• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Mueller investigation

Copernicus said:
Trump can plead the 5th amendment,
Click to expand...
Wait, CAN he?
The point of the fifth is to protect the individual from prosecution. The President is protected from prosecution.
What does the fifth give him, then?
It'd be like opening an umbrella while still indoors.
 
Keith&Co. said:
Copernicus said:
Trump can plead the 5th amendment,
Click to expand...
Wait, CAN he?
The point of the fifth is to protect the individual from prosecution. The President is protected from prosecution.
What does the fifth give him, then?
It'd be like opening an umbrella while still indoors.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we've ensured by Trump that he isn't under investigation, so it'd be a bit odd to claim the Fifth in an interview about an investigation into someone else.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Copernicus said:
Trump can plead the 5th amendment, even though he has famously mocked others for taking the 5th. Everybody not on Fox News faults Trump for hypocrisy and reversing himself, but there are no serious consequences as long as Congress refuses to consider impeachment proceedings. The question of whether a sitting President can be compelled to testify by subpoena has never been tested by the legal process, although it almost was with Clinton. (Bill Clinton testified voluntarily.) So the subpoena threat sounds good, but it probably won't go anywhere.
Click to expand...

I'm unfamiliar with the intricacies of your country's legal system. Why is the question of whether a President can be compelled to testify something that's untested? I get that it's something which has never happened, but what's the rationale as to why he couldn't be? My first thought would be that it has something to do with the separation of powers or the like, but there have been Congressmen sent to jail, so it doesn't seem like being an elected member of one of the other branches gives you any sort of immunity from the judicial branch.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I don't see any reason why a president can't be compelled to testify in a legal proceeding. Presidents should not be above the law.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Copernicus said:
Trump can plead the 5th amendment, even though he has famously mocked others for taking the 5th. Everybody not on Fox News faults Trump for hypocrisy and reversing himself, but there are no serious consequences as long as Congress refuses to consider impeachment proceedings. The question of whether a sitting President can be compelled to testify by subpoena has never been tested by the legal process, although it almost was with Clinton. (Bill Clinton testified voluntarily.) So the subpoena threat sounds good, but it probably won't go anywhere.
Click to expand...

I'm unfamiliar with the intricacies of your country's legal system. Why is the question of whether a President can be compelled to testify something that's untested? I get that it's something which has never happened, but what's the rationale as to why he couldn't be? My first thought would be that it has something to do with the separation of powers or the like, but there have been Congressmen sent to jail, so it doesn't seem like being an elected member of one of the other branches gives you any sort of immunity from the judicial branch.
Click to expand...

There has never been a case where a president resisted voluntary compliance when threatened with a subpoena. Clinton was subpoenaed, but it was withdrawn when he agreed to testify voluntarily. The ultimate problem is that the Constitution contains language that is vague on the subject. So, although there is controversy, the prevailing opinion is that the Constitution implies that a President can only be tried legally after he leaves office. Here is the relevant passage:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Click to expand...

This language appears to lay out a sequence of events: first impeachment and conviction by Congress, second is the legal trial. See this opinion piece from Bloomberg: A Sitting President Can't Be Prosecuted.

Richard Nixon could have been tried for the crimes he committed while in office, and that is why President Ford pardoned him. At the time, Ford claimed that it was to spare the country from the embarrassment and distraction of a former President being tried in criminal court, but it was likely part of a deal with Nixon to spare him (and the Republican Party) that embarrassment.
 
I was thinking...If Il Douchebag goes "Executive Privilege" and tries to squash a subpoena, if Gorsuch doesn't recuse himself, any appeal could go 5-4 along party lines.

And I hear a lawyer on "All In" say that Mueller doesn't have the same subpoena powers as Jaworski or Starr.

America, all hope is now gone

Later,
ElectEngr
 
Copernicus said:
There has never been a case where a president resisted voluntary compliance when threatened with a subpoena. Clinton was subpoenaed, but it was withdrawn when he agreed to testify voluntarily. The ultimate problem is that the Constitution contains language that is vague on the subject. So, although there is controversy, the prevailing opinion is that the Constitution implies that a President can only be tried legally after he leaves office. Here is the relevant passage:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Click to expand...

