Adam Schiff Says Special Counsel Robert Mueller Should Seek President Donald Trump’s Sworn Testimony But Acknowledges Outcome Is Unlikely

WASHINGTON – Democratic U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff of California said special counsel Robert Mueller should seek President Donald Trump’s sworn testimony Sunday, but seemed to acknowledge that outcome was unlikely.

Schiff, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” it would be a mistake for Mueller to conclude his investigation without interviewing Trump in person and under oath.

“I think the constraint that Bob Mueller is operating under is he had an acting attorney general who was appointed because he would be hostile to a subpoena on the president,” Schiff said. “And now he has a permanent attorney general who was chosen for the same hostility to his investigation and who would likely oppose that step.”

“I also think that the special counsel feels some time pressure to conclude his work,” Schiff added.

Schiff’s pessimistic assessment notwithstanding, Attorney General William Barr did not foreclose the possibility that Mueller could subpoena Trump during his January confirmation hearing for the attorney generalship.


FIGHT BIG TECH: CONTRIBUTE $$$ TO "HELP HOLD BIG-TECH ACCOUNTABLE"

Big Tech is using a content filtering system for online censorship. Take a few moments and watch our short video about NewsGuard to learn how they control the narrative for the Lamestream Media and help keep you in the dark. NewsGuard works with Big-Tech to make it harder for you to find certain content they feel is 'missing context' or stories their editors deem "not in your best interest" - regardless of whether they are true and/or factually accurate. They also work with payment processors and ad-networks to cut off revenue streams to publications they rate poorly by their same bias standards. This should be criminal in America. You can bypass this third-world nonsense and help support us by signing up for featured stories by email and get the good stuff delivered right to your inbox. Want to help us fight back against these tech tyrants? Contribute to our fundraiser..
 

“The question from me would be: ‘What’s the predicate?’” Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “If there was a factual basis for doing it, and I couldn’t say that it violated established policies, then I wouldn’t interfere.”

The Supreme Court enforced a subpoena against former President Richard Nixon in the 1974 U.S. v. Nixon decision, ruling that he had to comply with special prosecutor Leon Jaworski’s request for the infamous White House tapes.

Whether the president must comply with a subpoena for testimony is a different question — one the high court has never answered. In one relevant historical incident, former Chief Justice John Marshall indicated that prosecutors could subpoena former President Thomas Jefferson to testify during the 1807 treason trial of former Vice President Aaron Burr. Jefferson never appeared and Marshall was speaking merely as the presiding judge, not for the Supreme Court.

Former President Bill Clinton testified from the White House by remote video feed before a federal grand jury in 1998 that independent counsel Ken Starr convened. A subpoena for Clinton’s appearance was revoked when Starr and the president’s lawyers reached a deal setting terms for his testimony.

Follow Kevin on Twitter


Comment via Facebook

Corrections: If you are aware of an inaccuracy or would like to report a correction, we would like to know about it. Please consider sending an email to corrections@publishedreporter.com and cite any sources if available. Thank you. (Policy)