TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

#2,276
#2,276
OuterBanksVol said:
CNN:

President Donald Trump's attorneys are arguing that special counsel Robert Mueller's team has not met the high threshold they believe is needed to interview a president in person, according to sources familiar with the ongoing deliberations.

...But even if the President's lawyers object and seek to fight efforts to talk to him, Mueller could ultimately seek to force the issue through a grand jury subpoena. That would prolong the issue and could lead to court battles.

Unless Trump fires Mueller, this would end up before Supreme Court... where Trump would lose. Go for it Dotard!!! D.C. Jury waiting for you...

Trump lawyers argue Mueller hasn't met bar for sit-down - CNNPolitics

View attachment 153180
Click to expand...

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.

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.

There is a simple reason for this: The awesome responsibilities of the presidency are more significant to the nation than the outcome of any particular criminal case. There is an exception: When there is reasonable cause to believe the president is complicit in a serious criminal offense, and that he has evidence or knowledge that would be admissible and probative. Only in those circumstances should a president be subject to subpoena, and only then should he submit to questioning. Trump has a responsibility to the office to enforce that standard.

Trump 'the man' should avoid Mueller’s highly skilled, highly aggressive prosecutors. Trump 'the president' should not be asked to meet with them in the first place.
 
#2,277
#2,277
luthervol said:
I understand perfectly. When you insult segments of society with insensitive and sometimes utterly ridiculous statements, that segment has a hard time getting over it, no matter what that president may say and do after the fact. They may spend the rest of their lives telling that individual "you can kiss my a$$."

You know where this is headed.....Trump offended far more segments and much more often. Collectively they say..."he can kiss my a$$."
Click to expand...
Who cares? I certainly don't care if you like Trump or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,278
#2,278
Just in ...

F.B.I. counter-intelligence and legal advisor, who are at F.B.I. director Wray's aides; said memo does not subject any national security risks, and they cannot find one single factual 'inaccuracy' in the memo. There is no jeopardy of risk to sources or method.

An DOJ official later disputed that description.
DOJ official redacted the word 'reckless' per the memo release. Said it's a 'moot' subject.

After Wray met with IG Horowitz, McCabe was asked to 'leave'. McCabe was the 6th F.B.I. agent to quit, resign, retire, be reassigned or get demoted 'thus far'.

Trump wants it out asap, per a Trump aide.


aVOSkIC.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,280
#2,280
It appears Kelly has rejected LG’s call for a coup. Sad!

[twitter]https://twitter.com/esaagar/status/958725508543451136[/twitter]
 
#2,284
#2,284
luthervol said:
lol. Pretty standard stuff, just to a record level.
Click to expand...

Trump approval at 43% I think now...sure that can be rebuked...nonetheless, he's kicked ass with 95% negative media press...Dem resistance, plus establishment Repubs...and the D.C. slimy swamp can't stand him; they detest an outsider, acting in the behest of the people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,285
#2,285
hog88 said:
Trump wouldn't lose, the burden of need would fall on Muller. He can't force the POTUS to tesify in front of a GJ or be interviewed just because he wants him to.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question about whether a president can refuse to cooperate in a criminal investigation potentially involving his own conduct. That's because no president has ever fought such a request. But in two other cases, the court has suggested that there's no authority to decline.

Trump probably could not refuse Mueller subpoena to answer questions - NBC News
 
#2,286
#2,286
OuterBanksVol said:
Wrong.

The Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question about whether a president can refuse to cooperate in a criminal investigation potentially involving his own conduct. That's because no president has ever fought such a request. But in two other cases, the court has suggested that there's no authority to decline.

Trump probably could not refuse Mueller subpoena to answer questions - NBC News
Click to expand...

Yes, "probably" right.

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.

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:

1. Solid evidence that a serious crime has been committed.
2. A lack of any alternative means to acquire proof that is essential to the prosecution.

There is an exception: When there is reasonable cause to believe the president is complicit in a serious criminal offense, and that he has evidence or knowledge that would be admissible and probative. ONLY in those circumstances should a president be subject to subpoena, and only then should he submit to questioning.
 
#2,287
#2,287
Newsweek:

Corallo was named as a member of Trump’s legal team when it formed in 2017 to defend the president in Mueller’s probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and possible coordination with the Trump campaign.

He left the team in July, the day before Sean Spicer departed his role as White House press secretary. The same day Corallo left, Trump lawyer Marc Kasowitz was demoted. Politico reported at the time, citing sources, that Corallo had resigned because he was frustrated with disagreements between people involved in the legal strategy and that he had questioned whether they were telling him the truth.

His departure came about two weeks after The New York Times first reported that members of the Trump campaign, including Donald Trump Jr., had met with a Kremlin-connected lawyer and others in Trump Tower in June 2016. As the Trump administration scrambled to respond to the reports, it left Corallo out of its strategy, the author Michael Wolff wrote in Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.

“Corallo, seeing no good outcome—and privately confiding that he believed the meeting on Air Force One represented a likely obstruction of justice—quit,” Wolff wrote.

Trump’s Former Legal Spokesman to Be Interviewed by Mueller in Next Two Weeks
 
#2,288
#2,288
OuterBanksVol said:
Newsweek:

Corallo was named as a member of Trump’s legal team when it formed in 2017 to defend the president in Mueller’s probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and possible coordination with the Trump campaign.

He left the team in July, the day before Sean Spicer departed his role as White House press secretary. The same day Corallo left, Trump lawyer Marc Kasowitz was demoted. Politico reported at the time, citing sources, that Corallo had resigned because he was frustrated with disagreements between people involved in the legal strategy and that he had questioned whether they were telling him the truth.

His departure came about two weeks after The New York Times first reported that members of the Trump campaign, including Donald Trump Jr., had met with a Kremlin-connected lawyer and others in Trump Tower in June 2016. As the Trump administration scrambled to respond to the reports, it left Corallo out of its strategy, the author Michael Wolff wrote in Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.

“Corallo, seeing no good outcome—and privately confiding that he believed the meeting on Air Force One represented a likely obstruction of justice—quit,” Wolff wrote.

Trump’s Former Legal Spokesman to Be Interviewed by Mueller in Next Two Weeks
Click to expand...

wait so the guy was left out of the loop, and quit over not knowing enough, is now coming forward with all this information? Doesn't seem fishy to you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,289
#2,289
OuterBanksVol said:
Newsweek:

Corallo was named as a member of Trump’s legal team when it formed in 2017 to defend the president in Mueller’s probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and possible coordination with the Trump campaign.

He left the team in July, the day before Sean Spicer departed his role as White House press secretary. The same day Corallo left, Trump lawyer Marc Kasowitz was demoted. Politico reported at the time, citing sources, that Corallo had resigned because he was frustrated with disagreements between people involved in the legal strategy and that he had questioned whether they were telling him the truth.

His departure came about two weeks after The New York Times first reported that members of the Trump campaign, including Donald Trump Jr., had met with a Kremlin-connected lawyer and others in Trump Tower in June 2016. As the Trump administration scrambled to respond to the reports, it left Corallo out of its strategy, the author Michael Wolff wrote in Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.

“Corallo, seeing no good outcome—and privately confiding that he believed the meeting on Air Force One represented a likely obstruction of justice—quit,” Wolff wrote.

Trump’s Former Legal Spokesman to Be Interviewed by Mueller in Next Two Weeks
Click to expand...

LOL...another hack distraction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,291
#2,291
OuterBanksVol said:
Wrong.

The Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question about whether a president can refuse to cooperate in a criminal investigation potentially involving his own conduct. That's because no president has ever fought such a request. But in two other cases, the court has suggested that there's no authority to decline.

Trump probably could not refuse Mueller subpoena to answer questions - NBC News
Click to expand...

Ignored this part.

While it's unlikely Trump could successfully refuse to answer Mueller's questions if subpoenaed, how he does so would probably be negotiated. The special prosecutor might not be able to force him to appear on videotape for a deposition and might have to settle for written answers.

Mueller could try to summon the president to appear in court, though his lawyers could cite the Clinton precedent and seek to have the questioning done in the White House. In its ruling in the Clinton civil case, the Supreme Court said, "We assume that the testimony of the President, both for discovery and for use at trial, may be taken at the White House." But that was a civil case with no grand jury.
Click to expand...

Muller will have to show why he needs Trumps testimony and present to a judge the need for it. Myself, I look forward to that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,292
#2,292
LouderVol said:
wait so the guy was left out of the loop, and quit over not knowing enough, is now coming forward with all this information? Doesn't seem fishy to you?
Click to expand...

I don't think he even reads the talking points they send them, just copies and pastes them.

I wonder if this guy is bound by attorney client privilege? LG?
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top