Nunes Memo Prediction Thread

[Skylar]

Says who?

Smiling....you're citing yourself as a legal authority, aren't you JC?

it's just a fact. don't need to be a legal expert to know this. you should really educate yourself.

Then it will be remarkably easy to prove if its a fact. Prove that a president never has to testify.

If I can show you *any* example of a sitting president being obligated to testify under oath.....you'll admit you're full of shit, yes?

Clinton. you need to read up on why he was giving testimony. funny. he's the only president.

Laughing!

So a president doesn't have to ever give testimony......unless he does.

So much for your 'fact'.

nope, he doesn't have to. at all.

You literally gave us an example of how you're wrong. With Clinton being forced to give testimony under oath as president.

Not only can't you back up your pseudo-legal gibberish with evidence, you've proven yourself wrong.

How someone can be wrong twice on the same claim, I have no idea. But you managed!

 

[jc456]

I don't care if he testifies. I am just telling you what the usual standard is.

Oh, obviously. That's why you've spent 4 posts awkwardly trying to justify why Trump shouldn't have to testify.

Smiling....because you 'don't care'.

You blinked. So much for 'transparency' and 'cooperation'. But then we already knew they were full of shit on that one when the White House instructed Bannon to refuse to cooperate with the House intel committee.

The stink of cold animal fear is thick in the air.

well he doesn't have to testify. a president doesn't have to ever give testimony. you know this right?

he does to anything before he was installed. & he cannot declare 'executive privilege' on himself either.

no he doesn't. It had to be existing. he has none. only Clinton did.

Um, JC......Clinton was president. You said a president doesn't ever have to give testimony.

Then astonishingly contradicted yourself by giving us an example of a president who did.

I don't think 'fact' means what you think it means.

I said doesn't have to. correct. Clinton agreed to.

 

[jc456]

it's just a fact. don't need to be a legal expert to know this. you should really educate yourself.

Then it will be remarkably easy to prove if its a fact. Prove that a president never has to testify.

If I can show you *any* example of a sitting president being obligated to testify under oath.....you'll admit you're full of shit, yes?

Clinton. you need to read up on why he was giving testimony. funny. he's the only president.

Laughing!

So a president doesn't have to ever give testimony......unless he does.

So much for your 'fact'.

nope, he doesn't have to. at all.

You literally gave us an example of how you're wrong. With Clinton being forced to give testimony under oath as president.

Not only can't you back up your pseudo-legal gibberish with evidence, you've proven yourself wrong.

How someone can be wrong twice on the same claim, I have no idea. But you managed!

he was not forced to give testimony. post that link that says he was forced to.

 

[Skylar]

Then it will be remarkably easy to prove if its a fact. Prove that a president never has to testify.

If I can show you *any* example of a sitting president being obligated to testify under oath.....you'll admit you're full of shit, yes?

Clinton. you need to read up on why he was giving testimony. funny. he's the only president.

Laughing!

So a president doesn't have to ever give testimony......unless he does.

So much for your 'fact'.

nope, he doesn't have to. at all.

You literally gave us an example of how you're wrong. With Clinton being forced to give testimony under oath as president.

Not only can't you back up your pseudo-legal gibberish with evidence, you've proven yourself wrong.

How someone can be wrong twice on the same claim, I have no idea. But you managed!

he was not forced to give testimony. post that link that says he was forced to.

Laughing....you don't get to demand links until you can back your claim that a president doesn't have to ever give testimony. When you've backed your claim with links and evidence, you can demand it of others.

Oh, and feel free to look up Clinton v. Jones from 1997. Its a Supreme Court case that obliterated your pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[jc456]

Clinton. you need to read up on why he was giving testimony. funny. he's the only president.

Laughing!

So a president doesn't have to ever give testimony......unless he does.

So much for your 'fact'.

nope, he doesn't have to. at all.

You literally gave us an example of how you're wrong. With Clinton being forced to give testimony under oath as president.

