Perhaps Trump should refuse to honor Mueller's subpoena

[Reasonable]

The shit we are talking about with this criminal president after only one year in office.
It’s amazing. Looks like the T administration will break Reagan’s record of most indictments and convictions by a country mile.

 

[bendog]

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.

Stop picking on the President. He gets hungry a lot and needs to get fast food. He goes to bed early too.

 

[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.)

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.

^^ thinks trump’s innocent despite all the evidence.
Why don’t you just be honest for once in your life and admit you don’t want to know if your president is a crook.

 

[bendog]

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.

Starr

 

[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.

Stop picking on the President. He gets hungry a lot and needs to get fast food. He goes to bed early too.

Bette Midler (@BetteMidler)

“Trump doesn’t start work til 11AM & takes ‘executive time’ breaks all day. Thank god he’s lazy & not devoted to fucking things up
full-time.”

 

[Aldo Raine]

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.

I do not doubt that but do you have a link?

 

[westwall]

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.)

Sounds good. obummer made a habit of it too...

 

[busybee01]

Gnat, you keep creating these threads to stir up a lot of emotion...mostly butt-hurt 'hate'...but you never have any evidence.

As I pointed out, the snowflakes / butt-hurt Liberals have been waging this Witch Hunt War against the elected President for a year now, and THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE EVIDENCE THAT A CRIME WAS COMMITTED, NOT TO MENTION THEY DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF A CRIME PERPETRATED BY TRUMP....which, again, is because THEY CAN'T EVEN PROVE A CRIME WAS COMMITTED.

'COLLUSION' IS NOT A CRIME.

Hiding evidence of Russia's attempt to buy Uranium One while committing crimes of bribery, extortion, intimidation, buying politicians like Hillary IS A CRIME....

HELPING the Russians / the KGB Bank buy Uranium One while hiding all of these crimes and while taking $145 million from the KGB Bank in the midst of a scandal in which Russians are buying US politicians IS A CRIME...

Hiding evidence of Russian hacking of US politicians, hiding the fact they are being allowed to run PsyOps missions in the US to divide the nation, and hiding the fact that the Russians are trying to interfere in US elections (because you want to get their permission to Un-Constitutionally invade Syria) IS A CRIME...

Conspiring to overthrow / take dpwn the newly elected President in case he wins - as an 'Insurance Policy' - while having been proven to have hidden crimes and taken action to protect the DNC candidate from being indicted for her proven crimes IS A CRIME

So the Russians bought 9 people. That is the number of people that had to approve the Uranium One deal. There is no evidence she even spoke to anyone about the deal. NO CRIME!!

There was no conspiracy by anyone except in your crazy mind. You may not agree with their assessment but that does not make it criminal. NO CRIME!!

 

[Lastamender]

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

Why?

 

[Lastamender]

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.

^^ thinks trump’s innocent despite all the evidence.
Why don’t you just be honest for once in your life and admit you don’t want to know if your president is a crook.

What evidence?

 

[bendog]

trolling, trolling, trolling merrily along. LOL

But seriously, I wonder what Mueller wants to ask Trump directly. What team Trump would fear is Mueller asking questions about meetings with various people that he already knows took place and what was discussed. And they'd fear Trump's inability to restrain himself from being the story and just say "I don't recall."

 

[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.)

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.

guilty of what? do tell

 

[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.

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

NO troll, just get tired of non stop liars like you spewing garbage daily.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

So basically your party thinks impeachment is something to run on.
No valid justification, just impeach Trump cuz he won.
Collusion is a pipe-dream.
This new book is skitzoid because, according to Wolff, Trump never wanted to win in the first place, right??
He supposedly colluded with the Russians to win, but then again, he never wanted to actually win.

Wow!!

That's some really smart thinking.

 

[easyt65]

So the Russians bought 9 people. That is the number of people that had to approve the Uranium One deal. There is no evidence she even spoke to anyone about the deal. NO CRIME!!

1. Please provide the evidence that it was ONLY 9 people.

2. Evidence shows the $145 million given to Hillary came from the KGB Bank - owned by ex-KGB buddies of Putin, the leading financier of the Russian effort to buy Uranium One. Evidence shows they are the ones who also paid Bill Clinton $500k a pop for speeches. Evidence also shows Bill Clinton met with Putin after Russian Nuclear Commission Reps refused to meet with him

Nice Try....

Again, answer the 3 'Common Sense' questions I asked earlier....

Knowing about the Russian efforts and crimes, as evidence DOES show, why did Mueller, Holder, Obama keep it hidden, why did they withhold that information from the Committee responsible for approving or rejecting the deal, and why did Obama sign off on the deal after the committee signed off on it when he KNEW about their crimes and efforts?

Knowing all about their crimes and efforts, why would the Obama administration ever agree to sell 20% of our uranium supply to the Russians, even if they could not take it out of the country, which was NOT the case?

The Russians have it now, Hillary is $145 million Richer, the US is 20% poorer in uranium, and 'OOPS, My Bad' just doesn't quite cover this F*-Up!

 

[nat4900]

No president is ever brought to answer questions directly.

Reagan had to testify before a federal court and Clinton had to testify (for 4 hrs, I believe) before a grand jury........

Should your orange hero be exempt because he is "really smart" and a "very stable genius" ???

 

[nat4900]

Sounds good. obummer made a habit of it too...

Really,Mr Nitwit???.............Obama was PERSONALLY issued a subpoena and he refused to honor it???

PLEASE tell us more.....

(Btw, Mike Flynn refused his subpoena and it worked "rather well" for him, don't ou think?)

 

[nat4900]

What evidence?

Nothing, nothing.....sorry to wake you up.....Go back to your nap.

 

[nat4900]

He supposedly colluded with the Russians to win, but then again, he never wanted to actually win.

MudFace moron........see if this helps....

trump is too fucking stupid to adequately collude with his own navel...The Russians are too smart to trust this big mouth idiot with collusion...His crooked entourage, however, is a whole OTHER story altogether

The issue is your orange hero's attempt to OBSTRUCT an investigation.

Be patient.....its coming.

 

[Lastamender]

What evidence?

Nothing, nothing.....sorry to wake you up.....Go back to your nap.

You admit there is no evidence, thanks.