Of the department of justiceus policy, would you are required to follow as a employee of the department of justice, j moreov, we want to understand how it is that you believe that you can burgeon a president like this while he s in office. while i m at it, sean, we seem to have a few republicans and assented to our very confused about these things. they voted to protect mr. mueller rather than the office of the presidency, the constitution. the americanon people. they seem to think that they have the power, even though we have separation of powers, to tell a president who he can hire and fire. part of the problem the president has is he is dealing with ignoramuses, both inside his party and outside his party and some of whom are dressed up as lawyers. so i would take us all the way to the united states supreme court. i would make mueller and his band of democratic prosecutors make their case all the way to the united states supreme court. if they try to subpoena him, in
Any way to appear before a federal grand jury, make them make their case against the owner department of justice, against supreme court precedent, and against the constitution of the united states. if it takes six months, it takes six months. if it takes six years, by god, takes six years. we are not just talking about the president, which would be enough. we are talking about protecting the office of the presidency, separation of powers. when you look at those 49 areas of questions, there s not a single criminal statute, not a single obstruction! what has been obstructed! they are not investigating russia. what it said that they are not investigating that they don t want to investigate? they want to know his intent on whether he obstructed, they want to treat him like they treated martha stewart. guess what? is the president, mr. mueller. this is s it one of your failed anthrax cases are one of your failed whitey bulger cases. this is the president of the united states. you know what that means? week of the people come have a stake in this. we, the people, get to decide.
United states has now reached a point where there is just no doubt at all that the president should refuse to be interviewed by them. that s because it s clear that mueller and his team of democratic thugs are acting in bad faith. they know that the president, under department of justice rules, cannot be indicted. they have no evidence to indict him. the office of robert mueller was created by rod rosenstein illegally. they mentioned no crime to be investigated. all of this leads to the ultimate conclusion that the perpetuation of this investigation by mueller is doing grave damage to the united states, it s doing grave damage to the united states foreign policy. it s doing grave damage to u.s. law enforcement because of the thug-like tactics that have been used in that paul manafort case and in the cohen case. it points to something that really is disturbing. after watching the deputy attorney general of the united states, rod rosenstein,
wbr id= wbr12000 /> the united states. he had ultimatee authority to fire james comey he did. sean: mueller the courts can always be wrong. sean: we know that. is going to go all the way to the supreme court of the issue is a subpoena. i will make a prediction. mueller will never issue a subpoena. sean: why? because he cannot win back. i disagree with some of the comments of judge napolitano earlier about the fact that mueller will win on the subpoena. ultimately, let me just say this, mueller will lose on the subpoena because it is unconstitutional. sean: if it was granted in the president fled the fifth, then they would offer him immunity and the perjury trap remains, correct or not? that is technically correct. but you cannot issue immunity to someone when you are doing it illegally under the statute because the only reason he would be giving him immunity would be to force testimony for an impeachment report. mueller does not have the t /b>
Subpoenas before. name a president that has been before a federal grand jury. there hasn t been one. canisters dean martin subpoenaed bill clinton for lying aboutti litigation that was taken place, and he decided to do a video. here is my advice. to the president, and to his lawyers, focus. you are making this too complicated. the constitution is on the side of t the president. the department of justice s opposition, on the side of the president of the united states. historical president is on the side of the president. legal precedent is on the side of the president of the united states. stop listening to the babbling, pleading the fifth, should he sit down with a subpoena, i would say if i were the president s lawyer, mr. mueller, we want you to present us with anan explanation of your defiane