Perhaps Trump should refuse to honor Mueller's subpoena

[LordBrownTrout]

O claimed executive privilege when him and holder were running guns. Trump can also.

"Brilliant"......Could you name the special prosecutor that the GOP majority appointed to investigate Obama's "running guns"???.................LOL

I really do feel sorry for you. The desperation is manifesting itself in many ways with you, lol. When trump gets reelected, you'll need to be surounded by padded walls. Stage four trump derangement syndrome.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

O claimed executive privilege when him and holder were running guns. Trump can also.

"Brilliant"......Could you name the special prosecutor that the GOP majority appointed to investigate Obama's "running guns"???.................LOL

Again, you're f*ing idiot....

Obama US AG Eric Holder became the 1st US AG in US HISTORY to ever be Censured ... by a bi-partisan Congress, no less ... for proven crimes of Felony Perjury in his part to cover up the illegal Gun Running operation approved and ordered by Barak Obama. Obama protected Holder from Indictment / Prison, as Holder attempted to protect Obama from the Fast and Furious Scandal, but Congress refused to allow Holder's crimes go un-punished.

He's delusional and blissfully ignorant.

 

[mudwhistle]

Again, answer questions about WHAT?

It has been over a year now, and Democrats / Mueller have not even proved that a crime has been committed yet...which makes this one huge FISHING EXPEDITION.

Mueller and his team have already proven that they are focused on playing 'Gottcha', trying to get people to incriminate themselves under oath during an investigation that has no crime to investigate.

'Collusion' is not a crime.

Even if it was, there is no evidence that Trump engaged in any with the Russians...as opposed to all of the evidence proving Mueller, Holder, Comey, Lynch, Hillary, McCabe, and Obama DID!

Trump should declare hew will only honor the subpoena if Mueller can prove that there was a crime committed. Even then, knowing this is a set up...and knowing Hillary lied her ass off before Congress - being allowed to testify without being under oath so she could get away with lying, Trump should refuse to take part in the Witch Hunt by simply pleading the 5th....like just about all of the Democrats have done to escape punishment for their PROVEN crimes.

He can't plead the 5th because there's no crime.
He should just ignore the summons and take the fucker to court.

 

[nat4900]

If I was Trump I'd claim Executive Privilege and tell him to go fuck himself.

Its always a "good thing" for a president to declare himself a king and above the law of the common underlings (and be backed by the 35% of Trump cult members).......
I mean, what could possibly go wrong?........LOL

 

[easyt65]

Its always a "good thing" for a president to declare himself a king and above the law of the common underlings

It worked fot Obama .. but only because he 'owned' the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, IRS, BLM, etc....

 

[nat4900]

It worked fot Obama .. but only because he 'owned' the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, IRS, BLM, etc....

Just out of curiosity, was Obama under investigation by a special prosecutor???

Yes or No, Mr. Fuckhead???............................LOL

 

[easyt65]

It worked fot Obama .. but only because he 'owned' the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, IRS, BLM, etc....

Just out of curiosity, was Obama under investigation by a special prosecutor???

Yes or No, Mr. Fuckhead???............................LOL

NO...but only because he 'owned' the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, IRS, BLM, etc


Now answer me a question, 'Mr. Fuckhead':

What crime was ever perpetrated for this investigation to be needed (and please provide the evidence)?

(I mean BESIDES Comey, Hillary, and Obama illegally buying and using in a US election a Russia Propaganda-filled fake report from a foreign agent / ex-spy through a firm working for the Russians....and BESIDES Hillary losing the 2016 election...)

 

[nat4900]

If I was Trump I'd claim Executive Privilege and tell him to go fuck himself.

I actually DO hope that Trump does that......

The Supreme Court does have the final voice in determining constitutional questions; no person, not even the president of the United States, is completely above the law; and the SCOTUS has already ruled that a president cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence.

ONLY the likes of a corrupt Trump could EVER be making Richard Nixon come off as a patriot, placing the country above partisanship.

 

[g5000]

He'll question him several times and then charge him with lying.

Because the pathological liar can't keep his story straight.

 

[nat4900]

Because the pathological liar can't keep his story straight.

