Stormy seas ahead for Trump's Lawyer

[Rajvik]

...
In short when you show me actual proof and not innuendo of supposition, then i might believe the accusations, until then i'm taking the mainstream media who have been against this president and his team since before day one with a whole truckload of salt

As long as you apply the same level of skepticism to the special-interest media on both sides of the mainstream, I have no problem with that.

I do, but, I also note that certain media outlets have a habit of both jumping the gun with breathless reporting and "unnamed sources" and flat out proven wrong and at best noting their mistakes in small print.

[Dartz]

You might want to avoid anything US based then. Pretty much everyone over there has an agenda of some sort. You need an impartial public broadcaster that's as happy to skewer the government as it is to produce tepid family programming.

[robkelk]

You might want to avoid anything US based then. Pretty much everyone over there has an agenda of some sort. You need an impartial public broadcaster that's as happy to skewer the government as it is to produce tepid family programming.

Which is why I usually link back to CBC (or BBC) in these threads.

[DHBirr]

You might want to avoid anything US based then. Pretty much everyone over there has an agenda of some sort. You need an impartial public broadcaster that's as happy to skewer the government as it is to produce tepid family programming.

Which is why I usually link back to CBC (or BBC) in these threads.

I know I've at least once seen President Windrip excoriate the BBC as a big source of "fake news," right alongside CNN, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal ... so evidently he doesn't feel BBC is impartial.

[robkelk]

I am reminded of Don Adams' routine about an attorney giving closing remarks in a court case (which he later re-used as a scene in a first-season episode of Get Smart), complaining that his opponent has evidence and all he has is rhetoric.

[hazard]

Of course he doesn't believe anyone not supporting him isn't impartial. If he did he would have to accept what they are saying is well founded in fact, and what they are saying is at best unkind.

[Rajvik]

What facts Hazard, all i've seen is maybe's, conjecture and extremely thin accusations with no facts to back them up

[robkelk]

What facts Hazard, all i've seen is maybe's, conjecture and extremely thin accusations with no facts to back them up

And that's all I've seen from Trump's Twitter feed, too.

I look forward to seeing actual evidence.

[SilverFang01]

What facts Hazard, all i've seen is maybe's, conjecture and extremely thin accusations with no facts to back them up

And all we've seen from you is complaining about how they are just rumors and that we shouldn't read or listen to x or y media, and yet have not presented sources of your own and let us determine if we can trust them as well or not.

Now, I get it why you're unhappy. Your guy won, against all the odds and predictions by the experts and the media. And he's doing everything you want and everything you think is right and what the country really needs.

And you are unhappy about how unhappy so many other people are. I think they made it pretty clear that they absolutely hated everything Trump said he wanted to do. You should remember what lots and lots of people kept saying: That proposing a ban on Muslims coming to the country was a violation of everything they thought American. That they thought Trump going to Washington and firing everybody and "speaking his mind" to world leaders was a crazy way to run the government. And on and on. Pretty much everything you said you totally loved about Trump, they totally hated about Trump.

You don't have to agree with them. You don't have to like them. Feel free to keep saying all the awful things you've been saying about them. Feel free to keep applauding Trump and helping him do the job you want done. That's your right.

But you need to understand what you're buying.

No one on the other side is gonna just sit down and shut up because your guy won the election. Hell, did you sit down and shut up after 2012? Oh yeah, you "survived" Obama -- kicking and screaming and carrying on and feeling proud of yourself for kicking and screaming and carrying on. Did it matter that a huge number of folks didn't agree with you? Didn't they also say things like you were "misled" or "not giving Obama a fair chance?"

Did you expect them to just go quietly, self-deport, or whatever?

I have another news flash for you. It's not gonna stop. It's gonna keep getting worse.

Why? Well, how did you feel when your way of life was threatened? How did you feel when the people changing it told you to suck it up, cupcake -- and called you all kinds of nasty names in the bargain? You didn't roll over and suck it up. You got angry. You organized and fought back. You called them even nastier names and decided the President they supported was at best a horrible divisive man and at worst a threat to the very safety of America. That's what people do.

So now you're threatening their way of life. You're telling them to suck it up, cupcake -- and calling them all kinds of nasty names in the bargain. So what do you think their gonna do? Of course their gonna fight, just like you did. And of course they're gonna say the President you like because he's gonna undo everything they liked is at best a horrible divisive man and at worst a threat to the very safety of the Republic.

And if you tell me that's crazy talk and they must be either throwing a tantrum or just bad people, I'm gonna tell you what I told them when they said the same thing about you. "No, they're not just bad people. They're just people."

Now I know I'm going to get a passel of explanation -- some of it shouted pretty loud with lots of nasty names telling me what a moron I am or whatever -- of why it's the other side's fault and they started it.

So what?

Really, so what. the world don't care and you can't make it care just because you think it should. Oh, you can organize and win elections. After all, you all just did that. But you're not gonna change how other people feel. Heck, did they change you? Why do you think it'll work any better when you do it to them? Because that would be convenient? Because you deserve it? Because you're right and their wrong and they just ought to see that or they can bug off?

Aren't you the fragile, special little snowflake?

Again, I'm not telling you to change your mind. It's a free country. Just know what you're buying. Because you got two choices, and only two choices, and the world don't care.

1. Decide it's worth living in perpetual war with the other half of the country. We'll keep on going as we've been going, with the world going to Hell and half the country fighting the other half every step of the way. You can tell yourself whatever you want to keep the anger high and remind yourself that you're right and they're wrong. It doesn't matter.

2. Find someway to listen to "them" without getting all mad and stuff, and find some way to talk to "them" without calling names -- even if they call you names. Because you're supposed to be the grown up.

Now I know a lot of people would rather nurse their grudges than their children. That's a shame, because it means their grudges grow up nice and strong and get all the love and attention while the world we leave for our kids is just a hand-me-down from our grudges. That's a choice. If you don't like it, then you need to start listening to "them" and recognizing that "they" also want to live their life and figure out some way for everyone to live their lives. Hell, we've done it before in this country. It's not rocket science.

Or decide it's your way or the highway come Hell or high water.

Just recognize what you're buying and stop being so damned surprised about it.

[Rajvik]

Silver Fang, Honestly I'm not the snowflake, i just have a habit of calling it as i see it. I recognize that my sources are biased, never said they weren't, and i'm not going to argue or try and explain something simply because of two things.

1-Right or wrong, pretty much everyone has made their minds up about this and is not accepting any new information that doesn't meet their pre-conceived notions, myself included. Honestly i try very hard to keep an open mind, but when i see a whitewashing and a witch-hunt perpetrated by the same group and the only difference is because of the name, i tend to draw my line in the sand and defend it loudly.

2-I fight myself very hard not to enter these threads other than to read, and rarely even that because i know that any time i do so i might get into an argument and get extremely pissed, ruining my writing for quite a while. That said, I am a conservative, and to a degree an isolationist. I don't believe in a lot of the lefts causes, and the ones i do agree with on principle, i disagree with their implementation simply because, having studied history, and in particular how wars, including Civil Wars and Revolutions start and tend to go, i don't want to see my country fall from those tactics.

people want to vote on something, they want to pass laws through the appropriate means, fine. But, and this is a Texas sized BUTT, know where you've come from and neither forget it, nor deny it, for that path leads to very bad consequences.

[robkelk]

Trump's current lawyer, Ty Cobb (no, not that one) is resigning. He's to be replaced by Emmet Flood - the lawyer who defended Clinton when he was looking at being impeached.

CBC News Analysis: Trump is bracing for a subpoena from Mueller. His options sound pretty rough The article provides opinions from Prof. Jonathan Turley (constitutional law professor at George Washington University), Prof. Louis Seidman (constitutional law professor at Georgetown University), Ryan Goodman (former special counsel to the general counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense), Prof. David Sklansky (criminal law professor, Stanford Law School), Prof. Mark Osler (law professor, University of St. Thomas), Paul Rosenzweig, senior counsel on independent counsel Ken Starr's investigation of Bill Clinton, and Prof. Susan Bloch (constitutional law professor, Georgetown University).

EDIT:
All of these questions are asked in the analysis. Many have multiple answers, some building upon or contradicting answers by other experts. I've quoted a very few of the answers:

• Can the president be compelled via subpoena to testify?
  
• Is there legal precedent for this involving U.S. presidents?
  
• What's so risky about being compelled to testify?
  
• What if Trump refuses to comply with a Supreme Court order?
  

GOODMAN: That would invite a constitutional mini-crisis.

• Why doesn't Trump just plead the Fifth?
  

BLOCH: He could take the Fifth, which means "I refuse to testify on the grounds it might incriminate me," but it has political consequences. He already said, why would anyone take the Fifth unless you committed a crime? That would be quoted right back to him.

• On what grounds might Trump's team challenge a subpoena?
  
• But isn't it true that a sitting president can't be indicted?
  
• Should the president drag out this process with a Supreme Court challenge?​
  
• What about the Justice Department's role in all this?
  
• Can Congress compel Trump to testify?
  

That's a whole other, complicated matter. Turley told CBC's Mark Gollom that "nothing compels him to go."

[Rajvik]

From what I have heard, (Mark Levin Show so take it for where it comes from) if Mueller subpoenas Trump, the president has the ability to ignore it. "Mueller as a subordinate member of the executive branch, lacks the legal ability to force Trump to testify or hold him in contempt of court if Trump refuses"

Having heard some of the questions I still believe this is a politically motivated witch hunt.

Edit:
DOJ Memo on whether or not the president can be compelled to testify before a grand jury
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w...hb0bcXv_9n

And the answer is a resounding NO!

[robkelk]

That's a DOJ policy, not a law. And the Executive branch has no power over the Judicial branch (outside of nominating members of the Supreme Court, which has to be confirmed by the Legislative branch).

[hazard]

It's true that Mueller alone has not the right to subpoena the president.

A subpoena isn't exactly written with the power of the executive branch though. It's a request to the judiciary branch of which the judiciary branch can say 'this, make it happen.' And Trump is subject to the judicial branch's power. If a judge tells the executive branch they want someone in front of their court to answer questions the executive branch can complain however much they want but that's going to happen.

[Bob Schroeck]

And the Supreme Court has already ruled that the President is subject to being subpoenaed, almost fifty years ago, when Nixon tried to claim otherwise to get out of handing over the White House tapes and transcripts. This was a precedent the Republicans eagerly embraced when Bill Clinton was being investigated, so while they can dispute it all they want now that it's one of their people being targeted, it would be a) futile and b) just another checkmark on the big ol' hypocrisy toteboard.

[Matrix Dragon]

b) just another checkmark on the big ol' hypocrisy toteboard.

At this point, I'm pretty sure that's one of their goals. Rubbing their dicks in your faces appears to be a major part of your governments current administration.

[robkelk]

Trump was secretly recorded talking about paying Playboy model

Past Playmate Karen McDougal, to be specific.

Giuliani says the payment was never made.

[robkelk]

Haven't had time to read this one yet:

CBC Analysis: Did Trump break laws with hush-money payments? Here's what legal experts are saying
"As Trump denies breaking campaign finance laws, 6 experts weigh in"