Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 72
Thanks Tree55Thanks

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

  1. #31
    Veteran Member Eve1's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    18,850
    Thanks
    12894

    From
    My own world
    As was the case with President Nixon, President Clinton eventually accepted his and his office's place under the rule of law. Since United States v. Nixon, executive branch claims of immunity from the normal processes of the American legal system have been tempered by the fact that the constitutional demands of due process of law and justice are likely to outweigh claims of executive immunity from subpoenas.

    Presidents and Subpoenas - Dictionary definition of Presidents and Subpoenas | Encyclopedia.com: FREE online dictionary
    Thanks from Devil505

  2. #32
    Going Nuclear- Daily Yetisports6 - Big Wave Champion, Bezerk Champion, All Ball Champion, Magic Gem Champion, Crystal Clear Champion, Flower Power Champion, Space Thieves TD Champion, X-treme Moto Idiot Cross Champion, Micro Tanks Champion, Race Horse Tycoon Champion, Railway Line Champion, Raju Meter 2 Champion, Metal Slug - Kill the Nazis Champion, Decoder Champion, 1 in 24 Speed v32  Champion Crusher's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    26,559
    Thanks
    8297

    From
    California
    This crap is delusional.

    There is no evidence of any collusion with Russia.

  3. #33
    Veteran Member carpe diem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    29,342
    Thanks
    2834

    From
    San Diego, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonfly5 View Post
    It sounds like you don't want the truth to come out.
    The truth is out. There is no "there" there. What you idiots don't seem to understand is that the more often you keep coming up with BS, the less often it will be taken seriously.

  4. #34
    Veteran Member carpe diem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    29,342
    Thanks
    2834

    From
    San Diego, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Eve1 View Post
    Trump's not agreeing to testifying is really fucking with my prediction date of his being gone by Jan 20th 2018. If he just would agree to the interview in the next 7 days or so I'm sure he'd be out of office by Jan 20 2018. If he keeps this up my date will be wrong but not by much. It could take months to get him in front of a Grand Jury but eventually I'd say he will have no choice but to testify. Actually it might be a good thing to get in front of a Grand Jury. No lawyer present, no parameters on questions, they could literally get Trump to confess to all kinds of criminal conspiracies he has been involved in all his 71 years on this planet.
    Some of you dream really really big

  5. #35
    Under Protest excalibur's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    10,755
    Thanks
    3436

    From
    The Milky Way
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Grand jury testimony. Anyone can be subpoenaed for a grand jury if their testimony might be relevant to a criminal investigation. At the moment it looks like the criminal investigation is obstruction of justice. Trump's testimony would certainly be relevant to that inquiry.

    Who allegedly obstructed justice? And do you even know what that entails? And now they are back on that again. LOL
    Last edited by excalibur; 10th January 2018 at 09:15 PM.

  6. #36
    Under Protest excalibur's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    10,755
    Thanks
    3436

    From
    The Milky Way
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    Alternatively, were he not guilty, he could simply testify and tell the truth.

    That is obviously not an option.

    What does he have to testify about? Oh, you 'TDS since 2015' crowd have him guilty. LOL

  7. #37
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    49,546
    Thanks
    35307

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    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.
    Is that like Donny one stick?

  8. #38
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    49,546
    Thanks
    35307

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    What does he have to testify about? Oh, you 'TDS since 2015' crowd have him guilty. LOL
    Aren’t you beginning to get slightly embarrassed that your posts are so full of denials?

  9. #39
    Under Protest excalibur's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    10,755
    Thanks
    3436

    From
    The Milky Way
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    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.

    LOL You people are truly clueless.

    No, Robert Mueller And James Comey Aren’t Heroes - The former FBI directors have acceded to numerous wrongful abuses of power in the post-9/11 era.

    Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller’s role as Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up of the FBI’s illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other “top echelon” informants who committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI operated) Bulger gang.

    Current media applause omits the fact that former FBI Director Mueller was the top official in charge of the Anthrax terror fiasco investigation into the 2001 murders, which targeted an innocent man (Steven Hatfill) whose lawsuit eventually forced the FBI to pay $5 million in compensation. Mueller’s FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of “national security letters” to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating “terrorism.”
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b033940169cdc8

    Just a sample. Bobby three sticks indeed.
    Last edited by excalibur; 10th January 2018 at 09:27 PM.

  10. #40
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,827
    Thanks
    36355

    From
    in my head
    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 case you cite refers to a lawsuit. Frankly, anyone can file a lawsuit, which is a private matter. A criminal inquiry is an entirely other matter. There is no case law stating that a president--alone among all the people in the country--cannot be compelled to give testimony to a grand jury. The requirement to give such testimony is universal.

    Stop pretending that the 1997 Paula Jones case matters to this--it was a lawsuit. This is a criminal inquiry. This is a grand jury. This is potentially "The People vs. ... Someone". It's an entirely different thing.
    Thanks from MaryAnne

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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