• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Giuliani claims Trump ‘immune’ from Mueller subpoena

Beaudreaux said:
I'm not a lawyer, but here's a post from one that is: https://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/314455-mueller-drop-midterm-russia-bombshells-gop-congress-post1068373596.html#post1068373596

It's my understanding that a sitting President can only be Impeached by Congress, and if he/she is removed from office by the Senate, then they are no longer a sitting President and can then be indicted and prosecuted by the courts.
Click to expand...

There is the opinion (It has not been brought up through the courts) that a president can be indicted, but not tried during his term in office.
 
Beaudreaux said:
In a civil suit I agree with you. On a criminal matter, which is what Mueller's is, I refer you to a post made by Mr Person that defines and explains why sitting President cannot be criminally charged or tried, with the exception of impeachment. I'll have to find the post though.

EDIT: Although not the one I'm looking for, here's one that's similar: https://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/314455-mueller-drop-midterm-russia-bombshells-gop-congress-post1068373596.html#post1068373596
Click to expand...

If I may add... Mueller is an investigator of the president. But the evidence goes to the house, then the senate. Mueller cannot charge, and cannot compel the president to testify. And he cannot "void" out presidential power.

So what happens is there is a trial. Complete with a charge, evidence, and witnesses. It starts with an evidence committee in the house. No more Mueller bull**** of "20 years or your story and you go free". No plea bargains with witnesses facing financial ruin for not cooperating. Witnesses, records, and cross examination. No more Mueller telling lawyers they don't have a proper clearance to see "this" evidence.

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." You do have to charge and prove.

It will be a total shut down of the government. And may move our military readiness to Defcon 2.
 
Beaudreaux said:
In a civil suit I agree with you. On a criminal matter, which is what Mueller's is, I refer you to a post made by Mr Person that defines and explains why sitting President cannot be criminally charged or tried, with the exception of impeachment. I'll have to find the post though.

EDIT: Although not the one I'm looking for, here's one that's similar: https://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/314455-mueller-drop-midterm-russia-bombshells-gop-congress-post1068373596.html#post1068373596
Click to expand...


I'm just referring to a president being subpoenaed. Not being charged.
 
chuckiechan said:
If I may add... Mueller is an investigator of the president. But the evidence goes to the house, then the senate. Mueller cannot charge, and cannot compel the president to testify. And he cannot "void" out presidential power.

So what happens is there is a trial. Complete with a charge, evidence, and witnesses. It starts with an evidence committee in the house. No more Mueller bull**** of "20 years or your story and you go free". No plea bargains with witnesses facing financial ruin for not cooperating. Witnesses, records, and cross examination. No more Mueller telling lawyers they don't have a proper clearance to see "this" evidence.

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." You do have to charge and prove.

It will be a total shut down of the government. And may move our military readiness to Defcon 2.
Click to expand...

Compelling the President to testify is a battle Mueller would win. It would take months, but he would win it.
 
poweRob said:
The level of completely idiotic hypocrisy of trump nation is astounding.

Giuliani claims Trump ‘immune’ from Mueller subpoena


Rudolph W. Giuliani, a new lawyer on President Trump’s team, claimed a broad constitutional immunity for his client from being subpoenaed in a criminal proceeding, a predictable claim but one unsupported by any Supreme Court decision.

In Clinton v. Jones, the court ruled in 1997 that President Bill Clinton enjoyed no immunity from a civil suit brought against him by Paula Jones, who alleged sexual advances by Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas. It also declined to defer the litigation until the end of Clinton’s presidency, saying that was not constitutionally required, either.​
Click to expand...

Starr Subpoenas Clinton To Appear Before Grand Jury - July 25, 1998

Trump is immune basically.

However back during the Kenneth Starr investigation, Starr subpoena'd Clinton --Clinton and his supporters argued the same thing Giuliani is arguing now -- the republicans then were arguing that the president is not above the law, blah blah -- Clinton decided to testify and not cause a long drawn out court battle and possible constitutional crisis, the subpoena was rescinded -- and fortunately, he lied about an affair under oath and we got him!!!

What we got, I don't know but it felt good to have impeached someone finally.
 
biglawnmower said:
who to believe.

you, or the guy that took down the mafia.

:roll:
Click to expand...

Funny... Comey took down the Gambino crime family. How much to you believe him?
 
poweRob said:
The level of completely idiotic hypocrisy of trump nation is astounding.

Giuliani claims Trump ‘immune’ from Mueller subpoena

Rudolph W. Giuliani, a new lawyer on President Trump’s team, claimed a broad constitutional immunity for his client from being subpoenaed in a criminal proceeding, a predictable claim but one unsupported by any Supreme Court decision.

In Clinton v. Jones, the court ruled in 1997 that President Bill Clinton enjoyed no immunity from a civil suit brought against him by Paula Jones, who alleged sexual advances by Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas. It also declined to defer the litigation until the end of Clinton’s presidency, saying that was not constitutionally required, either.​
Click to expand...

There is a difference between civil and criminal. Maybe you should learn more about the law before posting.
 
Cardinal said:
I was referring to the post you were responding to in this thread, not a post in a completely different thread.

But hey, since you want to go there, it is popular legal opinion, tradition and policy that a sitting President can't be indicted. It remains to this day, however, a Constitutionally untested issue. While the majority of legal opinion would certainly side with you that a sitting President can't be indicted, it is not unanimous and, as I said, remains untested.

Not that I expect Trump to be indicted, mind you. I consider that to be an exceptionally unlikely development.