But.....that must be the plight of a self-proclaimed, "very stable genius," I'd guess

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Framers did address the issue in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Once removed from office via the impeachment process, a former president and private citizen is subject to criminal prosecution.

 

[busybee01]

If he answers the questions , he needs to do it in person, not in writing.

Mueller wants to get him on a process crime.
He'll question him several times and then charge him with lying.

If I was Trump I'd claim Executive Privilege and tell him to go fuck himself.

Then don't lie. Executive Privilege will not stand up in court or in public opinion.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Then don't lie. Executive Privilege will not stand up in court or in public opinion.

Some people don't understand that Executive Privilege applies to the President, but Trump wasn't the President during the campaign so Executive Privilege doesn't apply to prior to Noon on January 20th. It also doesn't apply to criminal investigations.


>>>>

 

[miketx]

With Trump in the WH, this may be the optimum time to finally settle the issue that was poorly addressed by our founding fathers. The question is a rather simple one, but with far-reaching repercussions in defining a social democratic republic:

Do we elect someone who is above the legal standards of all other citizens, or do we elect someone who is a temporary holder of a high executive position, subject to the same standards of any other?

In a monarchy, there has always been this myth that the position of royalty is a "divine disposition"(as Louis XIV asserted, l'etat est moi.) But our wise founding fathers revolted against such a form of government. Nonetheless, they did not precisely restrict the powers invested in a POTUS.

With the advent and ascendancy of a Trump, this issue has reached the point of better defining what the role of a president should be in upholding the tenets of a free democratic republic.

So, let Trump defy the subpoena and let BOTH the people's will and the courts' judicial opinions finally settle this issue. (we had a partial assertion on this issue in the SCOTUS ruling in Nixon v.U.S.)

You know, I find myself wishing a non-denominational bolt of lightening would strike you because you are the most full of crap person I haver ever encountered. You don't really know a goddam thing but spew out garbage non stop.

 

[Reasonable]

With Trump in the WH, this may be the optimum time to finally settle the issue that was poorly addressed by our founding fathers. The question is a rather simple one, but with far-reaching repercussions in defining a social democratic republic:

Do we elect someone who is above the legal standards of all other citizens, or do we elect someone who is a temporary holder of a high executive position, subject to the same standards of any other?

In a monarchy, there has always been this myth that the position of royalty is a "divine disposition"(as Louis XIV asserted, l'etat est moi.) But our wise founding fathers revolted against such a form of government. Nonetheless, they did not precisely restrict the powers invested in a POTUS.

With the advent and ascendancy of a Trump, this issue has reached the point of better defining what the role of a president should be in upholding the tenets of a free democratic republic.

So, let Trump defy the subpoena and let BOTH the people's will and the courts' judicial opinions finally settle this issue. (we had a partial assertion on this issue in the SCOTUS ruling in Nixon v.U.S.)

He’s already given himself away he’s guilty as hell so why not stonewall the subpoena too and convince even more Americans he’s guilty.

 

[buckeye45_73]

With Trump in the WH, this may be the optimum time to finally settle the issue that was poorly addressed by our founding fathers. The question is a rather simple one, but with far-reaching repercussions in defining a social democratic republic:

Do we elect someone who is above the legal standards of all other citizens, or do we elect someone who is a temporary holder of a high executive position, subject to the same standards of any other?

In a monarchy, there has always been this myth that the position of royalty is a "divine disposition"(as Louis XIV asserted, l'etat est moi.) But our wise founding fathers revolted against such a form of government. Nonetheless, they did not precisely restrict the powers invested in a POTUS.

With the advent and ascendancy of a Trump, this issue has reached the point of better defining what the role of a president should be in upholding the tenets of a free democratic republic.

So, let Trump defy the subpoena and let BOTH the people's will and the courts' judicial opinions finally settle this issue. (we had a partial assertion on this issue in the SCOTUS ruling in Nixon v.U.S.)

I wouldn't, I would be like this is stupid, it's a waste of time......no crime was ever told to me or the public....so you're looking to penalize a mistake....no thanks......

