Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Michael Cohen/Trump SDNY Investigation Thread


No Excuses

Recommended Posts

Giuliani is gasping at a hundred different starws at once. 

If they TRULY believe that it is illegal for the FBI to record Trump when Trump communicates to the subject of an ongoing and active investigation then they need to get a freaking clue.

You CANNOT claim immunity from prosecution because it was your drug dealer’s phone that was being tapped and not YOURS.

That’s why they tap your drug dealer’s phone, to catch everyone else calling!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a comments section:

 

“Officer, this is so unfair! Total witch hunt! I wasn’t buying drugs, I was paying this drug dealer a retainer fee just in case I ever needed drugs! It’s common practice among celebrities and junkies!”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

This claim that a sitting president cannot be subpoenaed: bogus, just ask Bill Clinton.

I'm no lawyer but I don't think that situation set any kind of precedence.  My understanding is is ole Slick Willy and Starr negotiated a deal where Bill wouldn't challenge the subpoena.  So to me that doesn't mean that it is settled that a POTUS can be subpoena because it has yet to be challenged.  If it were clear that he could be subpoenaed, then Starr would have had no reason to negotiate.  

 

Anyone else wanna jump in on this?  I could certainly be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm no lawyer but I don't think that situation set any kind of precedence.  My understanding is is ole Slick Willy and Starr negotiated a deal where Bill wouldn't challenge the subpoena.  So to me that doesn't mean that it is settled that a POTUS can be subpoena because it has yet to be challenged.  If it were clear that he could be subpoenaed, then Starr would have had no reason to negotiate.  

 

Anyone else wanna jump in on this?  I could certainly be wrong.

 

This is partially true. Clinton's legal team were going to challenge the subpoena for the reasons Trump will. Starr negotiated so he didn't have to prolong the investigation and process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Busch1724 said:

 

This is partially true. Clinton's legal team were going to challenge the subpoena for the reasons Trump will. Starr negotiated so he didn't have to prolong the investigation and process. 

So what part isn't true?  

 

Honestly asking.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

So what part isn't true?  

 

Honestly asking.  

 

The part they were going to issue a subpoena. However, Clinton lawyers threatened legal action and likely would have taken a long time to get to the SCOTUS. He then negotiated the parameters of the interview with the Clinton team from there. So a precedent was never set that could be applied here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 Sitting on someone's caller ID not really compelling.

I bet there's a bit more to this than that.

 

 

  That said, it's possible someone got ahead of themselves or misinterpreted what they were told, or that someone leaked this on purpose to later deny it. (though I'm not sure why they would trust a source that set them up)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm no lawyer but I don't think that situation set any kind of precedence.  My understanding is is ole Slick Willy and Starr negotiated a deal where Bill wouldn't challenge the subpoena.  So to me that doesn't mean that it is settled that a POTUS can be subpoena because it has yet to be challenged.  If it were clear that he could be subpoenaed, then Starr would have had no reason to negotiate.  

 

Anyone else wanna jump in on this?  I could certainly be wrong.

 

You have 3 presidents who have been subpoenaed creating precedent. 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/when-presidents-have-been-subpoenaed-here-s-what-they-ve-n870876

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

 

You have 3 presidents who have been subpoenaed creating precedent. 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/when-presidents-have-been-subpoenaed-here-s-what-they-ve-n870876

At least in my laymen opinion, this sounds like the circumstances around Trump and a subpoena aren't really clear.

 

From the article:

Quote

 It is settled law, the court said, "that the president is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances."

The bolded part could cause issues.  It would most likely end up in front of the Supreme Court.  And considering their current makeup, it is impossible to guess how they would rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...