But back to the topic of this thread, Giuliani is an idiot and precedent would favor Mueller if he chose to subpoena Trump.
Click to expand...

I neither support nor deny it either way. Because, I don't know. That's why I gave the link to the post by Mr Person.

On the other issue, I'm sorry I misunderstood which post you were referring to.
 
RAMOSS said:
There is the opinion (It has not been brought up through the courts) that a president can be indicted, but not tried during his term in office.
Click to expand...

I don't know either way, but I can see the argument on both sides and can make the argument myself on both sides and be comfortable with it either way.
 
Not going into specifics, like the John Edward defense, unless they come up, and I don't have time to read the endless silliness here.
Also, while John Edwards eventually won, it's not a place you want to go. Seriously.

Anyway... I've seen maybe a half dozen speculations as to why Giuliani did what he did.

The one that seems to most comport with Occam's Razor is that he goofed.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I don't know either way, but I can see the argument on both sides and can make the argument myself on both sides and be comfortable with it either way.
Click to expand...

That would wind up in the SC, and because there is no precedent, it's anybody's guess how it would turn out.

As a rule, the Court doesn't undermine it's own authority, just sayin'...
 
biglawnmower said:
comey did? thought mueller did
Click to expand...

Comey helped prosecute the Gambino crime family in New York City when he worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.

link...​
 
poweRob said:
Comey helped prosecute the Gambino crime family in New York City when he worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.

link...​
Click to expand...

oh he wasnt a key player in taking down the mafia. he was just there.
 
biglawnmower said:
oh he wasnt a key player in taking down the mafia. he was just there.
Click to expand...

How in the **** would you know?

This whole article is interviewing Comey for the take down. :lol:

U.S. Charges 14 Reputed Members of Gambino Crime Family
JUNE 21, 2002

''Folks who think that organized crime is a thing of the past in New York are kidding themselves,'' said James B. Comey, the United States attorney in Manhattan. ''These people are out there, and they are struggling to revive and to maintain these organized crime families.''

Mr. Comey noted, however, that organized crime was different today than before. It was less powerful and influential in the New York area, he said, because its ''grip on legitimate enterprise has changed so dramatically since the mid- to late-1980's,'' when the mob was running the concrete industry, the fish markets and various unions.​
 
Cardinal said:
His post was referring to a subpoena, not criminal indictment.
Click to expand...

Well we see the repub sense of standards. It was perfectly ok for Ken Starr SP was also looking into

criminal wrongs by Clinton before he was pres. Then went after a young intimidated white house intern to

further the civil suit against him.

So by the above standards, Mueller could depose Stormy Daniels and Cohen, anytime.
 
poweRob said:
The level of completely idiotic hypocrisy of trump nation is astounding.

Giuliani claims Trump ‘immune’ from Mueller subpoena

Rudolph W. Giuliani, a new lawyer on President Trump’s team, claimed a broad constitutional immunity for his client from being subpoenaed in a criminal proceeding, a predictable claim but one unsupported by any Supreme Court decision.

In Clinton v. Jones, the court ruled in 1997 that President Bill Clinton enjoyed no immunity from a civil suit brought against him by Paula Jones, who alleged sexual advances by Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas. It also declined to defer the litigation until the end of Clinton’s presidency, saying that was not constitutionally required, either.​
Click to expand...

I won't argue one way or another on this issue, but I will point out that "experts" do make their case one way or another.

Here is one such viewpoint from a lawyer that supports Giuliani's contention.

"Robert Barnes is a California-based trial attorney whose practice focuses on Constitutional, criminal and civil rights law."

https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/the-case-for-trump-to-ignore-a-mueller-grand-jury-subpoena/

In his opinion piece, Barnes addresses the Clinton v. Jones issue, among others, and shows why it doesn't apply to the Mueller/Trump issue.
 
Cardinal said:
Giuliani was a respected prosecutor in his day, but he is a speed bump in a long, uninterrupted line of formerly respectable professionals imploding after they entered Trump's circle.
Click to expand...

I was more than a little surprised when he joined the Trump camp, worst move he could make, never works​out for people that do.
 
Mycroft said:
I won't argue one way or another on this issue, but I will point out that "experts" do make their case one way or another.

Here is one such viewpoint from a lawyer that supports Giuliani's contention.

"Robert Barnes is a California-based trial attorney whose practice focuses on Constitutional, criminal and civil rights law."

https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/the-case-for-trump-to-ignore-a-mueller-grand-jury-subpoena/

In his opinion piece, Barnes addresses the Clinton v. Jones issue, among others, and shows why it doesn't apply to the Mueller/Trump issue.
Click to expand...

Just curious... is this the same "Robert Barnes" that is the contributor to Breitbart?

If so... Well OF COURSE he thinks it applies Democrats and and not Republicans.
 
poweRob said:
The level of completely idiotic hypocrisy of trump nation is astounding.

Giuliani claims Trump ‘immune’ from Mueller subpoena

Rudolph W. Giuliani, a new lawyer on President Trump’s team, claimed a broad constitutional immunity for his client from being subpoenaed in a criminal proceeding, a predictable claim
but one unsupported by any Supreme Court decision.

In Clinton v. Jones, the court ruled in 1997 that President Bill Clinton enjoyed no immunity from a civil suit brought against him by Paula Jones, who alleged sexual advances by Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas. It also declined to defer the litigation until the end of Clinton’s presidency, saying that was not constitutionally required, either.​
Click to expand...

Was either Bill Clinton, or Richard Nixon immune from a subpoena? Then why should Trump be..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom