• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conservative writer Jerome Corsi says Mueller has summoned his stepson to testify before grand jury (1 Viewer)

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
25,357
Reaction score
11,557
Location
Post-Trump America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Despite this headline being politically correct BS and Corsi a disturbed conspiracy theorist... I approve the direction Mueller is taking :)

The stepson of conservative writer Jerome Corsi has been summoned by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to testify before a grand jury, according to Corsi, a sign that Mueller’s team remains focused on the writer and his interactions with Roger Stone, a close associate of President Trump.

Conservative writer Jerome Corsi says Mueller has summoned his stepson to testify before grand jury
 
Can you force a relative to testify, or are only spouses barred?
 
Do you not know how the law works in this country?:shock:

Never been charged with a crime. I thought there was some rule that you couldn't force a spouse to testify. Am I misremembering?

Edit: A quick mgoogle says you can't force a spouse to testify.
 
Never been charged with a crime. I thought there was some rule that you couldn't force a spouse to testify. Am I misremembering?

If his stepson helped him delete emails during an investigation than that is a crime. Doesn't matter if they are related or not. :roll:
 
If his stepson helped him delete emails during an investigation than that is a crime. Doesn't matter if they are related or not. :roll:

Thanks for reminding me that you are unable to hold a simple conversation without trying to turn a question or response into something that it isn't.
 
Can you force a relative to testify, or are only spouses barred?

Your first reaction in an ongoing criminal investigation that includes the Americans like Corsi potentially helping our biggest adversary to meddle in the 2016 election, is to ask a question in favor of witnesses who may be protecting Corsi?
I guess we know where your loyalty is...

As to your question, yes. A relative is not immune, just a spouse. Apparently conversations between spouses are privileged.
 
Thanks for reminding me that you are unable to hold a simple conversation without trying to turn a question or response into something that it isn't.

This thread is not about his spouse....
 
Your first reaction in an ongoing criminal investigation that includes the Americans like Corsi potentially helping our biggest adversary to meddle in the 2016 election, is to ask a question in favor of witnesses who may be protecting Corsi?
I guess we know where your loyalty is...

As to your question, yes. A relative is not immune, just a spouse. Apparently conversations between spouses are privileged.

Anything to stick up for criminals I guess.
 
Your first reaction in an ongoing criminal investigation that includes the Americans like Corsi potentially helping our biggest adversary to meddle in the 2016 election, is to ask a question in favor of witnesses who may be protecting Corsi?
I guess we know where your loyalty is...

As to your question, yes. A relative is not immune, just a spouse. Apparently conversations between spouses are privileged.

My only motivation for asking what I did was the relative angle. Its clearly impossible to discuss or ask questions related to a thread w/o the constant stream of us vs them mentality. What a waste of time participating.
 
Your first reaction in an ongoing criminal investigation that includes the Americans like Corsi potentially helping our biggest adversary to meddle in the 2016 election, is to ask a question in favor of witnesses who may be protecting Corsi?
I guess we know where your loyalty is...

As to your question, yes. A relative is not immune, just a spouse. Apparently conversations between spouses are privileged.

You could just answer the question.
 
Thanks for reminding me that you are unable to hold a simple conversation without trying to turn a question or response into something that it isn't.

He's holding the conversation. You aren't. His thread is about the stepson, not Corsi's spouse. Why do you bring his spouse into a discussion about his stepson?
 
My only motivation for asking what I did was the relative angle. Its clearly impossible to discuss or ask questions related to a thread w/o the constant stream of us vs them mentality. What a waste of time participating.

Don't make it a big deal, reputation matters, and you responded to Nevertrump while I was still typing. But now that you've explained yourself, all is good in this thread.
Also, I did look up and answer your question, so apparently I was willing to discuss..

Since spouse communication is privileged, it's just a side-effect so to say, that they can't be compelled to testify against one another. I found this snippet interesting...either can stop one another (!).
Any confidential communications between married couples are privileged, and either spouse may prevent the other from disclosing the communications.
 
