Perhaps Trump should refuse to honor Mueller's subpoena

[nat4900]

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.)

 

[Penelope]

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

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

 

[nat4900]

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

Absolutely......answering questions in writing would be the equivalent of a take-home test filled out by your parents. In Trump's case, his "legal team" would be the ones sparring with Mueller.

 

[SmokeALib]

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.)

More garbage.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

Absolutely......answering questions in writing would be the equivalent of a take-home test filled out by your parents. In Trump's case, his "legal team" would be the ones sparring with Mueller.

Bush SR voluntary did that

 

[nat4900]

He doesent have to per the constitution

Wipe and flush and wash your hands......

If the Constitution SPECIFICALLY states that a president is ABOVE the law, you may then have a point.......but you obviously do not......Go back to bed.

The thread specifically addresses the repercussions of Trump stating, :I am abbove the law."

 

[nat4900]

More garbage.

Which then makes you a garbage aficionado???............(what an asshole....LOL)

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

 

[nat4900]

Bush SR voluntary did that

Check out how Reagan's and Clinton's responses were received.

Look BearBreath this thread is way beyond your limited abilities to address. Find another thread.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

 

[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.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Bush SR voluntary did that

Check out how Reagan's and Clinton's responses were received.

Look BearBreath this thread is way beyond your limited abilities to address.

You just butt hurt because I rain on your parade, it's called executive privileges and would have to go up against a 5 to 4 supreme court..so just the Logan thread I smash another one of your mental masturbation threads

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

One word gorsuch bwhahaha

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

 

[mudwhistle]

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

Mueller has to provide justification for making the President testify. He has to provide probable cause Trump committed a crime.
He hasn't been able to do that yet.
So far all he has is a couple of former employees providing inconsistent statements.
He has no evidence of a crime.
BTW, collusion isn't even a crime.
So this entire investigation was based off of lies.

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

No, Sessions can fire him, not Trump.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

No, Sessions can fire him, not Trump.

Trump orders session to fire him or Trump fires session


And golfing gator since when the fuck is a grand jury under the executive branch you no know nothing

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And golfing gator since when the fuck is a grand jury under the executive branch you no know nothing

You seem to be slightly aware that the DOJ falls under the Executive Branch since you know that Trump can give order to Sessions.

You seem to stupid to know that it was the DOJ that appointed Mueller as the Special Counsel, thus Mueller would also fall under the Executive Branch.

The Grand Jury on the other hand falls under neither the Executive Branch or the Judicial Branch and is specifically made to be independent. So again, this has nothing to do with the separation of powers.

You really should thank me for this education I am taking my valuable time to give you. Clearly you never made it this far in school

 

[nat4900]

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

Trump firing Mueller???...........Now that would be FANTASTIC......(please God, make the orange clown fire Mueller and see what happens......LOL)