|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 26 2018 12:52 Plansix wrote:
Again, elected officials are not allowed to fire investigators for investigating things the elected official doesn't want investigated. It doesn't matter if they are allowed to do it, governors and the President can't just fire an investigator in an effort to end an investigation. People should not be using the Fox News approved "Well it is his right as President" argument.
Anyone with just a shred of common sense would get that one right. Guess people are so far up trumps arse that they're not gathering that they're not in russia/north korea/philippines. Not that far fetched considering the whining and bitching of trump that newspapers are mean to him and he won't visit until the PM of another country "does something about it".
edit: but goes to show how much power media has nowadays, see the example one page earlier. Even though calling Hannity "media" is rather far fetched.
|
|
|
That definitely doesn't look good. Again, it's not the being obese that's the problem, it's the lying about it. And also potentially yes, "being obese" in this case could be a problem. But hey, Introvert is so convinced nothing happened anywhere along the line, so I guess we can tell the Special Counsel not to waste his time anymore. Pack it up.
|
|
|
On January 26 2018 12:06 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 11:56 zlefin wrote:On January 26 2018 11:55 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 11:44 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 11:39 Plansix wrote:On January 26 2018 11:36 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 11:34 Plansix wrote:On January 26 2018 11:31 Leporello wrote:
Trump won't be impeached tomorrow because Republicans. Impeachment is serious. They need to wait for the investigation to end and make the case to the public. And also be democrats, not tea party clowns. That would assume that you could trust in the integrity of republican politicians. Which makes even republicans chuckle. Lets be real. Trump gets impeached if he gets caught while being handed a yuge stash of cash by putin himself in the Kremlin. Maybe. Not over any of this. For that, you'd need to have country over party, not the other way around. Nixon was impeached for firing the special counsel. It might happen here, but not until 2019. Unarguably i'm not as versed in "politicians 101" of the 60s and 70s, but my gut tells me that men back then had a shred more incentive to "do the right thing". Maybe it's just me, or nostalgia for "better times" - i don't think the situation is comparable. Again, there's republicans calling for firing Mueller. I don't know enough about nixons situation, if republicans back then did ask for the counsel to be fired? because you can't convince the American public That isn't a requirement. Acutally, since impeachment is political, it most certainly is. You have to convince enough of the public that you don't get thrown out on your rear. Nixon actually did something and covered up a real crime. When Mueller clears Trump of collusion there is going to be hell to pay. quite an assumption that trump will be cleared of collusion  but is indeed no tabout making a sensible case; if sense reigned trump wouldn't be president, and he would've been impeached already. so it's a question of what nonsense a lot of crazy people believe. Given that Mueller wants to talk to the man at the top about obstruction, I assume that not only are we near the end of "collusion" but that Mueller is most of the way through "obstruction" too. I take most of this from columns by Andrew McCarthy who has already pointed out why it's no longer about collusion, I posted those articles here. Moreover, it's not clear that firing the special counsel is outside his authority, McGahn thinks it is not. Honestly if it turns out this investigation was predicated on a crime that didn't happen you aren't going to get support for a (rightfully) angry president firing someone in a moment of anger. This happened LAST JUNE. That's so long ago and Trump has done nothing so far as we know to actually obstruct.
There's definitely nothing underlying attempts at obstruction. If only obstruction is pursued by a prosecutor, there's no crime!
Yes, Trump demanded loyalty from Comey the day George P lied to the FBI, but it's all the liberal media's fault!
|
On January 26 2018 14:36 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 12:06 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 11:56 zlefin wrote:On January 26 2018 11:55 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 11:44 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 11:39 Plansix wrote:On January 26 2018 11:36 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 11:34 Plansix wrote:On January 26 2018 11:31 Leporello wrote:
Trump won't be impeached tomorrow because Republicans. Impeachment is serious. They need to wait for the investigation to end and make the case to the public. And also be democrats, not tea party clowns. That would assume that you could trust in the integrity of republican politicians. Which makes even republicans chuckle. Lets be real. Trump gets impeached if he gets caught while being handed a yuge stash of cash by putin himself in the Kremlin. Maybe. Not over any of this. For that, you'd need to have country over party, not the other way around. Nixon was impeached for firing the special counsel. It might happen here, but not until 2019. Unarguably i'm not as versed in "politicians 101" of the 60s and 70s, but my gut tells me that men back then had a shred more incentive to "do the right thing". Maybe it's just me, or nostalgia for "better times" - i don't think the situation is comparable. Again, there's republicans calling for firing Mueller. I don't know enough about nixons situation, if republicans back then did ask for the counsel to be fired? because you can't convince the American public That isn't a requirement. Acutally, since impeachment is political, it most certainly is. You have to convince enough of the public that you don't get thrown out on your rear. Nixon actually did something and covered up a real crime. When Mueller clears Trump of collusion there is going to be hell to pay. quite an assumption that trump will be cleared of collusion but is indeed no tabout making a sensible case; if sense reigned trump wouldn't be president, and he would've been impeached already. so it's a question of what nonsense a lot of crazy people believe. Given that Mueller wants to talk to the man at the top about obstruction, I assume that not only are we near the end of "collusion" but that Mueller is most of the way through "obstruction" too. I take most of this from columns by Andrew McCarthy who has already pointed out why it's no longer about collusion, I posted those articles here. Moreover, it's not clear that firing the special counsel is outside his authority, McGahn thinks it is not. Honestly if it turns out this investigation was predicated on a crime that didn't happen you aren't going to get support for a (rightfully) angry president firing someone in a moment of anger. This happened LAST JUNE. That's so long ago and Trump has done nothing so far as we know to actually obstruct. There's definitely nothing underlying attempts at obstruction. If there's only obstruction, there's no crime!
So far we know of no collusion. I was open in the beginning, but it's been over a year and we got nada. And that's what matters. Democrats were screaming about an illegitimate election. Funny how that has morphed, huh. I am obviously not 100% but prob about 90%.
|
15 minutes or so after the conclusion of Don Jr's meeting at which he was promised info as part of the Russian government's support for Trump, Trump tweeted about Hillary's missing emails.
|
On January 26 2018 14:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 14:36 Doodsmack wrote:On January 26 2018 12:06 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 11:56 zlefin wrote:On January 26 2018 11:55 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 11:44 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 11:39 Plansix wrote:On January 26 2018 11:36 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 11:34 Plansix wrote:On January 26 2018 11:31 Leporello wrote:
Trump won't be impeached tomorrow because Republicans. Impeachment is serious. They need to wait for the investigation to end and make the case to the public. And also be democrats, not tea party clowns. That would assume that you could trust in the integrity of republican politicians. Which makes even republicans chuckle. Lets be real. Trump gets impeached if he gets caught while being handed a yuge stash of cash by putin himself in the Kremlin. Maybe. Not over any of this. For that, you'd need to have country over party, not the other way around. Nixon was impeached for firing the special counsel. It might happen here, but not until 2019. Unarguably i'm not as versed in "politicians 101" of the 60s and 70s, but my gut tells me that men back then had a shred more incentive to "do the right thing". Maybe it's just me, or nostalgia for "better times" - i don't think the situation is comparable. Again, there's republicans calling for firing Mueller. I don't know enough about nixons situation, if republicans back then did ask for the counsel to be fired? because you can't convince the American public That isn't a requirement. Acutally, since impeachment is political, it most certainly is. You have to convince enough of the public that you don't get thrown out on your rear. Nixon actually did something and covered up a real crime. When Mueller clears Trump of collusion there is going to be hell to pay. quite an assumption that trump will be cleared of collusion but is indeed no tabout making a sensible case; if sense reigned trump wouldn't be president, and he would've been impeached already. so it's a question of what nonsense a lot of crazy people believe. Given that Mueller wants to talk to the man at the top about obstruction, I assume that not only are we near the end of "collusion" but that Mueller is most of the way through "obstruction" too. I take most of this from columns by Andrew McCarthy who has already pointed out why it's no longer about collusion, I posted those articles here. Moreover, it's not clear that firing the special counsel is outside his authority, McGahn thinks it is not. Honestly if it turns out this investigation was predicated on a crime that didn't happen you aren't going to get support for a (rightfully) angry president firing someone in a moment of anger. This happened LAST JUNE. That's so long ago and Trump has done nothing so far as we know to actually obstruct. There's definitely nothing underlying attempts at obstruction. If there's only obstruction, there's no crime! So far we know of no collusion. I was open in the beginning, but it's been over a year and we got nada. And that's what matters. Democrats were screaming about an illegitimate election. Funny how that has morphed, huh. I am obviously not 100% but prob about 90%.
Except he's being investigated by, you know, a special counsel. Not by a democrat. Here's a thought for you. What could be the reason to drag this investigation out a bit, or make it "more thorough" than it'd need to be?
Also, "nada" is quite the stretch (pretty much as funny as trump complaining about Mueller having "a conflict of interest", pahaha). I mean, okay. Nada, if you don't count charges against Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and Papadopoulos.
Three of which include lying to the FBI in regards to this very investigation.
|
On January 26 2018 14:49 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 14:42 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 14:36 Doodsmack wrote:On January 26 2018 12:06 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 11:56 zlefin wrote:On January 26 2018 11:55 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 11:44 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 11:39 Plansix wrote:On January 26 2018 11:36 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 11:34 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Impeachment is serious. They need to wait for the investigation to end and make the case to the public. And also be democrats, not tea party clowns. That would assume that you could trust in the integrity of republican politicians. Which makes even republicans chuckle. Lets be real. Trump gets impeached if he gets caught while being handed a yuge stash of cash by putin himself in the Kremlin. Maybe. Not over any of this. For that, you'd need to have country over party, not the other way around. Nixon was impeached for firing the special counsel. It might happen here, but not until 2019. Unarguably i'm not as versed in "politicians 101" of the 60s and 70s, but my gut tells me that men back then had a shred more incentive to "do the right thing". Maybe it's just me, or nostalgia for "better times" - i don't think the situation is comparable. Again, there's republicans calling for firing Mueller. I don't know enough about nixons situation, if republicans back then did ask for the counsel to be fired? because you can't convince the American public That isn't a requirement. Acutally, since impeachment is political, it most certainly is. You have to convince enough of the public that you don't get thrown out on your rear. Nixon actually did something and covered up a real crime. When Mueller clears Trump of collusion there is going to be hell to pay. quite an assumption that trump will be cleared of collusion but is indeed no tabout making a sensible case; if sense reigned trump wouldn't be president, and he would've been impeached already. so it's a question of what nonsense a lot of crazy people believe. Given that Mueller wants to talk to the man at the top about obstruction, I assume that not only are we near the end of "collusion" but that Mueller is most of the way through "obstruction" too. I take most of this from columns by Andrew McCarthy who has already pointed out why it's no longer about collusion, I posted those articles here. Moreover, it's not clear that firing the special counsel is outside his authority, McGahn thinks it is not. Honestly if it turns out this investigation was predicated on a crime that didn't happen you aren't going to get support for a (rightfully) angry president firing someone in a moment of anger. This happened LAST JUNE. That's so long ago and Trump has done nothing so far as we know to actually obstruct. There's definitely nothing underlying attempts at obstruction. If there's only obstruction, there's no crime! So far we know of no collusion. I was open in the beginning, but it's been over a year and we got nada. And that's what matters. Democrats were screaming about an illegitimate election. Funny how that has morphed, huh. I am obviously not 100% but prob about 90%. Except he's being investigated by, you know, a special counsel. Not by a democrat. Here's a thought for you. What could be the reason to drag this investigation out a bit, or make it "more thorough" than it'd need to be? Also, "nada" is quite the stretch (pretty much as funny as trump complaining about Mueller having "a conflict of interest", pahaha). I mean, okay. Nada, if you don't count charges against Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and Papadopoulos. Three of which include lying to the FBI in regards to this very investigation.
None of those charges were for "collusion" or conspiracy and if that was part of it Mueller would have made them confess to it. We've been over this. Moreover I was talking about the wailing Democrats were doing. If Mueller says there was no evidence of collusion it is not going to be Trump that is in trouble.
|
On January 26 2018 15:00 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 14:49 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 14:42 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 14:36 Doodsmack wrote:On January 26 2018 12:06 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 11:56 zlefin wrote:On January 26 2018 11:55 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 11:44 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 11:39 Plansix wrote:On January 26 2018 11:36 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
That would assume that you could trust in the integrity of republican politicians. Which makes even republicans chuckle.
Lets be real. Trump gets impeached if he gets caught while being handed a yuge stash of cash by putin himself in the Kremlin. Maybe.
Not over any of this. For that, you'd need to have country over party, not the other way around. Nixon was impeached for firing the special counsel. It might happen here, but not until 2019. Unarguably i'm not as versed in "politicians 101" of the 60s and 70s, but my gut tells me that men back then had a shred more incentive to "do the right thing". Maybe it's just me, or nostalgia for "better times" - i don't think the situation is comparable. Again, there's republicans calling for firing Mueller. I don't know enough about nixons situation, if republicans back then did ask for the counsel to be fired? because you can't convince the American public That isn't a requirement. Acutally, since impeachment is political, it most certainly is. You have to convince enough of the public that you don't get thrown out on your rear. Nixon actually did something and covered up a real crime. When Mueller clears Trump of collusion there is going to be hell to pay. quite an assumption that trump will be cleared of collusion but is indeed no tabout making a sensible case; if sense reigned trump wouldn't be president, and he would've been impeached already. so it's a question of what nonsense a lot of crazy people believe. Given that Mueller wants to talk to the man at the top about obstruction, I assume that not only are we near the end of "collusion" but that Mueller is most of the way through "obstruction" too. I take most of this from columns by Andrew McCarthy who has already pointed out why it's no longer about collusion, I posted those articles here. Moreover, it's not clear that firing the special counsel is outside his authority, McGahn thinks it is not. Honestly if it turns out this investigation was predicated on a crime that didn't happen you aren't going to get support for a (rightfully) angry president firing someone in a moment of anger. This happened LAST JUNE. That's so long ago and Trump has done nothing so far as we know to actually obstruct. There's definitely nothing underlying attempts at obstruction. If there's only obstruction, there's no crime! So far we know of no collusion. I was open in the beginning, but it's been over a year and we got nada. And that's what matters. Democrats were screaming about an illegitimate election. Funny how that has morphed, huh. I am obviously not 100% but prob about 90%. Except he's being investigated by, you know, a special counsel. Not by a democrat. Here's a thought for you. What could be the reason to drag this investigation out a bit, or make it "more thorough" than it'd need to be? Also, "nada" is quite the stretch (pretty much as funny as trump complaining about Mueller having "a conflict of interest", pahaha). I mean, okay. Nada, if you don't count charges against Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and Papadopoulos. Three of which include lying to the FBI in regards to this very investigation. None of those charges were for "collusion" or conspiracy and if that was part of it Mueller would have made them confess to it. We've been over this. Moreover I was talking about the wailing Democrats were doing. If Mueller says there was no evidence of collusion it is not going to be Trump that is in trouble.
No. They're on a way more basic level. They're for lying about meeting russians in the first place (amongst other things). Explain that away.
Secondly, yeah, it won't be pretty if Mueller says that. Assuming he does. Not to mention no, Mueller would not necessarily have made them confess anything. It's not uncommon (or even unheard of in this very investigation) that people get deals.
And thirdly, and i won't let you off of that one, please tell me what the indictments against Manafort and Gates are.
|
On January 26 2018 15:07 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 15:00 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 14:49 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 14:42 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 14:36 Doodsmack wrote:On January 26 2018 12:06 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 11:56 zlefin wrote:On January 26 2018 11:55 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 11:44 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 11:39 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Nixon was impeached for firing the special counsel. It might happen here, but not until 2019. Unarguably i'm not as versed in "politicians 101" of the 60s and 70s, but my gut tells me that men back then had a shred more incentive to "do the right thing". Maybe it's just me, or nostalgia for "better times" - i don't think the situation is comparable. Again, there's republicans calling for firing Mueller. I don't know enough about nixons situation, if republicans back then did ask for the counsel to be fired? because you can't convince the American public That isn't a requirement. Acutally, since impeachment is political, it most certainly is. You have to convince enough of the public that you don't get thrown out on your rear. Nixon actually did something and covered up a real crime. When Mueller clears Trump of collusion there is going to be hell to pay. quite an assumption that trump will be cleared of collusion but is indeed no tabout making a sensible case; if sense reigned trump wouldn't be president, and he would've been impeached already. so it's a question of what nonsense a lot of crazy people believe. Given that Mueller wants to talk to the man at the top about obstruction, I assume that not only are we near the end of "collusion" but that Mueller is most of the way through "obstruction" too. I take most of this from columns by Andrew McCarthy who has already pointed out why it's no longer about collusion, I posted those articles here. Moreover, it's not clear that firing the special counsel is outside his authority, McGahn thinks it is not. Honestly if it turns out this investigation was predicated on a crime that didn't happen you aren't going to get support for a (rightfully) angry president firing someone in a moment of anger. This happened LAST JUNE. That's so long ago and Trump has done nothing so far as we know to actually obstruct. There's definitely nothing underlying attempts at obstruction. If there's only obstruction, there's no crime! So far we know of no collusion. I was open in the beginning, but it's been over a year and we got nada. And that's what matters. Democrats were screaming about an illegitimate election. Funny how that has morphed, huh. I am obviously not 100% but prob about 90%. Except he's being investigated by, you know, a special counsel. Not by a democrat. Here's a thought for you. What could be the reason to drag this investigation out a bit, or make it "more thorough" than it'd need to be? Also, "nada" is quite the stretch (pretty much as funny as trump complaining about Mueller having "a conflict of interest", pahaha). I mean, okay. Nada, if you don't count charges against Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and Papadopoulos. Three of which include lying to the FBI in regards to this very investigation. None of those charges were for "collusion" or conspiracy and if that was part of it Mueller would have made them confess to it. We've been over this. Moreover I was talking about the wailing Democrats were doing. If Mueller says there was no evidence of collusion it is not going to be Trump that is in trouble. No. They're on a way more basic level. They're for lying about meeting russians in the first place (amongst other things). Explain that away. Secondly, yeah, it won't be pretty if Mueller says that. Assuming he does. Not to mention no, Mueller would not necessarily have made them confess anything. It's not uncommon (or even unheard of in this very investigation) that people get deals. Second, i asked you something, don't ignore it because it's inconvenient.
I'd have to find it again, but no. if you make a deal with someone in the hopes of getting them to cooperate for a bigger takedown, you make them acknowledge the conspiracy in the first place, so that you have established it occurred.
I'm not sure what your first slam-dunk question means. Why is it longer? Because Mueller is being careful and has moved to obstruction. I'm not sure what I said that prompted that question. I don't know what's inconvenient about it.
The Trump team was stupid and incompetent. Any intent to collude that may have existed came to naught. That is my current opinion based on what we know. You are so angry and aggressive for some reason. Because I'm known as the great Trump defender.
|
On January 26 2018 15:16 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 15:07 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 15:00 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 14:49 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 14:42 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 14:36 Doodsmack wrote:On January 26 2018 12:06 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 11:56 zlefin wrote:On January 26 2018 11:55 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 11:44 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
Unarguably i'm not as versed in "politicians 101" of the 60s and 70s, but my gut tells me that men back then had a shred more incentive to "do the right thing". Maybe it's just me, or nostalgia for "better times" - i don't think the situation is comparable.
