Сделаем Америку снова великой! Trump - Russia megathread

[Ibanez]

Yep. A man who hates Trump, had an investigative team made up of democrat donor investigators, couldn’t say that Trump had committed a crime.

Well, BDK... I've got a theory on that one (and it is as good as any other theory)

Somebody wanted to make sure they couldn't be maligned for partisanship when they knew they weren't going to find a conspiracy in the first place.

I think that's pretty true. I think Trump is too fucking stupid to realize what's going on and he feels that acknowledging Russian involvement de-legitimizes his election. That's understandable. He's not the stable genius he thinks he, at least his words and actions don't prove that.

But then he stepped on his own dick and it appears that he tried to obstruct justice.

[AZGrizFan]

Yep. A man who hates Trump, had an investigative team made up of democrat donor investigators, couldn’t say that Trump had committed a crime.

Where's the proof that he hates Trump? Mueller is a life-long Republican, which is more than Trump can say. Did you even listen to what the man said? It's obvious you didn't, otherwise you would know why he didn't say Trump committed a crime

if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

Only a partisan hack doesn't understand what Mueller is saying here.

Futhermore, you missed the part where he was actually being fair towards Trump.

Spoiler: show

It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

.

You may not like the investigation into Russia interfering with our election, and I don't understand why would you not. Mueller truly is the "last Boy Scout in Washington." The man worked hard and made his determination. You just don't like the outcome.


Face it - Trump is a shady as shit person who has more than likely committed the crimes of trying to obstruct justice. You're too partisan and divided to put country ahead of party. If this were a Democrat, you all would be foaming at the mouth for Impeachment. You vote and support someone who is a petulant child and has more than likely committed crimes at POTUS.

I hate to sound like Trip and JSO. But you guys need to think critically and honestly assess the situation. You aren't.

Sounds like somebody ELSE doesn't like the outcome either...

[kalm]

Yep. A man who hates Trump, had an investigative team made up of democrat donor investigators, couldn’t say that Trump had committed a crime.

Where's the proof that he hates Trump? Mueller is a life-long Republican, which is more than Trump can say. Did you even listen to what the man said? It's obvious you didn't, otherwise you would know why he didn't say Trump committed a crime

if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

Only a partisan hack doesn't understand what Mueller is saying here.

Futhermore, you missed the part where he was actually being fair towards Trump.

Spoiler: show

It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

.

You may not like the investigation into Russia interfering with our election, and I don't understand why would you not. Mueller truly is the "last Boy Scout in Washington." The man worked hard and made his determination. You just don't like the outcome.


Face it - Trump is a shady as shit person who has more than likely committed the crimes of trying to obstruct justice. You're too partisan and divided to put country ahead of party. If this were a Democrat, you all would be foaming at the mouth for Impeachment. You vote and support someone who is a petulant child and has more than likely committed crimes at POTUS.




I hate to sound like Trip and JSO. But you guys need to think critically and honestly assess the situation. You aren't.

All of this....

It’s up to congress to prosecute the President and given Pelosi’s stance so far it likely won’t happen.

[Ibanez]

Where's the proof that he hates Trump? Mueller is a life-long Republican, which is more than Trump can say. Did you even listen to what the man said? It's obvious you didn't, otherwise you would know why he didn't say Trump committed a crime Only a partisan hack doesn't understand what Mueller is saying here.

Futhermore, you missed the part where he was actually being fair towards Trump.

Spoiler: show

.

You may not like the investigation into Russia interfering with our election, and I don't understand why would you not. Mueller truly is the "last Boy Scout in Washington." The man worked hard and made his determination. You just don't like the outcome.


Face it - Trump is a shady as shit person who has more than likely committed the crimes of trying to obstruct justice. You're too partisan and divided to put country ahead of party. If this were a Democrat, you all would be foaming at the mouth for Impeachment. You vote and support someone who is a petulant child and has more than likely committed crimes at POTUS.

I hate to sound like Trip and JSO. But you guys need to think critically and honestly assess the situation. You aren't.

Sounds like somebody ELSE doesn't like the outcome either...

I'm fine with the outcome. Mueller said Trump didn't conspire with a foreign gov't. We should all be happy about that.

[Skjellyfetti]

Where's the proof that he hates Trump? Mueller is a life-long Republican, which is more than Trump can say. Did you even listen to what the man said? It's obvious you didn't, otherwise you would know why he didn't say Trump committed a crime Only a partisan hack doesn't understand what Mueller is saying here.

