Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 72
Thanks Tree55Thanks

Thread: Haul Trump's fat ass in front of a grand jury

  1. #11
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,827
    Thanks
    36355

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    Frankly, I'm surprised to learn that Mueller is yet ready to interview Trump. He isn't likely to ask Donald any questions to which he doesn't already know the answer.
    Yes. Of all the BS that conservatives throw around about this investigation coming to little, the fact that Mueller wants to interview Trump so soon is a sign that the case doesn't really go that deep.

    On the other hand, he just hired someone new today--someone in cybercrime. So who knows?

    That's why I think Bobby Three Sticks wants to interview Trump now about obstruction and possibly later about other things.

  2. #12
    Veteran Member Eve1's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    18,850
    Thanks
    12894

    From
    My own world
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Yes. Of all the BS that conservatives throw around about this investigation coming to little, the fact that Mueller wants to interview Trump so soon is a sign that the case doesn't really go that deep.

    On the other hand, he just hired someone new today--someone in cybercrime. So who knows?

    That's why I think Bobby Three Sticks wants to interview Trump now about obstruction and possibly later about other things.
    Bobby Three Sticks? I have never heard Mueller referred to that way. What is it suppose to mean?

  3. #13
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,827
    Thanks
    36355

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Eve1 View Post
    Bobby Three Sticks? I have never heard Mueller referred to that way. What is it suppose to mean?
    I read that when he was first appointed. It's a nickname people at Justice have for him. His name is Robert S. Mueller, III. And the nickname is supposed to imply that he is...intimidating...in the same way that the ideal mob boss might intimidate. Quietly and with deliberation.
    Thanks from Eve1 and MaryAnne

  4. #14
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    61,666
    Thanks
    11225

    From
    By the wall
    Actually the Supreme Court ruled on this in 1997, in another case involving Clinton.

    (so many its hard to keep track)

    While the president can have criminal charges filed they refused to say that he can be forced to do anything while in office.

    All they said is that it would be a reasonable expectation for a sitting president to comply, in the WH, at a time convenient to him.

    They did not say he could be forced by anyone to give testimony.

    So this thread is debunked.

  5. #15
    Veteran Member Eve1's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    18,850
    Thanks
    12894

    From
    My own world
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Actually the Supreme Court ruled on this in 1997, in another case involving Clinton.

    (so many its hard to keep track)

    While the president can have criminal charges filed they refused to say that he can be forced to do anything while in office.

    All they said is that it would be a reasonable expectation for a sitting president to comply, in the WH, at a time convenient to him.

    They did not say he could be forced by anyone to give testimony.

    So this thread is debunked.
    You say in your own post the Supreme Court refused to address the issue. How is this debunking?
    Thanks from labrea and jacobfitcher

  6. #16
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    37,753
    Thanks
    35568

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Yes. Of all the BS that conservatives throw around about this investigation coming to little, the fact that Mueller wants to interview Trump so soon is a sign that the case doesn't really go that deep.

    On the other hand, he just hired someone new today--someone in cybercrime. So who knows?

    That's why I think Bobby Three Sticks wants to interview Trump now about obstruction and possibly later about other things.
    Oh, Mueller won't lose the opportunity for further interviews by taking one now. I'm just surprised that he's at a point at which he feels ready to interview him about anything. These kinds of cases typically take a long time to process. Then again, this FBI investigation had been underway long before Mueller was even hired.

  7. #17
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    61,666
    Thanks
    11225

    From
    By the wall
    Quote Originally Posted by Eve1 View Post
    You say in your own post the Supreme Court refused to address the issue. How is this debunking?
    Because this was the claim in the OP:

    No one has the legal right to ignore a grand jury subpoena

    That is incorrect, the president does.

  8. #18
    Veteran Member Devil505's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    63,895
    Thanks
    20593

    From
    Mass and Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Eve1 View Post
    You say in your own post the Supreme Court refused to address the issue. How is this debunking?
    ...and provided no link to the actual wording in the SCOTUS opinion.
    Spookycolt's word without evidence has no value.
    Thanks from OldGaffer and EnigmaO01

  9. #19
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,827
    Thanks
    36355

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Actually the Supreme Court ruled on this in 1997, in another case involving Clinton.

    (so many its hard to keep track)

    While the president can have criminal charges filed they refused to say that he can be forced to do anything while in office.
    Which case was this? The Jones case was civil, not criminal. It wouldn't apply here.

    All they said is that it would be a reasonable expectation for a sitting president to comply, in the WH, at a time convenient to him.

    They did not say he could be forced by anyone to give testimony.

    So this thread is debunked.
    I don't know about that. Was Clinton ever charged with a crime in a court? That would not include his impeachment. I don't think so, thus I think you're confusing a case about civil law with a criminal case.
    Thanks from NightSwimmer and jacobfitcher

  10. #20
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,827
    Thanks
    36355

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Because this was the claim in the OP:

    No one has the legal right to ignore a grand jury subpoena

    That is incorrect, the president does.
    What case?

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Grand Jury Issues Subpoenas
    By MaryAnne in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10th May 2017, 05:41 AM
  2. The Grand Jury Never Even Voted
    By cable2 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 21st January 2016, 06:07 AM
  3. Ferguson Grand Jury....the Verdict is in!!
    By pragmatic in forum Current Events
    Replies: 164
    Last Post: 26th November 2014, 05:11 AM
  4. Wilson's Grand Jury
    By Sassy in forum Current Events
    Replies: 223
    Last Post: 19th November 2014, 12:42 PM
  5. Grand Jury Indicts Ex-NYC Top Cop Kerik
    By Defensor in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 9th November 2007, 04:09 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed