Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
to obtain facts about what? what would trump need to know about? See you're suggesting mueller ask questions and President Trump answering them. that isn't what the two Summits were about. so you're talking apples and lemonade.To obtain facts. If Trump is incapable of delivering facts, if his testimony would endanger his presidency, can we draw an equivalence with meeting dictators?what else would it be for exactly? explain your thought here?What makes you think that Mueller would lecture Trump? Why do you think Trump would say nothing, or be allowed to say nothing? Do you understand how investigations work?no he wouldn't. there is no fking way. first off what you're suggesting is only questions from mueller not vice versa. so that is called bias. And there is no precedence for what you suggest. If you wish mueller and trump go out for drinks, that's an entirely different ask. but you have no precedence to your initial ask.He could clear the whole situation up by meeting with Mueller. He is the subject of the investigation, so, yeah he has a reason to appear.He has no reason to appear............Charge him or STFU
So you understand the dangers for Trump by testifying. Are there no dangers in him meeting dictators without advisers and recordkeepers?I understand that no one has to testify against themselves in this country.What makes you think that Mueller would lecture Trump? Why do you think Trump would say nothing, or be allowed to say nothing? Do you understand how investigations work?no he wouldn't. there is no fking way. first off what you're suggesting is only questions from mueller not vice versa. so that is called bias. And there is no precedence for what you suggest. If you wish mueller and trump go out for drinks, that's an entirely different ask. but you have no precedence to your initial ask.He could clear the whole situation up by meeting with Mueller. He is the subject of the investigation, so, yeah he has a reason to appear.He has no reason to appear............Charge him or STFU
I also understand that it is a perjury trap.
I also understand that it would be the first and a possible SCOTUS battle.
I also understand that Trump has executive priviedge.
to the Trump supporters, if you're willing and eager to have Trump sit down with dictators like Kim and Putin without note takers or any other record of their meetings, why are you reluctant to have Trump sit down with note takers and recordings of a closed door meeting with Special Counsel Robert Mueller?
like what? explain your implications here.So you understand the dangers for Trump by testifying. Are there no dangers in him meeting dictators without advisers and recordkeepers?I understand that no one has to testify against themselves in this country.What makes you think that Mueller would lecture Trump? Why do you think Trump would say nothing, or be allowed to say nothing? Do you understand how investigations work?no he wouldn't. there is no fking way. first off what you're suggesting is only questions from mueller not vice versa. so that is called bias. And there is no precedence for what you suggest. If you wish mueller and trump go out for drinks, that's an entirely different ask. but you have no precedence to your initial ask.He could clear the whole situation up by meeting with Mueller. He is the subject of the investigation, so, yeah he has a reason to appear.He has no reason to appear............Charge him or STFU
I also understand that it is a perjury trap.
I also understand that it would be the first and a possible SCOTUS battle.
I also understand that Trump has executive priviedge.
Is sitting down in one-on-one meetings with other nation's leaders something new that President Trump instituted when he became President?to the Trump supporters, if you're willing and eager to have Trump sit down with dictators like Kim and Putin without note takers or any other record of their meetings, why are you reluctant to have Trump sit down with note takers and recordings of a closed door meeting with Special Counsel Robert Mueller?
Hmmmm......NO!
So why the sudden butt-hurt fear / fear-mongering? Oh yeah...it's Trump, the guy who actually WON his party's nomination and who kicked Hillary's ass.
By drawing three million fewer votes? Yeah that thar's a ass-whuppin'.
Oh wait ---- "Three million very fine Amish illegals who never heard of David Duke dancing on rooftops while it wasn't raining" --- right John Miller?
Is sitting down in one-on-one meetings with other nation's leaders something new that President Trump instituted when he became President?to the Trump supporters, if you're willing and eager to have Trump sit down with dictators like Kim and Putin without note takers or any other record of their meetings, why are you reluctant to have Trump sit down with note takers and recordings of a closed door meeting with Special Counsel Robert Mueller?
Hmmmm......NO!
So why the sudden butt-hurt fear / fear-mongering? Oh yeah...it's Trump, the guy who actually WON his party's nomination and who kicked Hillary's ass.
Oh wait ---- "Three million very fine Amish illegals who never heard of David Duke dancing on rooftops while it wasn't raining" --- right John Miller?
ask a logical question then.to the Trump supporters, if you're willing and eager to have Trump sit down with dictators like Kim and Putin without note takers or any other record of their meetings, why are you reluctant to have Trump sit down with note takers and recordings of a closed door meeting with Special Counsel Robert Mueller?
Do you honestly expect a logical answer from the pond scum that live on this site?
By drawing three million fewer votes? Yeah that thar's a ass-whuppin'.
Who knows what evidence Mueller holds?to obtain facts about what? what would trump need to know about? See you're suggesting mueller ask questions and President Trump answering them. that isn't what the two Summits were about. so you're talking apples and lemonade.To obtain facts. If Trump is incapable of delivering facts, if his testimony would endanger his presidency, can we draw an equivalence with meeting dictators?what else would it be for exactly? explain your thought here?What makes you think that Mueller would lecture Trump? Why do you think Trump would say nothing, or be allowed to say nothing? Do you understand how investigations work?no he wouldn't. there is no fking way. first off what you're suggesting is only questions from mueller not vice versa. so that is called bias. And there is no precedence for what you suggest. If you wish mueller and trump go out for drinks, that's an entirely different ask. but you have no precedence to your initial ask.He could clear the whole situation up by meeting with Mueller. He is the subject of the investigation, so, yeah he has a reason to appear.
ask a logical question then.to the Trump supporters, if you're willing and eager to have Trump sit down with dictators like Kim and Putin without note takers or any other record of their meetings, why are you reluctant to have Trump sit down with note takers and recordings of a closed door meeting with Special Counsel Robert Mueller?
Do you honestly expect a logical answer from the pond scum that live on this site?
I've explained it to you duckwalk! why didn't you read what I wrote? you're asking something different than a summit. so if you wish to compare apples present a basket of apples and not a pitcher of lemonade.Who knows what evidence Mueller holds?to obtain facts about what? what would trump need to know about? See you're suggesting mueller ask questions and President Trump answering them. that isn't what the two Summits were about. so you're talking apples and lemonade.To obtain facts. If Trump is incapable of delivering facts, if his testimony would endanger his presidency, can we draw an equivalence with meeting dictators?what else would it be for exactly? explain your thought here?What makes you think that Mueller would lecture Trump? Why do you think Trump would say nothing, or be allowed to say nothing? Do you understand how investigations work?no he wouldn't. there is no fking way. first off what you're suggesting is only questions from mueller not vice versa. so that is called bias. And there is no precedence for what you suggest. If you wish mueller and trump go out for drinks, that's an entirely different ask. but you have no precedence to your initial ask.
Why are you so reluctant to have him meet Mueller, but eager to have him meet Pitin in private?
Party over country?
As I suspected, no logic in your brain.ask a logical question then.to the Trump supporters, if you're willing and eager to have Trump sit down with dictators like Kim and Putin without note takers or any other record of their meetings, why are you reluctant to have Trump sit down with note takers and recordings of a closed door meeting with Special Counsel Robert Mueller?
Do you honestly expect a logical answer from the pond scum that live on this site?
Just like I said...The pond scum has spoken.
Pitin or Kim could have secretly recorded their meetings with Trump. Trump has no recordings. They could alter their recordings to make it sound as if Trump agreed to something he did not, damaging our relations with allies. And Trump could not refute their propaganda.like what? explain your implications here.So you understand the dangers for Trump by testifying. Are there no dangers in him meeting dictators without advisers and recordkeepers?I understand that no one has to testify against themselves in this country.What makes you think that Mueller would lecture Trump? Why do you think Trump would say nothing, or be allowed to say nothing? Do you understand how investigations work?no he wouldn't. there is no fking way. first off what you're suggesting is only questions from mueller not vice versa. so that is called bias. And there is no precedence for what you suggest. If you wish mueller and trump go out for drinks, that's an entirely different ask. but you have no precedence to your initial ask.He could clear the whole situation up by meeting with Mueller. He is the subject of the investigation, so, yeah he has a reason to appear.
I also understand that it is a perjury trap.
I also understand that it would be the first and a possible SCOTUS battle.
I also understand that Trump has executive priviedge.
she fking won one state with that voter turn out. why doesn't he refer to the other 30 states she lost?By drawing three million fewer votes? Yeah that thar's a ass-whuppin'.
Aaawwww, honey...are you still clinging on to that 'popularity contest' win thing, as if it ever mattered? Poor baby....
And Trump winning by even 1 vote when Democrats were dancing and declaring how Hillary would 'win in a landslide' is an 'ass-whuppin'! I believed CNN called it one of the biggest upsets evuh......
Bwuhahahaha....
I care why? not sure where you're headed bizarro fk!Pitin or Kim could have secretly recorded their meetings with Trump. Trump has no recordings. They could alter their recordings to make it sound as if Trump agreed to something he did not, damaging our relations with allies. And Trump could not refute their propaganda.like what? explain your implications here.So you understand the dangers for Trump by testifying. Are there no dangers in him meeting dictators without advisers and recordkeepers?I understand that no one has to testify against themselves in this country.What makes you think that Mueller would lecture Trump? Why do you think Trump would say nothing, or be allowed to say nothing? Do you understand how investigations work?no he wouldn't. there is no fking way. first off what you're suggesting is only questions from mueller not vice versa. so that is called bias. And there is no precedence for what you suggest. If you wish mueller and trump go out for drinks, that's an entirely different ask. but you have no precedence to your initial ask.
I also understand that it is a perjury trap.
I also understand that it would be the first and a possible SCOTUS battle.
I also understand that Trump has executive priviedge.
You're happy with the notion the president can be, and,probably already is, owned by the Kremlin?I care why? not sure where you're headed bizarro fk!Pitin or Kim could have secretly recorded their meetings with Trump. Trump has no recordings. They could alter their recordings to make it sound as if Trump agreed to something he did not, damaging our relations with allies. And Trump could not refute their propaganda.like what? explain your implications here.So you understand the dangers for Trump by testifying. Are there no dangers in him meeting dictators without advisers and recordkeepers?I understand that no one has to testify against themselves in this country.What makes you think that Mueller would lecture Trump? Why do you think Trump would say nothing, or be allowed to say nothing? Do you understand how investigations work?
I also understand that it is a perjury trap.
I also understand that it would be the first and a possible SCOTUS battle.
I also understand that Trump has executive priviedge.
Pitin or Kim could have secretly recorded their meetings with Trump. Trump has no recordings. They could alter their recordings to make it sound as if Trump agreed to something he did not, damaging our relations with allies. And Trump could not refute their propaganda.
You're happy with the notion the president can be, and,probably already is, owned by the Kremlin?
Anything can happen once someone lacking experience is,learning on the job. And when that job is President,of the United States, the stakes go through the roof.Pitin or Kim could have secretly recorded their meetings with Trump. Trump has no recordings. They could alter their recordings to make it sound as if Trump agreed to something he did not, damaging our relations with allies. And Trump could not refute their propaganda.
Little James Bondish there King...
never in a million years. it's your fantasy. nope. not at all. In fact, I see the opposite happening. democrats against middle income tax cuts, for open borders. democrats for chaos in our country. that is more kremlin like interference than giving out tax cuts, securing our borders and becoming energy independent. what are you for exactly?You're happy with the notion the president can be, and,probably already is, owned by the Kremlin?I care why? not sure where you're headed bizarro fk!Pitin or Kim could have secretly recorded their meetings with Trump. Trump has no recordings. They could alter their recordings to make it sound as if Trump agreed to something he did not, damaging our relations with allies. And Trump could not refute their propaganda.like what? explain your implications here.So you understand the dangers for Trump by testifying. Are there no dangers in him meeting dictators without advisers and recordkeepers?I understand that no one has to testify against themselves in this country.
I also understand that it is a perjury trap.
I also understand that it would be the first and a possible SCOTUS battle.
I also understand that Trump has executive priviedge.
