Perhaps Trump should refuse to honor Mueller's subpoena

[nat4900]

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.

I actually like for morons like you to "think" that Justice Kennedy is a strict conservative.........LOL

 

[Defiant1]

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)

You are just looking for an excuse to wear your pussy hat again.

 

[nat4900]

Mueller has to provide justification for making the President testify. He has to provide probable cause Trump committed a crime.

TWO sentences uttered by the orange moron give basis to the need for Trump to testify:

"I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job," Trump told the Russian foreign minister and U.S. ambassador on May 10 during an Oval Office meeting, according to a transcript of the meeting read to The Times by a U.S. official. "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."

and.....

Trump Says He Fired Michael Flynn 'Because He Lied' to F.B.I. - The ...

 

[nat4900]

you no know nothing

the English language is such a bitch for morons, isn't it....????....LOL

 

[easyt65]

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.

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.

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!

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.

 

[nat4900]

BTW, collusion isn't even a crime.
So this entire investigation was based off of lies.

Nitwit,its NOT about Trump's collusion....It's ALL about Trump's obstructing the carrying out of an investigation.......tattoo THAT on your forehead and stop listening to Hannity for your "legal" talking points.

 

[nat4900]

No, Sessions can fire him, not Trump.

Sure, that would get Trump "off the hook," correct???.................LOL

 

[easyt65]

TWO sentences uttered by the orange moron give basis to the need for Trump to testify:

"I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job," Trump told the Russian foreign minister and U.S. ambassador on May 10 during an Oval Office meeting, according to a transcript of the meeting read to The Times by a U.S. official. "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."

and.....

Trump Says He Fired Michael Flynn 'Because He Lied' to F.B.I. - The ...

...all of which proves you are a butt-hurt, f*ing snowflake idiot!

The President of the United States has the legal, Constitutional authority to fire the Director of the FBI....ESPECIALLY considering evidence proves he hid evidence of Russian attempts to hack senior US politicians, of Russians conducting PsyOps missions inside the US intended to divide the country, and of Russian interference.....ESPECIALLY considering evidence proves the FBI Leadership did conspire to and did not only protect Hillary Clinton from indictment for her crimes but also engaged in sedition against the President of the United States ('insurance policy')...ESPECIALLY since evidence proves Comey leaked classified information.

 

[easyt65]

Nitwit,its NOT about Trump's collusion....It's ALL about Trump's obstructing the carrying out of an investigation.......

You mean like criminal refusal to obey a subpoena by turning EVERYTHING - servers, ALL devices, ALL documents, ALL e-mails....like using bleachbit to attempt to erase evidence which has proven Hillary committed thousands of criminal charges.....

You mean like evidence that shows Comey, McCabe, Trzok, and others in the FBI did conspire to protect Hillary from indictment for her crimes and did conspire to and did commit acts of sedition against the President....

No, of course not. You mean how the President exercised his Constitutional Authority to fire a traitor / criminal....AS THE EVIDENCE NOW SHOWS!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

O claimed executive privilege when him and holder were running guns. Trump can also.

 

[nat4900]

...all of which proves you are a butt-hurt, f*ing snowflake idiot!

I LOVE it........Thanks for the uplift, Queasy.......LOL

 

[nat4900]

You mean like criminal refusal to obey a subpoena by turning EVERYTHING - servers,

Good boy, Queasy at only the 29th post, you FINALLY bring up Clinton in a thread about Trump...........be a bit quicker next time.......LOL

 

[PredFan]

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.)

What subpoena?

 

[nat4900]

O claimed executive privilege when him and holder were running guns. Trump can also.

"Brilliant"......Could you name the special prosecutor that the GOP majority appointed to investigate Obama's "running guns"???.................LOL

 

[easyt65]

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

 

[easyt65]

O claimed executive privilege when him and holder were running guns. Trump can also.

"Brilliant"......Could you name the special prosecutor that the GOP majority appointed to investigate Obama's "running guns"???.................LOL

Again, you're f*ing idiot....

Obama US AG Eric Holder became the 1st US AG in US HISTORY to ever be Censured ... by a bi-partisan Congress, no less ... for proven crimes of Felony Perjury in his part to cover up the illegal Gun Running operation approved and ordered by Barak Obama. Obama protected Holder from Indictment / Prison, as Holder attempted to protect Obama from the Fast and Furious Scandal, but Congress refused to allow Holder's crimes go un-punished.

 

[easyt65]

Good boy, Queasy at only the 29th post, you FINALLY bring up Clinton in a thread about Trump...........be a bit quicker next time.......LOL

That's because in this whole entire Witch Hunt the only evidence of crimes that have come from the investigation has been evidence against the Criminal FBI and the criminal Hillary Clinton.

Again, Democrats, Mueller, the FBI, YOU - none of you can prove a crime was even committed let alone present evidence Trump did anything wrong.

36+ posts, and you still can't produce evidence. You just try to dance around that point.

 

[nat4900]

Perhaps Trump will be called to personally testify (under oath) on Valentine's Day. The subpoena could have hearts printed on it....

 

[nat4900]

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

Trump told reporters this spring that he was “100 percent” willing to testify under oath about alleged Russian ties to his campaign. He would be the first president since Bill Clinton to face questions under oath from a federal prosecutor.

 

[nat4900]

Robert Dallek, a presidential historian, said any risk in Trump speaking to the special counsel under oath depends on what he would say.

"It very much depends on whether the president has things to hide. If there's really nothing to hide, then I would think there's no danger in him sitting down with anyone and speaking freely to them," Dallek said. "But if there are things to hide, obviously there are risks."

Talks underway about Trump interview in Mueller's Russia probe