A simple question

[jc456]

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?

charge him and take him to court. let's hear the crime. not sure ahead of that what the purpose would serve. please explain the agenda for a sit down?
how was it being head of the FBI and fking up so badly?
what about those americans you ruined lives of?
Oh wait, you want a sit down where only mueller gets to talk right?
How is that the same?
so your offer isn't the same as a sit down with mueller as Kim and Putin. got it. that's called stupid. And it appears our President is not that.

BTW, I doubt any fking one of you would sit down with the man either.

 

[Nosmo King]

Loretta Lynch fumbled on HSBC years ago. Now she can prove no bank is too big to jail | Bartlett Naylor

Lynch’s investigation did result in a December 2012 deferred prosecution agreement, which is a half-measure in criminal cases, somewhere between a conviction and exoneration. In this agreement, HSBC admitted to massive money laundering violations for narco-traffickers, terrorists and tyrants. This involved more than $200tn in wire transfers. But Lynch did not bring criminal charges against HSBC or any HSBC executives for this admitted money laundering.

Instead, the deal required that the bank pay $1.9bn, about five weeks profit in fines – money that was effectively paid by shareholders. The settlement also required HSBC to appoint a compliance monitor and institute reforms to prevent future wrongdoing. Lynch did not explain how they came up with $1.9bn. Was this more than the bank profited from money laundering? Was there some formula?

The settlement itself, and various Obama officials who chanced to appear before congressional panels at unlucky times, drew fire from understandably infuriated lawmakers. For example, Sen Elizabeth Warren challenged federal regulators including David Cohen, the undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the Department of the Treasury, in a Senate hearing in March 2013 about the calculation. She demanded to know how much money a firm needed to launder for the government to shut it down. Cohen declined to respond to such “hypotheticals”.

On 6 March 2013, the outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee that some firms are so large that a criminal case would lead to financial calamity.

I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute – if we do bring a criminal charge – it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy. I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.

He has since walked these comments back.

This fails to answer the simple question posed in the OP.

 

[easyt65]

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?

Is sitting down in one-on-one meetings with other nation's leaders something new that President Trump instituted when he became President?

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.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

Only with a subpoena...

Would it be seen as a constitutional crisis should Trump be subpoenaed and refuse to,honor that subpoena?

That would be a Supreme Court Battle......

And if you issue a subpoena..............show the evidence and the crime..............

Go ahead.............Dance.

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

charge him and take him to court. let's hear the crime. not sure ahead of that what the purpose would serve. please explain the agenda for a sit down?
how was it being head of the FBI and fking up so badly?
what about those americans you ruined lives of?
Oh wait, you want a sit down where only mueller gets to talk right?
How is that the same?
so your offer isn't the same as a sit down with mueller as Kim and Putin. got it. that's called stupid. And it appears our President is not that.

I can only pray Trump gets to speak. If he takes the fifth, could we then cite what he said about those who take the fifth?

Why do you trust Putin and Kim more than an American lawyer?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Would it be seen as a constitutional crisis should Trump be subpoenaed and refuse to,honor that subpoena?

More than likely that would be up to the Justice's to decide...

 

[eagle1462010]

Loretta Lynch fumbled on HSBC years ago. Now she can prove no bank is too big to jail | Bartlett Naylor

Lynch’s investigation did result in a December 2012 deferred prosecution agreement, which is a half-measure in criminal cases, somewhere between a conviction and exoneration. In this agreement, HSBC admitted to massive money laundering violations for narco-traffickers, terrorists and tyrants. This involved more than $200tn in wire transfers. But Lynch did not bring criminal charges against HSBC or any HSBC executives for this admitted money laundering.

Instead, the deal required that the bank pay $1.9bn, about five weeks profit in fines – money that was effectively paid by shareholders. The settlement also required HSBC to appoint a compliance monitor and institute reforms to prevent future wrongdoing. Lynch did not explain how they came up with $1.9bn. Was this more than the bank profited from money laundering? Was there some formula?

The settlement itself, and various Obama officials who chanced to appear before congressional panels at unlucky times, drew fire from understandably infuriated lawmakers. For example, Sen Elizabeth Warren challenged federal regulators including David Cohen, the undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the Department of the Treasury, in a Senate hearing in March 2013 about the calculation. She demanded to know how much money a firm needed to launder for the government to shut it down. Cohen declined to respond to such “hypotheticals”.

On 6 March 2013, the outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee that some firms are so large that a criminal case would lead to financial calamity.

I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute – if we do bring a criminal charge – it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy. I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.

He has since walked these comments back.

This fails to answer the simple question posed in the OP.

I beg to differ as many of the same people associated with that stuff are still there and were in on the investigation........

Comey quit the HSBC board of directors to become FBI top dog..........and the Clinton Foundation got massive contributions.....lol......from that bank.

They laundered money to Drug Cartels...............and none of them are in jail.

HYPOCRISY of a corrupt Gov't........

 

[eagle1462010]

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?

charge him and take him to court. let's hear the crime. not sure ahead of that what the purpose would serve. please explain the agenda for a sit down?
how was it being head of the FBI and fking up so badly?
what about those americans you ruined lives of?
Oh wait, you want a sit down where only mueller gets to talk right?
How is that the same?
so your offer isn't the same as a sit down with mueller as Kim and Putin. got it. that's called stupid. And it appears our President is not that.

BTW, I doubt any fking one of you would sit down with the man either.

I agree ..........Put up or shut up.............

 

[Ridgerunner]

This POTUS will never take the fifth...

 

[jc456]

He has no reason to appear............Charge him or STFU

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.

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.

 

[eagle1462010]

This POTUS will never take the fifth...

LOL

True...........he'll tweet them into oblivion. LOL

 

[jc456]

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?

charge him and take him to court. let's hear the crime. not sure ahead of that what the purpose would serve. please explain the agenda for a sit down?
how was it being head of the FBI and fking up so badly?
what about those americans you ruined lives of?
Oh wait, you want a sit down where only mueller gets to talk right?
How is that the same?
so your offer isn't the same as a sit down with mueller as Kim and Putin. got it. that's called stupid. And it appears our President is not that.

I can only pray Trump gets to speak. If he takes the fifth, could we then cite what he said about those who take the fifth?

Why do you trust Putin and Kim more than an American lawyer?

I just explained it to you. I trust no fking human.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Is sitting down in one-on-one meetings with other nation's leaders something new that President Trump instituted when he became President?

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?

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

Is sitting down in one-on-one meetings with other nation's leaders something new that President Trump instituted when he became President?

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.

There are no written records of the meetings. No advisors were in the meetings.

What if Putin and Kim recorded the meetings? We have no evidence to refute their records.

Could Kim or Putin alter their recordings to make it sound as if Trump said something he did not?

Why would Trump endanger our nation so recklessly? What's so scary about an American lawyer?

 

[jc456]

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?

Is sitting down in one-on-one meetings with other nation's leaders something new that President Trump instituted when he became President?

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?

what does that have to do with the rest of the country vote? he lost california. we know this.

 

[Nosmo King]

He has no reason to appear............Charge him or STFU

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.

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.

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?

 

[jc456]

He has no reason to appear............Charge him or STFU

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.

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.

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?

what else would it be for exactly? explain your thought here?

 

[eagle1462010]

He has no reason to appear............Charge him or STFU

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.

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.

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 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.

 

[jc456]

He has no reason to appear............Charge him or STFU

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.

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.

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 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.

I don't understand what the fk that fk is even suggesting.

 

[Nosmo King]

He has no reason to appear............Charge him or STFU

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.

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.

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?

what else would it be for exactly? explain your thought here?

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?