Should Trump agree to an interview with Mueller? (w/poll)

[jc456]

a reason for the subpoena is always given. and most individuals are not the president of the US. so try again.

That doesn't support your completely false assertion that evidence of a crime must exist in order to get a subpoena. What happened is that you just kind of made that up and then you said it because it sounded good to you.

I never said evidence of a crime. I said he has to name the crime. fk get it right.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

no he isn't. Rosenstein stated so.

Wrong. He stated Trump is not a target. You need to slow down.

 

[Polishprince]

Sorry - Trump is a "subject" of this investigation and will be compelled to appear.

I don't think so. Mueller , as the Special Persecutor, is an underling of President Trump.

Underlings can't compel their superiors to do a damn thing.

 

[jc456]

he stated he lost the popular vote and then said that isn't how a president is elected.

And then afterward repeated his lie about millions of illegal voters, demonstrating the fact that he still did not accept those results as legitimate. Dude, seriously...you are such a time waster...

so you agree he said it. after you said he didn't. now who's lying? see how easy it is to get entrapped?

 

[Some Guy]

If there was any evidence then they wouldn't need to talk to him.

What an odd idea you just kind of made up, there.

Care to refute the idea or just put a meaningless string of words onto the screen?

 

[bripat9643]

Yet liberals insist there is plenty of evidence...go figure.

There is publicly known evidence, regarding collusion between members of the campaign and Russia. That collusion is a foregone conclusion. Evidence of Trump's direct involvement? We have only seen circumstantial evidence of that.

How many times have you been told that simply talking to a Russian isn't a crime? There's evidence that Trump was involved in a non-crime? Horrors!

You are a special kind of stupid.

 

[blackhawk]

Depends on the focus of the questions if they are strictly about things related to the 2016 election yes if he is going to be asked about stuff from eight or ten years ago no.

But, questions about business or criminal dealings from 8 years ago may be relevant to events during the 2016 campaign. In which case you would have to modify your calclulus.

It seems highly unlikely that anything from eight to ten years ago would have anything to do with the 2016 election. When you question a person on something that far back it’s more likely your trying to trap them with the popular making false or misleading statements to the FBI charge.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

and there is no upside.

Of course, this is false, with a possible upside being a strong interview by Trump. I will assume you find this to be an impossible event, and thank your for your opinion. May I suggest decaf?

 

[DrLove]

no he isn't. Rosenstein stated so.

Wrong. He stated Trump is not a target. You need to slow down.

jc is a fan of alternative facts.

 

[bripat9643]

Should he?

I say yes, as the investigation is meant to get to the truth. Trump's interview will advance that goal.

The purpose of Mueller's witchhunt isn't to "get to the truth", but instead to somehow dispose of President Trump by any means necessary.

But it is quite a fantasy to think he could somehow do that with no factual basis. The paranoia of the Trump circle seems to have filtered down to his supporters.

It was done to skooter Libby, and also to Flynn and Popadopolous.

 

[jc456]

no he isn't. Rosenstein stated so.

Wrong. He stated Trump is not a target. You need to slow down.

oh fk, the stuff I have to do daily in this to educate you stupid leftists. here's the quote. Report: Rod Rosenstein reassured Trump on Mueller investigation

"Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told President Trump last week at the White House that he "isn't a target of any part" of the Mueller probe, Bloomberg reports, citing two people familiar with the matter. CNN is reportingseparately that Rosenstein told Trump "that he's not a target in the investigation of his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen," specifically.

But, but, but: Trump isn’t under investigation now, but that could change. "Trump may not officially be a target," an official told Bloomberg, "but Mueller hasn’t ruled out making him one at some point in the future.""

Sorry, you lose and are still stupid.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It seems highly unlikely that anything from eight to ten years ago would have anything to do with the 2016 election.

I will chalk this up to lacjk of effort on your part, as I can easily dream up scenarios where business dealings from only 8 short years ago would come into play in the actions of the Trump family and his inner circle, oneothat was apparently populated by people with myriad Russian business and criminal dealings.

 

[whitehall]

An "interview" sounds pretty benign unless you consider that Mueller represents the interests of the seething angry hate filled left that has recently called for everything from assault to murder of the president and the kidnapping of his children. The initial purpose of the "inquiry", collusion with the Russians, has been proved to be a bust so Mueller needs to fold up his tent and slink away.

 

[bripat9643]

and there is no upside.

Of course, this is false, with a possible upside being a strong interview by Trump. I will assume you find this to be an impossible event, and thank your for your opinion. May I suggest decaf?

There is no upside. The fake news will always cast the interview as a giant flop for Trump. Herr Muwler will declare it classified and then leak any details that make Trump look bad but none that make him look good.

 

[Aldo Raine]

a reason for the subpoena is always given. and most individuals are not the president of the US. so try again.

Sorry - Trump is a "subject" of this investigation and will be compelled to appear.
Learn something
What to do when you are subpoenaed -- Separation orders -- Sanctions | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

no he isn't. Rosenstein stated so. so you're asking for a president to entrap himself in a lie.

Well if he wouldn't lie he wouldn't entrap himself. Pretty easy don't you think?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Underlings can't compel their superiors to do a damn thing.

Well, this is where you are getting confused. The subpoena would not be issued by Mueller, it would be issued by a federal grand jury. Trump is the chief executive, not "dictator of the judicial branch".

 

[Polishprince]

And then afterward repeated his lie about millions of illegal voters, demonstrating the fact that he still did not accept those results as legitimate. .

Those results were irrelevant not legitimate at all. The electoral college is how Presidents are elected.

But in any event, President Trump thinks that millions of illegal popular votes were cast against him, and that is his opinion.

I haven't seen any proof that our President is "lying" here, just a difference in opinion. If Mrs. Clinton or anyone else wants to go through the effort to show she won the popular vote and that all of her votes were legit- no deceased, no illegals, no felons- they haven't so far.

 

[DrLove]

Sorry - Trump is a "subject" of this investigation and will be compelled to appear.

I don't think so. Mueller , as the Special Persecutor, is an underling of President Trump.

Underlings can't compel their superiors to do a damn thing.

LoL!! ^

What You Need To Know About A Mueller Subpoena, Trump And The Russia Imbroglio

Perspective | Yes, Trump can fire Mueller. But a normal president would know not to try it.

 

[jc456]

no he isn't. Rosenstein stated so.

Wrong. He stated Trump is not a target. You need to slow down.

jc is a fan of alternative facts.

name an alternate fact I believe in?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Those results were irrelevant not legitimate at all. The electoral college is how Presidents are elected.

Yes, thank you, but you are telling this to the wrong person. It is the president who is making up embarrassing lies about this, not me.

President Trump thinks that millions of illegal popular votes were cast against him, and that is his opinion.

No he doesn't, and I don't for one second think you actually believe he believes this .Peddle that nonsense to someone else.