Weisselberg Indicted

[colfax_m]

Going to Nixon? Really?

Well, when it comes to Trump refusing to comply with a valid subpoena for a criminal proceeding issued by a grand jury, it’s pretty relevant.

 

[martybegan]

If States could subpoena the president at will the system would choke on itself. Federal is superior to State, and at the fed level the President can only be removed or even summoned by congress

They can subpoena the president.

Hell, a damn office staffer could subpoena the president in a civil suit for sexual harassment.

You’re delusional. A subpoena does not remove a president, dumbass. Your argument doesn’t even make sense.

they wouldn't have to remove him then, just subpoena him every time the felt like it.

Lawfare at it's worst.

 

[martybegan]

If he thought he was above the law, he wouldn't of followed the Court's order. He made an argument just like any other person has a right to do, and made a similar argument that prior Presidents have made

His argument was that he was above the law.

If you think Obama made a similar argument, cite the case.

if congress can hold him responsible he is not above the law.

Get it through your thick dime store skull.

 

[martybegan]

Going to Nixon? Really?

Well, when it comes to Trump refusing to comply with a valid subpoena for a criminal proceeding issued by a grand jury, it’s pretty relevant.

"Valid"

LOL. Another political witch hunt.

 

[colfax_m]

"Valid"

LOL. Another political witch hunt.

It was valid. Predicated on probable cause by a grand jury properly convened on a matter which they have jurisdiction.

How’s that back feel?

 

[colfax_m]

if congress can hold him responsible he is not above the law.

If he can refuse to comply with legal investigations, he’s above the law.

 

[struth]

If he thought he was above the law, he wouldn't of followed the Court's order. He made an argument just like any other person has a right to do, and made a similar argument that prior Presidents have made

His argument was that he was above the law.

If you think Obama made a similar argument, cite the case.

I literally just cited the brief...which is loaded with case law.

Here is the opinion by Obama arguing that he doesn't have to have his staff comply with Congressional oversight: https://www.justice.gov/file/30896/download

He was wrong of course.

Trump did however, win his case against the House that was trying to get his personal documents.

 

[martybegan]

"Valid"

LOL. Another political witch hunt.

It was valid. Predicated on probable cause by a grand jury properly convened on a matter which they have jurisdiction.

How’s that back feel?

None of what you said couldn't also apply to a bullshit political prosecution/persecution.

You argue process, not content.

 

[martybegan]

if congress can hold him responsible he is not above the law.

If he can refuse to comply with legal investigations, he’s above the law.

Again, if congress can hold him responsible, he is not above the law.

 

[colfax_m]

they wouldn't have to remove him then, just subpoena him every time the felt like it.

You can’t issue a subpoena anytime you feel like it.

This is why you shouldn’t elect crooks.

 

[struth]

"Valid"

LOL. Another political witch hunt.

It was valid. Predicated on probable cause by a grand jury properly convened on a matter which they have jurisdiction.

How’s that back feel?

I actually have no problem with Vance getting the documents. I also agree with the SCOTUS opinion on that issue, but certainly don't think the President thought he was above the law by exercising his Constitutional rights to challenge the request.

With that said, Vance and his time of experts coudn't find anything. We know it was a witch hunt

 

[martybegan]

they wouldn't have to remove him then, just subpoena him every time the felt like it.

You can’t issue a subpoena anytime you feel like it.

This is why you shouldn’t elect crooks.

That's a Dem problem, not a Republican one, only Dems love to use lawfare to fuck over people they hate.

 

[colfax_m]

"Valid"

LOL. Another political witch hunt.

It was valid. Predicated on probable cause by a grand jury properly convened on a matter which they have jurisdiction.

How’s that back feel?

None of what you said couldn't also apply to a bullshit political prosecution/persecution.

You argue process, not content.

If it were all bullshit, there wouldn’t be probable cause and a subpoena wouldn’t be issued by the grand jury.

You’re pathetic.

 

[colfax_m]

Dems love to use lawfare to fuck over people they hate.

Hahahahaha!
Really? Why do you think Trump sues so many people? This asshole loves it and always has.

You’re delusional.

 

[colfax_m]

I also agree with the SCOTUS opinion on that issue, but certainly don't think the President thought he was above the law by exercising his Constitutional rights to challenge the request.

Exercising a right to challenge isn’t what makes him above the law.

To challenge a subpoena, you make an argument why you shouldn’t have to comply. There are many arguments to be made.

The argument Trump made is that he is immune, which means he’s above the law.

 

[colfax_m]

If he thought he was above the law, he wouldn't of followed the Court's order. He made an argument just like any other person has a right to do, and made a similar argument that prior Presidents have made

His argument was that he was above the law.

If you think Obama made a similar argument, cite the case.

I literally just cited the brief...which is loaded with case law.

Here is the opinion by Obama arguing that he doesn't have to have his staff comply with Congressional oversight: https://www.justice.gov/file/30896/download

He was wrong of course.

Trump did however, win his case against the House that was trying to get his personal documents.

That is not the same argument.

That was a Congressional subpoena on executive branch material part of his official duties.

Trump fought a criminal subpoena on a private matter.

The difference is night and day.

 

[struth]

I also agree with the SCOTUS opinion on that issue, but certainly don't think the President thought he was above the law by exercising his Constitutional rights to challenge the request.

Exercising a right to challenge isn’t what makes him above the law.

To challenge a subpoena, you make an argument why you shouldn’t have to comply. There are many arguments to be made.

The argument Trump made is that he is immune, which means he’s above the law.

But that's what you are claiming

and that's what the President did.

yes, he made the same argument that others in his office have made, and the President does have certain immunities while President.

 

[jc456]

"Valid"

LOL. Another political witch hunt.

It was valid. Predicated on probable cause by a grand jury properly convened on a matter which they have jurisdiction.

How’s that back feel?

are you suggesting Trump had no legal rights?

 

[struth]

If he thought he was above the law, he wouldn't of followed the Court's order. He made an argument just like any other person has a right to do, and made a similar argument that prior Presidents have made

His argument was that he was above the law.

If you think Obama made a similar argument, cite the case.

I literally just cited the brief...which is loaded with case law.

Here is the opinion by Obama arguing that he doesn't have to have his staff comply with Congressional oversight: https://www.justice.gov/file/30896/download

He was wrong of course.

Trump did however, win his case against the House that was trying to get his personal documents.

That is not the same argument.

That was a Congressional subpoena on executive branch material part of his official duties.

Trump fought a criminal subpoena on a private matter.

The difference is night and day.

It's very much the same argument.

It wasn't on material, but a person to come testify...Obama was wrong...but he made the argument.

Well Trump's case was two cases, he was right about the House's request, at least the Court agreed...and the Court disagreed on the Vance matter, he turned the documents over...but made similar arguments, as outlined in his brief, loaded with case law to support their argument which I provided.

Look, I get you are using adjectives given to you by leftist propagandist, and were unaware that the arguments aren't new, unique to Trump or anything that other Presidents, including your Dear Leader Obama have used.....it's just silly....that you continue to hold on to them even when confronted with the facts.

With that said, it's no different then you holding on to your silly belief that, any day now he'll be indicted.

 

[struth]

"Valid"

LOL. Another political witch hunt.s

It was valid. Predicated on probable cause by a grand jury properly convened on a matter which they have jurisdiction.

How’s that back feel?

are you suggesting Trump had no legal rights?

Basically....yes...heck the Dems impeached him in the House for exercising his rights!