Tumblin Tumbleweed
Platinum Member
- Mar 16, 2015
- 22,866
- 8,060
- 465
Or, as regular folk call it, an investigation.
Obstruction of Justice is tho...
Do you not understand 'ongoing investigation'?
Yeah. He should totally do that.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Perhaps Trump should refuse to honor Mueller's subpoena
- Thread starter nat4900
- Start date
Or, as regular folk call it, an investigation.
Obstruction of Justice is tho...
Do you not understand 'ongoing investigation'?
Yeah. He should totally do that.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 146,830
- 69,978
- 2,330
Trump should reply by sending Mueller a fishing rod and tell him, "Um, no!"
nat4900
Diamond Member
- Mar 3, 2015
- 42,021
- 5,965
- 1,870
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #104
No you brain dead twerp, this is what I was responding to:
OK, eternal moron
I write
Reagan had to testify before a federal court and Clinton had to testify (for 4 hrs, I believe) before a grand jury........
and you respond
Wrong, wild willie lied in a deposition.
and here's the damn truth
Bill Clinton testifies before grand jury, Aug. 17, 1998 - POLITICO
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.
As in questioning something that has nothing to do with reality. Nothing wrong in pointing that out.
.
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.
As in questioning something that has nothing to do with reality. Nothing wrong in pointing that out.
.
Oh, it has a lot to do with reality - it just hasn't actually happened (yet).
That's what hypotheticals are for.
Are you unfamiliar with the term?
buckeye45_73
Lakhota's my *****
- Jun 4, 2011
- 33,635
- 7,118
- 1,130
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.
Or, as regular folk call it, an investigation.
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.
Obstruction of Justice is tho...
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!
Do you not understand 'ongoing investigation'?
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.
Yeah. He should totally do that.
LOL...you guys crack me up.....it's a witch hunt.....if there were anything in this case, it would have leaked......the testimony before congress was a dud.....and so is this "investigation"
whitehall
Diamond Member
Barry Saddam's IRS supervisor refused to honor a subpoena to testify before a House Committee because Hussein claimed "executive privilege".
buckeye45_73
Lakhota's my *****
- Jun 4, 2011
- 33,635
- 7,118
- 1,130
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.
As in questioning something that has nothing to do with reality. Nothing wrong in pointing that out.
.
Oh, it has a lot to do with reality - it just hasn't actually happened (yet).
That's what hypotheticals are for.
Are you unfamiliar with the term?
We are, suppose he's cleared and Obama and Clinton are thrown in jail, what are your thoughts?
nat4900
Diamond Member
- Mar 3, 2015
- 42,021
- 5,965
- 1,870
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #111
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.
The difference, however, (especially on this forum) when the hypothesis goes against the ultra bias of a poster like Tigger, then his only recourse seems to be to attack whomever posed the hypothetical.
Right wingers on here SCREAM for "proof"....but can't seem to be patient enough for that proof to be gathered.....Mueller was appointed 7 months ago and so far he has given the Trump administration 2 convictions and 2 indictments.
Compare that to the Benghazi 17 months inquisition and the number of "convictions" resulting from that inquisition....
Tumblin Tumbleweed
Platinum Member
- Mar 16, 2015
- 22,866
- 8,060
- 465
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.
Or, as regular folk call it, an investigation.
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.
Obstruction of Justice is tho...
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!
Do you not understand 'ongoing investigation'?
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.
Yeah. He should totally do that.
LOL...you guys crack me up.....it's a witch hunt.....if there were anything in this case, it would have leaked......the testimony before congress was a dud.....and so is this "investigation"
Everything will be fine and dandy like cotton candy.
debbiedowner
Gold Member
- Feb 12, 2017
- 12,327
- 3,298
- 275
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.
Well, at least a little over 7 months. Be patient justice takes time, you wouldn't want them to get the wrong person, would you?
On May 17, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to serve as special counsel for the United States Department of Justice.
