Mueller Report Next Week?

[Cow Poke]

Well - no. It is basically impossible to "force" someone to talk. You can make NOT talking unpleasant enough that someone chooses to talk - but we have laws about such things....mostly...

You've been watching too many movies. The first question somebody should ask when the police tell you they want you to come in for questioning --- "Am I under Arrest"? Next question --- "What are the charges".

So exactly which part of what I said is incorrect? I'm curious.

You said....

I am fairly sure that law enforcement can question anyone to gather information, and if they have cause to be suspicious, as part of an investigation.

So, let's cut to the quick.... sure, law enforcement can ask anything they want, but they can't make you talk, and they can't force you to come in and sit down unless they arrest you, and, for that, they need probable cause.

In the context of what we were discussing -- questioning Trump -- they'd need a really good reason to compel him to come in and sit down for a talk.

[tabibito]

I consider the possibility that the MSM realised they were in quicksand and engaged in a face-saving exercise. Not that it is stopping them from indulging in a none-too-subtle attempt to undermine the investigation's credibility.

[Mountain Man]

You've been watching too many movies. The first question somebody should ask when the police tell you they want you to come in for questioning --- "Am I under Arrest"? Next question --- "What are the charges".

And third, "I refuse to say anything until I've talked with a lawyer."

[carpedm9587]

You've been watching too many movies. The first question somebody should ask when the police tell you they want you to come in for questioning --- "Am I under Arrest"? Next question --- "What are the charges".

Agreed. And if they ARE under arrest, they have to be informed of their rights, which includes representation during any questioning. I know all this. I don't believe anything I said runs counter to this.

You said....

Yes- I did.

So, let's cut to the quick.... sure, law enforcement can ask anything they want, but they can't make you talk, and they can't force you to come in and sit down unless they arrest you, and, for that, they need probable cause.

Again - I don't think I said anything that is not consistent with this. But I don't think this is entirely correct. The legal system also has the concept of a subpoena, which I'm pretty sure can also be used in a variety of contexts and does not require an arrest. They can be issued by any lawyer in a court where they are licensed to practice (I think). For government officials, I think they need to be signed by an administrative law judge. They can also be issued by Congress. People are subpoenaed to testify and bear witness, and can be held in contempt if they do not submit.

In the case of Trump - my impression is that there is more than ample "probable cause." That being said, Mueller is "johnny on the spot" and in a better position to know, so I bow to his choice. My impression could be wrong and, given that Mueller is not calling him, possibly are wrong. Or Mueller did not see a benefit to engaging in the battle that would ensue if he tried. Who knows.

In the context of what we were discussing -- questioning Trump -- they'd need a really good reason to compel him to come in and sit down for a talk.

I don't think I said anything about "compel." Somehow, that got added in to what I said. I realize your statement was "force someone to be questioned," but I merely said that the police can question pretty much anyone in the course of an investigation. Perhaps it would have been clearer, since you were referring to "force" if I had explicitly excluded that.

[Cow Poke]

Agreed. And if they ARE under arrest, they have to be informed of their rights, which includes representation during any questioning. I know all this. I don't believe anything I said runs counter to this.

Even then, they don't yank somebody in for questioning unless they have a really good reason to do so.

Again - I don't think I said anything that is not consistent with this. But I don't think this is entirely correct. The legal system also has the concept of a subpoena, which I'm pretty sure can also be used in a variety of contexts and does not require an arrest.

In a criminal case, the subpoena doesn't just come out of thin air, Carpe. It is either court ordered, or, in some cases, Congress can issue subpoenas, but they have to meet three requirements according to Wilkinson v. United States:

1. the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber;
2. the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose"
3. the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.

They can be issued by any lawyer in a court where they are licensed to practice (I think). For government officials, I think they need to be signed by an administrative law judge. They can also be issued by Congress. People are subpoenaed to testify and bear witness, and can be held in contempt if they do not submit.

I see you did some Googling.

In the case of Trump - my impression is that there is more than ample "probable cause." That being said, Mueller is "johnny on the spot" and in a better position to know, so I bow to his choice. My impression could be wrong and, given that Mueller is not calling him, possibly are wrong. Or Mueller did not see a benefit to engaging in the battle that would ensue if he tried. Who knows.

Perhaps you should have led with that.

I don't think I said anything about "compel." Somehow, that got added in to what I said. I realize your statement was "force someone to be questioned,"

Yes, and that kinda sounds like "compelling them", no?

Seriously, Carpe - sometimes I think you just argue for the sake of arguing.

but I merely said that the police can question pretty much anyone in the course of an investigation.

Along with the catty "That is why we call it an "investigation." Questioning is part of the process."

Perhaps it would have been clearer, since you were referring to "force" if I had explicitly excluded that.

ya THINK?

[carpedm9587]

Even then, they don't yank somebody in for questioning unless they have a really good reason to do so.

In a criminal case, the subpoena doesn't just come out of thin air, Carpe. It is either court ordered, or, in some cases, Congress can issue subpoenas, but they have to meet three requirements according to Wilkinson v. United States:

1. the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber;
2. the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose"
3. the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.

I see you did some Googling.

Perhaps you should have led with that.

Yes, and that kinda sounds like "compelling them", no?

Seriously, Carpe - sometimes I think you just argue for the sake of arguing.

Along with the catty "That is why we call it an "investigation." Questioning is part of the process."

ya THINK?

OK. It was initially a simple friendly exchange. I think I can do without this tonight. I'm tired and have spent much of the day nursing my wife. I'll leave the last word to you rather than respond in kind.

Seriously, CP, sometimes I think you just need to pick nits and cast aspersions for the sake of trying to provoke an argument...

Carry on - and feel free to insert the obligatory "wow" at your discretion.

[Cow Poke]

OK. It was initially a simple friendly exchange.

It gets old, Carpe - you seem to have to act like you know everything about everything. And it's nowhere near worth a "wow".

[Cow Poke]

And third, "I refuse to say anything until I've talked with a lawyer."

And have her present during questioning.

[carpedm9587]

It gets old, Carpe...

You took the words right out of my mouth

[rogue06]

I am fairly sure that law enforcement can question anyone to gather information, and if they have cause to be suspicious, as part of an investigation. That is why we call it an "investigation." Questioning is part of the process.

Six of Trump's former campaign staff have been indicted and/or convicted and/or plead guilty, including the man who was, for some period, his campaign chief and including one of his lawyers. Several meetings between members of the Trump campaign and family and various Russian contacts have been definitively documented. Contacts with Wikileaks (where the documents hacked by Russia were posted) have been documented. Trump is on record making unprecedented comments about Russia and Putin and against the leadership of his own country.

IMO, there is more than enough smoke to justify doing some questioning.

That being said, I am impressed with Mr. Mueller - his track record - his ability to inspire his team to be so disciplined with respect to leaks - and his general ethic. If he feels no such questioning is required, I have no reason to question his decision. I'm hoping his report is made public so that all of us can see the result of his work.

It should be noted that those indicted were indicted for things unrelated to Trump's campaign.

[rogue06]

Agreed. And if they ARE under arrest, they have to be informed of their rights, which includes representation during any questioning.

But you seemed to forget that even if arrested they can still refuse to answer any questions whether they have a lawyer or not.

[rogue06]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...he-hook-video/

It's very simple: Trump never sat for an interview with Mueller because Mueller had nothing with which to compel Trump to sit for an interview.

It was a major league meltdown and even his sycophantic guests couldn't console him or calm him down

00000000000000ab000-01bb4.jpg

[Mountain Man]

It should be noted that those indicted were indicted for things unrelated to Trump's campaign.

And then there's the Russian trolls who unexpectedly showed up in court to contest the charges, and Mueller was forced to admit that he didn't actually have any evidence. Legal commentators suspect that the indictments were just for show, and that Mueller never expected them to actually see a day in court.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...e-delay-570627

[Cow Poke]

But you seemed to forget that even if arrested they can still refuse to answer any questions whether they have a lawyer or not.

That is the point he stubbornly chose to ignore.

[Sparko]

So does this mean Trump is innocent, or does it mean Mueller was
A. Incompetent?
B. Colluding with Trump all along?

so apparently the answer is B!

Video: Conspiracy Theorist Joy Reid Claims Mueller Is Part Of A Cover-Up

Who saw this coming? [Well, Sparko Obviously!]https://www.chicksonright.com/opinio...ggXPZ-uDNkrPp4