Giuliani Says There is a 50-50 Chance Mueller Subpoenas Trump..which He Can Ignore.

a reply to: carewemust

No he didn't say take it or leave it but boy that sounds so tough... and how much you wanna bet that's not how this goes down?
He opened up a negotiating situation and his proposition was rejected. In the end trump will sit down and answer questions or face the nation's questions about what he's hiding.
You have got to see there is no happy ending for trump here. No hope of that at all unless there's some miracle ...
Like Mueller is really investigating the Clinton's and Obama lol.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: carewemust




We are no longer a nation of laws, there is no more equality under the law.


The US has become a Banana Republic.



And it's only going to get uglier.

Ummm...how very Mad Maxian of you...

I get the car with the really cool flame throwers...





YouSir

a reply to: Sillyolme

Because if they had enough to get impeachment and conviction they wouldn't need Trump's testimony. So why supoena a man that conservative leaning SCOTUS may not compel to testify anyway?

a reply to: carewemust



Again, during the White Water investigation against Clinton, it went on for months and Clinton cooperated with the FBI, even though he was innocent. Even with all of the negative press against Clinton, he never once turned on the MSM, for reporting the NEWS, and he certainly did not lash out at the FBI.

trump keeps saying he is innocent, but he acts guilty as hell. I know the man Is guilty of something bad, no innocent person lashes out the way he does!

a reply to: Arizonaguy

To give him a chance to tell his side of the story?

a reply to: Arizonaguy

And the court is not in trumps pocket. They are bipartisan. This issue has nothing to do with conservatism. Why would you even think it would?

a reply to: kurthall

I know the man Is guilty of something bad, no innocent person lashes out the way he does!

I hope you are in no way any kind of authority figure.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Why?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

Wow you're a perfect echo of what ever his sycophants say on tv. I saw Giuliani and Hannity both posit the same nonsense.
How your feel and what your thinking is EVERYTHING. It's even got a name.
Criminal Intent. They even put it in the title of a show about law and order lol.

Criminal intent has nothing to do with what a person thinks. In fact in criminal law what a person thinks is irrelevant only actions can be criminal. What criminal intent is if I commit a crime such as robbery and someone is killed by say a guard i can be shown as having criminal intent,and because if this i can be tried for murder even thoufh the guard did it. Not because of what I'm thinking but my actions I took had I chose not to commit a robery the person would still be alive meaning my actions led directly to a criminal act that would not have occurred if intent was not involved.

So no one has ever been prosecuted for what they were thinking and if these are truly Muellers questions he needs to be fired. Any 1st year law student knows what Trump was thinking is irrelevant either he obstructed justice or his actions were legal. Since the president has the power to dismiss Comey his actions were legal.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Uh..because very often The Justices have very different opinions what the law is based upon political ideology.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Because in the USA one is presumed INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

You can't trap someone in purjury. The only one who can do that is the person being interviewed. To avoid a perjury charge is the simplest thing in the world.
Just TELL THE TRUTH!

I hate to say it, but it's really not that simple given the circumstances. This whole affair is largely being played out in the media, either through leaks or official comments, and the public perception of Trump is critical, particularly given the claims that it is a biased witch-hunt.

Consider these two scenarios:

1) Mueller asks Trump how he felt when Comey did such-and-such (knowing that two other people told him that Trump was annoyed). Trump says "ah, it didn't bother me that much". Headline the following day: "Trump lies to Special Counsel".

2) Trump says "yeah, it made me angry". Headline the following day: "Trump furious at Comey; revenge firing reeks of obstruction".

In either scenario it's lose-lose for Trump, because either can justify a move towards impeachment, particularly in the public's eye. Here's why that's important: the current investigation should be based on actual evidentiary findings, not feelings and thoughts and opinions - these are always challenged in court. Trump's position should rightly be, "if you have sufficient evidence to make a case, then make it already..."

Lastly, even pleading the fifth isn't the smartest option here because the 5th amendment is a statute on 'self-incrimination', which unfortunately means the public assume a defendant only pleads the fifth because they must know something incriminating (which is obviously not true, broadly speaking). Unfortunately, the real best option here is following Hillary's famous run of 20-odd "I don't recall" responses. That means they avoid the presumed guilt of pleading the fifth, but also keep hearsay, speculation and extrapolation out if the mix. It forces the prosecution to rely on actual evidentiary findings.

That's my two cents worth, anyway. Source: nearly 30 years of political and legal research.
Rewey

a reply to: kurthall

White water was Nixon...do you really have any idea what you're talking about...cause I don't think so.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Is Canada's news media more focused on FLUFF instead of serious news, like our media is here in the USA?

It used to be fluff, as in Canadian fluff like baking contests, school board budgets, humanitarian efforts etc... now it's all American fluff. Alleged terror plots, reasons to hate Trump supporters, boys touching girls is bad and pipe lines.

I stopped watching the news in my house when my son at 7 years old had to asked me "why did that officer kick that man in the face?" Some things you can't explain to kids and modern Canadian news is infiltrating Canadian family units with topics that have no absolute answers that which children rely on. Its dirty.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: MALBOSIA

He has? Because it looks from my angle that he's been triggered by every move and unable to focus on anything else. He fills every ear he can with his woes. He cries every day..no fair no fair.

But you see that as ignoring what's going on?

Okay...

Your too narrow minded to see it any way but your own. You, Swills and Anne cannot be conversed with.

But to respond to you he has done a "pretty good job" of avoiding the witch hunt against him.

Mind you he has not done as nearly good of a job as Hillary and the MSM at ignoring the fact the entire world hates her guts and everything she stands for. They definitely hold the title of most ignorant, self centered and delusional.

When does Hillary announce her run at strike 3? Can't wait....

a reply to: MALBOSIA

. You, Swills and Anne cannot be conversed with.

You mean convinced don't you?

You can talk to me.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: kurthall

White water was Nixon...do you really have any idea what you're talking about...cause I don't think so.

Uhhh..

Watergate

a reply to: PistolPete

That's what I meant...lol...been a long week.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

Justice is blind my friend. You seem a bit confused. These guys are not passing a law where viewpoint would weigh in. It's a criminal court. Only the facts and the law will apply.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: PistolPete

That's what I meant...lol...been a long week.

I feel you