Trump signals he will use executive privilege to block Bolton testimony in Senate

C

Cinnabar

Verified User
But Trump did nothing wrong, therefore Bolton can clear him so what is Trump afraid of? NO QUID PRO QUO!!!

Trump, who said earlier this week he would consult his lawyers on the issue of executive privilege, claimed he personally had "no problem" with Bolton testifying but argued that he has to consider the precedent it would set for presidential privilege and how much a commander in chief would be able to confide in advisers.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ny-in-senate-trial/ar-BBYQaht?ocid=spartandhp
Click to expand...

One must wonder what new distraction the orange douche is contemplating now. A war with N. Korea? Will they take out one of Kim's generals? Stay tuned for the next episode of the IMPEACHED ONE's reality show...The White House Episodes.
 
Last edited:
Cinnabar said:
But Trump did nothing wrong, therefore Bolton can clear him so what is Trump afraid of? NO QUID PRO QUO!!!

One must wonder what new distraction the orange douche is contemplating now. A war with N. Korea? Will they take out one of Kim's generals? Stay tuned for The IMPEACHED ONES reality show...The White House Episodes.
Click to expand...

You should see a mental health expert about that severe case of moron and TDS you have. :rolleyes:

C72l3o.gif
 
Bolton can ignore Trump and talk to the Press.

He can talk to Congress.

He can write a Ukraine-tellall.

Not a thing Trump can do.
 
Hello Flash,

Flash said:
Logic is not having the accused testify at the trial.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean like President Bill Clinton did at his own impeachment trial, you know, just to be like a leader and stand up before the American people and explain himself under oath for all to see?

Like THAT???

Is it that what's good for the Democrat is too much for the Republican?

Is that it?

According to what your definition of "is" is?
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Flash,



Oh, you mean like President Bill Clinton did at his own impeachment trial, you know, just to be like a leader and stand up before the American people and explain himself under oath for all to see?

Like THAT???

Is it that what's good for the Democrat is too much for the Republican?

Is that it?

According to what your definition of "is" is?
Click to expand...

Lol,

I did not have sexual relations with that woman...

He committed perjury, a crime.

And was disbarred.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Flash,

Oh, you mean like President Bill Clinton did at his own impeachment trial, you know, just to be like a leader and stand up before the American people and explain himself under oath for all to see?

Like THAT???

Is it that what's good for the Democrat is too much for the Republican?

Is that it?

According to what your definition of "is" is?
Click to expand...

You mean after Clinton stood up and lied to the American public and his staff? He only became a "leader" after he got caught.

Clinton is a perfect example of why the defendant shouldn't testify. He lied, got caught, and was impeached for perjury before the grand jury, suspended his law license for five years in Arkansas, and paid a $25,000 fine in the Lewinsky case in return for not being prosecuted for perjury. He also paid a $90,000 fine for contempt for lying in the Paula Jones case.

If your spouse or child was accused of a crime and a good defense attorney recommended they not testify at the trial, would you ignore that advice and tell them to testify?

I saw a trial where the defendant took the stand and did a very good job of throwing a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury--until cross-examination.

But I don't think you want the best defense for the accused--you want anything you think will hurt Trump; instead, you are trying to make some kind of moral argument about taking the stand.
 
Hello Flash,

Flash said:
You mean after Clinton stood up and lied to the American public and his staff? He only became a "leader" after he got caught.

Clinton is a perfect example of why the defendant shouldn't testify. He lied, got caught, and was impeached for perjury before the grand jury, suspended his law license for five years in Arkansas, and paid a $25,000 fine in the Lewinsky case in return for not being prosecuted for perjury. He also paid a $90,000 fine for contempt for lying in the Paula Jones case.

If your spouse or child was accused of a crime and a good defense attorney recommended they not testify at the trial, would you ignore that advice and tell them to testify?

I saw a trial where the defendant took the stand and did a very good job of throwing a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury--until cross-examination.

But I don't think you want the best defense for the accused--you want anything you think will hurt Trump; instead, you are trying to make some kind of moral argument about taking the stand.
Click to expand...

This is not a criminal trial. This is our leader who needs to explain himself under oath.

Citizens in criminal trials did not take an oath to hold allegiance to the Constitution, and they are not accused of abusing the most powerful position in the world. Citizens in criminal trials are not leaders that we look up to explain what happened in national and world news.

Bad comparison, yours.

And all that other dirt about Clinton, multiply that by a thousand and you've got Trump.
 
Flash said:
You mean after Clinton stood up and lied to the American public and his staff? He only became a "leader" after he got caught.

Clinton is a perfect example of why the defendant shouldn't testify. He lied, got caught, and was impeached for perjury before the grand jury, suspended his law license for five years in Arkansas, and paid a $25,000 fine in the Lewinsky case in return for not being prosecuted for perjury. He also paid a $90,000 fine for contempt for lying in the Paula Jones case.

If your spouse or child was accused of a crime and a good defense attorney recommended they not testify at the trial, would you ignore that advice and tell them to testify?

I saw a trial where the defendant took the stand and did a very good job of throwing a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury--until cross-examination.

But I don't think you want the best defense for the accused--you want anything you think will hurt Trump; instead, you are trying to make some kind of moral argument about taking the stand.
Click to expand...

Precisely.
 
Of course it's a political trial.

President Trump has every right to protect Executive Privilege...for himself and future presidents.
 
Flash said:
You mean after Clinton stood up and lied to the American public and his staff? He only became a "leader" after he got caught.

Clinton is a perfect example of why the defendant shouldn't testify. He lied, got caught, and was impeached for perjury before the grand jury, suspended his law license for five years in Arkansas, and paid a $25,000 fine in the Lewinsky case in return for not being prosecuted for perjury. He also paid a $90,000 fine for contempt for lying in the Paula Jones case.

If your spouse or child was accused of a crime and a good defense attorney recommended they not testify at the trial, would you ignore that advice and tell them to testify?

I saw a trial where the defendant took the stand and did a very good job of throwing a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury--until cross-examination.

But I don't think you want the best defense for the accused--you want anything you think will hurt Trump; instead, you are trying to make some kind of moral argument about taking the stand.
Click to expand...

Clinton does not excuse Trump
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Flash,

This is not a criminal trial. This is our leader who needs to explain himself under oath.

Citizens in criminal trials did not take an oath to hold allegiance to the Constitution, and they are not accused of abusing the most powerful position in the world. Citizens in criminal trials are not leaders that we look up to explain what happened in national and world news.

Bad comparison, yours.

And all that other dirt about Clinton, multiply that by a thousand and you've got Trump.
Click to expand...

Trump has already given us his version of events. Do you think that is going to change?
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Flash,



This is not a criminal trial. This is our leader who needs to explain himself under oath.

Citizens in criminal trials did not take an oath to hold allegiance to the Constitution, and they are not accused of abusing the most powerful position in the world. Citizens in criminal trials are not leaders that we look up to explain what happened in national and world news.

Bad comparison, yours.

And all that other dirt about Clinton, multiply that by a thousand and you've got Trump.
Click to expand...

I realize it is not a criminal trial, but the principle is the same. It is not a good defense strategy for the person accused (by the House). Also, why should he bother since we both know the Senate will not convict him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top