Futhermore, you missed the part where he was actually being fair towards Trump.

Spoiler: show

.

You may not like the investigation into Russia interfering with our election, and I don't understand why would you not. Mueller truly is the "last Boy Scout in Washington." The man worked hard and made his determination. You just don't like the outcome.


Face it - Trump is a shady as shit person who has more than likely committed the crimes of trying to obstruct justice. You're too partisan and divided to put country ahead of party. If this were a Democrat, you all would be foaming at the mouth for Impeachment. You vote and support someone who is a petulant child and has more than likely committed crimes at POTUS.




I hate to sound like Trip and JSO. But you guys need to think critically and honestly assess the situation. You aren't.

All of this....

It’s up to congress to prosecute the President and given Pelosi’s stance so far it likely won’t happen.

We'll see, but I think they're going to slow-roll it to maximize 2020 reverberations. And, I think that's the right strategy.

If they rush to impeach in the House, the Senate will move even faster to vote not to convict. It's a non factor or minor footnote in 2020 at that point.

Yes, it's entirely political. And will be a shitshow. It sucks, but that's the only mechanism the founders provided.

[css75]

All of this....

It’s up to congress to prosecute the President and given Pelosi’s stance so far it likely won’t happen.

We'll see, but I think they're going to slow-roll it to maximize 2020 reverberations. And, I think that's the right strategy.

If they rush to impeach in the House, the Senate will move even faster to vote not to convict. It's a non factor or minor footnote in 2020 at that point.

Yes, it's entirely political. And will be a shitshow. It sucks, but that's the only mechanism the founders provided.

Just curious, what other mechanism would you provide?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Indictment

[kalm]

Indictment

No one should be above the law and the law should apply to all people equally but I’m guessing being able to indict the president would turn things even more political and become potentially destabilizing.

[Ibanez]

We'll see, but I think they're going to slow-roll it to maximize 2020 reverberations. And, I think that's the right strategy.

If they rush to impeach in the House, the Senate will move even faster to vote not to convict. It's a non factor or minor footnote in 2020 at that point.

Yes, it's entirely political. And will be a shitshow. It sucks, but that's the only mechanism the founders provided.

Just curious, what other mechanism would you provide?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Just curious, Why do you think Trump is beyond reproach?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Indictment

No one should be above the law and the law should apply to all people equally but I’m guessing being able to indict the president would turn things even more political and become potentially destabilizing.

I agree that it could be destabilizing, but do not think it would be more political.

The DOJ and the Judicial branch are among the least political parts of our government. It may be less so now, but it's still nowhere near Congress. Without both agreeing to the merits of an indictment... It ain't happening. It also must be initiated by the DOJ from his own branch of government... and the AG... appointed by the President himself and confirmed by the Senate.

Currently, it falls solely to the Legislative Branch... the absolute worst branch to handle something like this. Limp dick subpoena power to actually compel testimony or procure evidence. And because it consists solely of 535 elected officials... any decision will be measured primarily by its political value.

And, it could be destabilizing, but no more than impeachments could be, imo. Perhaps less so because there would be checks on indictments brought against a President. There are no checks on the propriety of the House impeaching.

[css75]

Just curious, what other mechanism would you provide?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Just curious, Why do you think Trump is beyond reproach?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t, but this Russia crap and everything associated with it is just plain stupid.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kalm]

No one should be above the law and the law should apply to all people equally but I’m guessing being able to indict the president would turn things even more political and become potentially destabilizing.

I agree that it could be destabilizing, but do not think it would be more political.

The DOJ and the Judicial branch are among the least political parts of our government. It may be less so now, but it's still nowhere near Congress. Without both agreeing to the merits of an indictment... It ain't happening. It also must be initiated by the DOJ from his own branch of government... and the AG... appointed by the President himself and confirmed by the Senate.

Currently, it falls solely to the Legislative Branch... the absolute worst branch to handle something like this. Limp dick subpoena power to actually compel testimony or procure evidence. And because it consists solely of 535 elected officials... any decision will be measured primarily by its political value.

And, it could be destabilizing, but no more than impeachments could be, imo. Perhaps less so because there would be checks on indictments brought against a President. There are no checks on the propriety of the House impeaching.

Good points. Well thought out.

[CID1990]

Well, BDK... I've got a theory on that one (and it is as good as any other theory)

Somebody wanted to make sure they couldn't be maligned for partisanship when they knew they weren't going to find a conspiracy in the first place.

I think that's pretty true. I think Trump is too **** stupid to realize what's going on and he feels that acknowledging Russian involvement de-legitimizes his election. That's understandable. He's not the stable genius he thinks he, at least his words and actions don't prove that.

But then he stepped on his own dick and it appears that he tried to obstruct justice.

That’s about the size of it

Basically, nobody who was invested in the Russia conspiracy narrative has any room to criticize Trump’s intelligence- because they are right there with him


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Anyone who agrees that a sitting President should be indicted should take a very close look at places like Nigeria - and then ask themselves if that’s truly a path they want to take

Try winning elections instead


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SDHornet]

It's amazing to see what depths people are willing sink to in order to defend their political ideology. Of course when Trump is done in 2024.....no one will have claimed to vote for him.

So maybe you can be the one that can explain how someone obstructs an investigation into something that didn't happen.

I'll wait.

[SDHornet]

Where's the proof that he hates Trump? Mueller is a life-long Republican, which is more than Trump can say. Did you even listen to what the man said? It's obvious you didn't, otherwise you would know why he didn't say Trump committed a crime Only a partisan hack doesn't understand what Mueller is saying here.

Futhermore, you missed the part where he was actually being fair towards Trump.

Spoiler: show

.

You may not like the investigation into Russia interfering with our election, and I don't understand why would you not. Mueller truly is the "last Boy Scout in Washington." The man worked hard and made his determination. You just don't like the outcome.


Face it - Trump is a shady as shit person who has more than likely committed the crimes of trying to obstruct justice. You're too partisan and divided to put country ahead of party. If this were a Democrat, you all would be foaming at the mouth for Impeachment. You vote and support someone who is a petulant child and has more than likely committed crimes at POTUS.

I hate to sound like Trip and JSO. But you guys need to think critically and honestly assess the situation. You aren't.

Sounds like somebody ELSE doesn't like the outcome either...

ORANGE MAN BAD!!!

[SDHornet]

No one should be above the law and the law should apply to all people equally but I’m guessing being able to indict the president would turn things even more political and become potentially destabilizing.

I agree that it could be destabilizing, but do not think it would be more political.

The DOJ and the Judicial branch are among the least political parts of our government. It may be less so now, but it's still nowhere near Congress. Without both agreeing to the merits of an indictment... It ain't happening. It also must be initiated by the DOJ from his own branch of government... and the AG... appointed by the President himself and confirmed by the Senate.

Currently, it falls solely to the Legislative Branch... the absolute worst branch to handle something like this. Limp dick subpoena power to actually compel testimony or procure evidence. And because it consists solely of 535 elected officials... any decision will be measured primarily by its political value.

And, it could be destabilizing, but no more than impeachments could be, imo. Perhaps less so because there would be checks on indictments brought against a President. There are no checks on the propriety of the House impeaching.

Have you not been paying attention to anything regarding this Russia Hoax you have been pimping for the last 2.5 years now?

[SDHornet]

Anyone who agrees that a sitting President should be indicted should take a very close look at places like Nigeria - and then ask themselves if that’s truly a path they want to take

Try winning elections instead


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They can impeach then indict...

...of course if there was actually something worthwhile to impeach Trump on we would be well into the impeachment process by now...

...I wonder what is taking Pelosi so long to get this going.

[BDKJMU]

Yep. A man who hates Trump, had an investigative team made up of democrat donor investigators, couldn’t say that Trump had committed a crime.

Where's the proof that he hates Trump? Mueller is a life-long Republican, which is more than Trump can say. Did you even listen to what the man said? It's obvious you didn't, otherwise you would know why he didn't say Trump committed a crime

if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

Only a partisan hack doesn't understand what Mueller is saying here.

Futhermore, you missed the part where he was actually being fair towards Trump.

Spoiler: show

It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

.

You may not like the investigation into Russia interfering with our election, and I don't understand why would you not. Mueller truly is the "last Boy Scout in Washington." The man worked hard and made his determination. You just don't like the outcome.


Face it - Trump is a shady as **** person who has more than likely committed the crimes of trying to obstruct justice. You're too partisan and divided to put country ahead of party. If this were a Democrat, you all would be foaming at the mouth for Impeachment. You vote and support someone who is a petulant child and has more than likely committed crimes at POTUS.




I hate to sound like Trip and JSO. But you guys need to think critically and honestly assess the situation. You aren't.

But you do.
And talk about the pot calling the kettle black- It sounds like YOU are pissed off at the outcome.

[BDKJMU]

Where's the proof that he hates Trump? Mueller is a life-long Republican, which is more than Trump can say. Did you even listen to what the man said? It's obvious you didn't, otherwise you would know why he didn't say Trump committed a crime Only a partisan hack doesn't understand what Mueller is saying here.

Futhermore, you missed the part where he was actually being fair towards Trump.

Spoiler: show

.

You may not like the investigation into Russia interfering with our election, and I don't understand why would you not. Mueller truly is the "last Boy Scout in Washington." The man worked hard and made his determination. You just don't like the outcome.


Face it - Trump is a shady as **** person who has more than likely committed the crimes of trying to obstruct justice. You're too partisan and divided to put country ahead of party. If this were a Democrat, you all would be foaming at the mouth for Impeachment. You vote and support someone who is a petulant child and has more than likely committed crimes at POTUS.

I hate to sound like Trip and JSO. But you guys need to think critically and honestly assess the situation. You aren't.

Sounds like somebody ELSE doesn't like the outcome either...

No kidding. Beat me too it.

[JohnStOnge]

Anyone who agrees that a sitting President should be indicted should take a very close look at places like Nigeria - and then ask themselves if that’s truly a path they want to take

Try winning elections instead


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They can impeach then indict...

...of course if there was actually something worthwhile to impeach Trump on we would be well into the impeachment process by now...

...I wonder what is taking Pelosi so long to get this going.

You know very well why things are like they are. The Republicans in Congress have no integrity. They can see, as any rational person can see, that Trump should be removed form office. But they are not going to do it.

Pelosi knows that. Impeaching Trump and removing him from office would be the right thing to do. But Pelosi knows the Republicans in the Senate are not interested in doing the right thing.

[SDHornet]

They can impeach then indict...

...of course if there was actually something worthwhile to impeach Trump on we would be well into the impeachment process by now...

...I wonder what is taking Pelosi so long to get this going.

You know very well why things are like they are. The Republicans in Congress have no integrity. They can see, as any rational person can see, that Trump should be removed form office. But they are not going to do it.

Pelosi knows that. Impeaching Trump and removing him from office would be the right thing to do. But Pelosi knows the Republicans in the Senate are not interested in doing the right thing.

Yeah, a bunch of "Never Trumpers" would have never went along with impeachment if there was some "there there" because of a "R" next to Trumps name. Sure thing bud.

[css75]

Sounds like somebody ELSE doesn't like the outcome either...

No kidding. Beat me too it.

Looks like Ibanez is ready to join the ranks with jelly and JSO.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

No one should be above the law and the law should apply to all people equally but I’m guessing being able to indict the president would turn things even more political and become potentially destabilizing.

I agree that it could be destabilizing, but do not think it would be more political.

The DOJ and the Judicial branch are among the least political parts of our government. It may be less so now, but it's still nowhere near Congress. Without both agreeing to the merits of an indictment... It ain't happening. It also must be initiated by the DOJ from his own branch of government... and the AG... appointed by the President himself and confirmed by the Senate.

Currently, it falls solely to the Legislative Branch... the absolute worst branch to handle something like this. Limp dick subpoena power to actually compel testimony or procure evidence. And because it consists solely of 535 elected officials... any decision will be measured primarily by its political value.

And, it could be destabilizing, but no more than impeachments could be, imo. Perhaps less so because there would be checks on indictments brought against a President. There are no checks on the propriety of the House impeaching.

Of course it would be destabilizing, and more political. If a POTUS could be indicted in office, then rogue, grandstanding prosecutor/DAs from the opposite party, including state/local, could indict the POTUS over BS reasons in order to make a name for themselves. Ever heard the expression indict a ham sandwich...A POTUS could literally be facing indictments right and left.

[Skjellyfetti]

And a judge will throw it out if it has no merit. There is a judicial check.

A President can be impeached for anything the House deems impeachable. There is no judicial check. The primary consideration is political.

There is "nothing" stopping a rogue assistant US attorney from charging Mitch McConnell or Nancy Pelosi with BS?