Perhaps Trump should refuse to honor Mueller's subpoena

[toobfreak]

Why?


Why again?

Its all a secret....please don't tell anyone....

AS always, shooting with a gun full of blanks.

 

[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.

Or, as regular folk call it, an investigation.

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.

Obstruction of Justice is tho...

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!

Do you not understand 'ongoing investigation'?

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.

Yeah. He should totally do that.

There is no proof of obstruction either.
What we have is insiders trying to set up the president for impeachment.
We have their texts discussing a plan B if Hillary lost the election.
This investigation is Plan B.

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh, kind of like a conspiracy theory, something just pulled form the posterior. I was under the impression this forum was for the discussion of real political matters. That's why I questioned the existence of a subpoena.


.

No, it's a hypothetical. As in, part of a question.

"What do you think would happen if ______ were to happen?"

It's entirely appropriate for discussion. No one is forcing you to take part.

As in questioning something that has nothing to do with reality. Nothing wrong in pointing that out.


.

Oh, it has a lot to do with reality - it just hasn't actually happened (yet).

That's what hypotheticals are for.

Are you unfamiliar with the term?

No, I'm quite familiar with the term, been hearing them spewed from the left for years. Rarely do they have any connection to reality, they're mostly just wishful thinking, kind of like this one. Trump already said he'd have no problem talking to Mueller, subpoenas are issued to reluctant witnesses.


.

I'm sure you've heard the term, but I don't know if you've grasped it's meaning - particularly if you think that only "liberals" use them.

What do you call the hundreds, if not thousands of posts predicting the eminent arrest and imprisonment of Clinton/Mueller/Comey/and so on, if not hypothetical?

Not hypothetical at all, considering they were caught trying to provide cover for Hillary's criminal activities.

 

[nat4900]

Not hypothetical at all, considering they were caught trying to provide cover for Hillary's criminal activities.

You're sounding MORE stupid than usual, MudFace.......We worry about both your AND Trump's mental capacities......LOL

 

[rightwinger]

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.)

The rules do not apply to Donald J Trump.......never have

 

[eddiew37]

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

The President is NOT above the law

 

[easyt65]

If a policeman knocked on your door and served you with a subpoena to appear under oath before them / the FBI / a judge to testify about possible crimes you may have committed without being able to tell you what crime was committed or what EXACTLY your are suspected of doing you would throw a tantrum, call your lawyer - who would put an immediate stop to it and who would also tell you not to say a word to potentially incriminate yourself because - he would tell you - the police and prosecutors were 'gong on a fishing trip'.

Once again for the deniers and slow snowflake readers / 'comprehend'-ers..

AFTER A YEAR...

AFTER MULTIPLE INVESTIGATIONS...

AFTER A HAND-PICKED STACKED-DECK SPECIAL COUNSEL LED BY A PROVEN CRIMINAL...

DEMOCRATS / LIBERALS / SNOWFLAKES CAN NOT EVEN PROVE A CRIME WAS COMMITTED THAT WOULD WARRANT THIS INVESTIGATION.

The 'Year Of The Seditious Butt-Hurt' is over. EVERY ploy, EVERY tactic, EVERY act of sedition has FAILED ... and instead BOOMERANGED, exposing Liberal / Democrat / FBI / DOJ / Hillary / Barry corruption, crimes, collaboration, and sedition.

Time to accept the outcome of the 2016 election and move on.


At this point, as 2016 DNC Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton states,

 

[easyt65]

The President is NOT above the law

You snowflakes claimed Barry was....

 

[eddiew37]

The President is NOT above the law

You snowflakes claimed Barry was....

Got a link for that?? If not ask PC she has a link to all republican lies

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Wrong, wild willie lied in a deposition.

Let's see, I write:
Should your orange hero be exempt because he is "really smart" and a "very stable genius" ???

.................and your half brain responds with the above????.......LOL

But you voted for the brown buffoon who despised this country.

 

[rightwinger]

Mueller should water board Trump

Trump claims it is an effective interrogation technique

 

[easyt65]

The President is NOT above the law

You snowflakes claimed Barry was....

