General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumscan someone here explain the difference(if there is one) of testifying in front of Mueller vs
testifying in front of grand jury? which would be preferred? (thinking on tRumps lawyers here) what would be better for him?
Old Vet
(2,001 posts)I think he should go before a grand jury myself, but iam no lawyer.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,607 posts)Testifying before a grand jury could also have that purpose, but it is specifically intended to determine whether criminal charges should be brought against someone, which is what the grand jury decides. Your legal jeopardy depends on whether you are a witness, a subject or a target. In both cases, lying is a federal felony. From the point of view of the person on the hot seat (either hot seat), they are better off being questioned by Mueller because they could have their lawyer with them. People who testify before grand juries are on their own - lawyers can't be present.
bluestarone
(16,867 posts)issue a subpoena To testify before him or the grand jury?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,607 posts)to testify before the grand jury. Trump's lawyers are idiots if they let it go that far. Of course, any lawyer who works for Trump almost has to be an idiot (most of the more reputable law firms turned him down).
bluestarone
(16,867 posts)brush
(53,743 posts)Mueller knows way more than trump thinks and way more than what trump's lawyers know.
He's fucked even if his testimony is not under oath.
crazylikafox
(2,752 posts)In front of Mueller, he can bring his attorney, and he's not under oath. However, it's illegal to lie to the FBI, so he would be prosecuted for lying anyway.
I'm not an expert in this, so I may be incorrect.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,607 posts)and it's a felony. No significant difference.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)He could take the 5th, but not in front of GJ.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,607 posts)That's a constitutional right that applies in all federal proceedings. However, the exclusionary rule, which states that evidence obtained in violation of the 4th, 5th or 6th amendments can't be introduced at a trial, does not apply to some evidence presented to a grand jury.
brooklynite
(94,360 posts)bluestarone
(16,867 posts)to Grand jury?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,607 posts)A lot of people who are not in any kind of legal jeopardy testify before grand juries, often voluntarily.
bluestarone
(16,867 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,607 posts)The purpose of a grand jury is to decide whether there is sufficient evidence that someone has committed a crime, to take the matter to trial. They do this by questioning three categories of people: those who could be percipient witnesses (they know relevant facts but are not believed to have committed any crime), subjects (people who might be involved in the sense that their conduct is believed to be within the scope of the grand jury's investigation, or targets (people as to whom there is substantial evidence linking them to a crime). Any of these people can be subpoenaed if they decline to appear voluntarily. If the grand jury finds there is enough evidence of the crime to go to trial, they will issue a true bill of indictment.
bluestarone
(16,867 posts)Can tRump take the 5th at the Grand Jury? I'm sure he could in front of Mueller rt?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,607 posts)bluestarone
(16,867 posts)pnwmom
(108,959 posts)In a conversation with the FBI, you CAN bring an attorney.
bluestarone
(16,867 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,607 posts)Mueller would use a subpoena to haul his fat orange ass before a grand jury, where he couldn't have a lawyer present; he would have no control over the scope of the questions asked of him; and would have to answer all of the questions unless he invoked his 5th Amendment rights - which would be politically disastrous.