This language appears to lay out a sequence of events: first impeachment and conviction by Congress, second is the legal trial. See this opinion piece from Bloomberg: A Sitting President Can't Be Prosecuted.

Richard Nixon could have been tried for the crimes he committed while in office, and that is why President Ford pardoned him. At the time, Ford claimed that it was to spare the country from the embarrassment and distraction of a former President being tried in criminal court, but it was likely part of a deal with Nixon to spare him (and the Republican Party) that embarrassment.
Click to expand...

OK, even if he can't be indicted and tried until after he's out of office, what would that have to do with his being subpoenaed to testify? That's the pre-indictment portion of a criminal case. If you have some weird monarchist rule that he can only be tried by Congress, then fine. I fail to see why that would give him any shielding from the investigation aspect of criminal proceedings.
 
ElectEngr said:
I was thinking...If Il Douchebag goes "Executive Privilege" and tries to squash a subpoena, if Gorsuch doesn't recuse himself, any appeal could go 5-4 along party lines.

And I hear a lawyer on "All In" say that Mueller doesn't have the same subpoena powers as Jaworski or Starr.

America, all hope is now gone

Later,
ElectEngr
Click to expand...
Here is the odd question, can the Executive Branch investigate the Executive Branch? The DoJ created the Special Prosecutor. The DoJ is run by people the President appointed. Is there any basis for SCOTUS to say the President is free of investigation from his own DoJ? If Trump doesn't want to be investigated, he can fire the appropriate people. If he doesn't, what is the basis for SCOTUS blocking the investigation?
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
ElectEngr said:
I was thinking...If Il Douchebag goes "Executive Privilege" and tries to squash a subpoena, if Gorsuch doesn't recuse himself, any appeal could go 5-4 along party lines.

And I hear a lawyer on "All In" say that Mueller doesn't have the same subpoena powers as Jaworski or Starr.

America, all hope is now gone

Later,
ElectEngr
Click to expand...
Here is the odd question, can the Executive Branch investigate the Executive Branch? The DoJ created the Special Prosecutor. The DoJ is run by people the President appointed. Is there any basis for SCOTUS to say the President is free of investigation from his own DoJ? If Trump doesn't want to be investigated, he can fire the appropriate people. If he doesn't, what is the basis for SCOTUS blocking the investigation?
Click to expand...

8-) 8-) Don't ask me, I'm just a paranoid schizophrenic with no legal background.

I wouldn't put anything past der Gropenfürer. 8-) 8-)

Later,
ElectEngr
 
I'm not convinced that Roberts will necessarily toe the partisan line on this case.

He has a history of voting with the liberals so that he can write a center-conservative position opinion, enhancing his own powers and enshrining his own beliefs into precedent.

I hardly think he would be party to doing something that reduces the power of the courts or the justice department, like saying that the president is immune from testifying. Rather, he might make a ruling that the president isn't immune in general, but in this specific instance, executive privilege trumps the subpoena. That's the sort of thing he would do, squashing this instance and pleasing the party establishment, but without doing permanent damage to the institution of the courts and justice, which seems to be one of the things he cares about. It would displease Trump and his supporters, but there's no evidence that Roberts cares about them.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Copernicus said:
There has never been a case where a president resisted voluntary compliance when threatened with a subpoena. Clinton was subpoenaed, but it was withdrawn when he agreed to testify voluntarily. The ultimate problem is that the Constitution contains language that is vague on the subject. So, although there is controversy, the prevailing opinion is that the Constitution implies that a President can only be tried legally after he leaves office. Here is the relevant passage:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Click to expand...

This language appears to lay out a sequence of events: first impeachment and conviction by Congress, second is the legal trial. See this opinion piece from Bloomberg: A Sitting President Can't Be Prosecuted.

Richard Nixon could have been tried for the crimes he committed while in office, and that is why President Ford pardoned him. At the time, Ford claimed that it was to spare the country from the embarrassment and distraction of a former President being tried in criminal court, but it was likely part of a deal with Nixon to spare him (and the Republican Party) that embarrassment.
Click to expand...

OK, even if he can't be indicted and tried until after he's out of office, what would that have to do with his being subpoenaed to testify? That's the pre-indictment portion of a criminal case. If you have some weird monarchist rule that he can only be tried by Congress, then fine. I fail to see why that would give him any shielding from the investigation aspect of criminal proceedings.
Click to expand...

I think that it may come down the the Supreme Court deciding how to interpret the Constitution in this matter. They have the power to interpret it any way they please, even if that displeases us internet mavens. SCOTUS is now dominated by Republicans, who have shown a willingness in the past to view the law through a lens of partisan ideology, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will rule in a way that favors Trump or even the GOP in this matter. The problem, IMO, is that the President is effectively above the law. Impeachment is not a legal process, but a political process. By ruling that the President can be compelled to testify, they would be rectifying one of the many flaws in our system. Trump has shown us very clearly that the President has far more power to rule as an autocrat than was ever intended, especially when he has a rubber stamp Congress.
 
Copernicus said:
Tom Sawyer said:
OK, even if he can't be indicted and tried until after he's out of office, what would that have to do with his being subpoenaed to testify? That's the pre-indictment portion of a criminal case. If you have some weird monarchist rule that he can only be tried by Congress, then fine. I fail to see why that would give him any shielding from the investigation aspect of criminal proceedings.
Click to expand...

I think that it may come down the the Supreme Court deciding how to interpret the Constitution in this matter. They have the power to interpret it any way they please, even if that displeases us internet mavens. SCOTUS is now dominated by Republicans, who have shown a willingness in the past to view the law through a lens of partisan ideology, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will rule in a way that favors Trump or even the GOP in this matter. The problem, IMO, is that the President is effectively above the law. Impeachment is not a legal process, but a political process. By ruling that the President can be compelled to testify, they would be rectifying one of the many flaws in our system. Trump has shown us very clearly that the President has far more power to rule as an autocrat than was ever intended, especially when he has a rubber stamp Congress.
Click to expand...

I may be terribly naive about this, but I still have faith that SCOTUS would not rule to affirm any "above the law" status to any POTUS - even a sane Republican (oxymoron?), and certainly not the current unhinged dotard. My naive hope is that such a decision would not be made simply to consolidate the overriding power of the Supreme Court or to simply save us all from Cheato, but rather to preserve into perpetuity the separation of the branches of government (balance of power) as obviously intended by the authors of the Constitution.
 
Elixir said:
Copernicus said:
Tom Sawyer said:
OK, even if he can't be indicted and tried until after he's out of office, what would that have to do with his being subpoenaed to testify? That's the pre-indictment portion of a criminal case. If you have some weird monarchist rule that he can only be tried by Congress, then fine. I fail to see why that would give him any shielding from the investigation aspect of criminal proceedings.
Click to expand...

I think that it may come down the the Supreme Court deciding how to interpret the Constitution in this matter. They have the power to interpret it any way they please, even if that displeases us internet mavens. SCOTUS is now dominated by Republicans, who have shown a willingness in the past to view the law through a lens of partisan ideology, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will rule in a way that favors Trump or even the GOP in this matter. The problem, IMO, is that the President is effectively above the law. Impeachment is not a legal process, but a political process. By ruling that the President can be compelled to testify, they would be rectifying one of the many flaws in our system. Trump has shown us very clearly that the President has far more power to rule as an autocrat than was ever intended, especially when he has a rubber stamp Congress.
Click to expand...

I may be terribly naive about this, but I still have faith that SCOTUS would not rule to affirm any "above the law" status to any POTUS - even a sane Republican (oxymoron?), and certainly not the current unhinged dotard. My naive hope is that such a decision would not be made simply to consolidate the overriding power of the Supreme Court or to simply save us all from Cheato, but rather to preserve into perpetuity the separation of the branches of government (balance of power) as obviously intended by the authors of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I wish I could agree with you, but what makes the President "above the law" is that he cannot be compelled to stand trial while in office except through the political process of impeachment and conviction described in the Constitution. He can be tried in a legal process only after leaving office. SCOTUS is not able or willing to alter that process, but it can compel the President to testify under oath, if it feels so inclined. It could also make him stand trial in a proper court, but I can't see them going that far. There may be partisan motives for not making this president undergo any judicial review while in office, because it would likely worsen the chances of the Republicans in the midterm elections, not to mention the next presidential election. As long as Trump remains above the law, Republicans will be getting exactly the policies that they believe in--trickle-down economics, a pared-down social benefits program, stronger military spending, and a return to a more traditional social order in which religion, particularly Christian institutions, will be given a more dominant influence in public affairs. Trump is making considerable effort to provide Republicans with changes that they could never gain through a more democratic political process. He is an embarrassment, but there are reasons to endure that embarrassment.
 
Copernicus said:
Elixir said:
I may be terribly naive about this, but I still have faith that SCOTUS would not rule to affirm any "above the law" status to any POTUS - even a sane Republican (oxymoron?), and certainly not the current unhinged dotard. My naive hope is that such a decision would not be made simply to consolidate the overriding power of the Supreme Court or to simply save us all from Cheato, but rather to preserve into perpetuity the separation of the branches of government (balance of power) as obviously intended by the authors of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I wish I could agree with you, but what makes the President "above the law" is that he cannot be compelled to stand trial while in office except through the political process of impeachment and conviction described in the Constitution. He can be tried in a legal process only after leaving office. SCOTUS is not able or willing to alter that process, but it can compel the President to testify under oath, if it feels so inclined. It could also make him stand trial in a proper court, but I can't see them going that far. There may be partisan motives for not making this president undergo any judicial review while in office, because it would likely worsen the chances of the Republicans in the midterm elections, not to mention the next presidential election. As long as Trump remains above the law, Republicans will be getting exactly the policies that they believe in--trickle-down economics, a pared-down social benefits program, stronger military spending, and a return to a more traditional social order in which religion, particularly Christian institutions, will be given a more dominant influence in public affairs. Trump is making considerable effort to provide Republicans with changes that they could never gain through a more democratic political process. He is an embarrassment, but there are reasons to endure that embarrassment.
Click to expand...

I think process would be (will be) well served if (when) SCOTUS compels Trump to appear before a Grand Jury. Responsibility for whatever follows will rest squarely upon Congress. And if the electorate refuses to do anything about THAT, we're screwed, regardless.
 
You don't really care about all this the tax evasion and hundreds of millions in money laundering...
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
You don't really care about all this the tax evasion and hundreds of millions in money laundering...
Click to expand...

"We don't want anyone in this country with unfettered power." sez da judge.
Oh reeeeeally? Not even El Cheato? Then why are you enabling exactly that, Yore Onner?
 
It does sound like Judge Ellis is bending over backwards to support Trump. I wonder if he has his eye on a possible Supreme Court nomination.

Anyway, he seems to be struggling with finding some way to dismiss this case under the law. Mueller has received explicit authority from Rosenstein to pursue Manafort in connection with Russia, but the judge is claiming that the Rosenstein memo has redacted parts that he wants to see. Mueller's prosecutor is arguing that there is enough in the unredacted part to give them standing, but the judge seems to be fishing for some ammunition to help Manafort with.

In addition, Judge Ellis raised the bizarre argument that the Cohen investigation should be handed off to another federal prosecutor as unrelated to the Mueller investigation--just like the Cohen investigation was. IOW, he is mounting a whataboutism argument to try to favor the defense case for dismissal. Did Manafort's lawyers even raise that issue?
 
This is the memo outlining Mueller's authority.

The Judge expressed skepticism that Mueller could investigate matters beyond what is in the memo, e.g., in 2005 and 2006. The special prosecutor is just that, appointed for a special purpose. A special prosecutor does not have the broad discretion of a U.S. attorney.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom