Judge orders Trump accounting firm to hand over records to Congress

You will let me know when I can review the sworn testimony from the lying Trump, won't you?

 

Does Trump lie?

 

Definitely. When he lies under oath, I will comment.

 

What counts is under oath. Time will tell.

 

So you trust liars so long as they aren’t under oath?!!

 

OK so why don't you know the facts about this? What is/are your sources of information on it? This has all been explained and dealt with numerous times on MSM and lefty news/commentary. MSNBC covered it several times. Everyone on the center and the left KNOWS the answers to this but you and the right don't. Why? What crap "news" do you listen to? I think I know.

The Rules say, -and they were referenced by Mueller in the report, -that "a sitting president cannot be indicted". The right has asserted that repeatedly as well. And the DOJ has not changed it. So Mueller abided by the ruling. Now follow the logic....

If a sitting president cannot be indicted, he cannot be dragged into court. If he cannot be brought into court, he cannot defend himself against a charge of a crime. And since he cannot defend himself in a court trial, any indictment is inappropriate because he is left with no defense against charges. THEREFORE, Mueller presented and published the facts, but fell just short of direct accusations and said he "couldn't" go any farther and it is up to others and courts to take it from there.

You can reject all this if you like, but law and law professionals agree with the above. Notice that the above does in fact leave Trump in great jeopardy of additional investigations and charges, like what happens in an impeachment for example. So this is not good news for Trump, AND it is most likely why right wing "news" and the Republicans have been careful to never mention it and instead have just parroted the lie that the Mueller report "exonerated" Trump and "cleared him of all wrong-doing".

 

We cannot wait. Trump has already done great damage to the country and set political precedent that will be only more "solidified" if he isn't impeached for it and removed. If we wait there will be great, great trouble in going back to sanity, plus if there is an election, there is always a chance Trump will be "elected" again. THAT would be disastrous.

 

The problem with this country is being able to run to a judge to demand something with no evidence of a crime, and a 'totally non biased judge' determining a company needs to hand over private financial documents, just because.

Nobody gives a **** what some judge thinks, as nobody should.

 

Actually, I am well aware. But AG Barr specifically stated that he evaluated the evidence gathered by Mueller WITHOUT examining that rule.(IE: Barr held for the purpose of evaluating purposes that the OLC recommendation, not a ruling that the President may not be indicted). So either we take the AG at his word, or MSNBC. Guess which one I'm leaning towards? And while Mueller might have cited the rule as a cop-out, it's clear that he didn't seriously believe it or he wouldn't have wrote the second report.

I hold the legal opinion(backed up by Mr. McCarthy) that if we were to take Mueller's interpretation of the OLC recommendation at face value, there is nothing that stops a sealed indictment, the original purpose of which to keep criminals from fleeing or destroying evidence. It works well in this case too. So why didn't Mueller file under seal?(Before the report, Democrats speculated as such as well.)

So it's not that we're unaware of Mueller's convenient excuses, we just don't buy it. And his excuses require further explanation(or at least, we'd like it but as I said: Coward's not going to appear.) Not June, not July and not any time. He had TWO years to be candid with this Republic, why should a zebra change its stripes now?

He used then-DAG Rosenstein as a mouthpiece, he opted to use AG Barr as a mouthpiece. The pattern is consistent. If you do get testimony, you won't get it directly from Mueller but a spokesperson of his team. Try subponeaing that, you'll have better luck.

 

You are taking the word of a personal AG-lawyer who is willing to lie for a corrupt, lying "president". Barr has been exposed for lies and bogus reasoning. And BTW, it's not just MSNBC. It's all of MSM. You might even find it in the WSJ and other sources besides NYT, NBC, CBS, Reuters, WAPO, etc, etc, etc,. So your excuse is bogus.

 

Sworn testimony, under oath, by someone who has personal and explicit knowledge of the existence of a crime QUALIFIES AS EVIDENCE.

If you do not give a **** what some judge thinks, then you deserve every criminal punishment that you have earned.

 

Bill and Hillary Clinton agree with you!..................Do you people EVER think about the beds you have made over decades of stupid witch hunts?..............................I guess your answer is a resounding NO!

 

Yes exactly what you said. Own it, my friend.

From your post 38. “Why do you not object to a criminal being in the WH?”

 

After all your posts? That be tough, nearly impossible, my Liberal friend

 

At least you're modestly admitting that most of those papers are left-leaning, furthermore they're journalists who aren't necessarily intellectually equipped to sort through the legal jingo. From what I know, nothing is or would have stopped Mueller from filing a sealed indictment. So, why didn't he? Only he, and he alone knows.

And it is Mueller's team with the impasse. NOT Trump. Why do you guys feel the need to blame Trump for the things he doesn't do? It makes you look ludicrous. Instead, acknowledge what I've acknowledged for two years: At every opportunity Mueller's had to be transparent, he's dodged.

It's the kind of human being he is, at heart. And that's not illegal and I'm not suggesting it is, it's just sad.

 

Haven’t Libs predicted Trump will resign by mid 1st term?

Yes you did.

Perhaps he likes it more than you hope he does.

 

You didn't read or you didn't comprehend my post and you seem to have trouble with critical thinking. YOU AND I don't know whether we have a criminal in the WH but I suspect we may, so with all the evidence I want an investigation to find out, so I will know because I object to a criminal being in the WH. So we need to find out. And investigation is required if we are to find out.

So I want an investigation because I would object to a criminal being in the WH. YOU, OTOH, don't want any investigation, so YOU apparently don't object to such a possibility or you would want an investigation to find out.

There, I spoon-fed you so it would be clear. AND I typed slowly to give you time to digest it!

CONCLUSION: I didn't say anyone was a criminal.

 

You want to investigate Trump because you don’t know if he’s a criminal or not... how perverted is this?

That is not how American jurisprudence suppose to operate.

 

Uhm that’s exactly how it works lol
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. So by definition everyone invesigated is still innocent lol

 

That's exactly how it works. People who are suspected of crimes are investigated. How did you think it worked?

 

No. The crime must be committed for it to be investigated.

 

First you convict then you investigate lol

 

Wrong again. Hillary was investigated yet no crimes were found lol

 

So far, that grand trumpian strategery isn't helping his popularity any. It's just making him look like an angry, desperate crook and tyrant.

 

No, the WSJ is conservative, and the rest is MSM except for MSNBC.

I already explained that to you here.

You're doing your best to deny, dodge, and deflect.