If the trump refuses a subpoena for a Grand Jury appearance and it goes to the Supreme Court...

[kentuck]

...and the Court rules in favor of the trump, what impact would that have on the entire investigation?

While this is being fought out in court, whether or not the president can be subpoenaed before a Grand Jury, does the rest of the investigation continue?

Would a Court ruling on the legality of a subpoena have anything to do with the rest of the investigation?

Simply saying that a president cannot be subpoenaed would not negate any further evidence of a criminal act, one might think?

[mucifer]

1. It would be similar to bush V Gore. It would be horrific.

Bush V Gore got us into the war in Iraq. The supreme court also got us citizens united. They are a political hot mess. I don't trust them at all.

[greymattermom]

2. He will lie anyway

so I'm sure that Mueller's group is gathering hard evidence. His testimony would be uninterpretable. If someone lies all the time, the only thing you can do is to stop listening to them.

[CincyDem]

3. Maybe - but it certainly foretells the next chapter that a president can not be indicted.

And that turns into a real cesspool, especially with 45. If SCOTUS rules that 45 can't be indicted until he completes his term, I think it increases the odds that there comes a time when 45 challenges the 22nd amendment. I know it sounds loony but I've had this little voice in my head for the past year that this guy's malignant narcissism and blatant disregard for the institutional operation of our small-d democracy, I wonder how he's going to feel about the "peaceful transition of power" when the time comes.

Think about it. One of the great hallmarks of the US has been the organized coup and transition of power between individuals and sometimes parties. We call that free elections for shorthand.

Is it unrealistic to look at this guy and wonder if he's got what it takes to participate is a peaceful transition of power where he walks out of the room with less than he had going in. Just doesn't feel like it's in his DNA and knowing that he's leaving to face indictments - just adds incentive.

So yeah, I think SCOTUS quashing the subpoena would be a step in the wrong direction.

[kentuck]

4. I don't doubt that at all...

When he "joked" about being president for life, he wasn't joking.

[oberliner]

5. It will go on forever

[H2O Man]

6. It won't happen.

The USSC will hand down a 9-0 decision against Trump on this. What is possible is that they would place some restrictions on the areas that the grand jury can question Trump.

Recommended.

[unblock]

7. i agree, it's really just a delaying tactic.

the supreme court decided that a civil suit can proceed against a sitting president, it makes no sense that they would then decide that a sitting president can't even be subpoenaed.

but when it eventually happens, donnie will simply take the fifth or say he doesn't remember. nothing useful will come of it.

[rusty fender]

11. 8-1 decision

Trumpass can always rely on Thomas’s vote

[CaptainTruth]

8. Have we forgotten United States v Nixon?

Unanimous SCOTUS decision that Nixon had to comply with special prosecutor's subpoena & hand over tape recordings & other materials.

Granted, the subpoena wasn't for testimony, but SCOTUS ruled unanimously that the sitting president has to comply with a lawful subpoena from a special prosecutor.

That's a major precedent.

[beachbum bob]

9. Precedence has been set and 99% of the time that is what matters

Very few times does any court go against precedents.

[asiliveandbreathe]

10. If the Special Prosecutor produces enough evidence to SCOTUS for their consideration -

and if the same decision that applied in the Watergate - Must produce the tapes - is used, then T rump can only hope he (mcturtle) has packed the court...

http://watergate.info/1974/07/24/supreme-court-orders-nixon-release-white-house-tapes.html

From this Court’s examination of the material submitted by the Special Prosecutor in support of his motion for the subpoena, much of which is under seal, it is clear that the District Court’s denial of the motion to quash comported with Rule 17(c), and that the Special Prosecutor has made a sufficient showing to justify a subpoena for production before trial.

the President’s generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial and the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice.

We will have to wait and see..I feel, if Mueller issues a subpoena for testimony the SCOTUS WILL adher to, what we are entitled to, and that is DUE PROCESS....