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.
I cannot agree with that at all. Trump cares about his image more than anything. He still won't even admit that he lost the popular vote .He will never, not ever, take the 5th in these matters. He would sooner start a constitutional crisis.That's be the definition of a constitutional crisis - More likely he'd appear and take the 5th.
you need a crime to get a subpoena, I'm waiting for what that it is.that says what?Should he?
I say yes, as the investigation is meant to get to the truth. Trump's interview will advance that goal.
I smell a subpoena right around the bend
That puts him in front of a grand jury with no attorney.
You've not been paying attention?
Sure he can take the 5th, but it will look VERY bad.
I cannot agree with that at all. Trump cares about his image more than anything. He still won't even admit that he lost the popular vote .He will never, not ever, take the 5th in these matters. He would sooner start a constitutional crisis.That's be the definition of a constitutional crisis - More likely he'd appear and take the 5th.
a reason for the subpoena is always given. and most individuals are not the president of the US. so try again.you need a crime to get a subpoena, I'm waiting for what that it is.that says what?Should he?
I say yes, as the investigation is meant to get to the truth. Trump's interview will advance that goal.
I smell a subpoena right around the bend
That puts him in front of a grand jury with no attorney.
You've not been paying attention?
Sure he can take the 5th, but it will look VERY bad.
No - actually you do not. Absolutely innocent witnesses get subpoenaed all the time.
it isn't about russia russia, it's called entrapment to get the president out of office on something else. And that only clinton fell for. and you think he and we are stupid.Even though I believe Mueller is barking up the wrong tree, I voted "yes" only because if they didn't meet then it would appear Trump had something to hide. Plus it would look bad if Trump refused to meet with Mueller after willingly meeting with the lowest of low, Kim Jong-Un.
That doesn't support your completely false assertion that evidence of a crime must exist in order to get a subpoena. What happened is that you just kind of made that up and then you said it because it sounded good to you.a reason for the subpoena is always given. and most individuals are not the president of the US. so try again.
But, questions about business or criminal dealings from 8 years ago may be relevant to events during the 2016 campaign. In which case you would have to modify your calclulus.Depends on the focus of the questions if they are strictly about things related to the 2016 election yes if he is going to be asked about stuff from eight or ten years ago no.
a reason for the subpoena is always given. and most individuals are not the president of the US. so try again.
he stated he lost the popular vote and then said that isn't how a president is elected. And you think he's stupid, and you continue to harp on a point that is completely irrelevant.I cannot agree with that at all. Trump cares about his image more than anything. He still won't even admit that he lost the popular vote .He will never, not ever, take the 5th in these matters. He would sooner start a constitutional crisis.That's be the definition of a constitutional crisis - More likely he'd appear and take the 5th.
But Trump is so confident and smart and did nothing wrong, just ask him. And he has the very best words, which will come in handy during the interview.Not many people would be willing to testify in a case where they were the targets of an investigation unless they were compelled by a subpoena
That doesn't support your completely false assertion that evidence of a crime must exist in order to get a subpoena. What happened is that you just kind of made that up and then you said it because it sounded good to you.a reason for the subpoena is always given. and most individuals are not the president of the US. so try again.
no he isn't. Rosenstein stated so. so you're asking for a president to entrap himself in a lie.a reason for the subpoena is always given. and most individuals are not the president of the US. so try again.
Sorry - Trump is a "subject" of this investigation and will be compelled to appear.
Learn something
What to do when you are subpoenaed -- Separation orders -- Sanctions | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
And then afterward repeated his lie about millions of illegal voters, demonstrating the fact that he still did not accept those results as legitimate. Dude, seriously...you are such a time waster...he stated he lost the popular vote and then said that isn't how a president is elected.
No one cares what you think, and there is no upside. You want him to do the interview because you're a Trump hating douchebag and you want him to stick his head in a noose. No lawyer with any kind of integrity says he should to the interview.I disagree. His poll numbers still are not great, and most people think he should do the interview. There clearly is a possible upside for Trump. Unless you think he will probably fall on his face and/or incriminate himself, in which case I can see why you would think there is no possible upside.And Trump could gain the upper hand, with a solid interview. that's a fact. You see no upside... am I to assume you figure him as incapable of this strong an interview?The whole charade is political.
Trump already has the upper hand. The only possible outcomes from an interview would be no benefit for Trump or an attempt by Her Mewler to indict him for perjury.
no he isn't. Rosenstein stated so. so you're asking for a president to entrap himself in a lie.a reason for the subpoena is always given. and most individuals are not the president of the US. so try again.
Sorry - Trump is a "subject" of this investigation and will be compelled to appear.
Learn something
What to do when you are subpoenaed -- Separation orders -- Sanctions | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