Again, there's republicans calling for firing Mueller. I don't know enough about nixons situation, if republicans back then did ask for the counsel to be fired?
[quote]
That isn't a requirement.
Acutally, since impeachment is political, it most certainly is. You have to convince enough of the public that you don't get thrown out on your rear. Nixon actually did something and covered up a real crime. When Mueller clears Trump of collusion there is going to be hell to pay. quite an assumption that trump will be cleared of collusion but is indeed no tabout making a sensible case; if sense reigned trump wouldn't be president, and he would've been impeached already. so it's a question of what nonsense a lot of crazy people believe. Given that Mueller wants to talk to the man at the top about obstruction, I assume that not only are we near the end of "collusion" but that Mueller is most of the way through "obstruction" too. I take most of this from columns by Andrew McCarthy who has already pointed out why it's no longer about collusion, I posted those articles here. Moreover, it's not clear that firing the special counsel is outside his authority, McGahn thinks it is not. Honestly if it turns out this investigation was predicated on a crime that didn't happen you aren't going to get support for a (rightfully) angry president firing someone in a moment of anger. This happened LAST JUNE. That's so long ago and Trump has done nothing so far as we know to actually obstruct. There's definitely nothing underlying attempts at obstruction. If there's only obstruction, there's no crime! So far we know of no collusion. I was open in the beginning, but it's been over a year and we got nada. And that's what matters. Democrats were screaming about an illegitimate election. Funny how that has morphed, huh. I am obviously not 100% but prob about 90%. Except he's being investigated by, you know, a special counsel. Not by a democrat. Here's a thought for you. What could be the reason to drag this investigation out a bit, or make it "more thorough" than it'd need to be? Also, "nada" is quite the stretch (pretty much as funny as trump complaining about Mueller having "a conflict of interest", pahaha). I mean, okay. Nada, if you don't count charges against Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and Papadopoulos. Three of which include lying to the FBI in regards to this very investigation. None of those charges were for "collusion" or conspiracy and if that was part of it Mueller would have made them confess to it. We've been over this. Moreover I was talking about the wailing Democrats were doing. If Mueller says there was no evidence of collusion it is not going to be Trump that is in trouble. No. They're on a way more basic level. They're for lying about meeting russians in the first place (amongst other things). Explain that away. Secondly, yeah, it won't be pretty if Mueller says that. Assuming he does. Not to mention no, Mueller would not necessarily have made them confess anything. It's not uncommon (or even unheard of in this very investigation) that people get deals. Second, i asked you something, don't ignore it because it's inconvenient. I'd have to find it again, but no. if you make a deal with someone in the hopes of getting them to cooperate for a bigger takedown, you make them acknowledge the conspiracy in the first place, so that you have established it occurred. I'm not sure what your first slam-dunk question means. Why is it longer? Because Mueller is being careful and has moved to obstruction. I'm not sure what I said that prompted that question. I don't know what's inconvenient about it. The Trump team was stupid and incompetent. Any intent to collude that may have existed came to naught. That is my current opinion based on what we know. You are so angry and aggressive for some reason. Because I'm known as the great Trump defender.
Not necessarily, what? You don't need to make them openly admit to something, and then charge them for a lesser crime - especially considering that it would have a big negative impact on further stages of the investigation.
It's longer because Mueller is careful, sure. And he might wait for a certain point in time to reveal something. Moving to obstruction doesn't mean the prior topic turned out to be a dud, it could also mean that there's additional stuff to bring up. You argue as if unarguably because he didn't immediately reveal his cards (and Mueller has proven to not do that, at all), he doesn't have any, so he moved on. Which is simply stupid.
We are in agreement about the trump team. The intent for collusion is proof enough. You're acively trying to commit a crime, your incompetence doesn't shield you from repercussions. So yes: just proving the intent already is good enough.
Since you answered before i edited, what are the charges for Manafort and Gates?
edit: in regards to angry, i have a cheek like a hamster currently - might rub off a little bit, unintentionally though
|
|
|
Well, here was me thinking that Kentucky was the first shooting this year in the US. Silly me, should've checked.
There's not much to discuss though. You got people here that say this is unacceptable and things need to change drastically, and then the others arguing that if you change things, nothing will change for the bad guys so better arm everyone including the teachers, that'll prevent this.
It's not like no one ever discussed school shootings here.
edit: comes off wrong, i'd appreciate not talking about trump for a bit, but i'm not sure that gun laws and shootings are more pleasant to talk about, considering discussions here in the past.
|
Nah, not really interested in discussing that. The solution is obvious to everyone expect half the US population, and thus nothing ever gets done. The discussions are always fruitless too. We have a whole thread of these. The whole thing is utterly frustrating, but yes, mass shootings are now just a part of normal US life.
|
I don't want to talk about gun laws. We've beat that horse into paste. I want to talk about the way that everyone has become so numb to it that it's not even part of any conversation anymore.
In lighter news, this happened:
Highlights: This is the second time ponziCoin has been a ponzi scheme.
The rest of Arthur Chu's tweets following the one shared above.
|
On January 26 2018 15:32 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 15:16 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 15:07 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 15:00 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 14:49 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 14:42 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 14:36 Doodsmack wrote:On January 26 2018 12:06 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 11:56 zlefin wrote:On January 26 2018 11:55 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
Acutally, since impeachment is political, it most certainly is. You have to convince enough of the public that you don't get thrown out on your rear.
Nixon actually did something and covered up a real crime. When Mueller clears Trump of collusion there is going to be hell to pay. quite an assumption that trump will be cleared of collusion but is indeed no tabout making a sensible case; if sense reigned trump wouldn't be president, and he would've been impeached already. so it's a question of what nonsense a lot of crazy people believe. Given that Mueller wants to talk to the man at the top about obstruction, I assume that not only are we near the end of "collusion" but that Mueller is most of the way through "obstruction" too. I take most of this from columns by Andrew McCarthy who has already pointed out why it's no longer about collusion, I posted those articles here. Moreover, it's not clear that firing the special counsel is outside his authority, McGahn thinks it is not. Honestly if it turns out this investigation was predicated on a crime that didn't happen you aren't going to get support for a (rightfully) angry president firing someone in a moment of anger. This happened LAST JUNE. That's so long ago and Trump has done nothing so far as we know to actually obstruct. There's definitely nothing underlying attempts at obstruction. If there's only obstruction, there's no crime! So far we know of no collusion. I was open in the beginning, but it's been over a year and we got nada. And that's what matters. Democrats were screaming about an illegitimate election. Funny how that has morphed, huh. I am obviously not 100% but prob about 90%. Except he's being investigated by, you know, a special counsel. Not by a democrat. Here's a thought for you. What could be the reason to drag this investigation out a bit, or make it "more thorough" than it'd need to be? Also, "nada" is quite the stretch (pretty much as funny as trump complaining about Mueller having "a conflict of interest", pahaha). I mean, okay. Nada, if you don't count charges against Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and Papadopoulos. Three of which include lying to the FBI in regards to this very investigation. None of those charges were for "collusion" or conspiracy and if that was part of it Mueller would have made them confess to it. We've been over this. Moreover I was talking about the wailing Democrats were doing. If Mueller says there was no evidence of collusion it is not going to be Trump that is in trouble. No. They're on a way more basic level. They're for lying about meeting russians in the first place (amongst other things). Explain that away. Secondly, yeah, it won't be pretty if Mueller says that. Assuming he does. Not to mention no, Mueller would not necessarily have made them confess anything. It's not uncommon (or even unheard of in this very investigation) that people get deals. Second, i asked you something, don't ignore it because it's inconvenient. I'd have to find it again, but no. if you make a deal with someone in the hopes of getting them to cooperate for a bigger takedown, you make them acknowledge the conspiracy in the first place, so that you have established it occurred. I'm not sure what your first slam-dunk question means. Why is it longer? Because Mueller is being careful and has moved to obstruction. I'm not sure what I said that prompted that question. I don't know what's inconvenient about it. The Trump team was stupid and incompetent. Any intent to collude that may have existed came to naught. That is my current opinion based on what we know. You are so angry and aggressive for some reason. Because I'm known as the great Trump defender. Not necessarily, what? You don't need to make them openly admit to something, and then charge them for a lesser crime - especially considering that it would have a big negative impact on further stages of the investigation. It's longer because Mueller is careful, sure. And he might wait for a certain point in time to reveal something. Moving to obstruction doesn't mean the prior topic turned out to be a dud, it could also mean that there's additional stuff to bring up. You argue as if unarguably because he didn't immediately reveal his cards (and Mueller has proven to not do that, at all), he doesn't have any, so he moved on. Which is simply stupid. We are in agreement about the trump team. The intent for collusion is proof enough. You're acively trying to commit a crime, your incompetence doesn't shield you from repercussions. So yes: just proving the intent already is good enough. Since you answered before i edited, what are the charges for Manafort and Gates? edit: in regards to angry, i have a cheek like a hamster currently - might rub off a little bit, unintentionally though
Again from what I've read if you are going after bigger fish then you use the smaller ones to establish something actually happened. A lot of people have the idea that it was just a first step, but there didn't and doesn't appear to be any further steps from where they were. Maybe something for Trump Jr. is coming, but I kinda doubt it.
if memory serves, because it was eons ago is news time, they were charged with violating FARA; they failed to register as foreign agents in 2007 or there abouts. Maybe also money laundering?
I found the primary article I was thinking of: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454311/mueller-strategy-obstruction-justice-investigation-leading-impeachment
|
On January 26 2018 15:52 Kyadytim wrote:
I don't want to talk about gun laws. We've beat that horse into paste. I want to talk about the way that everyone has become so numb to it that it's not even part of any conversation anymore.
Well really, what do you expect?
It's not like "thoughts and prayers" doesn't get old. If something happens more or less daily, or at least weekly, with no indication or even will to change anything about it, it really isn't surprising that it turns into normality.
Don't get me wrong. I do think it's a big deal, but i probably wouldn't if i'd be exposed to 11 shootings in 3 weeks (didn't know about the other 10). You currently have more shootings than days of rain in new york this year.
|
On January 26 2018 15:49 Simberto wrote:Nah, not really interested in discussing that. The solution is obvious to everyone expect half the US population, and thus nothing ever gets done. The discussions are always fruitless too. We have a whole thread of these. The whole thing is utterly frustrating, but yes, mass shootings are now just a part of normal US life.
It's significantly less than half the population. The vast majority of Americans want background checks for guns and other common sense regulation. But we've got this terrorist organization called the NRA here so even if a huge majority want it it's not happening.
|
if memory serves, because it was eons ago is news time, they were charged with violating FARA; they failed to register as foreign agents in 2007 or there abouts. Maybe also money laundering?
Maybe also this.
+ Show Spoiler +
For both Gates and Manafort. Now, i understand that this isn't in connection with the trump campaign (as of yet). But if you dig a bit and find charges against two members of a campaign including conspiracy, multiple accounts of lying to the FBI and other criminal charges, then it's safe to assume that you're digging at the correct spot and it won't end there. Considerably safer to assume than the opposite being true.
It's significantly less than half the population. The vast majority of Americans want background checks for guns and other common sense regulation. But we've got this terrorist organization called the NRA here so even if a huge majority want it it's not happening.
"The important americans don't want a solution" is probably the more correct statement. By important, i mean rich and influential.
edit: sigh, just too dumb to link it by the looks
edit2: sidenote, the NRA is just a scapegoat, really. I used to think that they're to blame, but in regards to lobbying, they're small fries. They only try to get pro-gun people elected. They don't buy votes. If you elect these pro-gun peoples, we're back to the "half the population" stuff.
edit3: in regards to the ponzicoin, isn't Athene or whatever he's called doing something similar?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