 

[Reasonable]

Trump’s lawyers have said they want to limit the time the fake president will spend with Mueller.
They’re deathly afraid of him saying something stupid or self incriminating.

 

[Reasonable]

With Trump in the WH, this may be the optimum time to finally settle the issue that was poorly addressed by our founding fathers. The question is a rather simple one, but with far-reaching repercussions in defining a social democratic republic:

Do we elect someone who is above the legal standards of all other citizens, or do we elect someone who is a temporary holder of a high executive position, subject to the same standards of any other?

In a monarchy, there has always been this myth that the position of royalty is a "divine disposition"(as Louis XIV asserted, l'etat est moi.) But our wise founding fathers revolted against such a form of government. Nonetheless, they did not precisely restrict the powers invested in a POTUS.

With the advent and ascendancy of a Trump, this issue has reached the point of better defining what the role of a president should be in upholding the tenets of a free democratic republic.

So, let Trump defy the subpoena and let BOTH the people's will and the courts' judicial opinions finally settle this issue. (we had a partial assertion on this issue in the SCOTUS ruling in Nixon v.U.S.)

You know, I find myself wishing a non-denominational bolt of lightening would strike you because you are the most full of crap person I haver ever encountered. You don't really know a goddam thing but spew out garbage non stop.

Lil Mikey has his panties all up in a bunch again. But it is a good look on you.

 

[busybee01]

With Trump in the WH, this may be the optimum time to finally settle the issue that was poorly addressed by our founding fathers. The question is a rather simple one, but with far-reaching repercussions in defining a social democratic republic:

Do we elect someone who is above the legal standards of all other citizens, or do we elect someone who is a temporary holder of a high executive position, subject to the same standards of any other?

In a monarchy, there has always been this myth that the position of royalty is a "divine disposition"(as Louis XIV asserted, l'etat est moi.) But our wise founding fathers revolted against such a form of government. Nonetheless, they did not precisely restrict the powers invested in a POTUS.

With the advent and ascendancy of a Trump, this issue has reached the point of better defining what the role of a president should be in upholding the tenets of a free democratic republic.

So, let Trump defy the subpoena and let BOTH the people's will and the courts' judicial opinions finally settle this issue. (we had a partial assertion on this issue in the SCOTUS ruling in Nixon v.U.S.)

He doesent have to per the constitution...he is the president and we have three separate branches of government

So, you are saying that the president is seperate from the legal system?

Also, I feel pity for your ignorance, so let me educate you, Mueller was appointed by the DOJ, which is part of the same branch of the government of the President

The president is in charge of Mueller and can fire his ass any time and all the others right Einstein?

Trump cannot fire Mueller. He would have to order Rosenstein to fire Mueller. If Rosenstein refused, he would have to fire Rosenstein and move down the chain of command at the DOJ until someone agreed to do it. I would suggest you read about the Saturday Night Massacre. Nixon fired the AG and Deputy AG because they refused to fire the special prosecutor.

 

[toobfreak]

With Trump in the WH, this may be the optimum time to finally settle the issue that was poorly addressed by our founding fathers. The question is a rather simple one, but with far-reaching repercussions in defining a social democratic republic:

Do we elect someone who is above the legal standards of all other citizens, or do we elect someone who is a temporary holder of a high executive position, subject to the same standards of any other?

In a monarchy, there has always been this myth that the position of royalty is a "divine disposition"(as Louis XIV asserted, l'etat est moi.) But our wise founding fathers revolted against such a form of government. Nonetheless, they did not precisely restrict the powers invested in a POTUS.

With the advent and ascendancy of a Trump, this issue has reached the point of better defining what the role of a president should be in upholding the tenets of a free democratic republic.

So, let Trump defy the subpoena and let BOTH the people's will and the courts' judicial opinions finally settle this issue. (we had a partial assertion on this issue in the SCOTUS ruling in Nixon v.U.S.)

No president is ever brought to answer questions directly. Ain't never gonna happen. Any lawyer will tell you that you'd be walking right into a trap, even if you were as clean as a Girl Scout. Just another ploy by the Left grasping at straws trying to dream up another Trump fantasy.