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

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill




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

Link to tweet

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

Link to tweet

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

[MontanaMama]

1. Rudy doing his best

to be Michael Avenatti...and failing.

[beachbum bob]

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

[PoliticAverse]

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

[beachbum bob]

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

[PoliticAverse]

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.

[Fred Sanders]

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.

[PoliticAverse]

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).

[Fred Sanders]

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.

[beachbum bob]

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

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

[PoliticAverse]

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.

[beachbum bob]

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

Careful line he must walk

[beachbum bob]

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...

[LiberalFighter]

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?

[olegramps]

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.

[FakeNoose]

19. Yes completely and Giuliani is just another enabler

... until Cheeto fires him too.

[onetexan]

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

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

[Botany]

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

Fuck you Rudy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#/media/File:Bill_Clinton.jpg

[C_U_L8R]

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

send the subpoena

[PubliusEnigma]

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

[beachbum bob]

8. I suspect very soon.

can't wait

[Timmygoat]

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.

[Vinnie From Indy]

10. Didn't work for Bill Clinton

Ain't gonna work for Spanky McPussyGrabber either.

[treestar]

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.

[emulatorloo]

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

[Freethinker65]

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.

[malthaussen]

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

[jpak]

16. Lock The Up!

yup

[PSPS]

17. Sorry. See United States v. Nixon

[DemocratSinceBirth]

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.

[turbinetree]

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........................

[Botany]

27. Tell this guy

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

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

[Algernon Moncrieff]

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.

[asiliveandbreathe]

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.....

[Julian Englis]

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.”

[Algernon Moncrieff]

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

...especially if Kennedy retires during summer.

[rock]

34. So presidents are above the Law

I did not know that. Where is that written?