General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumshlthe2b
(102,276 posts)So, presumably, no.
DNC had to go this route to serve Jared Kushner, too.
Just had bad thoughts of this happening
getagrip_already
(14,750 posts)Is what happens if trump just ignores a subpoena and tells the court to pound sand.
No court officer could get close to him. He pretty much is untouchable if he wants to be. Unless and until the house impeaches him and the senate convicts him, he is potus with virtually unlimited authority.
TeamPooka
(24,226 posts)if it happens.
If he acts like that then that's when the New Revolution starts.
getagrip_already
(14,750 posts)Trump would LOVE riots and large demonstrations. He would unleash the brown shirts.
The army and police would keep the crowds back, and the thugs would pick them off with sniper rifles.
That's not the answer.
TeamPooka
(24,226 posts)getagrip_already
(14,750 posts)They weren't there to take pictures. I have no doubt some of his supporters would shoot, or drive a truck through a crowd, or toss a bomb, or whatever. Some whackos would love to do it on tv.
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)VASTLY. I hear your concerns but, at some point...it's GO time.
Progressive Jones
(6,011 posts)be charged with obstructing justice?
Jersey Devil
(9,874 posts)Serving someone's lawyer with a subpoena is not good service unless the lawyer acknowledges that he has been authorized by his client to accept the subpoena.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)In public cases you see it more than others.
Jersey Devil
(9,874 posts)In the same litigation, yes, but not "related" cases, whatever that means.
In a grand jury investigation (by Mueller) it would only apply to someone already indicted, and only if "related" to that specific case, not some other subjects.
hlthe2b
(102,276 posts)I'm sure you can pull up some of her appearances wherein she discusses this in detail including their intent to do so in Watergate and Nixon's lawyers DID take the subpoenas for the tapes.
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)The New York Times? You can't run from Federal Service of Process....eventually, we get you.
Jersey Devil
(9,874 posts)If you cannot serve them personally then you move before the court for permission to use special substituted service. That's when things like publication in a paper come in, with the court's permission. Publication is usually done when you have made a diligent search for the person but cannot find them.
Service on an attorney can only be done by agreement with the client and attorney, sometimes to avoid embarrassment like process servers at your front door, etc. It's an accommodation so that there is no public spectacle when the subpoena is served.
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)Thanks.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)If he has used his personal attorney in motions related to this issue and Mueller would ultimately want to serve him, he could do it this way.
hlthe2b
(102,276 posts)getagrip_already
(14,750 posts)The courts could just order the secret service to allow the subpoena to be served. They are not his personal army; they gave an oath to uphold the constitution and can be jailed if they refuse a lawful order.
Achilleaze
(15,543 posts)since Day 1 - in case he needs to muscle America's Secret Service and other Law Enforcement Officials out of the way to preserve his lying, cheating, troop-demeaning republican ass.
* aka republican Draft-Dodger-in-Chief
former9thward
(32,006 posts)No president (or his legal representatives) have ever been served with a subpoena. The issue would go into the courts and last at least a year or more before a final decision. Mueller is not going to go through that since he got his written questions answered anyway.
hlthe2b
(102,276 posts)That was a UNANIMOUS US Supreme Court decision
former9thward
(32,006 posts)In the Nixon case evidence (the tapes) was subpoenaed -- not the President. A monumental difference legally. And that is TRUE.
hlthe2b
(102,276 posts)United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a unanimous decision against President Richard Nixon, ordering him to deliver tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials to a federal district court.
former9thward
(32,006 posts)That would be issue (remember the OP) if Mueller wanted to subpoena Trump. That has never been done. If there was a court fight Mueller would not be using the Nixon case for his side.
hlthe2b
(102,276 posts)You are confused. And yes, Jefferson did appear for testimony after being subpoenaed in the Burr trial. So, again, you are imistake. It has, indeed happened. Once for testimony (Jefferson) and once for documents (ie. tapes, Nixon).
former9thward
(32,006 posts)He refused. You are the one who is confused.
hlthe2b
(102,276 posts)former9thward
(32,006 posts)You ignore that part.
hlthe2b
(102,276 posts)Jefferson and Nixon. Both provided documents.
While you keep creating strawman arguments. you were wrong when you stated emphatically in post 13
"No president (or his legal representatives) have ever been served with a subpoena".
Wrong
hlthe2b
(102,276 posts)and yes, Nixon was subpoenaed for those tapes... successfully.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/22/can-the-president-be-indicted-or-subpoenaed/?utm_term=.0a264e3a5a12
This particular subpoena went to President Thomas Jefferson, compelling him to testify in court in Richmond. Jefferson decided not to go, claiming he was too busy running the government, but he submitted documents and offered to give testimony in Washington. And that was that.
Months later, Marshall seemed to revise his thinking and said courts were not required to proceed against the President as against an ordinary individual. In an 1838 decision, Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, the Supreme Court took an even narrower view of the judiciarys power concerning the president, according to the OLC memo.
The executive power is vested in a president; and so far as his powers are derived from the constitution, he is beyond the reach of any other department, except in the mode prescribed by the constitution through the impeachment, the court said.
Fast-forward 167 years to U.S. v. Nixon, the landmark Supreme Court case from 1974. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote for the court that Nixon, still in office amid the Watergate scandal, had to comply with a subpoena seeking records and tapes of the president talking to aides and advisers. These records were to be reviewed in private by a federal judge, the court said.
To read the Art. II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of a workable government and gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III, Burger wrote.
Burger addressed Marshalls statement 167 years earlier that courts were not required to proceed against the president as against an ordinary individual.
Marshalls statement cannot be read to mean in any sense that a President is above the law, Burger wrote, but relates to the singularly unique role under Art. II of a Presidents communications and activities, related to the performance of duties under that Article.
former9thward
(32,006 posts)If you don't know the legal difference I can't help you in the space we are allowed here. Your own snippet says Jefferson did not comply with the subpoena. He was "too busy".
hlthe2b
(102,276 posts)those from Laurence Tribe who has written extensively on it.
hlthe2b
(102,276 posts)Kindly read the article rather than putting forth that which is not true.
former9thward
(32,006 posts)He did not testify. And it was one of the reasons Burr was freed for lack of evidence.
hlthe2b
(102,276 posts)of the Presidential subpoenas--both which you denied had ever before occurred. You are wrong
Nixon and Jefferson are the only two Presidents ever served with a subpoena, but served they WERE.
former9thward
(32,006 posts)And Jefferson refused to testify despite you saying HE DID testify. FALSE.
hlthe2b
(102,276 posts)Jefferson and Nixon. Both provided documents. I said they were served subpoenas. They were, despite your attempt to change the argument to subpoena somehow meaning only for testimony. It doesn't. Subpoenas (if you ever even read a law book, can be for documents, materials, testimony, tapes, or any number or physical items
While you keep creating strawman arguments. you were wrong when you stated emphatically in post 13
"No president (or his legal representatives) have ever been served with a subpoena".
Wrong
hlthe2b
(102,276 posts)a subpoena".... No matter of changing your argument makes that true.
hlthe2b
(102,276 posts)"No president (or his legal representatives) have ever been served with a subpoena" post 13.
No amount of changing your argument can make this statement true. It is demonstrably false as I have repeatedly stated.
hlthe2b
(102,276 posts)a subpoena" (your original post 13) DEMONSTRABLY false. Both Jefferson and Nixon WERE served.
hlthe2b
(102,276 posts)Both Jefferson and Nixon were served. Both complied (despite Nixon's failed challenge to a unanimous decision in 1974 US v Nixon) to provide documents. Jefferson offered to testify, albeit in DC rather than requested Richmond.
You are very wrong and apparently do not understand that subpoenas can be for materials, documents, or testimony. They are still Presidential subpoenas, which you claimed: " "No president (or his legal representatives) have ever been served with a subpoena" False
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/22/can-the-president-be-indicted-or-subpoenaed/?utm_term=.0a264e3a5a12
https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/25/archives/presidential-subpoena-upheld-in-1807-marshall-opinion-not-immune.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/opinion/trump-lawyers-indicted-subpoena.html
former9thward
(32,006 posts)Jefferson did not comply with the subpoena and did not testify despite your false assertions that he did. This whole thread was about TESTIMONY which is why I posted. No one has testified.
hlthe2b
(102,276 posts)I understand you were confused but you keep digging and I will continue to keep you honest to your actual assertion which is quite untrue.
In summary: YOU STATED: "No president (or his legal representatives) have ever been served with a subpoena" FALSE (your original post # 13)
Both Jefferson and Nixon were served. Both were served; both complied with release of documents (tapes) (despite Nixon's failed challenge to a unanimous decision in 1974 US v Nixon) to provide documents. Jefferson offered to testify, albeit in DC rather than requested Richmond.
You are very wrong and apparently do not understand that subpoenas can be for materials, documents, or testimony. They are still Presidential subpoenas, which you claimed: " "No president (or his legal representatives) have ever been served with a subpoena" False
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/22/can-the-president-be-indicted-or-subpoenaed/?utm_term=.0a264e3a5a12
https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/25/archives/presidential-subpoena-upheld-in-1807-marshall-opinion-not-immune.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/opinion/trump-lawyers-indicted-subpoena.html
former9thward
(32,006 posts)He did not. He refused to testify no matter where.
Jefferson refused to appear in Burrs defense and released only a few of the documents Burr had requested, invoking his presidential right to protect the public interest.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/thomas-jefferson-subpoenaed-in-aaron-burrs-treason-trial
hlthe2b
(102,276 posts)I understand you were confused but you keep digging and I will continue to keep you honest to your actual assertion which is quite untrue.
In summary: YOU STATED: "No president (or his legal representatives) have ever been served with a subpoena" FALSE (your original post # 13)
Both Jefferson and Nixon were served. Both were served; both complied with release of documents (tapes) (despite Nixon's failed challenge to a unanimous decision in 1974 US v Nixon) to provide documents. Jefferson offered to testify, albeit in DC rather than requested Richmond.
You are very wrong and apparently do not understand that subpoenas can be for materials, documents, or testimony. They are still Presidential subpoenas, which you claimed: " "No president (or his legal representatives) have ever been served with a subpoena" False
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/22/can-the-president-be-indicted-or-subpoenaed/?utm_term=.0a264e3a5a12
https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/25/archives/presidential-subpoena-upheld-in-1807-marshall-opinion-not-immune.html
former9thward
(32,006 posts)Since you know through NYT articles how easy it is to get Presidential testimony. Mueller has been negotiating for about a year now with Trump and his team for testimony. If they had you on the team you could have just shown them the articles and it would have been over a year ago. Please forward the links to Mueller. TIA. His contact is special.counsel@usdoj.gov
hlthe2b
(102,276 posts)Whiskeytide
(4,461 posts)bluestarone
(16,940 posts)On live TV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)brooklynite
(94,571 posts)scarletlib
(3,411 posts)They are employees of the US Govt. Their charge is to protect him from physical harm not legal or political actions.
Also one wonders how much 'loyalty' they would have to him as a person considering how he treats the people beneath him in his employ.