Can President Trump be forced to testify before a grand jury?
Can President Trump be forced to testify before a grand jury? Two Supreme Court decisions may point the way to an answer.
Trump’s former attorney says that Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading the Russia investigation, has raised the possibility the president might be subpoenaed to testify.
Attorney John Dowd told the Associated Press that the possibility came up between prosecutors and Trump’s legal team while they were negotiating the terms of a possible interview with Trump. A grand jury subpoena is a more aggressive tactic by a prosecutor than an interview.
It’s not clear what Trump’s next move will be — or the special counsel’s.
But legal experts are pointing to two Supreme Court cases suggesting that if Mueller issues a subpoena, the high court would uphold it, which would land Trump in a grand jury hearing, grilled by prosecutors.
One case lawyers point to is Clinton v. Jones case. In that case, the Supreme Court denied an attempt by President Clinton to stay a sexual harassment lawsuit against him while he was in office. The court ruled that “the president, like other officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all citizens.”
The second case lawyers point to is US v. Nixon. In that case, President Nixon was refusing to turn over the notorious Watergate tapes to a special prosecutor in a criminal case, claiming “executive privilege.” The court ordered him to turn over the tapes. He resigned shortly afterward.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/na...-grand-jury/yRhuKmqvmXPdJpN9RAI6LM/story.html
There is some happy legal context for anyone eager to see Mueller and Trump chat: United States v. Nixon, the landmark Supreme Court case that forced President Richard Nixon to comply with a prosecutorial subpoena to turn over the Watergate tapes, is still good law. And of all the important principles the decision stands for — beyond precipitating the fall of a sitting president — one that rises to the top is the American public’s interest in the fair and impartial administration of justice. The court system must be able to get a full picture of the facts of a criminal investigation. “To ensure that justice is done,” Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for an 8-to-0 court, “it is imperative to the function of courts that compulsory process be available for the production of evidence needed either by the prosecution or by the defense.”
Nixon would seem to be controlling law for the Mueller investigation. And in light of reporting this week that the special counsel still has a keen interest in interviewing Trump — and an apparent willingness to rely on compulsory process — there is a distinct possibility that Mueller may go to court and invoke Nixon if the president doesn’t cooperate, either voluntarily or in the face of a valid subpoena. That’s the kind of momentous confrontation that no doubt would quickly make its way to the Supreme Court, which so far has seemed willing to treat Trump just like any other president, rather than carve out Trumpian exceptions to presidential powers that may bind later chief executives.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...-make-trump-talk-to-mueller-if-it-has-to.html
Can President Trump be forced to testify before a grand jury? Two Supreme Court decisions may point the way to an answer.
Trump’s former attorney says that Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading the Russia investigation, has raised the possibility the president might be subpoenaed to testify.
Attorney John Dowd told the Associated Press that the possibility came up between prosecutors and Trump’s legal team while they were negotiating the terms of a possible interview with Trump. A grand jury subpoena is a more aggressive tactic by a prosecutor than an interview.
It’s not clear what Trump’s next move will be — or the special counsel’s.
But legal experts are pointing to two Supreme Court cases suggesting that if Mueller issues a subpoena, the high court would uphold it, which would land Trump in a grand jury hearing, grilled by prosecutors.
One case lawyers point to is Clinton v. Jones case. In that case, the Supreme Court denied an attempt by President Clinton to stay a sexual harassment lawsuit against him while he was in office. The court ruled that “the president, like other officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all citizens.”
The second case lawyers point to is US v. Nixon. In that case, President Nixon was refusing to turn over the notorious Watergate tapes to a special prosecutor in a criminal case, claiming “executive privilege.” The court ordered him to turn over the tapes. He resigned shortly afterward.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/na...-grand-jury/yRhuKmqvmXPdJpN9RAI6LM/story.html
There is some happy legal context for anyone eager to see Mueller and Trump chat: United States v. Nixon, the landmark Supreme Court case that forced President Richard Nixon to comply with a prosecutorial subpoena to turn over the Watergate tapes, is still good law. And of all the important principles the decision stands for — beyond precipitating the fall of a sitting president — one that rises to the top is the American public’s interest in the fair and impartial administration of justice. The court system must be able to get a full picture of the facts of a criminal investigation. “To ensure that justice is done,” Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for an 8-to-0 court, “it is imperative to the function of courts that compulsory process be available for the production of evidence needed either by the prosecution or by the defense.”
Nixon would seem to be controlling law for the Mueller investigation. And in light of reporting this week that the special counsel still has a keen interest in interviewing Trump — and an apparent willingness to rely on compulsory process — there is a distinct possibility that Mueller may go to court and invoke Nixon if the president doesn’t cooperate, either voluntarily or in the face of a valid subpoena. That’s the kind of momentous confrontation that no doubt would quickly make its way to the Supreme Court, which so far has seemed willing to treat Trump just like any other president, rather than carve out Trumpian exceptions to presidential powers that may bind later chief executives.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...-make-trump-talk-to-mueller-if-it-has-to.html