I was refreshing myself. And was right I think before here.
"FEDERAL GRAND JURY BASICS: STRUCTURE AND POWER. Federal grand juries have a maximum of 23 members, 16 of whom must be present to form a quorum. Indictments are returned by a vote of 12 or more members. Federal grand juries typically sit for a term of 18 months and meet at regular intervals. Although federal judges empanel federal grand juries and formally supervise them, these judges do not usually interfere with federal grand jury investigations. The federal prosecutor, or Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”), is the primary government official interacting with the federal grand jury. The federal prosecutor leads all grand jury sessions, although he cannot testify or be present during grand jury deliberations."
I would think Mueller will go this Panel Judge to get an Arrest warrant issued.
I agree, then he will go before a judge again, and then the lawyer will discuss the authority of the subpoena, again, can't wait.
I don't think you understand how the subpoena process works. There's no "authority" required either - although Mueller's authority is fairly well established.
well a subpoena is generated from something, they just don't hand them out. so again, the reason for the subpoena will be known. duh!!!!
They actually
do just hand them out.
This is how it works.
A lawyer in a case (civil or criminal) will decide that there is some relevant and important information that they would like to have. They will go to the Clerk of the Court's office, and be given a blank subpoena form. The lawyer will fill the form out, going into detail about what documents they are requesting, or what people they are requesting affidavits from. They will then hand those documents to a process server, who will serve it to the person in question.
That person, at that point, is obligated under law to respond to that subpoena - by either producing the documents, or filing a motion to quash the subpoena. To successfully quash the subpoena, they would have to prove that either (1) The documents requested are irrelevant to the issue in front of the court, or (2) the documents are
privileged - in this context, referring to communication between a party to the case and his attorney.
In this case, it would be nearly impossible for Nunberg's lawyers to argue for either of those.