HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Giuliani: Trump doesn't h...

Sun May 6, 2018, 08:48 AM

Giuliani: Trump doesn't have to comply with subpoena from Mueller

Source: The Hill




BY BRETT SAMUELS - 05/06/18 09:30 AM EDT




Rudy Giuliani said Sunday that President Trump would not have to comply with a subpoena in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

“We don’t have to [comply with a subpoena]. He’s the president of the United States. We can assert same privilege as other presidents have," Giuliani said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Giuliani, who was recently hired to lead Trump’s legal team in the Russia probe, said he’d prefer the president receive the “Hillary Clinton treatment.” He said that would involve answering questions that were received in advance, while not under oath.

Whether Trump will testify before the special counsel has been a point of intrigue as Mueller’s probe nears its one-year mark.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/386411-giuliani-trump-doesnt-have-to-comply-with-subpoena-from-mueller



Giuliani: Cohen would have paid other women 'if it was necessary'

BY MALLORY SHELBOURNE - 05/06/18 09:00 AM EDT




Rudy Giuliani on Sunday said while he has no knowledge of President Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, paying any women in addition to Stormy Daniels, he believes Cohen would have done so if he deemed it “necessary.”

“I have no knowledge of that. But I would think if it was necessary, yes.” Giuliani, who recently joined Trump’s team of lawyers, told ABC’s “This Week” when asked about Cohen making payments to other women.

Giuliani’s latest remarks come after the former New York City mayor told Fox News last week that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the payment. The president had previously said he had no knowledge of it.

“I don’t think anyone believes that he knew about it at the time,” Giuliani, who's now a member of Trump's legal team, said Sunday of the $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.

more
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/386407-giuliani-cohen-would-have-paid-other-women-if-it-was-necessary

37 replies, 3641 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 37 replies Author Time Post
Reply Giuliani: Trump doesn't have to comply with subpoena from Mueller (Original post)
DonViejo May 2018 OP
MontanaMama May 2018 #1
beachbum bob May 2018 #2
PoliticAverse May 2018 #4
beachbum bob May 2018 #7
PoliticAverse May 2018 #14
Fred Sanders May 2018 #22
PoliticAverse May 2018 #24
Fred Sanders May 2018 #25
beachbum bob May 2018 #23
PoliticAverse May 2018 #26
beachbum bob May 2018 #35
beachbum bob May 2018 #36
LiberalFighter May 2018 #37
olegramps May 2018 #11
FakeNoose May 2018 #19
onetexan May 2018 #18
Botany May 2018 #3
C_U_L8R May 2018 #5
PubliusEnigma May 2018 #6
beachbum bob May 2018 #8
Timmygoat May 2018 #9
Vinnie From Indy May 2018 #10
treestar May 2018 #12
emulatorloo May 2018 #33
Freethinker65 May 2018 #13
malthaussen May 2018 #15
jpak May 2018 #16
PSPS May 2018 #17
DemocratSinceBirth May 2018 #20
turbinetree May 2018 #21
Botany May 2018 #27
The Velveteen Ocelot May 2018 #28
Algernon Moncrieff May 2018 #32
asiliveandbreathe May 2018 #29
Julian Englis May 2018 #30
Algernon Moncrieff May 2018 #31
rock May 2018 #34

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2018, 08:51 AM

1. Rudy doing his best

to be Michael Avenatti...and failing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2018, 08:56 AM

2. lol....rudy making shit up....no one can ignore a subpoena out of hand without being

 

charged with contempt of court. Rudy knows this so he is depending on all the ignorant trump supporters to be in agreement....they don't make the law I am afraid to tell them

the law is law

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbum bob (Reply #2)

Sun May 6, 2018, 09:00 AM

4. Read his statement carefully: "We can assert same privilege as other presidents have". n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #4)

Sun May 6, 2018, 09:07 AM

7. his impication is clear, any way, a court will rule and 99% based on precedence

 

then trump will be hauled before a grand jury, no lawyers are allowed

the worse nightmare for conservative land. A serial and delusional liar in front of a grand jury and going on the record. Pleading the 5th will land his ass in jail for contempt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbum bob (Reply #7)

Sun May 6, 2018, 09:17 AM

14. "Pleading the 5th will land his ass in jail for contempt" - no, unless he gets immunity he has...

a right to plead the 5th in any situation in which in answering he might incriminate himself and also
in case his answer "would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime".

(See Hoffman v United States, 1951) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/341/479/case.html )

Also although no lawyer is allowed to accompany the subject into the grand jury room, the subject may leave
and consult with their lawyer before answering each question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #14)

Sun May 6, 2018, 10:38 AM

22. Sure, can plead right against self incrimination, but the right to not respond to a lawful

subpoena implying the office of the Presidency is above any court or law, including criminal?

What is this, a dictatorship or monarchy?

I say....no.

The higher question is can a President be criminally indicted and convicted and punished...I say YES! Of course...a "no" is shitting on democracy and the rule of law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #22)

Sun May 6, 2018, 10:42 AM

24. He didn't say "not respond" he said "not comply". He indicated they would respond...

by asserting executive privilege. It would be up to the courts to decide whether privilege applied (most likely
they would decide it didn't).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #24)

Sun May 6, 2018, 10:47 AM

25. No quibbles on that. The shit hits the fan when criminal indictments are laid and Shitler refuses to

physically go to court to be arraigned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #14)

Sun May 6, 2018, 10:39 AM

23. Trump will be asked about what he knew what others were doing...

 

Not what he was doing...makes taking the 5th more difficult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbum bob (Reply #23)

Sun May 6, 2018, 10:48 AM

26. Yes but as I noted the 5th applies - "in any situation" the answer "would furnish a link...

"in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime".

For example if what others were doing was at the direction of the person testifying or otherwise as part of their overall plan.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #26)

Sun May 6, 2018, 02:00 PM

35. Taking a 5th, can be considered an impeachable position, a very

 

Careful line he must walk

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #26)

Sun May 6, 2018, 02:04 PM

36. This is the tricky part...if trump takes the 5th on questions of what

 

Others were doing, the 5th is to protect self incrimination....the implication is clear and impeachment is a viable option....btw, trumps public statements could indeed prevent trump from using the 5th...the problem that trump creates for his lawyer team as he thinks he is above the law, could care less about the law...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #14)

Sun May 6, 2018, 08:36 PM

37. Would DT be rational enough to consult with his attorney...

and more importantly follow his instruction? Or will DT think he knows better than anyone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #4)

Sun May 6, 2018, 09:11 AM

11. He really meant what dictators are privileged to do.

Trump has absolutely no respect for the office of the presidency, the constitution or basic decency. He is a man without a conscience who has made a career out of cheating people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to olegramps (Reply #11)

Sun May 6, 2018, 10:11 AM

19. Yes completely and Giuliani is just another enabler

... until Cheeto fires him too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbum bob (Reply #2)

Sun May 6, 2018, 10:07 AM

18. yep as Avenatti said, they're making stuff up as they go

and that these bumbling goons make Nixon's thieves look competent

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2018, 08:58 AM

3. He's the president of the United States. We can assert same privilege as other presidents have."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2018, 09:01 AM

5. Let's find out and see...

send the subpoena

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2018, 09:06 AM

6. In other words, there's a subpoena on the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PubliusEnigma (Reply #6)

Sun May 6, 2018, 09:07 AM

8. I suspect very soon.

 

can't wait

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PubliusEnigma (Reply #6)

Sun May 6, 2018, 09:08 AM

9. I think

They are really acting guilty, if Trump was innocent he would talk to Mueller. They sure must have a big cover-up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2018, 09:08 AM

10. Didn't work for Bill Clinton

Ain't gonna work for Spanky McPussyGrabber either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2018, 09:15 AM

12. He can assert it but it does not mean that

he will prevail

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

They would have to show it is in the national interest not to comply.

The Supreme Court addressed "executive privilege" in United States v. Nixon, the 1974 case involving the demand by Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox that President Richard Nixon produce the audiotapes of conversations he and his colleagues had in the Oval Office of the White House in connection with criminal charges being brought against members of the Nixon Administration. Nixon invoked the privilege and refused to produce any records.

The Supreme Court did not reject the claim of privilege out of hand; it noted, in fact, "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties" and that "[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process." This is very similar to the logic that the Court had used in establishing an "executive immunity" defense for high office-holders charged with violating citizens' constitutional rights in the course of performing their duties. The Supreme Court stated: "To read the Article 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 Article III." Because Nixon had asserted only a generalized need for confidentiality, the Court held that the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #12)

Sun May 6, 2018, 01:14 PM

33. +1. Nixon was not above the law. Nor is Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2018, 09:17 AM

13. So if Trump and attorneys are 100% certain they can just ignore Mueller...

There is no need to fire him as long as Mueller continues to nail the "bad guys" . I mean these rule of law guys (Trump and Rudy) would never want people guilty of money laundering, racketeering, and trying to taint a Presidential election by entrapping totally innocent Trump campaign workers, family, and the GOP go free? As long as there in investigating to be done and indictments to be brought, they should be very pleased with the job of the US Justice Department. Hell, Trump can even take credit for it himself. Best justice department ever to get rid of all those bad guys under his administration!
And since Trump is a consummate professional with an impeccably qualified WH administration staff supporting him, there is no way any of this could be a distraction to him. After all, Trump still finds ample time to relax and play golf, visit his properties, watch and call into FoxNews, tweet, and hold ego boosting campaign rallies for his next term! Amazing what stamina this man that could live to 200 years old, according to a very esteemed physician, has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2018, 09:18 AM

15. Dude has a very short, or very convenient, memory. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2018, 09:29 AM

16. Lock The Up!

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2018, 09:47 AM

17. Sorry. See United States v. Nixon

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2018, 10:27 AM

20. SCOTUS will rule anywhere from 6-3 to 9-0 against him based on precedent.

Trump's only hope is the subpoena itself is defective. I will let lawyers elaborate on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2018, 10:33 AM

21. The Clown has spoken....................everyone in the criminal enterprise is above the law....




Just common sense says that he is not....................and just a big thank you for saying this to how someone possibly broke the law..................

Rudy Giuliani on Sunday said while he has no knowledge of President Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, paying any women in addition to Stormy Daniels, he believes Cohen would have done so if he deemed it “necessary.”

“I have no knowledge of that. But I would think if it was necessary, yes.” Giuliani, who recently joined Trump’s team of lawyers, told ABC’s “This Week” when asked about Cohen making payments to other women.





Has Ms. Clifford attorney said keep going on tv........................

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2018, 10:51 AM

27. Tell this guy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2018, 10:51 AM

28. U.S. Supreme Court: Read United States v. Nixon, dumbass.

This is the DU member formerly known as The Velveteen Ocelot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #28)

Sun May 6, 2018, 12:20 PM

32. That was a very different court in a very different time

Today, Trump can absolutely bank on Thomas and Alito, and can 75% bank on Gorsuch and Roberts. Kennedy would be a coin flip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2018, 11:03 AM

29. Bob Bauer WH counsel for our President Obama..how he sizes up the Nixon Long Shadow

An understanding that the OLC opinion vs an Executive opinion..NOT a judiciary opinion - for which they are trying to hang their hat on...Just Security website..

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210573952

a special counsel should not consider himself bound by an opinion of executive branch lawyers that turns on its head, and to the executive’s advantage, what the courts have made plain about their role in adjudicating the scope of presidential immunities from legal process.

The special counsel is charged under the regulations with investigating and prosecuting federal crimes. If the special counsel has cause to believe that the president committed such, he should pursue the testimony that he needs and bring charges if the evidence supports them.


Info at link.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2018, 11:47 AM

30. WaPo--Giuliani: It is possible Michael Cohen paid off other women for Trump

Great take on the interview from The Washington Post:
Rudolph W. Giuliani on Sunday defended the payment an attorney for President Trump made in 2016 to an adult-film star who had alleged a relationship with Trump, and said it was possible that that lawyer may have paid off other women as well.

The comment from Giuliani, the former New York mayor who recently joined Trump’s legal team, comes amid an ongoing furor over a string of assertions he has made regarding the 2016 payment to Stormy Daniels, why it was made and how much the president knew about it.

When asked during an interview on ABC News’s “This Week” whether Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal attorney, had made payments to other women, Giuliani said he did not know of any but acknowledged that this could have happened.

“I have no knowledge of that,” Giuliani said. “But I would think if it was necessary, yes.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2018, 12:18 PM

31. Translation: We're betting that this SCOTUS will let us claim Executive Privilege

...especially if Kennedy retires during summer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2018, 01:16 PM

34. So presidents are above the Law

I did not know that. Where is that written?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread