Obstruction of justice bombshell will explode before midterms

Obstruction of justice bombshell will explode before midterms
Via:   johnrussell
Created:   one week ago
Comments:   154

Tags

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Obstruction of justice bombshell will explode before midterms


opinion













Why is President Trump escalating his attacks against special counsel counsel Robert Mueller, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Department of Justice, the FBI and the free press to a fever pitch in recent days?

The reason is that the odds are very high that Mueller will offer a declarative public statement before the midterm elections, and very likely before Labor Day, that the president is guilty of obstruction of justice.

The Mueller declaration of obstruction of justice could be issued in the form of a letter to Congress and may or may not ultimately be issued in the form of an indictment if he believes that the Trump situation creates extraordinary circumstances that warrant his seeking approval for a formal indictment.

 

It is impossible to know exactly what Mueller will do. We do not know the evidence he has that has not yet been made public. We do not know his private thinking on great matters of state and law that will govern his actions.

In April, there were public reports that Mueller would ultimately release his findings in two stages, the first being obstruction of justice, which could be released in whatever form it takes this summer.

When public reports indicated that Mueller is looking at Trump tweets, among other factors, in the obstruction investigation, some of his handful of legal defenders suggested that Trump tweets are not relevant evidence of obstruction. They are wrong, though the tweets are far from the most important evidence.

Consider the obstruction of justice provisions in the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon that were passed by the House Judiciary Committee before Nixon resigned. Article 1, Section 8 of the articles of impeachment included this: 


“making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct.”

In other words, repeatedly making false statements intended to deceive the public about matters under investigation constitute acts in furtherance of obstruction of justice in violation of American law.

Now consider this. Literally in real time, Trump is virtually at war over facts with leading members of his Cabinet about whether Russia has attacked American elections in the 2016 campaign and continues to attack American elections in the 2018 midterms.

On Thursday, leading members of his administration joined together in an extraordinary public session warning the nation about the continuing Russian attack against our elections. His national security adviser, director of National Intelligence, FBI director and secretary of Homeland Security stood united before the nation, warning of the continuing Russian attack in clear and powerful terms.

Trump could have joined them in person to offer his support. He did not. Instead, only hours later, he publicly claimed, again, that the Russia investigation was a hoax and that his recent meeting with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin was a huge success.

If charges that Trump obstructed justice by making false statements are considered in court or congressional hearings, it would be powerful testimony for his Cabinet members to be called to testify about whether Trump’s statements that the Russia investigations are a hoax are true or false.  

Similarly, Trump’s fevered and escalating attacks against the free press, which even his daughter Ivanka had the good sense to rebut, provide more powerful and compelling evidence of intent to mislead the public about matters under intense investigation. 

While Trump is in dramatic conflict with Cabinet members who warn about the Russian attack, which he falsely claims is a hoax, he attacks the free press for reporting about the Russian attack, which he falsely claims is fake news. 

Mueller could argue that Trump is seeking to execute the first televised obstruction of justice, in plain view before the nation every day.

With a high probability that the obstruction issue reaches a crescendo before the midterm elections, there is now a growing likelihood that an anti-Trump wave will doom Republicans to a disastrous defeat in November.

In Texas, Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D) has surged to within a few points of defeating Sen. Ted Cruz (R). In Tennessee, former Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen has a strong chance of winning the election to replace Sen. Bob Corker (R). Democratic Senate candidates have a strong chance to take Republican Senate seats in Arizona and Nevada.

It is now probable that Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives with a real possibility that Democrats win a larger than expected majority. For Republicans, it is the worst possible time for the coming obstruction of justice bombshell to explode.

It is political suicide for Republicans when the president escalates his attacks against the free press to such extreme levels that even his daughter distances herself from these attacks. His attacks against Mueller have reached such extreme levels that he puts the fear of God into Republicans running in 2018.






jrDiscussion - desc
Rmando
1  Rmando    one week ago

So Trump will be charged with obstruction for having a difference of opinion? Yeah, good luck with that.

 
 
WallyW
1.1  WallyW  replied to  Rmando @1    one week ago

Trump fights back, and has since he came down the escalator. He has foiled and confused his enemies from the start, and the only result is that his approval ratings has gone up. The left don't seem to understand what they are attempting to do isn't working. I can't think of anything he has said or done that could be construed as obstructing justice. Perhaps the author could enlighten us.

 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  WallyW @1.1    one week ago
He has confused his supporters from the start,

Fixed. 

 
 
WallyW
1.1.2  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    one week ago

Another epic failure of a comment on your part, but I am not the least bit confused about him or what he stands for.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    one week ago

The thing Trump and his supporters have most in common is their lack of shame. That's what has drawn the deplorable's to him. When he got caught on tape talking about assaulting women he basically just shrugged and his supporters went wild. When he admitted to obstruction of justice by telling everyone on air that he fired Jim Comey because of the "Rusher Thing", his sycophants applauded riotously. When he's caught paying bribes to keep his multiple affairs quiet, he blatantly lies about them, shrugs again and his fans cheer wildly. He has his administration start ripping thousands of kids away from their parents at the border, he ignorantly blames Democrats who had nothing to do with it and again seems to shrug and his followers sing his praises. If Trump had apologized and backed down on any of those obvious errors he would have lost his luster in the eyes of the shameless.

Trump and his base are the truly shameless, they don't give a fuck about their fellow law abiding, tax paying progressive, liberal Americans and would rather side with white nationalists from Russia than actual American citizens. And as long as Trump shamelessly stomps on progressives, LGBTQ, minorities, Muslims and any religion other than their precious Christianity these Trumpicans are beside themselves with joy. Shameful.

 
 
Farnsworth Horatio Clapstonestacker III
1.1.4  Farnsworth Horatio Clapstonestacker III  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    one week ago

Actually, you have me confused - Mueller will publicly end the spectacle a time to skew the elections?

 
 
MrFrost
1.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  Farnsworth Horatio Clapstonestacker III @1.1.4    one week ago
end the spectacle a time to skew the elections?

Huh? Oh you mean like wikileaks dropping Hillary's emails every day for a month before the elections, (just like trump wanted)? 

Skewed in the GOP's favor = good.

Skewed in the Dems favor = bad..

Got ya, good talk. 

 
 
Texan1211
1.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.5    one week ago

I wonder why so many Democrats were upset over those emails?

Did the DNC attempt to hide something?

 
 
MrFrost
1.1.7  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.6    one week ago
I wonder why so many Democrats were upset over those emails?

Ah, so you are ok with Russia stealing from Americans? 

Thanks for confirming that. 

 
 
Texan1211
1.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.7    one week ago

You, unsurprisingly, misunderstood.

The Democrats were concerned with the content of the emails.

That is undeniable.

 
 
Texan1211
1.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.7    one week ago

And in the future, try to avoid THINKING what I meant and stick to what I write.

I say what I mean and mean what I say.

No need to try to "explain" my posts, or try to determine what I meant. It is written plainly enough even a 3rd grader can understand it.

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    one week ago

So a sitting President can be charged with obstruction of justice based upon his tweets? I hate to burst your bubble but it involves a lot more than that. I'm sure that we will hear a lot more of this talk as we get close to the November elections. In the meantime Robert Mueller still has not a shred of evidence to get Trump with, despite threatening Paul Manafort with 305 years of prison time for procedure crime, after raiding his home at the crack of dawn and having him tossed into solitary confinement before Manafort even had his day in Court. Other than Manafort breaking down like a sniveling wimp and composing a fantasy story of collusion/obstruction, all Mueller has is a perjury trap if Trump takes the idiotic step of agreeing to an interview. The longer this investigation goes on as is, the worse it will be for democrats this November. Call it the Bill Clinton effect.
Remember when Ken Star kept after Bill Clinton?  How did the public react?

 
 
Farnsworth Horatio Clapstonestacker III
1.1.11  Farnsworth Horatio Clapstonestacker III  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.5    one week ago

You loved and hated Comey. You'll shit when you see the rerun.

 
 
Texan1211
1.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.7    one week ago

I'm not okay with it.

Find who did it and prosecute them.

Changes nothing, really. The election didn't turn on the fact that the emails were stolen.

The content of the emails is what did it.

 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.12    6 days ago
Find who did it and prosecute them.

Mueller already did and indicted them.  Only one left is Trump who requested that they do it.

 
 
Texan1211
1.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.13    6 days ago

he didn't request they do it--that is nothing more than speculation on your part.

Democrats are just mad their inner workings got exposed.

Maybe they are afraid some of their base will revolt over how the DNC sold out to Hillary?

 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.15  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.14    6 days ago
he didn't request they do it--that is nothing more than speculation on your part.

You realize he did it on television, right?

 
 
Texan1211
1.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.15    6 days ago

I listened to what he said. He didn't ask Russia to hack anything.

Now, if you have EVIDENCE to the contrary, please provide it.

What you provided thus far is anything BUT evidence.

 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.16    6 days ago

Not sure how you are supposed to hack 33,000 emails that Hillary destroyed a year before, but....

 
 
dennis smith
1.1.18  dennis smith  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.9    6 days ago

Frost has been called out on exactly what you accuse him of many times and if he responds at all it is with spin and deflection.

 
 
Texan1211
1.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  dennis smith @1.1.18    6 days ago

pretty easy way to win an argument--tell someone what they think and then argue they are wrong.

SMMFH

 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.20  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.16    6 days ago
Now, if you have EVIDENCE to the contrary, please provide it.

I already know that you will refuse to accept any evidence, but what the hell.

Was Russia listening? Democrats hacked hours after Trump speech

 
 
Texan1211
1.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.20    6 days ago
"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.22  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.21    6 days ago

Ronald Reagan would be a liberal by today's standards...

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1.23  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  WallyW @1.1    6 days ago
Approval rating Dates
%
Most recent weekly average 41 Jul 30-Aug 5, 2018
Term average to date 39 Jan 20, 2017-present
High point, weekly average 45 Jan 20-29, 2017, and Jun 11-17, 2018
Low point, weekly average 35 four times, last on Dec 11-17, 2017
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.22    6 days ago

Perhaps by YOUR standards.

Not by mine.

Not by the Democrats who opposed him.

 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.25  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.24    6 days ago
Perhaps by YOUR standards.

You approved of him raising taxes 11 times?

 
 
Texan1211
1.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.25    6 days ago

Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times? The real story | The ...
dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-11-times-the...

Jun 06, 2012 · Reagan was offered such a deal (a 3-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases) in 1982, and it’s the reason he reluctantly agreed to the largest tax increase of his presidency, the “Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.

Has any President ever raised taxes without Congressional approval?

 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.27  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.26    6 days ago

Has any President ever raised taxes without Congressional approval?

Yes, they just call them "tariffs".

 
 
Texan1211
1.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.27    6 days ago

Okay, you want to get technical.

Has any U.S. President ever raised taxes on income earned by Americans in America without Congressional approval?

 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.29  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.28    6 days ago

Has any U.S. President ever raised taxes on income earned by Americans in America without Congressional approval?

Moving the goal posts now?

What else?  On odd numbered years?  How about only on a leap year?

 
 
MrFrost
1.1.30  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.9    6 days ago
And in the future, try to avoid THINKING what I meant and stick to what I write.

Why? You do that to everyone here. But when someone does it to you, you get upset? Don't ever tell me what to think, either. 

 
 
MrFrost
1.1.31  MrFrost  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.22    6 days ago
Ronald Reagan would be a liberal by today's standards...

Not sure I would go quite that far Ozzy, but pretty far to the left of center for sure. Now Abraham Lincoln? He would make Pelosi look like a far right wing conservative by today's standards. 

 
 
Texan1211
1.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.29    6 days ago

Just clarifying my earlier question.

In it, I wasn't referring to tariffs, and I believe you know that, but are more interested in catching me in some gotcha question than answering.

Have fun.

 
 
Texan1211
1.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.30    5 days ago

I have never told you what to think, and personally don't give a damn what you think.

 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.34  Ozzwald  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.31    5 days ago
Not sure I would go quite that far Ozzy, but pretty far to the left of center for sure.

I'll give you that.  While he would not be a liberal, he would definitely be called a RINO.

 
 
lennylynx
2  lennylynx    one week ago

Donald Trump absolutely tried to obstruct justice, openly and publicly, more than once.  The only question is why we are allowing him to continue occupying the presidency. 

 
 
WallyW
2.1  WallyW  replied to  lennylynx @2    one week ago

Please tell us how he has "obstructed" justice. Criticizing the Mueller's faux witch hunt or the politicized and weaponized FBI that retains Obama hangers-on, is not obstructing anything. Just pointing out the truth is not impeachable.

 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  WallyW @2.1    one week ago

deleted

 
 
WallyW
2.1.2  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    one week ago

Knock off the bullying JR, I am awaiting a response from lenny! Don't want to have to flag you. eek

 
 
Texan1211
2.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    one week ago

Are you ever going to have something other than your Hate Trump agenda?

 
 
XDm9mm
2.2  XDm9mm  replied to  lennylynx @2    one week ago

Please lenny...   provide some specifics.   I'm sure Mueller would love to hear from you as he has obviously been unable to prove that thus far.  He has after all been reduced to reading Trumps TWEETS to try to find something, ANYTHING, he can use as the basis for charges of ANY KIND.

 
 
bugsy
2.2.1  bugsy  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2    one week ago

Don't forget the Madame that he and his boys "interviewed".

 
 
Texan1211
2.3  Texan1211  replied to  lennylynx @2    one week ago

because he has not been impeached.

Elementary!

 
 
Sean Treacy
3  Sean Treacy    one week ago

If mueller can’t show an actual conspiracy between trump and Russia, obstruction is a joke based on what’s public.

 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    one week ago

Trump shows EVERYDAMNDAY that he IS GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!

did u read the article ?

Do you know what brought Nixon down?

Does Trump not trump Nixon by hundreds of times worse the wear for a country to stooopid to kare 

 
 
WallyW
3.1.1  WallyW  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1    one week ago
Trump shows EVERYDAMNDAY that he IS GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!

Well, then you should have no problem telling us exactly what that obstruction was and what the charges should be. Try real hard to come up with something worth reading.

 
 
Texan1211
3.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  WallyW @3.1.1    one week ago

Is that crickets I hear?

 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  WallyW @3.1.1    one week ago

Mueller Has Evidence Trump Obstructed Justice

Murray Waas: “Previously undisclosed evidence in the possession of Special Counsel Robert Mueller — including highly confidential White House records and testimony by some of President Trump’s own top aides — provides some of the strongest evidence to date implicating the president of the United States in an obstruction of justice.”

“Several people who have reviewed a portion of this evidence say that, based on what they know, they believe it is now all but inevitable that the special counsel will complete a confidential report presenting evidence that President Trump violated the law. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the special counsel’s work, would then decide on turning over that report to Congress for the House of Representatives to consider whether to instigate impeachment proceedings.”

“I have learned that a confidential White House memorandum, which is in the special counsel’s possession, explicitly states that when Trump pressured Comey he had just been told by two of his top aides—his then chief of staff Reince Priebus and his White House counsel Don McGahn—that Flynn was under criminal investigation

 
 
Sean Treacy
3.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1    one week ago

did u read the article 

Yes. Do you understand the House never voted on the article in question?

More broadly, do you know how impeachment works?  You understand It's a political process, not a legal one. So the term obstruction of justice simply means whatever the House wants it to mean. Democrats, should they win the House, can impeach Trump and claim his orange hair obstructed justice by distracting the American people.  They, can if they want, impeach Trump for "obstructing  justice" for "lying", just like the Republicans could have impeached Obama for lying about matters under investigation.

My point is that no one who is not a loon Democrat will vote for impeachment if the sole "crime" is lying to the press. 

Nixon would have been impeached and REMOVED from because he destroyed evidence, lied to investigators,  and bribed witnesses to cover up an actual crime. That's actual obstruction of justice, not lying to the Press.

IF the best Mueller can do is claim Trump's "lies" count as obstruction, the chances are Zero. Zero that the Senate would remove him office even if the House impeaches him on a party line vote.

The real jury for removal is Republicans. Come up with an actual crime or stop wasting the nation's time with manufactured ones. 

 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.5  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    one week ago

EVIDENCE is sorely LACKING in the link.

You have provided a link to supposition, conjecture, hyperbole, rumor, innuendo, and all the other appropriate nouns you can think of which would apply.

It's the typical unnamed anonymous sources have information that X happened.

 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.6  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.4    one week ago

Nixon would have been impeached and REMOVED from because he destroyed evidence, lied to investigators,  and bribed witnesses to cover up an actual crime. That's actual obstruction of justice, not lying to the Press.

N

U

actually b leave Trumpp is innocent of destroying evidence ?

lying to investigators, and bribing witnesses to cover up an actual crime ?

youre too funny this mourning 

 
 
Sean Treacy
3.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    one week ago

Another Mueller leak and nothing to do with a "russian conspiracy"

So the "obstruction" is ASKING Mueller to go easy on Flynn. No actual interference in the investigation and prosecution, no order to stop prosecuting which he could have. Just asking his subordinate to  "go easy."  

Good luck with that. 

 
 
Sean Treacy
3.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.6    one week ago
leave Trumpp is innocent of destroying evidence ?

Since there's zero evidence he's done so, yes.  If you thinking your wishes and daydreams count as evidence, get ready for disappointment. 

 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.9  XDm9mm  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.6    one week ago

1- WHAT "evidence" of what crime?

2- Lying to what investigators and when exactly did this occur?

3- Bribing what witnesses to what crimes?

Please provide the factual evidence asked for and I will join you in your desire to put President Trump behind bars.   Of course, it MUST be validated and not hear say, hyperbole, wishes, rumor, conjecture, innuendo, etc., etc. etc.

 
 
Sean Treacy
3.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.6    one week ago

If you want to know what actual evidence of obstructing justice would like, consider someone destroying 33,000 emails after Congress subpoenaed  them. 

 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.11  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.8    one week ago

Trumpp n chump cump a knee have a long distinguished record of losing and destroying evidence sought by multiple judges in multiple cases in multiple states of DENIAL

Try and swim across the casm the czar has pardoned and parted

out 

every time Trump tweets(OFFICIAL WHITEHOUSE  STATEMENTS ) via his little tweeter, this bitter sweet n low saccharine of lies, digs asz his whole becomes deeper.

every time he contradicts our Inteligence Community, he digs a little deeper, every time he threatens Sessions, Comey, former attorneys, former campain heads, former family members, current family members- dismembered, former prosecutors, former respected (as in truly) respected on both sides of the aisle , REPUBLICAN SPECIAL COUNCIL HEAD, Robert Mueller, this ass in a deep as hole in one as one can be

he further proves obstruction of justice by attempting to hoaxify an EXTREMELY SERIOUS INVESTIGATION that HAS Determined it NO FUCKEN HOAX

The only Hoax

sits in OUR WHITEHOUSE

do you wish to dispute Trumpp the stupid Fuck  , disputing what all of his administrative team heads declared last week on the briefing ?

 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.12  XDm9mm  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.11    one week ago

So in other words, you can't provide any  SPECIFICS, just your concepts and theories.

Thanks for that.  Let's see how that plays out in a court of law that requires FACTS and evidence...   not hear say, rumor, concepts, theories, conjecture and personal animus.

 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.13  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.12    one week ago

So in other words, you can't provide any  SPECIFICS, just your concepts and theories

What the Hell is UNSPECIFIC  about him DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING the statements of the intelligence heads of our Damn Country ???