Not only can't you back up your pseudo-legal gibberish with evidence, you've proven yourself wrong.

How someone can be wrong twice on the same claim, I have no idea. But you managed!

he was not forced to give testimony. post that link that says he was forced to.

Laughing....you don't get to demand links until you can back your claim that a president doesn't have to ever give testimony. When you've backed your claim with links and evidence, you can demand it of others.

Oh, and feel free to look up Clinton v. Jones from 1997. Its a Supreme Court case that obliterated your pseudo-legal gibberish.

yep look it up.

 

[playtime]

Then it will be remarkably easy to prove if its a fact. Prove that a president never has to testify.

If I can show you *any* example of a sitting president being obligated to testify under oath.....you'll admit you're full of shit, yes?

Clinton. you need to read up on why he was giving testimony. funny. he's the only president.

Laughing!

So a president doesn't have to ever give testimony......unless he does.

So much for your 'fact'.

nope, he doesn't have to. at all.

You literally gave us an example of how you're wrong. With Clinton being forced to give testimony under oath as president.

Not only can't you back up your pseudo-legal gibberish with evidence, you've proven yourself wrong.

How someone can be wrong twice on the same claim, I have no idea. But you managed!

he was not forced to give testimony. post that link that says he was forced to.

why did trump hire a lawyer that represents HIM... outside of the office of the presidency? he doesn't have to testify for the reason of self incrimination... which means he would have to resign or face impeachment. if he resigns, that does not mean he cannot be charged with criminal acts both federal & state. he's screwed either way.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, obviously. That's why you've spent 4 posts awkwardly trying to justify why Trump shouldn't have to testify.

Smiling....because you 'don't care'.

You blinked. So much for 'transparency' and 'cooperation'. But then we already knew they were full of shit on that one when the White House instructed Bannon to refuse to cooperate with the House intel committee.

The stink of cold animal fear is thick in the air.

well he doesn't have to testify. a president doesn't have to ever give testimony. you know this right?

he does to anything before he was installed. & he cannot declare 'executive privilege' on himself either.

no he doesn't. It had to be existing. he has none. only Clinton did.

Um, JC......Clinton was president. You said a president doesn't ever have to give testimony.

Then astonishingly contradicted yourself by giving us an example of a president who did.

I don't think 'fact' means what you think it means.

I said doesn't have to. correct. Clinton agreed to.

No, Clinton was forced to. The USSC itself ruled that clinton didn't have immunity for cases that arose before he was president.

Unanimously.

Remember, JC....and this point is important: You have *no* idea what you're talking about. Literally none. You're just making shit up as you go along.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing!

So a president doesn't have to ever give testimony......unless he does.

So much for your 'fact'.

nope, he doesn't have to. at all.

You literally gave us an example of how you're wrong. With Clinton being forced to give testimony under oath as president.

Not only can't you back up your pseudo-legal gibberish with evidence, you've proven yourself wrong.

How someone can be wrong twice on the same claim, I have no idea. But you managed!

he was not forced to give testimony. post that link that says he was forced to.

Laughing....you don't get to demand links until you can back your claim that a president doesn't have to ever give testimony. When you've backed your claim with links and evidence, you can demand it of others.

Oh, and feel free to look up Clinton v. Jones from 1997. Its a Supreme Court case that obliterated your pseudo-legal gibberish.

yep look it up.

I did. The Supreme Court ruled UNANIMOUSLY that a sitting president is no immunity for acts done before he was president. He was subpoena'd and forced to testify.

You simply don't know what you're talking about JC.

 

[jc456]

Clinton. you need to read up on why he was giving testimony. funny. he's the only president.

Laughing!

So a president doesn't have to ever give testimony......unless he does.

So much for your 'fact'.

nope, he doesn't have to. at all.

You literally gave us an example of how you're wrong. With Clinton being forced to give testimony under oath as president.

Not only can't you back up your pseudo-legal gibberish with evidence, you've proven yourself wrong.

How someone can be wrong twice on the same claim, I have no idea. But you managed!

he was not forced to give testimony. post that link that says he was forced to.

Laughing....you don't get to demand links until you can back your claim that a president doesn't have to ever give testimony. When you've backed your claim with links and evidence, you can demand it of others.

Oh, and feel free to look up Clinton v. Jones from 1997. Its a Supreme Court case that obliterated your pseudo-legal gibberish.

here bubba,

A Chronology: Key Moments In The Clinton-Lewinsky Saga

"July 29, 1998: President Bill Clinton agrees to testify voluntarily and Starr's office withdraws the subpoena. Clinton's testimony is set for Aug. 17 at the White House."

 

[jc456]

Clinton. you need to read up on why he was giving testimony. funny. he's the only president.

Laughing!

So a president doesn't have to ever give testimony......unless he does.

So much for your 'fact'.

nope, he doesn't have to. at all.

You literally gave us an example of how you're wrong. With Clinton being forced to give testimony under oath as president.

Not only can't you back up your pseudo-legal gibberish with evidence, you've proven yourself wrong.

How someone can be wrong twice on the same claim, I have no idea. But you managed!

he was not forced to give testimony. post that link that says he was forced to.

why did trump hire a lawyer that represents HIM... outside of the office of the presidency? he doesn't have to testify for the reason of self incrimination... which means he would have to resign or face impeachment. if he resigns, that does not mean he cannot be charged with criminal acts both federal & state. he's screwed either way.

Clinton had a personal lawyer. Bush had a personal lawyer. it's normal.

 

[jc456]

well he doesn't have to testify. a president doesn't have to ever give testimony. you know this right?

he does to anything before he was installed. & he cannot declare 'executive privilege' on himself either.

no he doesn't. It had to be existing. he has none. only Clinton did.

Um, JC......Clinton was president. You said a president doesn't ever have to give testimony.

Then astonishingly contradicted yourself by giving us an example of a president who did.

I don't think 'fact' means what you think it means.

I said doesn't have to. correct. Clinton agreed to.

No, Clinton was forced to. The USSC itself ruled that clinton didn't have immunity for cases that arose before he was president.

Unanimously.

Remember, JC....and this point is important: You have *no* idea what you're talking about. Literally none. You're just making shit up as you go along.

no he wasn't. fk I just posted it, go read.

A Chronology: Key Moments In The Clinton-Lewinsky Saga

"July 29, 1998: President Bill Clinton agrees to testify voluntarily and Starr's office withdraws the subpoena. Clinton's testimony is set for Aug. 17 at the White House."

show me the word forced in that.

 

[Skylar]

he does to anything before he was installed. & he cannot declare 'executive privilege' on himself either.

no he doesn't. It had to be existing. he has none. only Clinton did.

Um, JC......Clinton was president. You said a president doesn't ever have to give testimony.

Then astonishingly contradicted yourself by giving us an example of a president who did.

I don't think 'fact' means what you think it means.

I said doesn't have to. correct. Clinton agreed to.

No, Clinton was forced to. The USSC itself ruled that clinton didn't have immunity for cases that arose before he was president.

Unanimously.

Remember, JC....and this point is important: You have *no* idea what you're talking about. Literally none. You're just making shit up as you go along.

no he wasn't. fk I just posted it, go read.

A Chronology: Key Moments In The Clinton-Lewinsky Saga

"July 29, 1998: President Bill Clinton agrees to testify voluntarily and Starr's office withdraws the subpoena. Clinton's testimony is set for Aug. 17 at the White House."

show me the word forced in that.

Laughing.....this was AFTER the Supreme Court ruled that Clinton had no immunity from any judicial actions. Including subpoenas. And that a president could be forced to abide subpoenas. This was a classic 'volunteer or be drafted' scenario. If Clinton hadn't 'volunteered', he would have been forced to testify......as the president was subject to subpoenas.