He's holding the conversation. You aren't. His thread is about the stepson, not Corsi's spouse. Why do you bring his spouse into a discussion about his stepson?
1 person cannot hold a conversation. They can hold a monologue or a blog. He STARTED the conversation, at which point it became a public conversation.

The spouse was an example of commonly known limitations to testifying and he was wondering if that applied to other relatives.... which is completely relevant.

It's sad to see the OP derailing his own topic to chase a technicality that wasnt even there. The "us vs them" mindset is strong on this forum. Probably due to the large number of users. A double edged sword in debate communities.
 
This is a debate community. Everyone came here to open their yap.

Read what I was responding to. He told me to shut my yap, I told him to shut his in response. Fair is fair, makes it moot.
 
Read what I was responding to. He told me to shut my yap, I told him to shut his in response. Fair is fair, makes it moot.
You were responding to "you could just answer the question", which is entirely reasonable. I see nothing about yaps from him.
 
1 person cannot hold a conversation. They can hold a monologue or a blog. He STARTED the conversation, at which point it became a public conversation.

The spouse was an example of commonly known limitations to testifying and he was wondering if that applied to other relatives.... which is completely relevant.

It's sad to see the OP derailing his own topic to chase a technicality that wasnt even there. The "us vs them" mindset is strong on this forum. Probably due to the large number of users. A double edged sword in debate communities.

The question had nothing to do with the thread. This is his STEPson. The question fails and he got called out. Stop defending stupidity in the name of civility.
 
Can you force a relative to testify, or are only spouses barred?


Mueller did the same with Flynn's son ... and Flynn "folded" ...

"... With Special Counsel Robert Mueller expected to indict both Michael T. Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, and Flynn’s son, Michael G. Flynn, in connection with the investigation into Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election, speculation is mounting as to whether the elder Flynn will plead guilty to help his son, ... that his son is a “subject” of the investigation places the elder Flynn in the difficult position of cooperating and accepting criminal culpability, rather than fight, in order possibly to prevent his son from being prosecuted. ..."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobf...nd-cooperate-to-protect-his-son/#7fadc93614fe


Mueller, the modern-day torturer.
 
The question had nothing to do with the thread. This is his STEPson. The question fails and he got called out. Stop defending stupidity in the name of civility.
This has nothing to do with civility. Just words. The original question was about the stepson. The spouse was mentioned as a known exception and the question was does it apply TO THE STEPSON as well.

The person literally had a question seeking claritication. The easy solution would be to say no, only spouses are exempt, other relatives are not, and move on with the actual topic. Instead of letting the technicality tangent dominate the entire discussion.
 
This has nothing to do with civility. Just words. The original question was about the stepson. The spouse was mentioned as a known exception and the question was does it apply TO THE STEPSON as well.

The person literally had a question seeking claritication. The easy solution would be to say no, only spouses are exempt, other relatives are not, and move on with the actual topic. Instead of letting the technicality tangent dominate the entire discussion.

Considering where we are as a country and how the leader of the free world uses his "words." The question should have never come up in the first place. It is ignorance and stupid. Plain and simple. Other posters already explained this and your explanation to him. so IDK why you continue to beat this dead horse.
 
Considering where we are as a country and how the leader of the free world uses his "words." The question should have never come up in the first place. It is ignorance and stupid. Plain and simple. Other posters already explained this and your explanation to him. so IDK why you continue to beat this dead horse.
Once again, not everyone is a law scholar and that is not common knowledge. Your comparison to our prez is also baffling since the prez doesnt ask any clarifying questions. He makes declarative and assertive statements of questionable validity. It would be nice if he asked more questions.

I'm sorry but I find this aversion to clarification as the height of stupidity and one of the hallmark of our nation's, and our president's, main problem.

The question was entirely valid, and I have no clue how you related asking questions to trump. It is the opposite of trump and likely a solution to trump.

Edit: rhetorical questions not included.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom