Mueller investigation

[Copernicus]

A lot of press outlets are reporting that Mueller wants to interview Trump directly. Hopefully it means that the investigation is getting near the end. And we may see a precedence-setting determination on if a president can be forced to testify. Time to get out more popcorn!

That precedent has already been established. Presidents can be compelled to testify, especially if subpoenaed. Trump's lawyers are negotiating, and they appear to be desperate. One option they tossed out was that he could just sign an affidavit affirming that there was no collusion and that he has done nothing illegal. There have been four Presidents, beginning with Ford, who have testified under oath in the past. Clinton went before a grand jury. I don't know what would happen if Trump decided to ignore a subpoena or whether it would come to that, but I wouldn't be totally surprised. He has no respect for the law and rightfully believes that he is above it, as long as Congress refuses to impeach. And they almost certainly will refuse to impeach him.

Frankly, I am beginning to doubt that an interview would extract much information from Trump. He seems not to perform very well under pressure and seems even more scatterbrained now than in the past. What would investigators make of rambling ungrammatical responses? Is he lying, if he is incoherent? He fares best around people who feel that they know how to interpret his tweets.

 

[Malintent]

So the last thing that Trump wants is to be questioned under oath in a public setting. The reason is that he has calculatedly lied to the American public for many years and would have to basically sit there and walk back every lie he ever told, and essentially come out looking like the total creep he is.

I see no reason why he shouldn't be directly questioned in the same environment that anyone else has been or would be questioned.

His schedule is quite free, I hear.

Can a sitting president be placed under citizen's arrest? I wonder. Let's say he is subpoenaed to appear for questioning and he basically responds, "go fuck yourself". Can a small army of concerned citizens legally show up at the white house and basically demand he be turned over for arrest?

How likely would it be that the Secret Service upon hearing of a subpoena basically just says, "Today we are going to court, Mr. President. Would you like me to hold your head for you as you get into the car or can you do it yourself?"

 

[Artemus]

A lot of press outlets are reporting that Mueller wants to interview Trump directly. Hopefully it means that the investigation is getting near the end. And we may see a precedence-setting determination on if a president can be forced to testify. Time to get out more popcorn!

That precedent has already been established. Presidents can be compelled to testify, especially if subpoenaed. Trump's lawyers are negotiating, and they appear to be desperate. One option they tossed out was that he could just sign an affidavit affirming that there was no collusion and that he has done nothing illegal. There have been four Presidents, beginning with Ford, who have testified under oath in the past. Clinton went before a grand jury. I don't know what would happen if Trump decided to ignore a subpoena or whether it would come to that, but I wouldn't be totally surprised. He has no respect for the law and rightfully believes that he is above it, as long as Congress refuses to impeach. And they almost certainly will refuse to impeach him.

I'm pretty sure that the previous presidents all elected to honor rather than fight the grand jury subpoena they received. I don't think it has been determined if they are obligated by US law to appear if they choose not too. (A number of the press reports at least seem think that it has not.) Ordinarily I'd think it would be political suicide for a president to refuse, but Trump has done so much already that should have been political suicide that it wouldn't matter any more.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A lot of press outlets are reporting that Mueller wants to interview Trump directly. Hopefully it means that the investigation is getting near the end. And we may see a precedence-setting determination on if a president can be forced to testify. Time to get out more popcorn!

That precedent has already been established. Presidents can be compelled to testify, especially if subpoenaed. Trump's lawyers are negotiating, and they appear to be desperate. One option they tossed out was that he could just sign an affidavit affirming that there was no collusion and that he has done nothing illegal. There have been four Presidents, beginning with Ford, who have testified under oath in the past. Clinton went before a grand jury. I don't know what would happen if Trump decided to ignore a subpoena or whether it would come to that, but I wouldn't be totally surprised. He has no respect for the law and rightfully believes that he is above it, as long as Congress refuses to impeach. And they almost certainly will refuse to impeach him.

I'm pretty sure that the previous presidents all elected to honor rather than fight the grand jury subpoena they received. I don't think it has been determined if they are obligated by US law to appear if they choose not too. (A number of the press reports at least seem think that it has not.) Ordinarily I'd think it would be political suicide for a president to refuse, but Trump has done so much already that should have been political suicide that it wouldn't matter any more.

Trump has been playing Political Russian Roulette and just doesn't stop pulling the trigger.

 

[Copernicus]

A lot of press outlets are reporting that Mueller wants to interview Trump directly. Hopefully it means that the investigation is getting near the end. And we may see a precedence-setting determination on if a president can be forced to testify. Time to get out more popcorn!

That precedent has already been established. Presidents can be compelled to testify, especially if subpoenaed. Trump's lawyers are negotiating, and they appear to be desperate. One option they tossed out was that he could just sign an affidavit affirming that there was no collusion and that he has done nothing illegal. There have been four Presidents, beginning with Ford, who have testified under oath in the past. Clinton went before a grand jury. I don't know what would happen if Trump decided to ignore a subpoena or whether it would come to that, but I wouldn't be totally surprised. He has no respect for the law and rightfully believes that he is above it, as long as Congress refuses to impeach. And they almost certainly will refuse to impeach him.

I'm pretty sure that the previous presidents all elected to honor rather than fight the grand jury subpoena they received. I don't think it has been determined if they are obligated by US law to appear if they choose not too. (A number of the press reports at least seem think that it has not.) Ordinarily I'd think it would be political suicide for a president to refuse, but Trump has done so much already that should have been political suicide that it wouldn't matter any more.

Sorry, Artemus, but the precedent is pretty solid. The Supreme Court ruling goes back to Nixon in 1974 and was reaffirmed with President Clinton. See Trump probably could not refuse Mueller subpoena to answer questions

President Richard Nixon failed when he tried to shield his White House tapes from the Watergate prosecutor who wanted them as evidence in charging presidential aides with crimes related to the scandal. The court rejected Nixon's claim that the recordings were protected by executive privilege.

"The President's generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial and the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice," the court said in 1974.

Twenty-three years later, the Supreme Court ruled that President Bill Clinton was not immune from a lawsuit filed by Paula Jones, who accused him of sexual harassment.

It's settled law, the court said, "that the President is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances."

While that ruling involved a private civil case, the court said the need for evidence in a prosecution is even greater.

"We have made clear that in a criminal case the powerful interest in the 'fair administration of criminal justice' requires that the evidence be given under appropriate circumstances lest the 'very integrity of the judicial system' be eroded."

Two former White House counsels, under Republican and Democratic presidents, agreed Trump would have no legal grounds, other than the Fifth Amendment, to reject a subpoena for his testimony. Both spoke on condition that they not be identified.

 

[Artemus]

I'm pretty sure that the previous presidents all elected to honor rather than fight the grand jury subpoena they received. I don't think it has been determined if they are obligated by US law to appear if they choose not too. (A number of the press reports at least seem think that it has not.) Ordinarily I'd think it would be political suicide for a president to refuse, but Trump has done so much already that should have been political suicide that it wouldn't matter any more.

Sorry, Artemus, but the precedent is pretty solid. The Supreme Court ruling goes back to Nixon in 1974 and was reaffirmed with President Clinton. See Trump probably could not refuse Mueller subpoena to answer questions

President Richard Nixon failed when he tried to shield his White House tapes from the Watergate prosecutor who wanted them as evidence in charging presidential aides with crimes related to the scandal. The court rejected Nixon's claim that the recordings were protected by executive privilege.

"The President's generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial and the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice," the court said in 1974.

Twenty-three years later, the Supreme Court ruled that President Bill Clinton was not immune from a lawsuit filed by Paula Jones, who accused him of sexual harassment.

It's settled law, the court said, "that the President is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances."

While that ruling involved a private civil case, the court said the need for evidence in a prosecution is even greater.

