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.
Stop picking on the President. He gets hungry a lot and needs to get fast food. He goes to bed early too.Trump’s lawyers have said they want to limit the time the fake president will spend with Mueller.
They’re deathly afraid of him saying something stupid or self incriminating.
^^ thinks trump’s innocent despite all the evidence.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.)
No president is ever brought to answer questions directly. Ain't never gonna happen. Any lawyer will tell you that you'd be walking right into a trap, even if you were as clean as a Girl Scout. Just another ploy by the Left grasping at straws trying to dream up another Trump fantasy.
StarrWith 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.)
No president is ever brought to answer questions directly. Ain't never gonna happen. Any lawyer will tell you that you'd be walking right into a trap, even if you were as clean as a Girl Scout. Just another ploy by the Left grasping at straws trying to dream up another Trump fantasy.
Stop picking on the President. He gets hungry a lot and needs to get fast food. He goes to bed early too.Trump’s lawyers have said they want to limit the time the fake president will spend with Mueller.
They’re deathly afraid of him saying something stupid or self incriminating.
Trump’s lawyers have said they want to limit the time the fake president will spend with Mueller.
They’re deathly afraid of him saying something stupid or self incriminating.
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.)
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
Why?If he answers the questions , he needs to do it in person, not in writing.
What evidence?^^ thinks trump’s innocent despite all the evidence.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.)
No president is ever brought to answer questions directly. Ain't never gonna happen. Any lawyer will tell you that you'd be walking right into a trap, even if you were as clean as a Girl Scout. Just another ploy by the Left grasping at straws trying to dream up another Trump fantasy.
Why don’t you just be honest for once in your life and admit you don’t want to know if your president is a crook.
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.)
NO troll, just get tired of non stop liars like you spewing garbage daily.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.)
So basically your party thinks impeachment is something to run on.The Framers did address the issue in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Once removed from office via the impeachment process, a former president and private citizen is subject to criminal prosecution.
So the Russians bought 9 people. That is the number of people that had to approve the Uranium One deal. There is no evidence she even spoke to anyone about the deal. NO CRIME!!
No president is ever brought to answer questions directly.
Sounds good. obummer made a habit of it too...
He supposedly colluded with the Russians to win, but then again, he never wanted to actually win.
You admit there is no evidence, thanks.What evidence?
Nothing, nothing.....sorry to wake you up.....Go back to your nap.
