Sam Nunberg wants to tear up Mueller subpoena.....REALLY!

[jc456]

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.

ok, so what's different that what is being done?

Nothing. Nunberg was served, and he's throwing a tantrum about it. If he follows through with his threats to ignore the subpoena, he'll either be fined or imprisoned until he responds to it. He could try to fight the subpoena, but I don't see how he could possibly argue that his emails are either privileged or irrelevant.

well isn't that for his lawyer to determine?

 

[usmbguest5318]

...and he's stating that he's going to disregard a subpoena from the grand jury. He's saying his reason for this is that he doesn't think he should have to spend his time to go through his emails to provide the information that's been requested and he's assuming that he's a target of the investigation.

This is the interview I can find on the Internet -- Nunberg on subpoena: 'Screw that' - CNN Video -- but the one I'm currently hearing is with Jake Tapper. It's not yet on the web.

I don't know a thing about Sam, but I know he's playing a very high risk game.

can you imagine if Hillary said screw the subpoena...

Well, maybe, but that's really not the topic here.

well, it kind of is. because the question now is what are they going to do to this guy for NOT responding.

doesn't want to go through his emails? *shakes head*

No, nothing having to do with Hillary, most especially not some damn subpoena she never received, is a topic of this thread, not in any way, shape or form. This is not a thread in which comparisons of Sam's behavior with anyone else's is germane. What is germane is Sam's behavior and Sam's remarks and the consequences of them that Sam will or won't face. Period.

If want to engage in a comparison and contrast thread wherein treatment and perceptions of Hillary vs. those applicable to Sam is the topic, by all means, create your own thread to do so. Hillary, Donald, Obama, etc. have nothing to do with Sam's remarks, the subpoena he received, or anything else in this thread. This is not a thread for bringing up whatever the hell crosses your mind as a result of having read the OP. It is a thread for discussing the specific content of the OP.

Let me be very clear; the topics of this thread are:

• Sam Nunberg's role in the Trump campaign
• Sam Nunburg's remarks in either of the two interviews referenced in the OP.
• The consequences Sam Nunberg may face for refusing to comply with a grand jury subpoena.
• The sagacity, or lack thereof, of Sam's stated intentions.
• The strategy Sam Nunberg may have for undertaking the strategy he's articulated.
• What may or may not be the reasons Sam Numberg was subpoenaed.

 

[eddiew37]

Breaking Update.

This Mueller fellow is a real but job. It's Obama who was the real Manchurian candidate who usurped the oval office.

Bullshit. Go back to your conspiracy threads.

sure he was.

jc how come the orange anus has not said one disparaging word against his murdering buddy putin ?

how do you know he hasn't?

He sure lets the world know every morning with his tweets He's bashed everyone BUT Putin

 

[bodecea]

Ex-Trump campaign adviser says he will refuse to comply with Mueller subpoena

Ha Ha! What an idiot. He will go to jail....oh

He also said that from the prosecutors question...he thought they had something on Trump. He thinks Trump did something wrong during the election.

Ignoring subpoenas.....

Worked for Hillary....

What subpeonas from whom did H. Clinton ignore?

 

[blackhawk]

Mueller is doing a real good Ken Starr type investigation and much like Starr’s I suspect by the time Mueller wraps it up the only people left who will care will be the most rabid of partisans.

Well we're closer than you think if this fool Nunberg is openly being uncooperative with Mueller!

We have been hearing that for a year and half now forgive me if I’m skeptical.

 

[deanrd]

He told Katie Tur that it's possible Mueller has something on Trump.

Possible?

or Probable?

 

[jc456]

Breaking Update.

This Mueller fellow is a real but job. It's Obama who was the real Manchurian candidate who usurped the oval office.

Bullshit. Go back to your conspiracy threads.

sure he was.

jc how come the orange anus has not said one disparaging word against his murdering buddy putin ?

how do you know he hasn't?

He sure lets the world know every morning with his tweets He's bashed everyone BUT Putin

so he's only allowed to tweet for it to have happened? LOL, you don't want him to tweet and now he doesn't tweet enough. LOL. you have no idea anything and merely write nonsense.

 

[Baz Ares]

he ain't going anywhere. it will have to go before a court. I can't wait.

Doesn't a Grand Jury have a judge? You sure that isn't a "Court?" Just asking--I'm not sure.

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. After the failure to appear. Or they will be monitoring them now and Mueller is already got the paperwork ready to be arrested 10 mins after the no-show.

I know. These turds think they can say no to the Special Counsel. Ha!

they did. I'd say they can then.

Of course you do because you don’t know shit.
All Bob Mueller has to do is issue a subpoena to appear in court. Defy the subpoena, go to jail.

Can't wait for the Great Douche to get his.

 

[jc456]

Doesn't a Grand Jury have a judge? You sure that isn't a "Court?" Just asking--I'm not sure.

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. After the failure to appear. Or they will be monitoring them now and Mueller is already got the paperwork ready to be arrested 10 mins after the no-show.

I know. These turds think they can say no to the Special Counsel. Ha!

they did. I'd say they can then.

Of course you do because you don’t know shit.
All Bob Mueller has to do is issue a subpoena to appear in court. Defy the subpoena, go to jail.

Can't wait for the Great Douche to get his.

that's anti american.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

ok, so what's different that what is being done?

Nothing. Nunberg was served, and he's throwing a tantrum about it. If he follows through with his threats to ignore the subpoena, he'll either be fined or imprisoned until he responds to it. He could try to fight the subpoena, but I don't see how he could possibly argue that his emails are either privileged or irrelevant.

well isn't that for his lawyer to determine?

Is what for his lawyer to determine?

I have no doubt that Nunberg's lawyer is begging him to respond to the subpoena - either by moving to quash it, or producing the documents - and if Nunberg wants to fight the subpoena in court, his lawyer will have to come up with something.

But I think the lawyer knows it wouldn't work, and is almost certainly advicing his client so.

 

[eddiew37]

Ex-Trump campaign adviser says he will refuse to comply with Mueller subpoena

Ha Ha! What an idiot. He will go to jail....oh

He also said that from the prosecutors question...he thought they had something on Trump. He thinks Trump did something wrong during the election.

Ignoring subpoenas.....

Worked for Hillary....

What subpeonas from whom did H. Clinton ignore?

H Clinton?? Who's that??? You're living in the past ,,25 years of wasting millions trying to get Hill ?? lol and you got NOTHING...Now we must rid ourselves of the slimebag in our WH NOW

 

[OldLady]

He told Katie Tur that it's possible Mueller has something on Trump.

Possible?

or Probable?

He's talking too much. Mueller's first leak, and he's NOT going to like it.

 

[jc456]

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.

ok, so what's different that what is being done?

Nothing. Nunberg was served, and he's throwing a tantrum about it. If he follows through with his threats to ignore the subpoena, he'll either be fined or imprisoned until he responds to it. He could try to fight the subpoena, but I don't see how he could possibly argue that his emails are either privileged or irrelevant.

well isn't that for his lawyer to determine?

Is what for his lawyer to determine?

I have no doubt that Nunberg's lawyer is begging him to respond to the subpoena - either by moving to quash it, or producing the documents - and if Nunberg wants to fight the subpoena in court, his lawyer will have to come up with something.

But I think the lawyer knows it wouldn't work, and is almost certainly advicing his client so.

or not and all that is already discussed.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

ok, so what's different that what is being done?

Nothing. Nunberg was served, and he's throwing a tantrum about it. If he follows through with his threats to ignore the subpoena, he'll either be fined or imprisoned until he responds to it. He could try to fight the subpoena, but I don't see how he could possibly argue that his emails are either privileged or irrelevant.

well isn't that for his lawyer to determine?

Is what for his lawyer to determine?

I have no doubt that Nunberg's lawyer is begging him to respond to the subpoena - either by moving to quash it, or producing the documents - and if Nunberg wants to fight the subpoena in court, his lawyer will have to come up with something.

But I think the lawyer knows it wouldn't work, and is almost certainly advicing his client so.

or not and all that is already discussed.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

 

[jc456]

ok, so what's different that what is being done?

Nothing. Nunberg was served, and he's throwing a tantrum about it. If he follows through with his threats to ignore the subpoena, he'll either be fined or imprisoned until he responds to it. He could try to fight the subpoena, but I don't see how he could possibly argue that his emails are either privileged or irrelevant.

well isn't that for his lawyer to determine?

Is what for his lawyer to determine?

I have no doubt that Nunberg's lawyer is begging him to respond to the subpoena - either by moving to quash it, or producing the documents - and if Nunberg wants to fight the subpoena in court, his lawyer will have to come up with something.

But I think the lawyer knows it wouldn't work, and is almost certainly advicing his client so.

or not and all that is already discussed.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

you have no idea what his lawyer said. perhaps they had that discussion. perhaps?

