is going to set a perjury trap. You would delay and try to prove you were sabotaged, even if CNN got the subpoena POTUS headline, no?
If you President Boosie were Trump-- to be questioned by a criminal prosecutor you know damned well is going to set a perjury trap. You would delay and try to prove you were sabotaged, even if CNN got the subpoena POTUS headline, no?
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:39 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
Keep telling yourself this, sport. There is no connection between Trump and whatever you've convinced yourself the Russians did to keep your fat whore form becoming President.
Sure. And I hope there isn’t. I don’t want the constitutional crisis that would be presented. But it’s not my job nor your job to investigate it and sadly, unilateral declarations of thebigmuffaletta on the internet just won’t suffice.
It’s Honest Bob’s job to investigate it and he should be able to question Trump in doing so
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:42 pm to boosiebadazz
You are getting your arse kicked by a layman and don't like it. You refuse to address my point about if one candidate is called, then BOTH should be. She is definitely a relevant witness. Bob should be called out for it.
I did address your point. I said he could IMO likely be compelled to answer a subpoena. Probably after some legal wrangling like you shysters do to run up billable hours.
But I do not believe Mueller could force him to answer anything. He would either cite executive privilege or take the Fifth. It is even possible that he could pardon himself from any silly contempt charge. I am not sure about that one but there are those that think he could.
I did address your point. I said he could IMO likely be compelled to answer a subpoena. Probably after some legal wrangling like you shysters do to run up billable hours.
But I do not believe Mueller could force him to answer anything. He would either cite executive privilege or take the Fifth. It is even possible that he could pardon himself from any silly contempt charge. I am not sure about that one but there are those that think he could.
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 7:44 pm
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:44 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Being that you have already admitted to being curious about the legal process and wanting to know/ read more, maybe just shut the frick up and read this thread instead of cluttering it with your nonsense
All the hubris in the world, yet you get slapped around on this board daily.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:45 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
It’s Honest Bob’s job to investigate it
It's good to know you support investigations where no crime is present. I'll bookmark for future reference.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:46 pm to cajunangelle
quote:
Because then honest Bob would have to get a subpoena; and wouldn't even the most leftist corrupt DC judge need an actual crime listed to issue a subpoena
I've gone along with the premise of a crime being as prerequisite simply to avoid an argument, but I'm not sure that's actually true.
Mueller derives his authority and the subpoena power from the articles appointing him SC, not from some supposition of a crime being present.
quote:
If you President Boosie were Trump-- to be questioned by a criminal prosecutor you know damned well is going to set a perjury trap. You would delay and try to prove you were sabotaged, even if CNN got the subpoena POTUS headline, no?
It depends what Trump knows to be true. If he knows there was some foreknowledge or coordination with the Russians and members of his campaign, I'd obfuscate and delay til the cows come home. I'm of the personal belief that Trump didn't know if any frickery was afoot, so he's not in real danger there.
His danger lies in firing Comey and that idiotic interview with Lester Holt. Comey works for him in the executive branch, but there's also a plausible case for obstruction given what we know. That is another potential constitutional crisis brewing.
If I'm trump, I'm answering questions with my lawyers, but I'm telling them to end the interview at he first sign of trouble.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:47 pm to starsandstripes
quote:
For me, the main take home point is that a sufficient reason (crime) needs to be ascertained for the investigation to exist. It's implied the investigation will lead to questioning, but the since the investigation jumped into being without a crime as its cause, the crime and justification for questioning should be developed. It's a farce.
EXACTLY. I regret I have but one upvote to give, so I'll quote your post. It's the same as if I want to interview you to ask if you have stopped beating your wife, let alone the fact that you may or may not be married, have one arm and are wheelchair bound. All this BS is a fabrication of the left because they are so damn butthurt that SHE didn't get HER turn.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:49 pm to boosiebadazz
Plausible case...did Comey tell the President he was not being investigated? If he did so then how could there be obstruction? If there was an investigation and Comey lied to the President, you fire him for cause.
So much for your plausibility.
So much for your plausibility.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:49 pm to antibarner
wtf is a layman? I'm not clergy.
I told you to write a letter to HB about it. What do you want me to say? This thread is about Trump and the SC,not Hillary and the SC. You wanting to harp on "Honest Bob should call Hillary too" is not germane to the OP at all. Make your own thread if that's what you want to discuss.
Good deal. I agree with you that he's subject to the subpoena.
All of those are possibilities. I think they would be met with further action by HB and we'd really have a court fight on our hands, but they're all options for Trump at this point.,
quote:
You refuse to address my point about if one candidate is called, then BOTH should be. She is definitely a relevant witness. Bob should be called out for it.
I told you to write a letter to HB about it. What do you want me to say? This thread is about Trump and the SC,not Hillary and the SC. You wanting to harp on "Honest Bob should call Hillary too" is not germane to the OP at all. Make your own thread if that's what you want to discuss.
quote:
I did address your point. I said he could IMO likely be compelled to answer a subpoena. Probably after some legal wrangling like you shysters do to run up billable hours.
Good deal. I agree with you that he's subject to the subpoena.
quote:
But I do not believe Mueller could force him to answer anything. He would either cite executive privilege or take the Fifth. It is even possible that he could pardon himself from any silly contempt charge. I am not sure about that one but there are those that think he could.
All of those are possibilities. I think they would be met with further action by HB and we'd really have a court fight on our hands, but they're all options for Trump at this point.,
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:51 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
in the sense that Trump the candidate and Russian meddling have a possible nexus of connectivity
'Possible' isn't the standard for these things, is it? There isn't even enough out there to make it a plausible suggestion. You are terrible at this lawyering thing.
Maybe you should be asking me for legal advice. I'm a short distance from a law library. Have you been in one of those before?
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:53 pm to starsandstripes
It's been awhile since I've run across a pigeon shitting on the board and claiming victory. I forgot how enjoyable that can be.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News