Perhaps Trump should refuse to honor Mueller's subpoena

[OKTexas]

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.)

How about you prove a subpoena has even been issued, otherwise this is just mental masturbation on your part.


.

 

[nat4900]

You admit there is no evidence, thanks.

No problem......I'm a firm believer that regarding right wing morons, their "ignorance is the blessed" part.....
See, I would never tell you that there really isn't a Santa Cla....ooops, sorry.)

 

[OKTexas]

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

A grand jury is a tool for a prosecutor, it is separate form the judicial branch, no judge presides over a grand jury, it's just the prosecutor and the grand jurors. Prosecutors are part of the executive.


.

 

[toobfreak]

No president is ever brought to answer questions directly.

Reagan had to testify before a federal court

Why?

and Clinton had to testify (for 4 hrs, I believe) before a grand jury........

Why again?

 

[OKTexas]

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

I can point to an contempt charge levied against Holder that the laws require the DOJ to present to a grand jury and they refused to follow the law.


.

 

[OKTexas]

No president is ever brought to answer questions directly.

Reagan had to testify before a federal court and Clinton had to testify (for 4 hrs, I believe) before a grand jury........

Should your orange hero be exempt because he is "really smart" and a "very stable genius" ???

Wrong, wild willie lied in a deposition.


.

 

[OKTexas]

What evidence?

Nothing, nothing.....sorry to wake you up.....Go back to your nap.

That's exactly what you got, nothing.


.

 

[nat4900]

Why?


Why again?

Its all a secret....please don't tell anyone....

 

[nat4900]

I can point to an contempt charge levied against Holder that the laws require the DOJ to present to a grand jury and they refused to follow the law.

"POINT AWAY" Tigger..........Actually, start another damn thread on that topic...
This one is about Trump......LOL

 

[nat4900]

Wrong, wild willie lied in a deposition.

Let's see, I write:
Should your orange hero be exempt because he is "really smart" and a "very stable genius" ???

.................and your half brain responds with the above????.......LOL

 

[PredFan]

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

What subpoena?

 

[nat4900]

That's exactly what you got, nothing.

Fine.....so since you have NOTHING to worry about, Tigger,,,,what are you doing on here instead of looking for a "sexy" lamppost?............LOL

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Then don't lie. Executive Privilege will not stand up in court or in public opinion.

Some people don't understand that Executive Privilege applies to the President, but Trump wasn't the President during the campaign so Executive Privilege doesn't apply to prior to Noon on January 20th. It also doesn't apply to criminal investigations.


>>>>

It also doesn't apply to subpoenas originating in the executive branch to begin with.

"Executive privilege" is a response that the President can make against a Congressional subpoena. It's purpose is to protect the separation of powers. Since Mueller is not part of the legislative or judicial branches, and is in fact an agent of the executive branch, executive privilege does not apply.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.)

How about you prove a subpoena has even been issued, otherwise this is just mental masturbation on your part.


.

It's a hypothetical. If you don't want to answer it, that's fine.

 

[OKTexas]

I can point to an contempt charge levied against Holder that the laws require the DOJ to present to a grand jury and they refused to follow the law.

"POINT AWAY" Tigger..........Actually, start another damn thread on that topic...
This one is about Trump......LOL

Then quit challenging people about your dear leaders administration. Of course you pull quotes away from the string so people can't see how comments connect.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong, wild willie lied in a deposition.

Let's see, I write:
Should your orange hero be exempt because he is "really smart" and a "very stable genius" ???

.................and your half brain responds with the above????.......LOL

No you brain dead twerp, this is what I was responding to:

Reagan had to testify before a federal court and Clinton had to testify (for 4 hrs, I believe) before a grand jury........

.

 

[OKTexas]

That's exactly what you got, nothing.

Fine.....so since you have NOTHING to worry about, Tigger,,,,what are you doing on here instead of looking for a "sexy" lamppost?............LOL

Still waiting on proof a Mueller subpoena even exist.


.

 

[OKTexas]

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.)

How about you prove a subpoena has even been issued, otherwise this is just mental masturbation on your part.


.

It's a hypothetical. If you don't want to answer it, that's fine.

Oh, kind of like a conspiracy theory, something just pulled form the posterior. I was under the impression this forum was for the discussion of real political matters. That's why I questioned the existence of a subpoena.


.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.)

How about you prove a subpoena has even been issued, otherwise this is just mental masturbation on your part.


.

It's a hypothetical. If you don't want to answer it, that's fine.

Oh, kind of like a conspiracy theory, something just pulled form the posterior. I was under the impression this forum was for the discussion of real political matters. That's why I questioned the existence of a subpoena.


.

No, it's a hypothetical. As in, part of a question.

"What do you think would happen if ______ were to happen?"

It's entirely appropriate for discussion. No one is forcing you to take part.

 

[Bush92]

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.)

Why...he has nothing to hide. No crime committed.