No you brain dead twerp, this is what I was responding to:
OK, eternal moron
I write
Reagan had to testify before a federal court and Clinton had to testify (for 4 hrs, I believe) before a grand jury........
and you respond
Wrong, wild willie lied in a deposition.
and here's the damn truth
Bill Clinton testifies before grand jury, Aug. 17, 1998 - POLITICO
Clinton gave a sworn deposition on 17 January 1998 where he denied having a "sexual relationship", "sexual affair", or "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. He also denied that he was ever alone with her. His lawyer, Robert Bennet, stated with Clinton present that Lewinsky's affidavit showed that there was no sex in any manner shape or form between Clinton and Lewinsky. The Starr Report states that the following day Clinton "coached" his secretary Betty Curie into repeating his denials should she be called to testify.
Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia
From your link:
Clinton denied under oath that he had engaged in sexual relations with Lewinsky. That testimony led Starr to accuse the president of perjury and obstruction of justice, which in turn prompted his grand jury appearance.
They busted him because of his lies in the deposition.
.
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.
As in questioning something that has nothing to do with reality. Nothing wrong in pointing that out.
.
Oh, it has a lot to do with reality - it just hasn't actually happened (yet).
That's what hypotheticals are for.
Are you unfamiliar with the term?
No, I'm quite familiar with the term, been hearing them spewed from the left for years. Rarely do they have any connection to reality, they're mostly just wishful thinking, kind of like this one. Trump already said he'd have no problem talking to Mueller, subpoenas are issued to reluctant witnesses.
.
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.
The difference, however, (especially on this forum) when the hypothesis goes against the ultra bias of a poster like Tigger, then his only recourse seems to be to attack whomever posed the hypothetical.
Right wingers on here SCREAM for "proof"....but can't seem to be patient enough for that proof to be gathered.....Mueller was appointed 7 months ago and so far he has given the Trump administration 2 convictions and 2 indictments.
Compare that to the Benghazi 17 months inquisition and the number of "convictions" resulting from that inquisition....
OH NO, misdeeds form 10 years ago, and two people who admitted lying with no underlying criminal charges, all outside supposed scope of the investigation into Russian interference. GO FIGURE. Comey wans't even going to charge Flynn, which show Mueller is just being an asshole.
.
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.
As in questioning something that has nothing to do with reality. Nothing wrong in pointing that out.
.
Oh, it has a lot to do with reality - it just hasn't actually happened (yet).
That's what hypotheticals are for.
Are you unfamiliar with the term?
No, I'm quite familiar with the term, been hearing them spewed from the left for years. Rarely do they have any connection to reality, they're mostly just wishful thinking, kind of like this one. Trump already said he'd have no problem talking to Mueller, subpoenas are issued to reluctant witnesses.
.
I'm sure you've heard the term, but I don't know if you've grasped it's meaning - particularly if you think that only "liberals" use them.
What do you call the hundreds, if not thousands of posts predicting the eminent arrest and imprisonment of Clinton/Mueller/Comey/and so on, if not hypothetical?
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.
Well, at least a little over 7 months. Be patient justice takes time, you wouldn't want them to get the wrong person, would you?
On May 17, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to serve as special counsel for the United States Department of Justice.
Mueller has everything the FBI put together since May 2016, you might want to recalculate your time line.
.
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.
As in questioning something that has nothing to do with reality. Nothing wrong in pointing that out.
.
Oh, it has a lot to do with reality - it just hasn't actually happened (yet).
That's what hypotheticals are for.
Are you unfamiliar with the term?
No, I'm quite familiar with the term, been hearing them spewed from the left for years. Rarely do they have any connection to reality, they're mostly just wishful thinking, kind of like this one. Trump already said he'd have no problem talking to Mueller, subpoenas are issued to reluctant witnesses.
.
I'm sure you've heard the term, but I don't know if you've grasped it's meaning - particularly if you think that only "liberals" use them.
What do you call the hundreds, if not thousands of posts predicting the eminent arrest and imprisonment of Clinton/Mueller/Comey/and so on, if not hypothetical?
The same as this one, wishful thinking. After Comey laid out a prima facie case for the prosecution of the bitch and failed to follow through, I assume nothing will occur until it actually happens.
.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 115
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 173
- Replies
- 67
- Views
- 557
- Replies
- 101
- Views
- 764
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 98
- Replies
- 33
- Views
- 221
- Replies
- 323
- Views
- 1K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8543
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 485
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-