Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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....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
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.
He can't plead the 5th because there's no crime.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.
If I was Trump I'd claim Executive Privilege and tell him to go fuck himself.
Its always a "good thing" for a president to declare himself a king and above the law of the common underlings
It worked fot Obama .. but only because he 'owned' the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, IRS, BLM, etc....
It worked fot Obama .. but only because he 'owned' the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, IRS, BLM, etc....
Just out of curiosity, was Obama under investigation by a special prosecutor???
Yes or No, Mr. Fuckhead???............................LOL
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.
Because the pathological liar can't keep his story straight.He'll question him several times and then charge him with lying.
Mueller wants to get him on a process crime.If he answers the questions , he needs to do it in person, not in writing.
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.
Then don't lie. Executive Privilege will not stand up in court or in public opinion.
You know, I find myself wishing a non-denominational bolt of lightening would strike you because you are the most full of crap person I haver ever encountered. You don't really know a goddam thing but spew out garbage non stop.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’s already given himself away he’s guilty as hell so why not stonewall the subpoena too and convince even more Americans he’s guilty.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.)
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.)
Lil Mikey has his panties all up in a bunch again. But it is a good look on you.You know, I find myself wishing a non-denominational bolt of lightening would strike you because you are the most full of crap person I haver ever encountered. You don't really know a goddam thing but spew out garbage non stop.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.)
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?
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.)