 

[jillian]

...and he's stating that he's going to disregard a subpoena from the grand jury. He's saying his reason for this is that he doesn't think he should have to spend his time to go through his emails to provide the information that's been requested and he's assuming that he's a target of the investigation.

This is the interview I can find on the Internet -- Nunberg on subpoena: 'Screw that' - CNN Video -- but the one I'm currently hearing is with Jake Tapper. It's not yet on the web.

I don't know a thing about Sam, but I know he's playing a very high risk game.

can you imagine if Hillary said screw the subpoena...

Well, maybe, but that's really not the topic here.

well, it kind of is. because the question now is what are they going to do to this guy for NOT responding.

doesn't want to go through his emails? *shakes head*

No, nothing having to do with Hillary, most especially not some damn subpoena she never received, is a topic of this thread, not in any way, shape or form. This is not a thread in which comparisons of Sam's behavior with anyone else's is germane. What is germane is Sam's behavior and Sam's remarks and the consequences of them that Sam will or won't face. Period.

If want to engage in a comparison and contrast thread wherein treatment and perceptions of Hillary vs. those applicable to Sam is the topic, by all means, create your own thread to do so. Hillary, Donald, Obama, etc. have nothing to do with Sam's remarks, the subpoena he received, or anything else in this thread. This is not a thread for bringing up whatever the hell crosses your mind as a result of having read the OP. It is a thread for discussing the specific content of the OP.

Let me be very clear; the topics of this thread are:

• Sam Nunberg's role in the Trump campaign
• Sam Nunburg's remarks in either of the two interviews referenced in the OP.
• The consequences Sam Nunberg may face for refusing to comply with a grand jury subpoena.
• The sagacity, or lack thereof, of Sam's stated intentions.
• The strategy Sam Nunberg may have for undertaking the strategy he's articulated.
• What may or may not be the reasons Sam Numberg was subpoenaed.

ya... okie dokie.

I look forward to the no-knock warrant where they go in and take his computers.

 

[jillian]

Nothing. Nunberg was served, and he's throwing a tantrum about it. If he follows through with his threats to ignore the subpoena, he'll either be fined or imprisoned until he responds to it. He could try to fight the subpoena, but I don't see how he could possibly argue that his emails are either privileged or irrelevant.

well isn't that for his lawyer to determine?

Is what for his lawyer to determine?

I have no doubt that Nunberg's lawyer is begging him to respond to the subpoena - either by moving to quash it, or producing the documents - and if Nunberg wants to fight the subpoena in court, his lawyer will have to come up with something.

But I think the lawyer knows it wouldn't work, and is almost certainly advicing his client so.

or not and all that is already discussed.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

you have no idea what his lawyer said. perhaps they had that discussion. perhaps?

if his lawyer is telling him to do anything but honor the subpoena, then his lawyer shouldn't be a lawyer. THAT is how we know what he said.

dismissed

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Nothing. Nunberg was served, and he's throwing a tantrum about it. If he follows through with his threats to ignore the subpoena, he'll either be fined or imprisoned until he responds to it. He could try to fight the subpoena, but I don't see how he could possibly argue that his emails are either privileged or irrelevant.

well isn't that for his lawyer to determine?

Is what for his lawyer to determine?

I have no doubt that Nunberg's lawyer is begging him to respond to the subpoena - either by moving to quash it, or producing the documents - and if Nunberg wants to fight the subpoena in court, his lawyer will have to come up with something.

But I think the lawyer knows it wouldn't work, and is almost certainly advicing his client so.

or not and all that is already discussed.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

you have no idea what his lawyer said. perhaps they had that discussion. perhaps?

You are correct in saying that I do not know what his lawyer has said, but I can make some strong inferences, since I understand how the law works, and if I had to guess, his lawyer does too.

 

[eddiew37]

Bullshit. Go back to your conspiracy threads.

sure he was.

jc how come the orange anus has not said one disparaging word against his murdering buddy putin ?

how do you know he hasn't?

He sure lets the world know every morning with his tweets He's bashed everyone BUT Putin

so he's only allowed to tweet for it to have happened? LOL, you don't want him to tweet and now he doesn't tweet enough. LOL. you have no idea anything and merely write nonsense.

the question was who hasn't he bashed LOUDLY ..... and nothing about the guy who has him in his pocket??? What's trump looking for ?? Hotels in Russia, Loans for him and his POS son in law??

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Good for him. Nobody should comply with Mueller's illegal witch hunt.

WHee! Let us see what happens? He just going to jail sooner. As was involved with Stones Crimes in 2016. As he does on want to rat out Stone.

He's no doubt been promised a pardon like Manafort.