Giuliani threatens to go to court if Mueller subpoenas Trump

[mystery-ak]

Giuliani threatens to go to court if Mueller subpoenas Trump
By Aris Folley - 06/02/18 10:08 PM EDT

Rudy Giuliani on Saturday threatened to take special counsel Robert Mueller to court if he attempts to issue a subpoena against President Trump.

"If Mueller tries to subpoena us, we're going to court," Giuliani said in an interview with ABC News. Giuliani, a former New York City mayor, joined Trump's legal team in April.

Giuliani’s warning arrived just hours after The New York Times revealed that Trump's lawyers sent Mueller a 20-page letter in January arguing that Trump couldn’t obstruct justice because he has unfettered authority over all federal investigations.

The confidential letter obtained by the Times argues that the Constitution gives the president the broad authority to, "if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon."

more
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/390432-giuliani-threatens-to-go-to-court-if-mueller-subpoenas-trump

[Oceander]

Duh.

[Concerned]

And I think Giuliani (and Team Trump) would likely lose especially given the precedents of United States vs Nixon, where the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Nixon had to produce subpoenaed tapes and related documents, and Clinton vs Jones, where the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that  the president did not possess “the broad immunity from all civil damages suits" and held that the “burden on the President’s time and energy” from participating in judicial proceedings “cannot be considered as onerous as the direct burden imposed by judicial review and occasional invalidation of his official actions.”

[driftdiver]

And I think Giuliani (and Team Trump) would likely lose especially given the precedents of United States vs Nixon, where the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Nixon had to produce subpoenaed tapes and related documents, and Clinton vs Jones, where the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that  the president did not possess “the broad immunity from all civil damages suits" and held that the “burden on the President’s time and energy” from participating in judicial proceedings “cannot be considered as onerous as the direct burden imposed by judicial review and occasional invalidation of his official actions.”

This isn't a civil damage suit

[Concerned]

This isn't a civil damage suit

Of course it isn't.    That doesn't change the potential legal precedent of two unanimous Supreme Court rulings essentially that the President isn't above the law.  Although a civil case, I believe the unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court will be cited in the inevitable United States vs Trump case that the burden of the President's time and energy cannot be consider onerous when a judicial review of his official actions occur.  If you don't believe it will be cited, fair enough.  If you have other cases that you believe support the argument that a President can't be subpoenaed, hopefully you'll cite them here.

[driftdiver]

Of course it isn't.    That doesn't change the potential legal precedent of two unanimous Supreme Court rulings essentially that the President isn't above the law.  Although a civil case, I believe the unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court will be cited in the inevitable United States vs Trump case that the burden of the President's time and energy cannot be consider onerous when a judicial review of his official actions occur.  If you don't believe it will be cited, fair enough.  If you have other cases that you believe support the argument that a President can't be subpoenaed, hopefully you'll cite them here.

You always try to give people homework

Screw off

[Oceander]

You always try to give people homework

Screw off

It’s not homework, it’s simple respect for the discussion and asking for citation of relevant legal authority.  If you don’t have any authority for your proposition, the adult response would be to admit as much, not tell the other person to go screw themselves.

[Concerned]

You always try to give people homework

Screw off

I cited the evidence to backup my argument.  I think this is important in conducting and defending a rationale argument.  I simply said I'd hope someone will provide me the same courtesy.  If you can't or won't do it, fair enough.   

[Sanguine]

It’s not homework, it’s simple respect for the discussion and asking for citation of relevant legal authority.  If you don’t have any authority for your proposition, the adult response would be to admit as much, not tell the other person to go screw themselves.

It's a banner day.  O and I agree.

[RoosGirl]

It's a banner day.  O and I agree.

Weird.  Me too.

[Cyber Liberty]

Weird.  Me too.

Me three.  I agreed with everything he said since yesterday. 

[RoosGirl]

Me three.  I agreed with everything he said since yesterday. 

! No longer available

[edpc]

That song is just an excuse for drunk people to yell 'Leonard Bernstein!' and have no idea who he is.

[RoosGirl]

That song is just an excuse for drunk people to yell 'Leonard Bernstein!' and have no idea who he is.

That's silly, how can they not know the actor who played Spock?

[edpc]

That's silly, how can they not know the actor who played Spock?

Or that he helped raise so many babies?

[RoosGirl]

Or that he helped raise so many babies?

Exactly.  He was really multi-talented.

[XenaLee]

And I think Giuliani (and Team Trump) would likely lose especially given the precedents of United States vs Nixon, where the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Nixon had to produce subpoenaed tapes and related documents, and Clinton vs Jones, where the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that  the president did not possess “the broad immunity from all civil damages suits" and held that the “burden on the President’s time and energy” from participating in judicial proceedings “cannot be considered as onerous as the direct burden imposed by judicial review and occasional invalidation of his official actions.”

I'm thinking that, in this case, you might be wrong about that.  In Nixon's case, there was clear evidence of his wrong-doing.  In Trump's case, not so much.  Unless you have some evidence against him that hasn't come to light yet.  Do you?  What crime has he committed?

I'm also thinking that if Mueller had ANY evidence that Trump broke the law.... it would have already been leaked a zillion times over.  Nah... Mueller is still on his endless fishing expedition.  And it is becoming a travesty of justice and a mega effing joke, at this point.

[Concerned]

I'm thinking that, in this case, you might be wrong about that.  In Nixon's case, there was clear evidence of his wrong-doing.  In Trump's case, not so much.  Unless you have some evidence against him that hasn't come to light yet.  Do you?  What crime has he committed?

I'm also thinking that if Mueller had ANY evidence that Trump broke the law.... it would have already been leaked a zillion times over.  Nah... Mueller is still on his endless fishing expedition.  And it is becoming a travesty of justice and a mega effing joke, at this point.

You could very well be right, and I may be wrong.  No, I don't have any evidence against the President.  As for crimes, I've said repeatedly, I doubt Trump personally performed any sort of illegal collusion/conspiracy with foreign entities; however, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Mueller uncovers evidence of obstruction of justice.  Whether that's enough for impeachment and/or a guilty verdict,we'll have to see.  The mid-term results will likely impact this (especially the House, which I fear will go Democratic).

[aligncare]

Enough is enough. Mueller’s using the pretext of investigating some ill defined crime, collusion, to harm the president politically. He’s doing the democrats bidding and too often with each new tact Mueller takes, NeverTrumpers nod and say “Amen.”

I’m sick of our side giving any credence to this phony “investigation.”

[Concerned]

Enough is enough. Mueller’s using the pretext of investigating some ill defined crime, collusion, to harm the president politically. He’s doing the democrats bidding and too often with each new tact Mueller takes, NeverTrumpers nod and say “Amen.”

I’m sick of our side giving any credence to this phony “investigation.”

My opinion is that this investigation continues as it is largely because of the President’s words and actions.  He and his administration have consistently failed to disclose meetings and lied.  If not for firing Comey, I don’t believe we’d even have a special counsel.  I believe Trump opened the door to an obstruction investigation by asking Comey to let this Flynn thing go and by telling Lester Holt he was thinking about Trump and this Russia thing when he fired Comey. 

Now we find out that Trump personally dictated the statement on the Trump Tower meeting even though his attorney said Trump had nothing to do with it and his spokesperson said he certainly didn't dictate it.  More self-inflicted wounds and more investigatory threads for Mueller to pull.  As Trey Gowdy implied:  if you’re innocent act like it.   Trump can’t help himself though.  JMO.