 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.14  XDm9mm  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.13    one week ago

You first.  As noted above in 3.1.9.

1- WHAT "evidence" of what crime?

2- Lying to what investigators and when exactly did this occur?

3- Bribing what witnesses to what crimes?

Please provide the factual evidence asked for and I will join you in your desire to put President Trump behind bars.   Of course, it MUST be validated and not hear say, hyperbole, wishes, rumor, conjecture, innuendo, etc., etc. etc.

 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.15  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.14    one week ago

So Trimp directly contradicting the inteligence heads is now MY Concept ?

is now MY Theory ?

ive got chores to accomplish , we’ll finish our discussion later

f

i

can possibly conceptuionalize a theory behind how many  INDICTED NOW ? 

 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.16  XDm9mm  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.15    one week ago

WHAT FUCKING EVIDENCE OF A CRIME?   

You still have not provided anything other than your own  hypothesis.

 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.17  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.16    one week ago

anything other than your own  hypothesis.

My hypothesis states Either Trump is LYING to the American People, or our Intelligence Agencies are(all while in concert)

whats yours ? 

Everyone is telling the truth 

Y LIE ?

 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.18  XDm9mm  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.17    one week ago

And exactly what is the CRIME?

But, you still FAILED to answer one question.

 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.19  Greg Jones  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.10    one week ago

Putin probably has all of them...since she left her stupid system unsecured

 
 
MrFrost
3.1.20  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.19    one week ago

1ifvg5.jpg

 
 
MrFrost
3.2  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    one week ago
If mueller can’t show an actual conspiracy between trump and Russia, obstruction is a joke based on what’s public.

Obstruction of justice is a felony and absolutely an impeachable offense. FACT. 

 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @3.2    one week ago

Cool. It's an impeachable offense if a majority of the House says it is. It's not if it doesn't. Pretty much anything is an impeachable offense, potentially. 

It’s only a removable offense if 2/3 of senators agree that it merits removing him from office.  That’s the only fact that matters.

Republican senators aren’t going to vote to remove trump for lying to the press, however Mueller dresses it up. 

 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.2  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @3.2    one week ago

FACT or not, is immaterial.   

It has to be PROVED.

And OPINIONS are NOT FACT.

 
 
Skrekk
3.2.3  Skrekk  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.1    one week ago
Cool. It's an impeachable offense if a majority of the House says it is. It's not if it doesn't. Pretty much anything is an impeachable offense, potentially. 

Very true.    Note that obstruction of justice was one of the charges on which the GOP-controlled House impeached Clinton.   Of course neither charge had any merit unlike the obstruction which Trump has repeatedly and flagrantly committed.

But I agree that if the GOP somehow retains control of the House it's very doubtful that they'd vote to impeach Trump since they don't seem to have any real concern for his treasonous or criminal acts.

 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Skrekk @3.2.3    one week ago
ote that obstruction of justice was one of the charges on which the GOP-controlled House impeached Clinton

Sure, the Senate didn't think it warranted removal, which is the Senate's right.  As I said, the Democrats can impeach on a party line vote to their hearts content, but it's not going to result in his removal by the Senate.

Trump's removal will require the support of at least half of the Republican party. There's no nothing that's been made public to date that suggests that's even a remote possibility. Without evidence of Trump engaging in an actual conspiracy with Russia, this impeachment obsession is all a time wasting farce. . 

 
 
Greg Jones
3.2.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Skrekk @3.2.3    one week ago
for his treasonous or criminal acts.

Absolutely not a shred of evidence. If you have any, reveal what it is, instead of embarrassing yourself. Eye Roll

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.2.6  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Greg Jones @3.2.5    one week ago
Absolutely not a shred of evidence. If you have any, reveal what it is, instead of embarrassing yourself.

Just keep telling yourself that and then find a safe space with supportive friends when Mueller's report comes out. 

