It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: antiantonym
You think jumping on the "Trump lies" meme bandwagon is substantive?
No wonder i put no credibility in the Trump opposition.
First of all, it details efforts by his legal team to keep him from having to perform under oath
The fact that Trump's legal team see fit to even attempt to keep him from
originally posted by: darkbake
I think this is a problem, as Trump seems to get confused a lot and can't keep his facts straight. I'm not sure he could do a series of interviews without contradicting himself.
originally posted by: antiantonym
originally posted by: Metallicus
I think you should stop trashing ATS with pointless threads every 10 minutes and get some sleep. As far as predictions go I predict nothing will happen just like all the other predictions of a Trump’s demise.
Do you need this news from a conservative source?
Is that better?
This is what I've been saying for months is the climax of the Russian investigation...Trump testifying under oath. I believe the entire thing may have been a conspiracy to get to this point.
The moment he swears "to tell the truth", they've got him. They know it.
I can see why you're lashing out. This is the most substantive issue I've raised here. Your true colors are showing.
Huh? I’m pretty sure it would be every lawyer’s plan to try to avoid putting their client on the stand. Why would you find that suspicious? You know very well that a lawyer’s job is to try to stay out of a trial or any litigation if possible.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Metallicus
While "Trump's demise" may not be on the cards as a result of the way this situation shakes down, this thread is far from pointless.
It brings up several interesting points. First of all, it details efforts by his legal team to keep him from having to perform under oath, which any reasonable person would find suspect. Second, it goes on to point out that Mr Trump is likely to have trouble under oath, because, as has been shown to be demonstrably the case, the man is fundamentally incapable of either accuracy or honesty in his statements.
If a person is to lead a nation like America, that person has to be beholden to the same rules and social expectations as the rest of the population, otherwise, what you have is some sort of pseudo monarchy, which for rather obvious, constitutional, historical reasons, would be totally unacceptable to most people in that nation. Therefore, there is no reason for the President to get a free pass, and be able to avoid providing his person for the purpose of being questioned under oath, since any other person required to do so by a court order or summons directly from an AG, would have to so appear. There is no reason that his words, under that oath, should be treated any differently than the word of anyone else, nor that consequences for failing to be honest and accurate, ought to be mitigated by the fact that the person in question occupies high office of any kind, leave alone the office of the President of the United States.
The fact that Trump's legal team see fit to even attempt to keep him from personally and verbally responding to questioning, suggests that they do not believe he is capable of withstanding legal scrutiny of this sort (something which anyone worthy of his position would at least be artful enough to do, even if they were guilty of something, by the way).