It was hardly a new idea. The Court ruled the same way against Nixon in the 70s.

"neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Nor can you back up the claim that no president is every required to testify. The Supreme Court has found *repeatedly* that the President is subject to judicial jurisdiction.

 

[jc456]

no he doesn't. It had to be existing. he has none. only Clinton did.

Um, JC......Clinton was president. You said a president doesn't ever have to give testimony.

Then astonishingly contradicted yourself by giving us an example of a president who did.

I don't think 'fact' means what you think it means.

I said doesn't have to. correct. Clinton agreed to.

No, Clinton was forced to. The USSC itself ruled that clinton didn't have immunity for cases that arose before he was president.

Unanimously.

Remember, JC....and this point is important: You have *no* idea what you're talking about. Literally none. You're just making shit up as you go along.

no he wasn't. fk I just posted it, go read.

A Chronology: Key Moments In The Clinton-Lewinsky Saga

"July 29, 1998: President Bill Clinton agrees to testify voluntarily and Starr's office withdraws the subpoena. Clinton's testimony is set for Aug. 17 at the White House."

show me the word forced in that.

Laughing.....this was AFTER the Supreme Court ruled that Clinton had no immunity from any judicial actions. Including subpoenas. And that a president could be forced to abide subpoenas. This was a classic 'volunteer or be drafted' scenario. If Clinton hadn't 'volunteered', he would have been forced to testify......as the president was subject to subpoenas.

It was hardly a new idea. The Court ruled the same way against Nixon in the 70s. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

dude, laughing, he wasn't forced. too funny. you just admitted he volunteered. that isn't forced.

 

[jc456]

well he doesn't have to testify. a president doesn't have to ever give testimony. you know this right?

he does to anything before he was installed. & he cannot declare 'executive privilege' on himself either.

no he doesn't. It had to be existing. he has none. only Clinton did.

Um, JC......Clinton was president. You said a president doesn't ever have to give testimony.

Then astonishingly contradicted yourself by giving us an example of a president who did.

I don't think 'fact' means what you think it means.

I said doesn't have to. correct. Clinton agreed to.

No, Clinton was forced to. The USSC itself ruled that clinton didn't have immunity for cases that arose before he was president.

Unanimously.

Remember, JC....and this point is important: You have *no* idea what you're talking about. Literally none. You're just making shit up as you go along.

not lewinsky. that's on him for lying. he fking lied. the jones case was dismissed. again, no need to testify. fk dude go through the link I gave you.

 

[Skylar]

he does to anything before he was installed. & he cannot declare 'executive privilege' on himself either.

no he doesn't. It had to be existing. he has none. only Clinton did.

Um, JC......Clinton was president. You said a president doesn't ever have to give testimony.

Then astonishingly contradicted yourself by giving us an example of a president who did.

I don't think 'fact' means what you think it means.

I said doesn't have to. correct. Clinton agreed to.

No, Clinton was forced to. The USSC itself ruled that clinton didn't have immunity for cases that arose before he was president.

Unanimously.

Remember, JC....and this point is important: You have *no* idea what you're talking about. Literally none. You're just making shit up as you go along.

not lewinsky. that's on him for lying. he fking lied. the jones case was dismissed. again, no need to testify. fk dude go through the link I gave you.

The question in the Clinton v. Jones case was whether or not a sitting president was subject to judicial process for acts BEFORE he was president. The court found unanimous that under certain circumstances, the president was subject to judicial process. Including the enforcement of subpoenas.

Clinton had *no* immunity in the Jones case. If subpeonad, he'd have to testify. Just like anyone else.

Your claims of universal immunity for the President is pure pseudo-legal fiction. And contradicted by the court repeatedly. Again, as quoted in Clinton v. Jones....is US v. Nixon.

".....neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."

US V. Nixon (1974)

Exactly as predicted, JC.....you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[The Original Tree]

Correct! No sworn under oath testimony is needed because lying to the FBI is
not just illegal, it's a felony! No oath required!

Trump doesn't even have to speak to Mueller because there is no evidence of any crimes committed by President Trump.
And there is no Evidence of Russian Collusion.

Mueller in the end most likely will just submit his questions in writing, and POTUS will reply in writing, and then Mueller will finally exhaust his witch hunt coming up empty.

Laughing....and the pathetic excuses for why Trump shouldn't have to testify under oath have already begun.

You just blinked.

I don't care if he testifies. I am just telling you what the usual standard is.

Oh, obviously. That's why you've spent 4 posts awkwardly trying to justify why Trump shouldn't have to testify.

Smiling....because you 'don't care'.

You blinked. So much for 'transparency' and 'cooperation'. But then we already knew they were full of shit on that one when the White House instructed Bannon to refuse to cooperate with the House intel committee.

The stink of cold animal fear is thick in the air.

well he doesn't have to testify. a president doesn't have to ever give testimony. you know this right?

Unless they are acussed of an ACTUAL CRIME and they have EVIDENCE OF IT like Bill Clinton Had against him Then you have to testify. They just couldn't pin enough on him, because well....the guy who KNEW and could testify to the crimes murdered himself, and others chose to go to jail rather than Rat out Bill and Hillary.

No one will go to Jail from The Trump Administration, like they went to jail from The Clinton Administration.

President Trump can do what he wants, but Unlike Bill Clinton who was forced to testify and was impeached, they cannot force President Trump to testify because there are no criminal charges being investigated, nor are any criminal indictments being submitted to him or his attorneys that implicate or indicate The President.

 

[Skylar]

Trump doesn't even have to speak to Mueller because there is no evidence of any crimes committed by President Trump.
And there is no Evidence of Russian Collusion.

Mueller in the end most likely will just submit his questions in writing, and POTUS will reply in writing, and then Mueller will finally exhaust his witch hunt coming up empty.

Laughing....and the pathetic excuses for why Trump shouldn't have to testify under oath have already begun.

You just blinked.

I don't care if he testifies. I am just telling you what the usual standard is.

Oh, obviously. That's why you've spent 4 posts awkwardly trying to justify why Trump shouldn't have to testify.

Smiling....because you 'don't care'.

You blinked. So much for 'transparency' and 'cooperation'. But then we already knew they were full of shit on that one when the White House instructed Bannon to refuse to cooperate with the House intel committee.

The stink of cold animal fear is thick in the air.

well he doesn't have to testify. a president doesn't have to ever give testimony. you know this right?

Unless they are acussed of an ACTUAL CRIME and they have EVIDENCE OF IT like Bill Clinton Was. Then you have to testify.

Nope. There's no such caveats. And Clinton wasn't accused of a crime in Clinton v. Jones. It was a civil matter.

President Trump can do what he wants, but Unlike Bill Clinton who was forced to testify and was impeached, they cannot force President Trump to testify because there is no criminal charges being investigated, nor are any criminal indictments being submitted to him

There is no universal immunity from judicial process for the president. Nixon was forced to comply with subpoenas. As was Clinton.

Trump's 'immunity' is quite imaginary.

 

[jc456]

Trump doesn't even have to speak to Mueller because there is no evidence of any crimes committed by President Trump.
And there is no Evidence of Russian Collusion.

Mueller in the end most likely will just submit his questions in writing, and POTUS will reply in writing, and then Mueller will finally exhaust his witch hunt coming up empty.

Laughing....and the pathetic excuses for why Trump shouldn't have to testify under oath have already begun.

You just blinked.

I don't care if he testifies. I am just telling you what the usual standard is.

Oh, obviously. That's why you've spent 4 posts awkwardly trying to justify why Trump shouldn't have to testify.

Smiling....because you 'don't care'.

You blinked. So much for 'transparency' and 'cooperation'. But then we already knew they were full of shit on that one when the White House instructed Bannon to refuse to cooperate with the House intel committee.

The stink of cold animal fear is thick in the air.

well he doesn't have to testify. a president doesn't have to ever give testimony. you know this right?

Unless they are acussed of an ACTUAL CRIME and they have EVIDENCE OF IT like Bill Clinton Had against him Then you have to testify. They just couldn't pin enough on him, because well....the guy who KNEW and could testify to the crimes murdered himself, and others chose to go to jail rather than Rat out Bill and Hillary.

No one will go to Jail from The Trump Administration, like they went to jail from The Clinton Administration.

President Trump can do what he wants, but Unlike Bill Clinton who was forced to testify and was impeached, they cannot force President Trump to testify because there are no criminal charges being investigated, nor are any criminal indictments being submitted to him or his attorneys that implicate or indicate The President.

impeachment does not mean remove from office. to be removed from office there needs to be a 2/3 vote in the senate. Never gonna happen ever.

 

[jc456]

no he doesn't. It had to be existing. he has none. only Clinton did.

Um, JC......Clinton was president. You said a president doesn't ever have to give testimony.

Then astonishingly contradicted yourself by giving us an example of a president who did.

I don't think 'fact' means what you think it means.

I said doesn't have to. correct. Clinton agreed to.

No, Clinton was forced to. The USSC itself ruled that clinton didn't have immunity for cases that arose before he was president.

Unanimously.

Remember, JC....and this point is important: You have *no* idea what you're talking about. Literally none. You're just making shit up as you go along.

not lewinsky. that's on him for lying. he fking lied. the jones case was dismissed. again, no need to testify. fk dude go through the link I gave you.

The question in the Clinton v. Jones case was whether or not a sitting president was subject to judicial process for acts BEFORE he was president. The court found unanimous that under certain circumstances, the president was subject to judicial process. Including the enforcement of subpoenas.

Clinton had *no* immunity in the Jones case. If subpeonad, he'd have to testify. Just like anyone else.

Your claims of universal immunity for the President is pure pseudo-legal fiction. And contradicted by the court repeatedly. Again, as quoted in Clinton v. Jones....is US v. Nixon.

".....neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."

US V. Nixon (1974)

Exactly as predicted, JC.....you don't know what you're talking about.

no united states president has ever forcibly testified. ever.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing....and the pathetic excuses for why Trump shouldn't have to testify under oath have already begun.

You just blinked.

I don't care if he testifies. I am just telling you what the usual standard is.

Oh, obviously. That's why you've spent 4 posts awkwardly trying to justify why Trump shouldn't have to testify.

Smiling....because you 'don't care'.

You blinked. So much for 'transparency' and 'cooperation'. But then we already knew they were full of shit on that one when the White House instructed Bannon to refuse to cooperate with the House intel committee.

The stink of cold animal fear is thick in the air.

well he doesn't have to testify. a president doesn't have to ever give testimony. you know this right?

Unless they are acussed of an ACTUAL CRIME and they have EVIDENCE OF IT like Bill Clinton Had against him Then you have to testify. They just couldn't pin enough on him, because well....the guy who KNEW and could testify to the crimes murdered himself, and others chose to go to jail rather than Rat out Bill and Hillary.

No one will go to Jail from The Trump Administration, like they went to jail from The Clinton Administration.

President Trump can do what he wants, but Unlike Bill Clinton who was forced to testify and was impeached, they cannot force President Trump to testify because there are no criminal charges being investigated, nor are any criminal indictments being submitted to him or his attorneys that implicate or indicate The President.

impeachment does not mean remove from office. to be removed from office there needs to be a 2/3 vote in the senate. Never gonna happen ever.

I wouldn't say 'never'. But certainly not until at least 2018.