Schiff: Trump will need to comply with a subpoena

[Mrs. Overall]

Source: The Hill

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Sunday that President Trump will need to comply with a subpoena despite his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, telling a news outlet that Trump does not need to do so.

“No, he’s going to need to comply with a subpoena. If they take that case to court, they’re going to lose,” Schiff told CNN’s “State of the Union.”

CNN’s Jake Tapper had specifically asked Schiff about remarks from Giuliani, who told ABC’s “This Week” that the president and his legal team do not need to comply with a subpoena from special counsel Robert Mueller.

“Well, we don't have to. He's the president of the United States. We can assert the same privilege as other presidents have,” Giuliani said early Sunday.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/386417-schiff-trump-will-need-to-comply-with-a-subpoena

[DonViejo]

1. ...

Link to tweet

[Iliyah]

2. Even this illegal president of the USA is still subject

to subpoena and it's the law. These pathological liars who now are in our current government and is part of the effed up party called Republicans are not above the law.

[erronis]

7. There you go. That's the defense. He'll say that he is not really the pResident and

could not be held accountable for all these violations, crimes committed while running for the POTUS and then being mistakenly placed in that position.

He'll argue that the fake US government establishment (and especially Hillary/Obama) put him in power so they could humiliate him and his PATRIOTIC followers.

(Now, where are my quaaludes...)

[NastyRiffraff]

3. "the same privilege as other presidents have"

Two words, Rudy: Bill Clinton.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. "assert the same privilege"

and lost

[RainCaster]

5. SCOTUS and Nixon

He should know this one

[catrose]

6. Time for a new strategy

Dems: Of course he doesn't have to comply with a subpoena. He shouldn't! It's the worst idea ever and would hurt the Democrats so much, if he were to go testify and just clear up this mess once and for all with his candid testimony. We'd hate it! Obama would hate it! Obama would never comply with a subpoena.

Then wait for it in 3...2...1...

[woundedkarma]

9. Not such a crazy idea

I think you're onto something actually.

If someone put "out there" that Obama doesn't like X or Y then Trump would do X or Y. Or if Obama would never have done it that way... Trump would.

[greymattermom]

13. Trump thought that a bald lawyer with an Italian name

could take attention away from Avenatti.

[Nitram]

8. Giuliani is completely out of his depth on topics like executive privilege and campaign finance law.

His job was just to get out on television and fight Daniels in the court of public opinion. Meanwhile he is digging the legal hole Trump finds himself in deeper and deeper.

[woundedkarma]

10. People are still expecting sanity

And they aren't going to get it.

Suppose Trump doesn't accept the subpoena.

Suppose the courts rule against him.

What are you going to do???? Who will arrest him? Who will bring him to the supreme court? or any court?

It won't happen.

Nobody will protest, we're all too lazy.

Republicans won't drop him, they will cling to him like rats on a lifeboat even when he's the one sinking.

[Sophia4]

11. The reason for the separation of powers: checks and balances.

Our Constitution was written to prevent any one person from obtaining too much power.

In this case, the checks and balances provisions will require Trump to submit to the subpoena power of a court.

Remember. Mueller may propose to issue a subpoena. But Mueller has to get a court, a representative of the judicial branch of government to sign off on it.

Thus, the judicial branch (a judge) checks and balances the executive branch (Trump) by issuing a subpoena that the executive branch (Trump) has to obey.

So if a judge is persuaded by the documents and arguments that the Mueller investigation presents in support of a subpoena, then Trump will have to obey the subpoena.

Has Giuliani forgotten the very bases of our system.

Each branch of government checks and balances the other branches.

On the other hand, while Congress can oversee the work of the prosecutors in some respects, it is not entitled to oversee the documents and evidence they have in a case under investigation such as the Mueller investigation's sundry documents. Many of them are probably not relevant to anything but are rather leads that the investigation investigates and then ignores or puts in the dead file.

[BigmanPigman]

12. What if it even goes to the Supreme Court and

he has to testify.. .he will take the 5th. Then what? By this time it is 2019 and he is running for reelection?

[sarcasmo]

14. Kick.

[Mr. Ected]

15. Only one person in all of America is afforded this much legal protection

The President of the United States.

Is he to be treated like a normal citizen, or is he insulated from justice for crimes he committed before and after his presidency?

If any court deems the latter, we may need to revolt.

If, however, a court mandates his testimony, and he refuses, then we have a crisis on our hands that the constitution doesn't address: can the man who has the nuclear codes be led away in handcuffs, and if Congress and 60 million Americans block the path, then what?