Latest Breaking News

DonViejo

(60,536 posts) Fri Jan 26, 2018, 08:33 PM Jan 2018

Report: Trump Lawyers Looking to Limit Mueller Interview, Citing 1997 Court Ruling

Source: The Daily Beast

The legal team representing President Trump has been looking at a federal court ruling from 1997 which they hope to use as a basis for delaying or even preventing an interview with special counsel Robert Mueller, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday. This news comes days after President Trump said he was "looking forward" to a conversation with Mueller and just a day after The New York Times reported that Trump ordered Mueller fired last year but backed down when White House lawyer Don McGahn threatened to resign. In the specific 1997 case, the court determined that presidents have certain projections "against having to disclose information about their decision-making process or official actions," as the Journal puts it.

READ IT AT THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

###

Read more: https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-trump-lawyers-looking-to-limit-mueller-interview-citing-1997-court-ruling?ref=home

Here is the 1997 federal court case that Trump’s team may use to deny Mueller’s subpoena

NOOR AL-SIBAI
26 JAN 2018 AT 19:05 ET

President Donald Trump’s lawyers are reportedly researching a 1997 federal court case whose ruling found that presidents and their advisors are protected from disclosing information about their decisions.

As the Wall Street Journal reported Friday evening, the 1997 case involved then-Agriculture Secretary Michael Espy, who was indicted for taking improper gifts in his official capacity but later acquitted in appeals court. In the case, an independent counsel subpoenaed the White House for records regarding Epsy.

The Epsy ruling became central to then-President Bill Clinton’s scandal involving White House intern Monica Lewinsky after he invoked executive privilege to protect a close friend and confidante from having to testify about their discussions involving the matter.

Though Trump volunteered to reporters that he’s very willing to testify under oath earlier this week, White House counsel Ty Cobb walked the claim back hours after the impromptu admission. Later, Trump’s personal lawyer John Dowd said he would be the one to make the decision about whether the president will speak to Mueller — and as of yesterday, had not yet reached a conclusion.

more
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/1997-federal-court-case-trumps-team-may-use-deny-muellers-subpoena/

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Report: Trump Lawyers Looking to Limit Mueller Interview, Citing 1997 Court Ruling (Original Post) DonViejo Jan 2018 OP

The Orange Clown has something to hide. djacq Jan 2018 #1

A feeble argument amcgrath Jan 2018 #2

Too bad we can't get past the paywall, but a CNN report offers the flip side of the argument. pnwmom Jan 2018 #3

See if you can access the article via this tweet. herding cats Jan 2018 #4

I just wonder why bucolic_frolic Jan 2018 #5

Crossing the t's and dotting the i's for the obstruction of justice. And also they might likely iluvtennis Jan 2018 #6

Muller doesn't have enough information to decide whether to impeach Xipe Totec Jan 2018 #8

Meuller has no role in initiating the impeachment process Fiendish Thingy Jan 2018 #9

when Dear Leader closes his eyes every night maxsolomon Jan 2018 #7

djacq

(1,634 posts)

1. The Orange Clown has something to hide.

Reply to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Jan 26, 2018, 08:35 PM

Jan 2018

amcgrath

(397 posts)

2. A feeble argument

Reply to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Jan 26, 2018, 08:41 PM

Jan 2018

Trump was not President during the collusion phase of his criminality. Nor should he be by the time they have settled the collusion and treason sections of his trial and can move onto to obstruction of justice

pnwmom

(109,026 posts)

3. Too bad we can't get past the paywall, but a CNN report offers the flip side of the argument.

Reply to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Jan 26, 2018, 08:43 PM

Jan 2018

Espy didn't succeed with his legal argument, and Trump is unlikely to, also.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/16/politics/donald-trump-robert-mueller-interview-presidential-history/index.html

There's also the case related to the investigation of Mike Espy, Clinton's first agriculture secretary, who resigned in 1994 amid an ethics scandal and independent investigation involving gifts. (A jury acquitted him in 1998.) His case attempted to use executive privilege to rebuff an independent criminal investigator's request for documents. The case reached a federal appellate panel of judges in 1997. The court disagreed with a lower-level judge's ruling that the White House could dodge an independent investigation's request.

The Espy decision also laid out a legal test that lawyers on both sides could use when a president faces an inquiry. A special counsel that subpoenas the president must seek evidence that's "important to the ongoing grand jury investigation and [must demonstrate] why this evidence is not available from another source."