[ad_1]
"Many people think that U.S. v Nixon is Burger's best time," said Professor Strauss
The decision concerned the evidence rather than the testimony, and that could make the difference. On the one hand, the recordings were deeply revealing and embarrbading, while the testimonials are usually the result of intense preparation and may be subject to on-site objections by lawyers of the witness. On the other hand, testifying is not a task that can be delegated to underlings like document production.
In 1997, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a lawsuit for badual harbadment against Mr. Clinton during his tenure. His two judges, Judges Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, voted against him
. Dellinger pleaded the case on behalf of the federal government, finding himself in a losing situation. He said the logic of the decision suggested that Mr. Trump would face a difficult fight by trying to refuse to comply with a criminal summons. "In a criminal case," he said, "the case is stronger to require presidential testimony."
Professor Strauss, who was part of the legal team representing Mr. Clinton, agreed. "Anyone can bring a civil action," he said. "A summons in a criminal case may be issued by the prosecution only when a senior government official – in this case, a person appointed by the President's Department of Justice – has decided that it was necessary."
the precedents do not directly answer the questions that would be asked by a subpoena of Mueller.
"Privilege claims that have never been tested to the end could have considerable strength," he said.
a ground of agreement, stating that presidents do not enjoy absolute immunity from subpoenas in criminal investigations, but that prosecutors must demonstrate in detail that They need the testimony. The court could render a unanimous decision as to the standard, but differ if Mr. Mueller had met him.
Source link
