Trump attorneys' letter to Mueller spells out legal arguments ...

Sounds like someone keeps trying to convince his or herself it's all not true even in the face of overwhelming evidence and reality.

originally posted by: Liquesence
Sounds like someone keeps trying to convince his or herself it's all not true even in the face of overwhelming evidence and reality.

Thats why I keep providing the information he or she keeps ignoring because it doesnt fit with their agenda or reality.

Ignorance is a choice.

Feel free to give a counter argument to the facts presented.



Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms

Ok Donny boy.
I hope he tries.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm sure you think there's some difference here.

a reply to: angeldoll

They know the same as the rest of us.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I personally don't want to live in a country where a "president" can perpetrate whatever outrageous lies he wants to, try to circumvent all avenues of justice, and then pardon himself. It creates a more sophisticated dictatorship, but nonetheless a dictatorship.

If the law states that, regardless of your convoluted thinking, the Dems will change it when they take back congress, to insure such travesties in our country never reoccur.

Have you even noticed how stupid it is to even be debating this? I mean, he's supposed to be innocent? Of what? Of lying? But you are all too enmeshed in your righteous fantasies to entertain the obvious.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You realize that this has all been litigated already, and your 'argument' has been found to be total legal hogwash, don't you?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DanDanDat

Mueller probably doesn't need an interview with trump. He is giving trump an opportunity to tell his side of the story.

haha Do you think they are interested in his side of the story? Mueller only wants to do the interview in an attempt to catch him on something he can sink his teeth in to. Mueller has nothing and his trying his best to throw a hell mary.


If I were Trump I would sit down with about 30 layers present and let them all plead the fif for me

a reply to: GuidedKill


If he pleads the 5th...you must aquit.....since there is no evidence.

a reply to: angeldoll

Ironic you invoke the term dictatorship while at the same time ignoring whats spelled out in the Constitution and several Supreme Court ruling.

The dictatorship comes when the rule of law is ignored. Ignoring the constitution and Supreme Court rulings solely because they dont support your agenda is dangerous and also is the definition of a dictatorship.

I love the left when they scream about legalities and dictatorships will the while engaging in and advocating for the very thing they claim to be against.

Trying to remove a lawfully elected President because you dont like him is also going down the road of a dictatorship.

It is also called a coup.

Let that sink in.

originally posted by: Sillyolme



Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms

Ok Donny boy.
I hope he tries.

and if he does what do you think you are going to do about it? Try to ignore the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings more than you do now? Throw a temper tantrum more than what we are seeing now?Ignore reality more than you are doing now?

Seriously - what are you going to do?

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Xcathdra

You realize that this has all been litigated already, and your 'argument' has been found to be total legal hogwash, don't you?

Feel free to cite your sources where this has already been litigated.

Or are you hoping you arent challenged on the misinformation you just tried to pass as fact?

a reply to: GuidedKill

That is because it is all they can do to try to justify this illegal special counsel. None of the convictions are related to Trump or Trump Russia collusion. All they can do is get him to sit down under oath and ask him the same question phrased differently each time in a desperate hope his answer varies slightly for the lying under oath charge.

Democrats keep bitching they have overwhelming evidence Trump broke the law. If that is the case there is no need to interview Trump then. Go straight to impeachment and then prosecution.

However they wont do that because the left has nothing but the lies they have kept repeating since Clinton lost.

All Democrats who pushed this Trump Russia bs are going to get slammed in their next elections. They have provided enough audio / video to make some great campaign ads against them using their own words.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The dictatorship comes when the rule of law is ignored.

Partially.

But it's much simpler to pull off when there is no oversight, or checks and balances that are enforced.
If Donald Trump tries to pardon himself, (and for WHAT? What has he been charged with, and why are you so sure he will be charged with something?) but, he will only accomplish making himself look very, very guilty, in addition to making a complete fool out of himself.

a reply to: angeldoll

There is oversight and there are checks and balances and they are enforced. I think you dont adequately understand what checks and balances are and where they end.

He can pardon himself. There is nothing in the Constitution (you should really read it) that restricts his pardon authority. Secondly a person does not have to be charged with any crime or convicted of a crime in order to receive a presidential pardon. Given the left likes to constantly scream Nixon one would think they would actually know all the facts surrounding that case but apparently since all the facts dont support their agenda they just ignore them.

As for charges Mueller and people on his team have a bad history of filing charges against innocent people. Those prosecutors on his staff have been sanctioned by the courts for unethical behavior and have had cases throw n out and convictions overturned for Brady and Giglio violations. Their behavior in those cases is no different than what we are seeing now and considering several judges have called out the SC in 2 of their prosecutions its not difficult to see where this is going.

As for making himself look guilty is irrelevant since in our system only a court (judge or jury) can find a person guilty of a crime. Given the number of Americans who do not support this Mueller investigation and the recent number who think the SC is playing nothing but politics I would not bet on how something looks.

I would rather issue a pardon to end the sham investigation than to be a prosecutor in that investigation, going on 2 years now and 17 million dollars with absolutely nothing to show for its mandate - Trump-Russia collusion.

But since your focused on looks how do you think Democrats are going to look when the run for reelection and have to answer the question of - You said you saw smoking gun evidence of Trump Russia collusion yet the SC found none. What did you see and why did the SC not prosecute.

Follow up - Were you lying to the people or are you lying to us now?

Considering Bill Clinton is now wading into the impeachment debate the left has yet another massive problem they wont know how to deal with. Clinton seems to forgot he was impeached because he lied under oath in a civil investigation. Not to mention he made bad case law for the Office of the President when he tried to use sovereign immunity to block the civil proceedings against him. Because of him he made bad case law for all other people who hold that office.

If the left is going to pull out the big guns to help their case maybe they should make sure they dont shoot themselves in the foot with it.

Seriously if mueller has stated trump is not under criminal investigation twice then how do you deal with the investigation if you are him and actually understand that potus is head over all criminal investigations unless he is the target of a criminal investigation.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Xcathdra

You realize that this has all been litigated already, and your 'argument' has been found to be total legal hogwash, don't you?

Feel free to cite your sources where this has already been litigated.

Or are you hoping you arent challenged on the misinformation you just tried to pass as fact?

I don't have easy access to the actual court documents, so I'll just have to give you a link to a newspaper article about it:

Manafort’s Lawsuit Taking Aim at Mueller Is Tossed Out of Court

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Seriously if mueller has stated trump is not under criminal investigation twice then how do you deal with the investigation if you are him and actually understand that potus is head over all criminal investigations unless he is the target of a criminal investigation.

He hasn't said that. He has said that 'he is not a target at the moment'. The word 'target' is a specific 'term of art' in FBI investigation speak.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Seriously if mueller has stated trump is not under criminal investigation twice then how do you deal with the investigation if you are him and actually understand that potus is head over all criminal investigations unless he is the target of a criminal investigation.

If he is not under criminal investigation, if he is innocent, why is he so reactionary?

If he is not under criminal investigation, if he is innocent, then how to deal with it? Ignore it, because he is not personally under investigation, right?

If he is not under criminal investigation, if he is innocent, he has nothing to worry about, right?

a reply to: Sillyolme

My words speak for themselves. I cant help it if you cant follow.

Unlike some posters I try to limit my responses to you to about 1-2 per week. Usually only if I feel like some light hearted jousting.

Any more than that seems futile on my behalf