Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(12,344 posts)
Sat Jun 2, 2018, 11:02 PM Jun 2018

Giuliani threatens to go to court if Mueller subpoenas Trump

Source: The Hill

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.

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

The constitutional crisis is coming.
35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Giuliani threatens to go to court if Mueller subpoenas Trump (Original Post) marylandblue Jun 2018 OP
Yeah, Nixon did that, too, when his tapes were subpoenaed. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #1
Trump is wrong..this is NOT a very expensive investigation quartz007 Jun 2018 #2
It is also apparantely less than the cost of trumps golfing trips. pangaia Jun 2018 #4
And not just a LITTLE less... Chrysanthemum Jun 2018 #11
2 hours? Try 2 minutes. marylandblue Jun 2018 #7
He's suppose to be doing that as his lawyer. PoliticAverse Jun 2018 #3
Guess it depends what you mean by a constitutional crisis marylandblue Jun 2018 #9
Didn't to me. The Supreme Court ruled and the Nixon obeyed the ruling. PoliticAverse Jun 2018 #10
The below summarizes the 3 (including the 2 you mentioned) who had this interaction BumRushDaShow Jun 2018 #24
I thought that was the way it went. Thanks so much for verifying my thought. riversedge Jun 2018 #26
Putin wants them to stall, until they can meet up. C Moon Jun 2018 #5
And the GOP wants them to stall ... NanceGreggs Jun 2018 #6
Yea, in-front of the Grand Jury. That's the whole point of the subpoena. briv1016 Jun 2018 #8
Rep Adam Shiff calls bullshit Wwcd Jun 2018 #12
This! n/t Lugnut Jun 2018 #13
...Nobody is above the law. Not this President. Not any president...🌊🌊🌊 #FlipItBlue #BlueWave2018 riversedge Jun 2018 #27
Giuliani...go to court? Don't make me laugh. pecosbob Jun 2018 #14
Precisely. SergeStorms Jun 2018 #18
Ruth Bader Ginsberg green917 Jun 2018 #20
A snack..... SergeStorms Jun 2018 #31
I thought the purpose of a subpoena was to make you go to court TrogL Jun 2018 #15
That ought to be a laff riot. diane in sf Jun 2018 #16
Giuliani: "If Mueller tries to subpoena us..." LastLiberal in PalmSprings Jun 2018 #17
Rudy lies more than trump does lately. Have to admit he is riversedge Jun 2018 #28
So...to avoid subpoenaing Donnie to appear in court... forgotmylogin Jun 2018 #33
Prediction: Giuliani's name will not appear on any court filings he authored as Trump's attorney RockRaven Jun 2018 #19
Watch as one of the sealed indictments is for Rudy... DRoseDARs Jun 2018 #21
I'm sure . . . Richard D Jun 2018 #22
They're doing this now duforsure Jun 2018 #23
Would a Trump appointee have to recuse himself? GreenPartyVoter Jun 2018 #29
I would think so but, duforsure Jun 2018 #30
No. In the Nixon tapes case, which was decided unanimously against Nixon, The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #34
Thanks for the clarification! GreenPartyVoter Jun 2018 #35
Mueller's best evidence is 1998 Rudy Giuliani saying the opposite thing. Vinca Jun 2018 #25
its bullshit rtracey Jun 2018 #32


(1,216 posts)
2. Trump is wrong..this is NOT a very expensive investigation
Sat Jun 2, 2018, 11:10 PM
Jun 2018

What Mueller's team has spent in 15 months is less than what the federal gov't spends in 2 hours.


(26,366 posts)
3. He's suppose to be doing that as his lawyer.
Sat Jun 2, 2018, 11:13 PM
Jun 2018

Just like all the other Presidents' lawyers that have gone to court over such issues.

It only rises to the level of a "constitutional crisis" if a Supreme Court decision is ignored.


(12,344 posts)
9. Guess it depends what you mean by a constitutional crisis
Sat Jun 2, 2018, 11:43 PM
Jun 2018

I'd consider the President trying to fight a subpoena a constitutional crisis. That's what it seemed like when Nixon did it.


(125,456 posts)
24. The below summarizes the 3 (including the 2 you mentioned) who had this interaction
Sun Jun 3, 2018, 06:17 AM
Jun 2018
When presidents have been subpoenaed, here's what they've done
Three occupants of the Oval Office have been subpoenaed before, and each case has been settled differently.

by Pete Williams / May.02.2018 / 3:48 PM ET / Updated May.02.2018 / 7:39 PM ET


Here's what's happened when past presidents have been subpoenaed:

— Jefferson declined to comply but ultimately produced some material in the treason trial of his former vice president, Aaron Burr.

— Nixon resigned and the issue went away.

— The Clinton subpoena was withdrawn when he agreed to testify voluntarily.

The Supreme Court has never directly addressed whether a president can refuse to cooperate in a criminal investigation potentially involving his own conduct. That's because no president has ever fought such a request.

But in two other cases, the court has suggested that there's no authority for the president to decline.



(27,813 posts)
6. And the GOP wants them to stall ...
Sat Jun 2, 2018, 11:23 PM
Jun 2018

... hoping the damage of the midterm elections won't be as devastating as predicted.


(69,246 posts)
27. ...Nobody is above the law. Not this President. Not any president...🌊🌊🌊 #FlipItBlue #BlueWave2018
Sun Jun 3, 2018, 08:00 AM
Jun 2018


(7,431 posts)
14. Giuliani...go to court? Don't make me laugh.
Sun Jun 3, 2018, 12:41 AM
Jun 2018

Judges tend to take offense when you bring bullshit into their courtroom. We know the White House has been running Manafort's defense by proxy and if they try to bring that sort of wing-ding stuff into court they're all going to jail.

If a Democratic Congress goes after Julie's sorry butt, he'll be lucky if he only ends up being disbarred. He was neck deep in all that NY FBI BS.


(18,565 posts)
18. Precisely.
Sun Jun 3, 2018, 01:01 AM
Jun 2018

Could you imagine Ghouliani arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court? He can't keep his shit together on Fox and Friends!

Ghouliani would get his ass spanked, be totally embarrassed in front of the world, and would probably do such a horrible job he'd be disbarred. Yeah, bring it on, Rooty.


(442 posts)
20. Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Sun Jun 3, 2018, 01:28 AM
Jun 2018

Would eat his lunch for him. He better pack a snack and a flashlight because by the time she and Justice Sotomayor are done with him, it's going to be dark and he's going to be hungry.


(18,565 posts)
31. A snack.....
Sun Jun 3, 2018, 12:37 PM
Jun 2018

and a flashlight!

You're correct though, those two alone would have Rudy's head spinning like Linda Blair's in, 'The Exorcist'.

And a belated welcome to DU, green917!

17. Giuliani: "If Mueller tries to subpoena us..."
Sun Jun 3, 2018, 01:00 AM
Jun 2018

Hey, Rudy, if anyone gets subpoenaed, it's going to be Trump, not "us." You don't have any choice about whether your client gets a subpoena to appear before the grand jury. And if he does, he's on his own, without anyone holding his hand as he testifies. I wonder how many times he will take the Fifth?

Want to take Mueller to court over a subpoena? Throw him into that briar patch! He's got real attorneys working for him -- you're just a television lawyer. Even a conservative SCOTUS is going to vote against him. Again, a cardinal concept of our country is that no one is above the law. You may believe Nixon's claim that, "If the president does it, it's legal," but I imagine there are nine people (well, maybe eight. Thomas will probably vote to protect the president) who will stand against giving one man unfettered power.

Too bad Nixon hadn't thought about the "president has full control over all investigations" angle. Maybe he had a respect for the rule of law that yours doesn't. And he recognized that the DOJ must operate independent from the Executive to be effective. If you really believed that bullshit, you would have put it in a motion and not a letter to the prosecutor. Putting it in a motion sticks Trump's case in the court system, and I bet both you and your ignorant client want to avoid that at all costs, right?

All Rudy does is go on television and pontificate. Meanwhile, Mueller and his lawyers keep plugging along. I don't expect him to indict Trump -- if he does, it will be under seal to be opened when he's out of office -- but I expect a flurry of indictments of anyone who has ever come into contact with Donnie Two Scoops. If Trumps pardons all of them, even the cowardly Repugs in Congress are going to have to face the fact that he's doing it to obstruct an investigation. Obstruction of justice was a separate count in Nixon's impeachment and also Clinton's.

Suck it, Rudy.


(69,246 posts)
28. Rudy lies more than trump does lately. Have to admit he is
Sun Jun 3, 2018, 08:02 AM
Jun 2018

a good vocal attack dog and the media eats it up--plays it over and over. I have turned him off lately. just too many lies and bs and smugness and then so often the hosts just let him blah blah on and on.


(14,589 posts)
19. Prediction: Giuliani's name will not appear on any court filings he authored as Trump's attorney
Sun Jun 3, 2018, 01:24 AM
Jun 2018

Rudy is a loudmouth who hasn't litigated anything important in a very, very long time and is way out of his depth here. Mueller's team is chockablock with people of deep (and current/engaged/active) expertise in a variety of areas including constitutional law and appellate procedures. They will eat his lunch -- especially because the law is on their side, not Trump's. Rudy won't be writing any motions that are actually filed with the court, at most he might sign something written by one of Trump's other lawyers.



(6,810 posts)
21. Watch as one of the sealed indictments is for Rudy...
Sun Jun 3, 2018, 01:35 AM
Jun 2018

...for his role in going to the media with apparent pre-knowledge of the "new" emails (that weren't) right before the election. It would be delicious if this did go to court and Rudy was present. First day, first minutes of the proceedings and as soon as Rudy gets up to begin his spittle-flecked blathering, he's served and frogmarched right out of the courtroom. On live television.


(11,880 posts)
23. They're doing this now
Sun Jun 3, 2018, 05:36 AM
Jun 2018

Because they're getting more desperate, and hoping they can corrupt the Supreme Court Justices to protect him now, if he hasn't corrupted them already. Also to drag it all out while they undermine this investigation more. These people are crooks, and treasonous ones at that, and if they can get this ruled in their favor, they can legally corrupt anything for themselves they want. They can ignore all laws , and do as they please to anyone that doesn't bow down to him and his wishes. Republicans doing nothing makes it more reason to vote them all out of office , every one of them, or this gets much worse. Especially Republican Senators. We need both houses or it continues.


(11,880 posts)
30. I would think so but,
Sun Jun 3, 2018, 11:55 AM
Jun 2018

With a DOTJ means no they won't have to because no one stopped them. rudy's doing that now claiming things he knows aren't true, but if no one does anything they'll do it anyway.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(114,516 posts)
34. No. In the Nixon tapes case, which was decided unanimously against Nixon,
Sun Jun 3, 2018, 07:57 PM
Jun 2018

Chief Justice Burger wrote the opinion, joined by Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun and Powell. Burger, Blackmun and Powell were Nixon appointees. They were not obligated to recuse themselves because they were also confirmed by the senate and because they were part of the judicial branch, which isn't under the president's control. Rehnquist recused himself, but only because he had previously worked in the Nixon administration as an assistant attorney general - that is, an executive branch employee.



(2,062 posts)
32. its bullshit
Sun Jun 3, 2018, 01:06 PM
Jun 2018

Thomas Jefferson, Nixon and Clinton were all served with subpoenas, Jefferson declined, but handed over the documents subpoenaed, Nixon resigned and the subpoena was quashed, and Clinton volunteered to speak with Ken Starr. Giuliani is trying to act like he is an important part of this, but he is showing he has been losing hes grip on reality.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Giuliani threatens to go ...