A Constitutional Crisis (Pending?)

[Wry Catcher]

If Trump testifies under oath, he is sure to lose it, and his legal counsel knows it.

Thus the fundamental question is this: Will the Supreme Court quash putting POTUS under oath?

If they do, they will set a precedent that POTUS is above the law! Ending this great tradition and unique experiment that our founders left us.

 

[Pete7469]

Oh...

Now the Constitution is important to the bed wetters.

Still oppose the 2nd Amendment or are you one of the drones who believes it doesn't mean what it plainly says?

 

[Tank]

You underestimate Trump

 

[Moonglow]

You underestimate Trump

He will Tweet his testimony to the court while on the stand..

 

[WorldWatcher]

If Trump testifies under oath, he is sure to lose it, and his legal counsel knows it.

Thus the fundamental question is this: Will the Supreme Court quash putting POTUS under oath?

If they do, they will set a precedent that POTUS is above the law! Ending this great tradition and unique experiment that our founders left us.

Not sure why it is a Constitutional Crisis.

Ken Starr was after Bill Clinton for what, 6-7 years and got him under oath before a Grand Jury.



Is it the President being under oath or is it Trump saying stupid shit that would create the crisis?


>>>>

 

[Votto]

If Trump testifies under oath, he is sure to lose it, and his legal counsel knows it.

Thus the fundamental question is this: Will the Supreme Court quash putting POTUS under oath?

If they do, they will set a precedent that POTUS is above the law! Ending this great tradition and unique experiment that our founders left us.

Constitutional crisis?

That's a little late don't you think after all the number of federal scandals over the years?

I know, let's send life boats for the Titanic survivors next

 

[Wry Catcher]

If Trump testifies under oath, he is sure to lose it, and his legal counsel knows it.

Thus the fundamental question is this: Will the Supreme Court quash putting POTUS under oath?

If they do, they will set a precedent that POTUS is above the law! Ending this great tradition and unique experiment that our founders left us.

Not sure why it is a Constitutional Crisis.

Ken Starr was after Bill Clinton for what, 6-7 years and got him under oath before a Grand Jury.



Is it the President being under oath or is it Trump saying stupid shit that would create the crisis?


>>>>

IF trump balks, and uses an excuse (executive privilege for example) he (most likely) will be subpoenaed.

Trump and his attorney's will appeal to the US Supreme Court as to the legality of serving a criminal subpoena on the President.

That is the crisis, for if a majority of the court supports the plaintiffs argument, and Trump is not compelled to comply with the subpoena, they will set a precedent that the President of the United States is above the law.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You underestimate Trump

He will Tweet his testimony to the court while on the stand..

LOL, not likely. His under oath testimony will be before a Grand Jury, and he will not be allowed to communicate with his lawyers, or anyone else, when ordered to testify.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall and do hope that someone will release his testimony as he stumbles to defend himself.

 

[whitehall]

Congress couldn't even get Hussein's IRS chief to testify. A "constitutional crisis" is just another one in a long list of the left's desperate fantasies.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Congress couldn't even get Hussein's IRS chief to testify. A "constitutional crisis" is just another one in a long list of the left's desperate fantasies.

How about posting that "long list" of the left?

Q. Why do posters like whitehall seem to rely on hyperbole and mendacity?

A.

 

[WorldWatcher]

IF trump balks, and uses an excuse (executive privilege for example) he (most likely) will be subpoenaed.

You have to be President to exert executive privilege, during the campaign Trump wasn't the President. There is only one President at a time.

Trump and his attorney's will appeal to the US Supreme Court as to the legality of serving a criminal subpoena on the President.

Subpoena's are neither civil or criminal. Soppoena's are order to appear and testify.

That is the crisis, for if a majority of the court supports the plaintiffs argument, and Trump is not compelled to comply with the subpoena, they will set a precedent that the President of the United States is above the law.

#1 There is no precedent as Trump wasn't President at the time.

#2 The precedent on ordering a President under oath was already set with Bill Clinton.


>>>>

 

[dblack]

Oh...

Now the Constitution is important to the bed wetters.

And now it's not important to the "conservatives". Who's got time for principles these days?

 

[JusticeHammer]

If Trump testifies under oath, he is sure to lose it, and his legal counsel knows it.

Thus the fundamental question is this: Will the Supreme Court quash putting POTUS under oath?

If they do, they will set a precedent that POTUS is above the law! Ending this great tradition and unique experiment that our founders left us.

The only time you retarded libs care about the Constitution is when there is a perceived, wrongly, violation by President Trump. Go play with your Hillary doll.

 

[jillian]

You underestimate Trump

I never underestimate how low he and his minions are willing to sink.

 

[jillian]

Oh...

Now the Constitution is important to the bed wetters.

Still oppose the 2nd Amendment or are you one of the drones who believes it doesn't mean what it plainly says?

I don't know what bed wetters are unless you're talking about Dona;d and his own night issues.

you hate the 1st 4th 5th and every other amendment and don't understand the 2nd.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Oh...

Now the Constitution is important to the bed wetters.

Still oppose the 2nd Amendment or are you one of the drones who believes it doesn't mean what it plainly says?

I don't know what bed wetters are unless you're talking about Dona;d and his own night issues.

you hate the 1st 4th 5th and every other amendment and don't understand the 2nd.

A lib trying to explain the Constitution. Explain the 2nd amendment, or try to.

 

[JusticeHammer]

You underestimate Trump

I never underestimate how low he and his minions are willing to sink.

Not as low as you scum libtards.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Oh...

Now the Constitution is important to the bed wetters.

Still oppose the 2nd Amendment or are you one of the drones who believes it doesn't mean what it plainly says?

The syntax of the 2nd A. creates ambiguity. The term shall has multiple meanings, depending on source and context. Arms = weapons of war, and are legally restricted by Federal Laws.

Three times I have taken the oath to support and defend COTUS, I have never not done so. I have no memory of ever wetting my bed, and most of what you post is the product of your emotions and not rational nor is it sagacious.

 

[Old Rocks]

If Trump testifies under oath, he is sure to lose it, and his legal counsel knows it.

Thus the fundamental question is this: Will the Supreme Court quash putting POTUS under oath?

If they do, they will set a precedent that POTUS is above the law! Ending this great tradition and unique experiment that our founders left us.

Not sure why it is a Constitutional Crisis.

Ken Starr was after Bill Clinton for what, 6-7 years and got him under oath before a Grand Jury.



Is it the President being under oath or is it Trump saying stupid shit that would create the crisis?


>>>>

You apparently did not read what was posted. They, the Trump admin, are trying to get the Supreme Court to rule that the President cannot be put under oath for any reason. That the Executive is above the law. Essentially, they are trying to change law going clear back to the Magna Charta. That would make the Presidency imperial, and give the Executive tyrannical powers.

 

[teddyearp]

Obama's presidency was one constitutional crisis after another.