Got a link for that??

ARE YOU F*ING SERIOUS?!

It's all over this board RIGHT NOW...YOU do it EVERY DAY

Barry spent 8 years financing, supplying, arming, training, aiding, abetting, and dragging the US into 2 Un-Constitutional Wars to help terrorists like Al Qaeda (who slaughtered 3,000 Americans) and ISIS
- Snowflakes declare: 'Not Impeachable, Not treasonous, Not a crime, No Scandal there'

Barry illegally armed Mexican Drug Cartels, aided Human Traffickers, and helped protect the International terrorist-supporting Hezbollah drug industry
- Snowflakes declare: 'Not Impeachable, Not treasonous, Not a crime, No Scandal there'

Barry illegally spied on reporters, the media, American citizens, US Senators, and even USSC Justices
- Snowflakes declare: 'Not Impeachable, Not treasonous, Not a crime, No Scandal there'

Evidence shows Mueller, Holder, and Obama hid evidence of Russian crimes in 2009 and facilitated their purchase of Uranium one along with the acquisition of 20$ of our supply of Uranium
- Snowflakes declare: 'Not Impeachable, Not treasonous, Not a crime, No Scandal there'

Evidence shows Comey, Lynch, and Obama hid evidence of Russian Hacking, PsyOps programs in the US, and interference from 2014 - 2016
- Snowflakes declare: 'Not Impeachable, Not treasonous, Not a crime, No Scandal there'

Evidence shows Hillary broke laws, committing thousands of crimes and Mueller, Comey, Holder, Lynch, Obama, the DOJ, and the FBI obstructed justice and protected her from prosecution
- Snowflakes declare: 'Not Impeachable, Not treasonous, Not a crime, No Scandal there'


ERIC HOLDER BECAME THE 1ST PRESIDENTIAL CABINET MEMBER IS US HISTORY TO BE CENSURED BY CONGRESS FOR HIS CRIMES OF PROVEN PERJURY DURING HIS ATTEMPTED COVER-UP OF OBAMA'S FAST-AND-FURIOUS SCANDAL, CRIMES WHICH HOLDER WAS PROTECTED FROM PROSECUTION BY OBAMA...
- Snowflakes declare: 'Not Impeachable, Not treasonous, Not a crime, No Scandal there'

 

[deanrd]

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

More nonsense. No one is above the law.

 

[deanrd]

Perhaps Trump should refuse to honor Mueller's subpoena

Yea, try it. Let's see what happens.

 

[eddiew37]

Wrong, wild willie lied in a deposition.

Let's see, I write:
Should your orange hero be exempt because he is "really smart" and a "very stable genius" ???

.................and your half brain responds with the above????.......LOL

But you voted for the brown buffoon who despised this country.

And you voted against yourself ,,your best interests

 

[deanrd]

The President is NOT above the law

You snowflakes claimed Barry was....

Got a link for that??

ARE YOU F*ING SERIOUS?!

It's all over this board RIGHT NOW...YOU do it EVERY DAY

Barry spent 8 years financing, supplying, arming, training, aiding, abetting, and dragging the US into 2 Un-Constitutional Wars to help terrorists like Al Qaeda (who slaughtered 3,000 Americans) and ISIS
- Snowflakes declare: 'Not Impeachable, Not treasonous, Not a crime, No Scandal there'

Barry illegally armed Mexican Drug Cartels, aided Human Traffickers, and helped protect the International terrorist-supporting Hezbollah drug industry
- Snowflakes declare: 'Not Impeachable, Not treasonous, Not a crime, No Scandal there'

Barry illegally spied on reporters, the media, American citizens, US Senators, and even USSC Justices
- Snowflakes declare: 'Not Impeachable, Not treasonous, Not a crime, No Scandal there'

Evidence shows Mueller, Holder, and Obama hid evidence of Russian crimes in 2009 and facilitated their purchase of Uranium one along with the acquisition of 20$ of our supply of Uranium
- Snowflakes declare: 'Not Impeachable, Not treasonous, Not a crime, No Scandal there'

Evidence shows Comey, Lynch, and Obama hid evidence of Russian Hacking, PsyOps programs in the US, and interference from 2014 - 2016
- Snowflakes declare: 'Not Impeachable, Not treasonous, Not a crime, No Scandal there'

Evidence shows Hillary broke laws, committing thousands of crimes and Mueller, Comey, Holder, Lynch, Obama, the DOJ, and the FBI obstructed justice and protected her from prosecution
- Snowflakes declare: 'Not Impeachable, Not treasonous, Not a crime, No Scandal there'

Even a tard understands that with a Republican House, a GOP Senate and a Conservative court, if Obama had done half that, he would have been eviscerated.

But for some reason, the obvious is simply too difficult for you to comprehend. Guess you don't rise to the level of understanding the obvious. Pity.

 

[eddiew37]

The President is NOT above the law

You snowflakes claimed Barry was....

Got a link for that??

ARE YOU F*ING SERIOUS?!

It's all over this board RIGHT NOW...YOU do it EVERY DAY

Barry spent 8 years financing, supplying, arming, training, aiding, abetting, and dragging the US into 2 Un-Constitutional Wars to help terrorists like Al Qaeda (who slaughtered 3,000 Americans) and ISIS
- Snowflakes declare: 'Not Impeachable, Not treasonous, Not a crime, No Scandal there'

Barry illegally armed Mexican Drug Cartels, aided Human Traffickers, and helped protect the International terrorist-supporting Hezbollah drug industry
- Snowflakes declare: 'Not Impeachable, Not treasonous, Not a crime, No Scandal there'

Barry illegally spied on reporters, the media, American citizens, US Senators, and even USSC Justices
- Snowflakes declare: 'Not Impeachable, Not treasonous, Not a crime, No Scandal there'

Evidence shows Mueller, Holder, and Obama hid evidence of Russian crimes in 2009 and facilitated their purchase of Uranium one along with the acquisition of 20$ of our supply of Uranium
- Snowflakes declare: 'Not Impeachable, Not treasonous, Not a crime, No Scandal there'

Evidence shows Comey, Lynch, and Obama hid evidence of Russian Hacking, PsyOps programs in the US, and interference from 2014 - 2016
- Snowflakes declare: 'Not Impeachable, Not treasonous, Not a crime, No Scandal there'

Evidence shows Hillary broke laws, committing thousands of crimes and Mueller, Comey, Holder, Lynch, Obama, the DOJ, and the FBI obstructed justice and protected her from prosecution
- Snowflakes declare: 'Not Impeachable, Not treasonous, Not a crime, No Scandal there'


ERIC HOLDER BECAME THE 1ST PRESIDENTIAL CABINET MEMBER IS US HISTORY TO BE CENSURED BY CONGRESS FOR HIS CRIMES OF PROVEN PERJURY DURING HIS ATTEMPTED COVER-UP OF OBAMA'S FAST-AND-FURIOUS SCANDAL, CRIMES WHICH HOLDER WAS PROTECTED FROM PROSECUTION BY OBAMA...
- Snowflakes declare: 'Not Impeachable, Not treasonous, Not a crime, No Scandal there'

You and PC are close?

 

[easyt65]

The President should simply insist on ONE THING from Mueller before he agrees to testify under oath:

EVIDENCE THAT A CRIME WAS EVER COMMITTED WARRANTING THIS INVESTIGATION...

That would end the investigation right there, because Mueller / Democrats have no evidence.

 

[jillian]

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.)

The Founders made it clear that no one is above the law. This article offers an interesting take on the subject:

The case for normalizing impeachment

 

[deanrd]

Wrong, wild willie lied in a deposition.

Let's see, I write:
Should your orange hero be exempt because he is "really smart" and a "very stable genius" ???

.................and your half brain responds with the above????.......LOL

But you voted for the brown buffoon who despised this country.

That's a flat out lie.

Which makes you a racist creep.

OMG, you're not supposed to bow. You're supposed to be embarrassed.

Anti racism just doesn't "take" when it comes to the GOP.