how does it go? if they subpoena the president, there will be a motion to quash, and our grandkids may be having this conversation. it will take a while to litigate it. the reason i m smiling is i was on the committee that sent some questions in writing to president obama. they were really important questions to the family members of for people who were killed. i am not even sure he even open the envelope. where this newfound outrages that presidents won t answer legitimate inquiries from that branch or another branch, i m on record as saying president trump can get much better legal counsel than what i can provide him. it s been a while since i ve had my miranda warnings read to me but i m fairly familiar with them and i think you can stop answering questions whenever you want to. but i would tell the president, sit down and answer the questions about what if anything you know about what russia did in 2016. and then answer the questions about who if anyone did it with them.
file a motion to quash. that is filed with the district court and court of appeals. a subpoena for live testimony has never been tested in court as to a president of the united states. there is a lot of language, articles and precedent against that. so he could do it, mueller. he could fail. it would take a lot of time and that really hurts mueller if he loses. i think it does because as long as the subpoena battle is open he will not want to say i closed the investigation. it will take a long time. although i think that the outcome is that mueller will win, we don t know. there is always litigation risks. so here is the other thing. the issue of the president wanting to do an interview. there are different schools of thought, him saying it as bs or means it. he has said it. here is what he said. are you going to talk to mueller? i m looking forward to it,
lawyer tells mueller trump dictated the statement. so it evolves and changes. if you re bob mueller, you know a hell of a lot more than we do about this. you have all the documentation and the like. again, beating a broken record, but the president keeps making the case that he should sit down with mueller. the big legal question here is not collusion. that s not really in statute here unless you re talking about anti-trust law. it s conspiracy to commit a crime. the crime is obtaining help from a foreign power, which could be construed as an in-kind campaign contribution. this is fascinating because of the prospect a subpoena could come in. yesterday, jay sekulow mentioned if a subpoena comes in, they re going to file a motion to quash. that s going to go up almost certainly to the supreme court. the supreme court is 4-4 in terms of appointees from either party. the potentially decisive vote
answers? he could agree to that. you said just. he could very reasonably agree to that as step one. it is frequently done in litigation. you have written interrogatories that it done in civil litigation more so than this type of investigation. but there is nothing to prevent special counsel from reasonably saying, okay, we will do that but then we will have a follow-up interview. very quickly, yes or no, is there any scenario by which this ends up in the supreme court. yes. so if he fights the subpoena i know i said yes or no, but i want to hear more. that s the scenario you see playing out? goes to litigation. motion to quash. it means, hey, judge, throw this out. the judge doesn t. there are mechanisms, even though it is not a final judgment. you can take it to the court of appeals. the appeals court says whatever it does. one side takes it to the supreme court of the united states. it could happen.
good morning to you and happy new year. ultimately the case will turn on what happensed in the courtroom, not so much tweets. of course if he testifies, than whatever he tweeted is fair game. whatever he put in the deposition back in 2005 will be fair game. so how tweets or anything else will impact the depend upon whether he takes the stand in his own defense and what he has to say. and his wife will have to testify against her husband next week next week. what do you suppose some of the questions to her will be? oh, now this opens up a whole can of worms. because remember the attorneys for her made a motion to quash. and what that means is they said we are not going to honor the subpoena. why should she have to testify in a deposition?