It is so simple...

[Nosmo King]

Clinton was indicted. And he testified. There is something about precedent that requires respect.

Clinton went through the same process of impeachment _ not indictment from a civilian jury.

Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia

Read about Ken Starr. His investigation was supposed to be about an Arkansas real estate deal and ended with a semen stained dress. Starr subpoenaed President Clinton.

 

[Nosmo King]

So it's up to Mueller to go to the grand jury and indict the president in order to make a case? Couldn't Trump clear everything up by laying out his side to Mueller, thereby closing down the whole thing?

If we go along with the notion that there is no collusion, no obstruction and nothing was done that was illegal, then there is nothing to lay down before Mueller. This thread is pointless.

Wouldn't Trump want to tell his side clearly, honestly and openly? In order to make all those assumptions of no collusion, no obstruction and nothing done out of legal bounds, wouldn't it be best for all concerned to clear this up?

So we are not going along with the notion that he is innocent?

In that case, the onus isn't on him to prove his innocence. Innocent men get convicted by overzealous prosecutors quite frequently.

No. Let's grant Trump the cornerstone of American jurisprudence. He is innocent until proven guilty.

But given the fact there is a Special Prosecutor and Grand Jury, couldnyhe simply pour water on the whole thing by cooperating and tell his side of the story?

Has Mueller implicated him?

Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekolow seem to think so. Mueller is like a submarine. We don't know where he is going.

But even if Meuller isn't implicating Trump, why wouldn't Trump welcome the chance to tell his story?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Do you trust Trump to tell the truth?”

Of course not.

The truth is an alien concept to Trump – only a fool would trust Trump in any capacity, or one of his blind partisan supporters.

 

[Tehon]

If we go along with the notion that there is no collusion, no obstruction and nothing was done that was illegal, then there is nothing to lay down before Mueller. This thread is pointless.

Wouldn't Trump want to tell his side clearly, honestly and openly? In order to make all those assumptions of no collusion, no obstruction and nothing done out of legal bounds, wouldn't it be best for all concerned to clear this up?

So we are not going along with the notion that he is innocent?

In that case, the onus isn't on him to prove his innocence. Innocent men get convicted by overzealous prosecutors quite frequently.

No. Let's grant Trump the cornerstone of American jurisprudence. He is innocent until proven guilty.

But given the fact there is a Special Prosecutor and Grand Jury, couldnyhe simply pour water on the whole thing by cooperating and tell his side of the story?

Has Mueller implicated him?

Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekolow seem to think so. Mueller is like a submarine. We don't know where he is going.

But even if Meuller isn't implicating Trump, why wouldn't Trump welcome the chance to tell his story?

If you are not implicated in a crime are you going to go to the prosecutor and explain why he hasn't implicated you in it? Who does that? No one.

 

[Tehon]

“Do you trust Trump to tell the truth?”

Of course not.

The truth is an alien concept to Trump – only a fool would trust Trump in any capacity, or one of his blind partisan supporters.

This ^ is a timely answer to the question as to why not to trust a lawyer Nosmo King

 

[Nosmo King]

Wouldn't Trump want to tell his side clearly, honestly and openly? In order to make all those assumptions of no collusion, no obstruction and nothing done out of legal bounds, wouldn't it be best for all concerned to clear this up?

So we are not going along with the notion that he is innocent?

In that case, the onus isn't on him to prove his innocence. Innocent men get convicted by overzealous prosecutors quite frequently.

No. Let's grant Trump the cornerstone of American jurisprudence. He is innocent until proven guilty.

But given the fact there is a Special Prosecutor and Grand Jury, couldnyhe simply pour water on the whole thing by cooperating and tell his side of the story?

Has Mueller implicated him?

Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekolow seem to think so. Mueller is like a submarine. We don't know where he is going.

But even if Meuller isn't implicating Trump, why wouldn't Trump welcome the chance to tell his story?

If you are not implicated in a crime are you going to go to the prosecutor and explain why he hasn't implicated you in it? Who does that? No one.

Do you think the investigation has anything at all to do with anything that did or did not happen during the 2016 presidential campaign? If not, what do you think the investigation is about?

 

[Nosmo King]

“Do you trust Trump to tell the truth?”

Of course not.

The truth is an alien concept to Trump – only a fool would trust Trump in any capacity, or one of his blind partisan supporters.

This ^ is a timely answer to the question as to why not to trust a lawyer Nosmo King

The truth, it is said, will set you free. All Trump has to do is tell the truth.

 

[Tehon]

So we are not going along with the notion that he is innocent?

In that case, the onus isn't on him to prove his innocence. Innocent men get convicted by overzealous prosecutors quite frequently.

No. Let's grant Trump the cornerstone of American jurisprudence. He is innocent until proven guilty.

But given the fact there is a Special Prosecutor and Grand Jury, couldnyhe simply pour water on the whole thing by cooperating and tell his side of the story?

Has Mueller implicated him?

Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekolow seem to think so. Mueller is like a submarine. We don't know where he is going.

But even if Meuller isn't implicating Trump, why wouldn't Trump welcome the chance to tell his story?

If you are not implicated in a crime are you going to go to the prosecutor and explain why he hasn't implicated you in it? Who does that? No one.

Do you think the investigation has anything at all to do with anything that did or did not happen during the 2016 presidential campaign? If not, what do you think the investigation is about?

The investigation is to find out if there was any impropriety on behalf of people connected with the Trump campaign. As far as I know Trump has not been personally implicated by Mueller.

 

[blackhawk]

Two words Mike Flynn he had to plead guilty to making false or misleading statements to the FBI to avoid going bankrupt even though we have discovered the agents questioning him did not believe he was intentionally trying to mislead them. Add to that Mueller had charges brought against Rick Gates and Paul Manafort for things that happened years ago that had absolutely nothing to do with the 2016 election. Given this I can see why Trump wouldn't sit down with Mueller and the only way he should even consider it is if the questions are focused solely on the 2016 election and not things that might have happened ten years or more ago. Our legal system is far from prefect innocent people go to jail and guilty people go free if Trump and his legal team feel it is not in his best interest to sit down with Mueller he shouldn't.

 

[Tehon]

“Do you trust Trump to tell the truth?”

Of course not.

The truth is an alien concept to Trump – only a fool would trust Trump in any capacity, or one of his blind partisan supporters.

This ^ is a timely answer to the question as to why not to trust a lawyer Nosmo King

The truth, it is said, will set you free. All Trump has to do is tell the truth.

If that were the case then innocent people would not be sent to jail.

 

[Nosmo King]

No. Let's grant Trump the cornerstone of American jurisprudence. He is innocent until proven guilty.

But given the fact there is a Special Prosecutor and Grand Jury, couldnyhe simply pour water on the whole thing by cooperating and tell his side of the story?

Has Mueller implicated him?

Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekolow seem to think so. Mueller is like a submarine. We don't know where he is going.

But even if Meuller isn't implicating Trump, why wouldn't Trump welcome the chance to tell his story?

If you are not implicated in a crime are you going to go to the prosecutor and explain why he hasn't implicated you in it? Who does that? No one.

Do you think the investigation has anything at all to do with anything that did or did not happen during the 2016 presidential campaign? If not, what do you think the investigation is about?

The investigation is to find out if there was any impropriety on behalf of people connected with the Trump campaign. As far as I know Trump has not been personally implicated by Mueller.

All the more reason. For Trump to honestly tell his side of the story.

And the scope of the investigation is to reveal precisely what the Russians had to do with election chicanery

 

[Nosmo King]

Two words Mike Flynn he had to plead guilty to making false or misleading statements to the FBI to avoid going bankrupt even though we have discovered the agents questioning him did not believe he was intentionally trying to mislead them. Add to that Mueller had charges brought against Rick Gates and Paul Manafort for things that happened years ago that had absolutely nothing to do with the 2016 election. Given this I can see why Trump wouldn't sit down with Mueller and the only way he should even consider it is if the questions are focused solely on the 2016 election and not things that might have happened ten years or more ago. Our legal system is far from prefect innocent people go to jail and guilty people go free if Trump and his legal team feel it is not in his best interest to sit down with Mueller he shouldn't.

We're waiting for the other indictments against Manafort to come to trial.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So we are not going along with the notion that he is innocent?

In that case, the onus isn't on him to prove his innocence. Innocent men get convicted by overzealous prosecutors quite frequently.

No. Let's grant Trump the cornerstone of American jurisprudence. He is innocent until proven guilty.

But given the fact there is a Special Prosecutor and Grand Jury, couldnyhe simply pour water on the whole thing by cooperating and tell his side of the story?

Has Mueller implicated him?

Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekolow seem to think so. Mueller is like a submarine. We don't know where he is going.

But even if Meuller isn't implicating Trump, why wouldn't Trump welcome the chance to tell his story?

If you are not implicated in a crime are you going to go to the prosecutor and explain why he hasn't implicated you in it? Who does that? No one.

Do you think the investigation has anything at all to do with anything that did or did not happen during the 2016 presidential campaign? If not, what do you think the investigation is about?

That's quite simple: doing anything to remove Trump from office. WTF do you think Mueller hired a team of anti-Trumper's to handle the investigation? Because Mueller is an anti-trumper himself.

This has nothing to do with collusion or otherwise, somebody would have been held accountable for it. The charges brought to some members of his team took place years before Trump ran or otherwise were personal or professional interactions made unrelated to the campaign.

The goal here is to keep this farce running until after the midterms. After that, it will be dropped like a hotcake. There is no reason Trump should answer to Mueller for anything unless Mueller can come up with some kind of evidence against Trump. Other than that, Mueller is looking to try and trap Trump on some unrelated circumstance to the election.

 

[Maxdeath]

Let's go along with the notion that Mueller's investigation is indeed a witch hunt. Let's go along with the notion that there was no collusion, no obstruction and nothing was done that was illegal.

Let's accept all that for the purpose of this simple question: Why wouldn't Trump, or anyone so 'framed' not run to the offices of the Special Counsel and lay out everything so the investigation could be shown as illegitimate? Why not clear everything up by laying forth your case?

