Lawyers afraid con artist will lie under oath

[someoneyouknow]

"I am looking forward to it, actually," Trump told reporters. "Here is the story: There has been no collusion whatsoever. There is no obstruction whatsoever. And I am looking forward to it."

*whisper*We can't let him testify. If he lies, we're screwed.*whisper*

That is the crux of the matter from the con artist's attorneys. So afraid of him lying under oath if he gives testimony to Mueller team, they are desperately searching for a way to either convince him not to testify, or come up with a reason why Mueller doesn't have the authority to take the testimony.

Which raises an interesting question: if the con artist's lawyers are so afraid of him lying, how can any of us take him at his word when he says he had the largest inauguration crowd in history?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/05/politics/donald-trump-robert-mueller-interview/index.html

 

[Hypoxia]

Alas, if Tromp is persuaded not to speak voluntarily, Mueller can drag him to a grand jury where there's no Fifth Amendment copout. It'll be interesting to see if a sitting POTUS can preside from jail after a grand jury fuckup.

 

[HisArpy]

Alas, if Tromp is persuaded not to speak voluntarily, Mueller can drag him to a grand jury where there's no Fifth Amendment copout. It'll be interesting to see if a sitting POTUS can preside from jail after a grand jury fuckup.

There's some debate on whether a sitting President can be subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury for using his executive authority.

The thinking is that the use of executive powers is not a criminal act because the Constitution authorizes the use of that authority. That authorization completely shields the President.

There's no precedent for this, so this is a question of law that will ultimately have to be decided by the courts. A process which can take a long time - years in some cases. Trump may no longer be President and, if so, will probably have been pardoned by the next President who takes office. Which occurs as a matter of form upon inauguration.

Also remember, the purpose of a Grand Jury is to indict based upon evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Mueller has to have evidence that Trump committed a crime before he can empanel a GJ and present that evidence. He can't use a GJ to obtain the evidence he lacks.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

This seems like desperation.

The whole point of a law enforcement investigation is to find the facts and determine whether they support criminal charges. Their "legality" is not decided and asserted ahead of time (a) and (b) it's not up to the target of an investigation to decide that. It's up to the courts and a jury.

All they seem to be saying here is, "He shouldn't have to answer questions because he's innocent."

Wrong. Mueller has the legal standing to ask him whatever he needs to.

They are convinced that Mr. Mueller lacks the legal standing to question Mr. Trump about some of the matters he is investigating, like the president’s role in providing a misleading response last summer to a New York Times article about a meeting Mr. Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. had with Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. The advisers have also argued that on other matters — like the allegations that the president asked James B. Comey, then the F.B.I. director, to end the investigation into the former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn — the president acted within his constitutional authority and cannot be questioned about acts that were legal.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

A GJ has been empanelled: it's sitting there with enough evidence to exist.

Also remember, the purpose of a Grand Jury is to indict based upon evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Mueller has to have evidence that Trump committed a crime before he can empanel a GJ and present that evidence. He can't use a GJ to obtain the evidence he lacks.

 

[HisArpy]

You don't understand the nature of a GJ.

It's a "one-sided" trial of evidence. There is no defense presented because the purpose is to determine if there are enough material facts and evidence to formally charge the accused. It is NOT an "investigatory tool" to discover evidence.

If Mueller HAD evidence, he'd be presenting it to the GJ. Not sitting on his hands. Refusing to respond to a subpoena by challenging its validity in court is not a crime.

Trump should refuse the voluntary interview and cite his Constitutional prerogatives as the chief executive. When Mueller tries to subpoena him for his refusal, he should take the issue to the courts to figure out. All the way to the top. Assuming Trump is not auto-pardoned by the incoming President after his term ends and IF Mueller wins the right to subpoena Trump after the US Sup Ct says so, it will be years from now and all Trump has to say are 18 words and keep repeating them until the interview is ended:

"On the advice of counsel I am invoking my 5th Amendment rights and decline to answer the question."

End of saga unless Mueller has other evidence to charge Trump with. Given what Liberal Congressional leaders have said about that, there ain't no there, there.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

I know exactly what a Grand Jury is. I've sat on one.

I know the GJ doesn't determine his guilt or innocence; that is for an actual trial. My point is Trump's lawyers are jumping way ahead by saying he doesn't have to talk about acts which were "legal". That's claiming innocence as a reason not to speak to Mueller, when guilt or innocence is for the law to decide.

And it's not true that a Grand Jury does not involve discovery or is not an investigatory tool. Yes, it is. Why do you think Grand Jurors can ask questions? Why do they bring witnesses before it? They go on so long because in the process of presenting the evidence they hold before a Grand Jury, it discusses, debates, asks questions, etc. They don't sit there passively while the prosecutor presents a bunch of slides. They participate. New evidence comes up in the process. Grand Juries are often empaneled for a long time, months and years, because they get involved in the process.

A regular jury and a regular trial is not an investigative tool. The discovery process is over. That's when it's a straight presentation of evidence.

As to Trump refusing a subpoena, yes, that is a crime--contempt of court. He will then be issued a summons to appear. He can fight it, and take it to court, but it won't take "years" as you claim.

If he wants to claim Fifth Amendment, he can.

Either way--refusal of claiming the Fifth--he looks guilty.

You don't understand the nature of a GJ.

It's a "one-sided" trial of evidence. There is no defense presented because the purpose is to determine if there are enough material facts and evidence to formally charge the accused. It is NOT an "investigatory tool" to discover evidence.

If Mueller HAD evidence, he'd be presenting it to the GJ. Not sitting on his hands. Refusing to respond to a subpoena by challenging its validity in court is not a crime.

Trump should refuse the voluntary interview and cite his Constitutional prerogatives as the chief executive. When Mueller tries to subpoena him for his refusal, he should take the issue to the courts to figure out. All the way to the top. Assuming Trump is not auto-pardoned by the incoming President after his term ends and IF Mueller wins the right to subpoena Trump after the US Sup Ct says so, it will be years from now and all Trump has to say are 18 words and keep repeating them until the interview is ended:

"On the advice of counsel I am invoking my 5th Amendment rights and decline to answer the question."

End of saga unless Mueller has other evidence to charge Trump with. Given what Liberal Congressional leaders have said about that, there ain't no there, there.

 

[HisArpy]

The GJ is NOT an investigatory tool. They can't just summon you for an afternoon tea party and ask you question designed to get you to admit to something. There HAS TO BE a reason for them to order you to appear. That reason is presented by the prosecutor. It then becomes the burden of the prosecutor to present the evidence he has which supports the reason the GJ is empaneled.

The GJ is not a passive jury, they can ask questions and subpoena witnesses they think are necessary to determine all of the evidence and facts. That's how/why they have subpoena powers. But they CAN'T create evidence or indict for things they aren't presented evidence on.

Well, they can, but it's stupid to criminally charge someone for having tea or whatever. The case will fall apart at trial. So, there ARE limits on what the GJ can do. It's all based on the prosecutor and the charge he lays before them. Without a charge, they got nothing to go on unless during the course of reviewing the evidence presented they discover a crime occurred. At that point they can indict for that offense even if the original charge is baseless.

BUT, if the prosecutor lays a bogus charge just to get someone before the GJ hoping the GJ wi'll discover something, the prosecutor is subject to abuse of process claims if the GJ doesn't indict. That's also a personal liability offense so any "official immunity" won't save his butt.

Refusing to obey a subpoena by challenging it in court is not "contempt of court". It's a legal challenge to the validity of the subpoena and invokes personal jurisdiction issues that must be resolved before the power to subpoena that particular witness is established.

Warrants and subpoenas can be challenged. Doing so is not a crime. The primary hearing for the challenge is fast. The challenge is made and the hearing date is scheduled. The issuing court is presented briefs on the matter and makes the decision.

THAT decision is subject to appeal. Should Trump lose at the issuing court level, he can appeal the decision. That will take approx 1 year and that decision can also be appealed to the Sup Ct. Which will be at least another year before the final decision is made.

So, a couple of more months wrangling over his appearance, 2-3 months challenging the subpoena and getting a decision, a year for the appeal, 90 days for the decision to become "final", another year for the high court appeal, 90 days for that decision to become "final" and we're where? 2.5 to 3 years or so from now.

Trump has 3 years before the end of his first term. Do you really think at that point he'll give a shit about sitting in a room and saying those 18 words over and over again? And, even if he concedes the issue and submits to the subpoena, do you think he still can't say those 18 words?

There's also a YUGE difference between actually being guilty of something and your opponents proclaiming you are because you invoked the rights all Americans have.

 

[someoneyouknow]

"On the advice of counsel I am invoking my 5th Amendment rights and decline to answer the question."

"The mob takes the Fifth Amendment," Trump said at a campaign event in Iowa later that month. "If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"​

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-immunity-pleading-fifth-amendment-michael-flynn-2017-5

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Does that not make them part of the investigation? In the process of being presented with (the current state of) evidence, they "probe" it--and often find more avenues for inquiry, possibly leading to the discovery of more "evidence." Or, on the other hand, they discover actually a lack of support and elect not to indict. That to me is all "investigation." A normal jury does none of that.

I never said they can just empanel it for no reason. I stipulated that by very reason of its existence, the Mueller probe had enough evidence on hand to get it created.

They are presented with evidence, witnesses, and possible charges to consider. Then they get to work. I don't know what you're taking issue with.

I said refusing a subpoena will lead to a charge--contempt of court--at least, that is what I heard from lawyers explaining this on TV. Then you go to court to refute or argue your case.

there's more:

You cannot "refuse to accept" a subpoena. The process server or officer who serves it on you generally will have complied with the law for service if he/she attempts to hand it to you, even if you refuse, let it drop, or slam the door in his/her face. If the server makes contact with you and leaves the subpoena, it doesn't matter how you respond--you have been served.

If you try to keep the server from making contact with you, it is called "evading" service. Depending on the situation, a court may have other ways to assure you show up. In some situations, the court can issue a bench warrant for your arrest.

I never said you get in trouble for taking your case to court. You get in trouble for evading and/or refusing to honor the subpoena.

I think Dump could very well plead the Fifth. I think that's exactly what he might do. He'll do absolutely anything not to testify. Did I say otherwise?

The difference lies in what we think of that. Me = admission of guilt. You = he's a hero for defying the "Deep State". But your view is still only 33% of the country. Does not look good for him.

Whatever the case, I have full trust that Mueller is way ahead of Trump and has plans in place. If you want to believe in the Orange Dunce, go right ahead. He's stupid, and his lawyers are stupid. Mueller is not stupid.

The GJ is NOT an investigatory tool. They can't just summon you for an afternoon tea party and ask you question designed to get you to admit to something. There HAS TO BE a reason for them to order you to appear. That reason is presented by the prosecutor. It then becomes the burden of the prosecutor to present the evidence he has which supports the reason the GJ is empaneled.

The GJ is not a passive jury, they can ask questions and subpoena witnesses they think are necessary to determine all of the evidence and facts. That's how/why they have subpoena powers. But they CAN'T create evidence or indict for things they aren't presented evidence on.

Well, they can, but it's stupid to criminally charge someone for having tea or whatever. The case will fall apart at trial. So, there ARE limits on what the GJ can do. It's all based on the prosecutor and the charge he lays before them. Without a charge, they got nothing to go on unless during the course of reviewing the evidence presented they discover a crime occurred. At that point they can indict for that offense even if the original charge is baseless.

BUT, if the prosecutor lays a bogus charge just to get someone before the GJ hoping the GJ wi'll discover something, the prosecutor is subject to abuse of process claims if the GJ doesn't indict. That's also a personal liability offense so any "official immunity" won't save his butt.

Refusing to obey a subpoena by challenging it in court is not "contempt of court". It's a legal challenge to the validity of the subpoena and invokes personal jurisdiction issues that must be resolved before the power to subpoena that particular witness is established.

Warrants and subpoenas can be challenged. Doing so is not a crime. The primary hearing for the challenge is fast. The challenge is made and the hearing date is scheduled. The issuing court is presented briefs on the matter and makes the decision.

THAT decision is subject to appeal. Should Trump lose at the issuing court level, he can appeal the decision. That will take approx 1 year and that decision can also be appealed to the Sup Ct. Which will be at least another year before the final decision is made.

So, a couple of more months wrangling over his appearance, 2-3 months challenging the subpoena and getting a decision, a year for the appeal, 90 days for the decision to become "final", another year for the high court appeal, 90 days for that decision to become "final" and we're where? 2.5 to 3 years or so from now.

Trump has 3 years before the end of his first term. Do you really think at that point he'll give a shit about sitting in a room and saying those 18 words over and over again? And, even if he concedes the issue and submits to the subpoena, do you think he still can't say those 18 words?

There's also a YUGE difference between actually being guilty of something and your opponents proclaiming you are because you invoked the rights all Americans have.

 

[coati]

Getting back to the main theme of the thread, yes, if the Stable Genius utters any words related to this investigation, they are very likely to be lies. He has lost touch with reality. He thinks he can make reality. In that sense, he is a pathological liar who has no idea he is lying.

However, the law does not subscribe to the old Lee Atwater "we make reality" approach to the use of language. The law defines lies in a more classical way.

Regular people would get locked up for scamming and lying like the Stable Genius. Ultimately, however, he will probably be pardoned by Pence, or just censured by the Repugnican-held Congress.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Getting back to the main theme of the thread, yes, if the Stable Genius utters any words related to this investigation, they are very likely to be lies. He has lost touch with reality. He thinks he can make reality. In that sense, he is a pathological liar who has no idea he is lying.

However, the law does not subscribe to the old Lee Atwater "we make reality" approach to the use of language. The law defines lies in a more classical way.

Regular people would get locked up for scamming and lying like the Stable Genius. Ultimately, however, he will probably be pardoned by Pence, or just censured by the Repugnican-held Congress.

Lying is not illegal, except under certain circumstances, such as being under oath. You can ask bill Clinton about that. Lawyers are always afraid their clients will get caught committing perjury, which is one reason they usually advise them to refuse to testify. However, such a refusal is often considered to be a tacit admission of guilt. Trump knows this, which is why he wants to testify, or says he wants to.

I'm still not sure exactly what crimes he is accused of having committed during the last two years. I have read about things such as collusion and obstruction of justice, but I have never seen any actual proof that any of his actions are egregious enough to constitute anything like that.

 

[Hypoxia]

Lying is not illegal, except under certain circumstances, such as being under oath.

Or when talking to the FBI and other LEO. Best strategy: Don't lie, just fucking shut up. A post-it note at my desk, I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY, reminds me of proper behavior if 'interviewed'.

Lawyers are always afraid their clients will get caught committing perjury, which is one reason they usually advise them to refuse to testify. However, such a refusal is often considered to be a tacit admission of guilt. Trump knows this, which is why he wants to testify, or says he wants to.

I read that WH lawyers are pushing for written questions. Alas, such guarantees responses written by lawyers, not by DJT -- not doing his own homework. No, DJT must testify in person, with his own words.

I'm still not sure exactly what crimes he is accused of having committed during the last two years. I have read about things such as collusion and obstruction of justice, but I have never seen any actual proof that any of his actions are egregious enough to constitute anything like that.

You don't know, and I don't know, and nobody outside the investigation knows, just what evidence has been developed, because Team Mueller ain't leaking. No weekly public updates -- disappointing, hey? It'd be great fun to have a leaky probe like Starr's and Gowdy's that dripped and itched like bad cases of clap. Mueller should run a political circus, hey?

But we can infer, from the specialties of Team Mueller members and what data has been released, that illegal transfers of money are involved, and thugs with Kremlin links, and influence peddling. The indictments will tell.

Patience, grasshopper. Waiting is.

 

[WandaGrabowski]

It's a trap! A perjury trap! Mueller will trick Trump into answering questions to which he knows that Trump will lie.

It's a trap!

 

[Hypoxia]

It's a trap! A perjury trap! Mueller will trick Trump into answering questions to which he knows that Trump will lie.

It's a trap!

Yeah, nasty Gotcha! questions like, "What is your name?"

 

[Carnal_Flower]

I was listening to the Slow Burn Podcast about Watergate on Slate. Very very entertaining btw!

It suddenly hit me (duh) that Trump right now is in the same hysterical moment before Nixon had to turn over the tapes--only in this case, it's having to testify.

The delays and excuses and ramped up attacks. He cannot testify and he knows it, just like Nixon knew NO ONE must hear those tapes.

Btw, I knew he fired Cox, of course, but I didn't know that Nixon dispatched FBI Goons to go seize possession of the Special Prosecutor's office. The Cox team ran there in the middle of the night and frantically opened a safe to get their stuff.

After all his attacks on the FBI, LOL that that could happen again.

Yeah, nasty Gotcha! questions like, "What is your name?"

 

[someoneyouknow]

I
It suddenly hit me (duh) that Trump right now is in the same hysterical moment before Nixon had to turn over the tapes--only in this case, it's having to testify.

You listening to Woodward and Bernstein?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/09/politics/woodward-bernstein-donald-trump/index.html

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Ah ha great minds think alike!

I hadn't read this, but that's exactly what I was thinking after listening to the Podcasts.

http://www.slate.com/articles/slate_plus/watergate.html

You listening to Woodward and Bernstein?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/09/politics/woodward-bernstein-donald-trump/index.html

 

[bhurry]

Yeah, nasty Gotcha! questions like, "What is your name?"

I never had sex with that woman.

 

[someoneyouknow]

I never had sex with that woman.

No, of course not. It's why she said she can describe his junk in exquisite detail if needed, and he paid her off to keep quiet about their romp while he was married so it didn't interfere with his collusion with Russia during the campaign.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

I cannot recall
I do not remember
I am drawing a blank on that one


"It's conceivable, but I don't remember it."


"...we checked the record and found 47 distinct instances in which Sessions conveniently drew a blank, including occasions where his answers changed slightly."


https://www.wired.com/story/everything-jeff-sessions-did-not-recall-under-oath/

 

[WandaGrabowski]

Yeah, nasty Gotcha! questions like, "What is your name?"

All that one has to do to not commit perjury is to tell the truth. It's an absurd obfuscation.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Or when talking to the FBI and other LEO. Best strategy: Don't lie, just fucking shut up. A post-it note at my desk, I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY, reminds me of proper behavior if 'interviewed'.

I read that WH lawyers are pushing for written questions. Alas, such guarantees responses written by lawyers, not by DJT -- not doing his own homework. No, DJT must testify in person, with his own words.

You don't know, and I don't know, and nobody outside the investigation knows, just what evidence has been developed, because Team Mueller ain't leaking. No weekly public updates -- disappointing, hey? It'd be great fun to have a leaky probe like Starr's and Gowdy's that dripped and itched like bad cases of clap. Mueller should run a political circus, hey?

But we can infer, from the specialties of Team Mueller members and what data has been released, that illegal transfers of money are involved, and thugs with Kremlin links, and influence peddling. The indictments will tell.

Patience, grasshopper. Waiting is.

There have been indictments and convictions for some of Trump's associates, but these were for money laundering and other offenses and were from long before the presidential campaign started. He fired some people, but I believe these were probably justified, and were nothing like the infamous Saturday Night Massacre. Trump has had business dealings n Russia but, as an international businessman, he has had business dealings in other countries also.

Personally, I believe that because of their dislike for Trump, the Dems have cooked up some bogus complaints against him, and they won't amount to anything except for wasting everybody's time.

 

[benschup]

No, of course not. It's why she said she can describe his junk in exquisite detail if needed, and he paid her off to keep quiet about their romp while he was married so it didn't interfere with his collusion with Russia during the campaign.

I think you got the wrong guy. Believe his name was Bill.

 

[someoneyouknow]

I think you got the wrong guy. Believe his name was Bill.

Try again to deflect:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/coralewis/adult-film-star-says-that-she-could-describe-trumps-junk?utm_term=.tlJjDMxKG#.lnJ2lMW4w

The adult film star who claims she had a sexual relationship with Donald Trump in 2006 said in an interview with a magazine in 2011 that she could "describe his junk perfectly" and that they did not use protection when having sex.​

https://www.inquisitr.com/4744933/stormy-daniels-trump-transcript-can-describe-his-junk-perfectly-trump-said-i-hope-all-the-sharks-die/

Stormy claimed that she could “describe his junk perfectly” and that she remembered no condom was used during their boring and “textbook generic” sex because she is allergic to latex condoms and noted that most men do not carry non-latex condoms in their wallets. Stormy claimed she did not bring her own non-latex condoms with her during their alleged first tryst because she assumed she was going out to dinner with Trump and had only carried along a small cocktail clutch to the date.​

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/stormy-daniels-full-interview-151788

Stormy: That he was going to be in bed? No, I just had to pee. So anyway, the sex was nothing crazy. He wasn’t like, chain me to the bed or anything. It was one position. I can definitely describe his junk perfectly, if I ever have to. He definitely seemed smitten after that. He was like, “I wanna see you again, when can I see you again?”​