"We have made clear that in a criminal case the powerful interest in the 'fair administration of criminal justice' requires that the evidence be given under appropriate circumstances lest the 'very integrity of the judicial system' be eroded."

Two former White House counsels, under Republican and Democratic presidents, agreed Trump would have no legal grounds, other than the Fifth Amendment, to reject a subpoena for his testimony. Both spoke on condition that they not be identified.

Your article says exactly what I said (bolding mine):

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.

"Suggested" is not precedence setting.

ETA Nixon was compelled to turn over evidence but not to testify in an inquiry against him.

 

[Elixir]

Sorry, Artemus, but the precedent is pretty solid. The Supreme Court ruling goes back to Nixon in 1974 and was reaffirmed with President Clinton. See Trump probably could not refuse Mueller subpoena to answer questions

Your article says exactly what I said (bolding mine):

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.

"Suggested" is not precedence setting.

ETA Nixon was compelled to turn over evidence but not to testify in an inquiry against him.

Yah, I'm pretty sure Cheato would refuse to honor a grand jury subpoena. As JH points out, after umpteen unsuccessful political suicide attempts that precede it, what difference would it make?

 

[bilby]

Your article says exactly what I said (bolding mine):


"Suggested" is not precedence setting.

ETA Nixon was compelled to turn over evidence but not to testify in an inquiry against him.

Yah, I'm pretty sure Cheato would refuse to honor a grand jury subpoena. As JH points out, after umpteen unsuccessful political suicide attempts that precede it, what difference would it make?

Well, that's the thing. The right wing (not just in the USA) appear to have decided to abandon political convention.

In the recent past, people would say of politicians "If he does X (or fails to do Y), he will be forced to resign". But the reality is that nobody is forced to resign; if you are not fired (or defeated at the ballot box), then you get to stay until you are shamed into resigning, and if you have no shame, the system breaks down.

 

[Copernicus]

Sorry, Artemus, but the precedent is pretty solid. The Supreme Court ruling goes back to Nixon in 1974 and was reaffirmed with President Clinton. See Trump probably could not refuse Mueller subpoena to answer questions

Your article says exactly what I said (bolding mine):

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.

"Suggested" is not precedence setting.

OK, you are really trying to save your position here by reading selectively and cherrypicking that passage that occurred well before the text I quoted. First of all, I explicitly used the words "pretty solid", and that corresponds to the word "probably" in the title of the article. So it backed up my claim 100%. Secondly, the entire article was an argument for why the lack of a "direct" ruling was irrelevant. It's there in the part of the passage you quoted but did not bold:

"That's because no president has ever fought such a request."

IOW, the suggestions are enough to justify the claim that is the title of the article.

ETA Nixon was compelled to turn over evidence but not to testify in an inquiry against him.

That SCOTUS ruling addressed the question put to it, but it was merely the first of the "suggestions". The second was about Clinton, which definitely made the President liable to testify in civil cases. As the article pointed out, they were clear that criminal cases would be an even more compelling reason. Here is the language they used (quoted and bolded for you):

"We have made clear that in a criminal case the powerful interest in the 'fair administration of criminal justice' requires that the evidence be given under appropriate circumstances lest the 'very integrity of the judicial system' be eroded."

IOW, testimony under oath by the President. I believe that the article makes a "pretty solid" case for the President to be compelled to testify. Of course, Trump might well choose to ignore the judicial system, but that might put him in jeopardy of impeachment.

 

[Artemus]

OK, you are really trying to save your position here by reading selectively and cherrypicking that passage that occurred well before the text I quoted.

Sigh...So the first thing the article says was exactly what I said and pointing that out is cherry picking. Whatever, dude/dudette.

My original comment:

And we may see a precedence-setting determination on if a president can be forced to testify.

Until it is explicitly stated by a court of law, precedence has not been established. We may see that if Trump fights it.

 

[Toni]

And he can be as loony, brash, uncouth as he wants. He cut my taxes, got rid of the ACA Individual Mandate, and increased my 401k.

Well by that last bit, Obama was the greatest President in my lifetime. My 401k was sinking like an Argentinian submarine at the end of the Bush administration, but by the time Obama left office, it had blown up. The value of my home doubled during Obama's term. And while I kept my job during those years and never had to fear unemployment, the jobless rate during the Obama recovery went from 10 percent down to just over 4.

Credit where credit is due? Probably not. No doubt you think Trump is personally responsible for all of it.

Or any of it.

It's really too soon to see any changes due to his regime.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So trausti doesn't have healthcare but has a 401k?

 

[Ford]

And he can be as loony, brash, uncouth as he wants. He cut my taxes, got rid of the ACA Individual Mandate, and increased my 401k.

Well by that last bit, Obama was the greatest President in my lifetime. My 401k was sinking like an Argentinian submarine at the end of the Bush administration, but by the time Obama left office, it had blown up. The value of my home doubled during Obama's term. And while I kept my job during those years and never had to fear unemployment, the jobless rate during the Obama recovery went from 10 percent down to just over 4.

Credit where credit is due? Probably not. No doubt you think Trump is personally responsible for all of it.

Or any of it.

It's really too soon to see any changes due to his regime.

Yeah, well, tell it to the true believers.

There are plenty of people who bought into the propaganda that the economy was an unmitigated disaster right up until the morning of January 20th of last year, when suddenly the unemployment rate dipped from 40 percent to 4, the Dow jumped miraculously, and the recession was finally ended after being in full effect since the morning of January 20th 2009.

For these folks, the economy can turn on a dime. Did you know, for example, that the US economy was doing just fine until the Democrats took over in January of 2007? I argued with several people on the internet who were convinced that the policies of the Bush administration and attendant GOP Congressional majority were responsible for unprecedented growth and prosperity until the Democrats took control of Congress that year. What was it that the Democrats did to tank the economy and cause the recession? Oddly enough, nobody could point to the legislation that was passed during those few months which caused everything to collapse. But even now, 10 years later, you'll find Republicans who insist that the Democrats ruined our prosperity in 2007.

Rest assured that if a slowdown or downturn happens while Trump/Ryan/McConnell are at the helm, it will all be Obama's fault because these things take time to germinate, after all.

 

[Trausti]

So trausti doesn't have healthcare but has a 401k?

No, I have both. But I am against the government forcing a citizen to buy a private product. That's tyrannical. Even candidate Obama was against that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You made it sound like it impacts you. It will when your insurance goes up.

 

[Ford]

You made it sound like it impacts you.

Well sure it did. In fact, Obama's brown-shirted thugs came to Trausti's doorstep, busted in, and forced him to buy insurance at gunpoint. I hear tell that Trausti actually peed himself when he saw the jackboots.

But now that Trump has drained the swamp and Made America Great Again, no longer will anyone have to be forced by the evil gubmint to buy insurance.

Unless you want to drive a car. Then? Tyranny!

 

[jonatha]

Unemployment rate counts people who are registered at unemployment offices.

No it doesn't.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So trausti doesn't have healthcare but has a 401k?

No, I have both. But I am against the government forcing a citizen to buy a private product. That's tyrannical. Even candidate Obama was against that.

Tyrannical.

Government: You must pay for something you use.
Trausti: Tyranny! I'm willing to die not to use that product.

 

[James Brown]

Yeah, if we could only have single payer, then no more would Americans be forced to buy private products.

 

[Elixir]

Yeah, if we could only have single payer, then no more would Americans be forced to buy private products.

But Trausti would prefer to pay 2-3 times actual value for healthcare, and screw those who can't afford to over-pay - as long as all his money goes to some for-profit capitalist entity. Single payer would remove that oh-so-attractive option.
Somehow, getting everyone to pay an amount that is much nearer to actual value received ... that would be tyranny, because some people would rather not buy at all. They'd prefer to show up at the emergency room when they get sick, and send the inflated bill to the rest of us. That's free enterprise at work, but at least it's not tryranny.