Some say that would be a perjury trap. Well, isn't the best way to avoid perjury is to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? It's really that simple.

So it boils down to this speculation that is not too tough to arrive at. Do you trust Trump to tell the truth?

He has a casual acquaintance with telling the truth. He is loquacious, hyperbolic and tends to exaggerate his accomplishments and qualities.

If you trust Trump to meet secretly with the likes of Putin and Kim without a written record, why can't he be trusted to tell his side of the story to Robert Mueller?

Pretty damn simple, for almost any other president.

So you want someone to prove a negative? He has said publicly there was no attempt by him and the Russians to change or influence the election. What is he supposed to do? How can he prove that he did not talk to someone? There is no tape of a conversation that never happened. There is no video of meetings that never happened. There are no witnesses to call or written contracts showing that he had no contract with Russians. So you have to admit that you are just attempting to talk in circles in the hopes someone will think you have a point.
No one should be talking with Mueller as if you say six months and he can prove it was five since you last started your car he could bring charges of lying under oath.

 

[Indeependent]

All politicians are polite...polite liars.

But the people say they voted for Trump because he is not a politician! He was elected to shake things up and bring integrity to politics.

Or is Trump a giant with clay feet?

He’s not and he’s doing a great job...pissing off Liberals.
Face it, you feel sorry for “Darkie”.
You’re a racist.

Is "pissing off Liberals" an article of governance?

And I don't follow you 'racist' slam. Are you trying to dilute racism in order to make a clumsy political point?

Liberals are racists because they believe the underclass can’t get their act together.

 

[Indeependent]

All politicians are polite...polite liars.

They’re just liars

I was trying to be nice....for the delicate Liberals.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So ridiculous already. Supposedly Russia messed around with our elections under the nose of Barak Obama. But somehow, Trump with no political connections at the time was to blame.

They broke into the DNC computers under DumBama and the DNC refused to let the FBI examine the contents. Gee, I wonder why? I mean, if Russia really did it, the FBI should document that, don't you think?

Instead they hired a private firm to examine the problem and it was they who determined it was hacked by the Russians. HTF was Trump responsible for that?

 

[Nosmo King]

All politicians are polite...polite liars.

But the people say they voted for Trump because he is not a politician! He was elected to shake things up and bring integrity to politics.

Or is Trump a giant with clay feet?

He’s not and he’s doing a great job...pissing off Liberals.
Face it, you feel sorry for “Darkie”.
You’re a racist.

Is "pissing off Liberals" an article of governance?

And I don't follow you 'racist' slam. Are you trying to dilute racism in order to make a clumsy political point?

Liberals are racists because they believe the underclass can’t get their act together.

I wonder how Trump would react as you are calling him a member of an underclass? What is an underclass? Is there a superior class? And how is that determined? Who determines it? What part of American justice litigates an underclass and a superior class?

 

[Nosmo King]

Let's go along with the notion that Mueller's investigation is indeed a witch hunt. Let's go along with the notion that there was no collusion, no obstruction and nothing was done that was illegal.

Let's accept all that for the purpose of this simple question: Why wouldn't Trump, or anyone so 'framed' not run to the offices of the Special Counsel and lay out everything so the investigation could be shown as illegitimate? Why not clear everything up by laying forth your case?

Some say that would be a perjury trap. Well, isn't the best way to avoid perjury is to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? It's really that simple.

So it boils down to this speculation that is not too tough to arrive at. Do you trust Trump to tell the truth?

He has a casual acquaintance with telling the truth. He is loquacious, hyperbolic and tends to exaggerate his accomplishments and qualities.

If you trust Trump to meet secretly with the likes of Putin and Kim without a written record, why can't he be trusted to tell his side of the story to Robert Mueller?

Pretty damn simple, for almost any other president.

So you want someone to prove a negative? He has said publicly there was no attempt by him and the Russians to change or influence the election. What is he supposed to do? How can he prove that he did not talk to someone? There is no tape of a conversation that never happened. There is no video of meetings that never happened. There are no witnesses to call or written contracts showing that he had no contract with Russians. So you have to admit that you are just attempting to talk in circles in the hopes someone will think you have a point.
No one should be talking with Mueller as if you say six months and he can prove it was five since you last started your car he could bring charges of lying under oath.

So you trust Trump to always tell the truth?

 

[blackhawk]

Two words Mike Flynn he had to plead guilty to making false or misleading statements to the FBI to avoid going bankrupt even though we have discovered the agents questioning him did not believe he was intentionally trying to mislead them. Add to that Mueller had charges brought against Rick Gates and Paul Manafort for things that happened years ago that had absolutely nothing to do with the 2016 election. Given this I can see why Trump wouldn't sit down with Mueller and the only way he should even consider it is if the questions are focused solely on the 2016 election and not things that might have happened ten years or more ago. Our legal system is far from prefect innocent people go to jail and guilty people go free if Trump and his legal team feel it is not in his best interest to sit down with Mueller he shouldn't.

We're waiting for the other indictments against Manafort to come to trial.

Do any of them have to do with the 2016 election? So far everything predates that.