Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 72
Thanks Tree55Thanks

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

  1. #21
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    34,196
    Thanks
    31498

    From
    United States
    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.
    Constitutional lawyers disagree. It's never been tested, because we've managed to elect so few blatant criminals to the presidency over the years.



    EDIT: Guess we were bound to fuck up eventually, huh?

  2. #22
    Veteran Member Devil505's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    60,792
    Thanks
    18460

    From
    Mass and Florida
    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.
    Wrong.

  3. #23
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    60,671
    Thanks
    11092

    From
    By the wall
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Wrong.
    The U.S. Supreme Court settled that question in 1997 when it ruled unanimously that a sexual misconduct lawsuit filed by Paula Jones against President Bill Clinton could proceed. Clinton's lawyers had argued that he was essentially immune and that the case should be delayed until after he was out of office.

    But the court ruled that despite the demands of the office, time could be made to take a deposition. Jones, they said, "has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims," just like any other citizen.

    The court dodged the question of whether a president can be compelled to testify in court, but it said testimony could be taken at the White House "at a time that will accommodate his busy schedule."


    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...awsuit-n685576

    Now if you can find relevant case law stating that a president can be compelled to give testimony I will gladly say you are correct and move on.

    I highly doubt you will however.

    But go ahead, prove me wrong.

  4. #24
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    34,196
    Thanks
    31498

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    The U.S. Supreme Court settled that question in 1997 when it ruled unanimously that a sexual misconduct lawsuit filed by Paula Jones against President Bill Clinton could proceed. Clinton's lawyers had argued that he was essentially immune and that the case should be delayed until after he was out of office.

    But the court ruled that despite the demands of the office, time could be made to take a deposition. Jones, they said, "has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims," just like any other citizen.

    The court dodged the question of whether a president can be compelled to testify in court, but it said testimony could be taken at the White House "at a time that will accommodate his busy schedule."


    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...awsuit-n685576

    Now if you can find relevant case law stating that a president can be compelled to give testimony I will gladly say you are correct and move on.

    I highly doubt you will however.

    But go ahead, prove me wrong.
    The relevant legal question is whether the President may be subpoenaed.

    It was ruled that President Nixon must comply with a subpoena in United States v. Nixon (1974).
    Thanks from Devil505 and jacobfitcher

  5. #25
    Veteran Member Devil505's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    60,792
    Thanks
    18460

    From
    Mass and Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post

    The court dodged the question of whether a president can be compelled to testify in court,
    Now if you can find relevant case law stating that a president can be compelled to give testimony I will gladly say you are correct and move on.
    These 2 posts of yours are mutually exclusive.
    They can't both be right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    No one has the legal right to ignore a grand jury subpoena

    That is incorrect, the president does.
    but then you post this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    The court dodged the question of whether a president can be compelled to testify in court,
    Last edited by Devil505; 10th January 2018 at 06:51 PM.

  6. #26
    Veteran Member Devil505's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    60,792
    Thanks
    18460

    From
    Mass and Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    The relevant legal question is whether the President may be subpoenaed.

    It was ruled that President Nixon must comply with a subpoena in United States v. Nixon (1974).
    What the SCOTUS didn't say....... and hopefully never will say....is that any president is above the law....a King.

    That's obviously what the GOP wants and claims their presidents are....KINGS!

    Republicans favor dictatorships, not democracies!

  7. #27
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    34,196
    Thanks
    31498

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    What the SCOTUS didn't say....... and hopefully never will say....is that any president is above the law....a King.

    That's obviously what the GOP wants and claims their presidents are....KINGS!

    Republicans favor dictatorships, not democracies!
    Yeah. They are fairly transparent on that issue.
    Thanks from Devil505

  8. #28
    Member Idiocracat's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,919
    Thanks
    2752

    From
    U.S.A.
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    Subpoena him for what? 'TDS since 2015' strikes again.

    You do not just throw subpoenas around, especially to a sitting President, for no cause. And Trump could simply fight it in court if they did, and might just win that court battle. And even if, President Trump can invoke his 5th Amendment rights.
    ^lol^
    Thanks from Devil505

  9. #29
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    34,196
    Thanks
    31498

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    Subpoena him for what? 'TDS since 2015' strikes again.

    You do not just throw subpoenas around, especially to a sitting President, for no cause. And Trump could simply fight it in court if they did, and might just win that court battle. And even if, President Trump can invoke his 5th Amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Idiocracat View Post
    ^lol^
    Really... As if Trump could keep his trap shut for 10 minutes!
    Thanks from Idiocracat and jacobfitcher

  10. #30
    Veteran Member Eve1's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    15,660
    Thanks
    10399

    From
    My own world
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    The U.S. Supreme Court settled that question in 1997 when it ruled unanimously that a sexual misconduct lawsuit filed by Paula Jones against President Bill Clinton could proceed. Clinton's lawyers had argued that he was essentially immune and that the case should be delayed until after he was out of office.

    But the court ruled that despite the demands of the office, time could be made to take a deposition. Jones, they said, "has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims," just like any other citizen.

    The court dodged the question of whether a president can be compelled to testify in court, but it said testimony could be taken at the White House "at a time that will accommodate his busy schedule."


    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...awsuit-n685576

    Now if you can find relevant case law stating that a president can be compelled to give testimony I will gladly say you are correct and move on.

    I highly doubt you will however.

    But go ahead, prove me wrong.
    Excuse me but a law exists that you must comply with a Grand Jury Subpoena or face jail time. The fact that the Supreme Court didn't address the issue specifically in relation to the President doesn't exclude him so NO ONE HAS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO IGNORE A GRAND JURY is correct. Show me the law that says except a sitting President of the USA.
    So I ask you to show me a relevant case law stating the a president can't be compelled to give testimony.
    Thanks from Devil505 and Rasselas

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Grand Jury Issues Subpoenas
    By MaryAnne in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10th May 2017, 06:41 AM
  2. The Grand Jury Never Even Voted
    By cable2 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 21st January 2016, 07:07 AM
  3. Ferguson Grand Jury....the Verdict is in!!
    By pragmatic in forum Current Events
    Replies: 164
    Last Post: 26th November 2014, 06:11 AM
  4. Wilson's Grand Jury
    By Sassy in forum Current Events
    Replies: 223
    Last Post: 19th November 2014, 01:42 PM
  5. Grand Jury Indicts Ex-NYC Top Cop Kerik
    By Defensor in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 9th November 2007, 05:09 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed