Should Robert Mueller issue a subpoena for Donald Trump if he does not receive the answers...?

[kentuck]

...to his questions, within a week?

Trump said on tape that he had finished all the answers already. He did them by himself, he said.

Is it near the time of ultimatums?

Also, should the new Attorney General be tested in such a way? If he should take it upon himself to block such a subpoena, should it be taken to the Courts? In my opinion, it should.

The time has come to get the answers that the people need.

Does a president have the right not to answer a subpoena while serving in the office of the Presidency?

Let the Courts decide.

If, perchance, they ruled for the Presidency, and against the People, then the Congress should move to impeach.

Just my opinion.

[Jersey Devil]

1. Depends on whether he already has the answers from other sources

Why spend maybe 1-2 years fighting about it in court and perhaps delay investigation results and conclusions if Mueller already has the proof he needs without Trump's anwers?

[saidsimplesimon]

3. I agree.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

9. I think Trump answers could constitute more crimes..

And the answers will probably create plenty of bad publicity for Trump.

[kentuck]

4. He may already have the answers, that is true.

But they may need validating?

For example, Roger Stone's words against Donald Trump's words? Which do you believe?

[blueinredohio]

2. I'm sure Mueller already has the answers to his questions

He's going to find out if Trump is going to be truthful. PERJURY!

[lark]

5. Let the courts decide?

I don't think so not when he's installed 2 loyalists at SCOTUS so he now has 4 asses who will go along with anything in the world he does, no matter how illegal or unconstitutional. That court is our enemy, totally not our friend. Roberts would most likely go along with the 4 Russian Repugs (he's a Russian Repug lite) and deny the subpoena. I think it would be very risky for Mueller to put this out when Roberts is a wild card, but one who leans very right wing. Roberts only votes against the Repugs when it;s a strong constitutional issue, otherwise he's a totally reliable rw vote, especially is pro-oligarch, anti-worker.

[BSdetect]

6. Roberts may feel inclined not to join actual traitors once the evidence is presented.

He might want to keep his name clean.

Let us hope he does if it comes down to such a point.

[kentuck]

7. But, we should not forget, the Congress always has the power to impeach.

Even if the Courts made a decision we did not like. In fact, it might lend more credence to an impeachment case?

[lark]

11. Yeah, that's not going to happen,

He may easily get convicted by the House, but Senate will never vote 2/3 to impeach, at least not now when repugs have the majority. I want him to go down for being a traitor, the one crime listed specifically in the constitution as a crime for the president, or pretend president in this case.

[Golden Raisin]

8. I suspect Mueller probably already has sufficient,

if not overwhelming evidence, and the questions for Trump may be a matter of legal optics and formal protocol. No one can say Trump was not offered the opportunity to provide his side of the story to the Special Counsel's Office.

[Garrett78]

10. If Trump is now a target of the investigation, and not merely a subject...

...then he's not likely to receive a subpoena.