 
 
bugsy
3.2.7  bugsy  replied to  Greg Jones @3.2.5    one week ago

These are the same "educated" that think that, any day now, Chris Christie will be indicted for Bridgegate.

Sad bunch, they are.

 
 
Skrekk
3.2.8  Skrekk  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.4    one week ago
Trump's removal will require the support of at least half of the Republican party.

And their failure to do so will reveal just how far the GOP has fallen.

 
 
Skrekk
3.2.9  Skrekk  replied to  Greg Jones @3.2.5    one week ago
Absolutely not a shred of evidence. If you have any, reveal what it is

See # 3.1.3 or see Trump's tweet from yesterday where he admits that the Trump Tower meeting was an attempt to conspire with Russia.

Looks like both Trump and Junior are in a real pickle.    I can see why his tweets are increasingly frantic and irrational.

 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  Skrekk @3.2.8    one week ago

And their failure to do so will reveal just how far the GOP has fallen.

Clinton perjured himself under oath and the Democrats were okay with that. So they'd still be in better shape than the Democat party. 

With the Clinton precedent so clearly on point, to claim a President should now be removed for lying to the Press is absurd. Hell, Trump could lie under oath to Mueller and the Democrats who were around 20 years ago, if they were honest, wouldn't vote  to impeach, let alone remove, Trump for it. 

 
 
Skrekk
3.2.11  Skrekk  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.10    one week ago
Clinton perjured himself under oath

Yeah, you made that moronic and obviously false claim the other day.   Not even the Republicans in the Senate were sold on that BS, only the true right wing extremists bought that nonsense.    In fact you lost twice as many GOP votes on the perjury charge as on the obstruction charge........you folks couldn't even get a simple majority of the Senate to agree with you.

 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Skrekk @3.2.11    one week ago
h, you made that moronic and obviously false claim the other day.   Not even the Republicans in the Senate were sold on the BS.

By all means, keep bringing this up, it's like you are trying to expose yourself as a hack. First, somehow you still don't understand that impeachment is a political action, not a legal one. They are different things, Clinton, of course, admitted guilt and reached an agreement with the prosecutor to pay $25,000  to avoid being charged criminally with perjury.   Republicans, of course, overwhelmingly voted to remove him from office for perjuring himself as well.

You argue that Clinton didn't commit perjury (even though he paid a fine and to avoid being prosecuted for it) and then in the same day turn around and  claim Bush started an illegal war, even though he was never even indicted for it. Keep  it up. It's your credibility and lack of principle being exposed.

 
 
Skrekk
3.2.13  Skrekk  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.12    one week ago
First, somehow you still don't understand that impeachment is a political action, not a legal one.

The burden of proof is higher in a real court than in the Senate yet you couldn't even muster a simple majority there.   LOL.

 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4  The Magic Eight Ball    one week ago
Obstruction Of Justice Bombshell Will Explode Before Midterms

ok then... LOL

dream a little dream, for me :)

 
 
JohnRussell
4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @4    one week ago

Mueller is going to report that Trump obstructed justice. Deal with it. 

 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    one week ago

And you HAVE proof of that where exactly?

 
 
WallyW
4.1.2  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    one week ago

And you STILL can't tell us just how and when he did so?  I thought you were full of facts and truth and wisdom. Dream on...

 
 
Texan1211
4.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    one week ago

If half the shit you dream of came true, Trump would already be dead and buried by now.

 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.3    one week ago

I have discussed with Perrie the fact that numerous of the right wingers on Newstalkers have nothing or next to nothing to offer this forum. They seed nothing, they write no articles, they offer no quotes, documents or article sources to support their opinions, and they spend all their time pestering other members. 

Just be happy that so far she has decided not to respond to those concerns. 

 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.5  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.4    one week ago

So you're upset that others challenge your personal echo chamber and require FACTS?

 
 
Texan1211
4.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.4    one week ago

Awww...does that chap your ass a little?

Pretty fucking comical when you criticize what anyone else ever posts!

 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.1.7  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    one week ago
Mueller is going to report

mueller is a joke... deal with it.

 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.5    one week ago

As I like to say .... "if the shoe fits"

I am not going to waste my time responding to every idiotic question someone asks. I seed and write articles related to these things on an ongoing basis. I have personally posted probably 25 items related to obstruction, including one just now on this seed. 

I am not going to respond to every whine from people who add nothing to this forum. Sorry. 

 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.9  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.8    one week ago

No...   you've posted OPINION pieces with NO basis in FACT.

Please see my comment number 5 below.

 
 
WallyW
4.1.10  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.8    one week ago

Well, it seems you DO respond to just about every comment instead of just ignoring them. And those responses are mostly thinly disguised personal attacks or put downs. I am surprised you never seem to receive suspensions.

Forums by their very nature are nothing BUT opinions. The articles seeded are also nothing but opinions. If I wanted today's breaking news, I wouldn't be wasting my time here. But, it's Perrie's name I see on the masthead, not yours. This is not, nor was it ever meant to be, a propaganda echo chamber for a few hard left liberals. Instead of whining and bellyaching about someone refuting your seeds and comments, which in most cases, deserve it, you should try to come up a few facts now and then and strive for a more balanced view. You get treated very kindly by the ownership, for which you should be grateful.

 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.11  JohnRussell  replied to  WallyW @4.1.10    one week ago

I post more factual information in one day than you have done since the entire time you have been here. A lot more actually. 

 
 
MUVA
4.1.12  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.11    one week ago

No most of what you post is opinion. 

 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.13  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.11    one week ago

Really?

Since when are OPINION pieces "factual'?

 
 
MrFrost
4.1.14  MrFrost  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @4.1.7    one week ago
mueller is a joke... deal with it.

He IS a republican, so there is a measure of truth there, but that being said? 109 criminal charges filed....SO FAR. I bet Manafort, flynn, gates and popadopalous don't think Mueller is a joke. 

Then there is this...

image2.jpg

 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.15  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.14    one week ago
109 criminal charges filed....SO FAR

And absofuckinglutely NOTHING to do with Trump.

 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.1.16  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.14    one week ago
He IS a republican,

republican in name only.  swamp rats get no respect.

 
 
pat wilson
4.1.17  pat wilson  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @4.1.16    one week ago

Let's see your CV and see how it stacks next to Mueller's.

 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.18  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.11    one week ago

I have to agree with Wally, you keep saying variations of the same things over and over and over and over and.....BlahBlahBlah

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.19  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.18    one week ago
you keep saying variations of the same things over and over and over and over and.....

Do you people ever read your own contributions to the conversation here? Or do you just cut and paste them directly from the rightwing craposphrere?

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.20  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.1    one week ago
And you HAVE proof of that where exactly?

You need to ask Mueller.  Wait....he's going to tell you, anyway, asked or not. 

 
 
bugsy
4.1.21  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.4    one week ago
Just be happy that so far she has decided not to respond to those concerns.

There is probably a reason for that.

 
 
bugsy
4.1.22  bugsy  replied to  WallyW @4.1.10    one week ago

Clapping

 
 
Farnsworth Horatio Clapstonestacker III
4.1.23  Farnsworth Horatio Clapstonestacker III  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.8    one week ago
I am not going to respond to every whine

That looks like it came from the picture - good match.

 
 
MrFrost
4.1.24  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.15    one week ago
And absofuckinglutely NOTHING to do with Trump

YET......... But I will allow you to explain how you know this for a fact... 

Please, continue. 

 
 
dennis smith
4.1.25  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.4    6 days ago

You can't deal with reality and run to Perrie for help. How sad of you. 

 
 
dennis smith
4.1.26  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.8    6 days ago

Take your ball and go home John.

 
 
XDm9mm
5  XDm9mm    one week ago

opinion

Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one useful and very viable asshole (except of course those poor individuals that have had them surgically removed for whatever reason).

Of course everyone also has their own personal OPINION(s).

Unlike the real anatomical ASSHOLE personal OPINIONS are as useless as the shit that exits the body through that useful asshole.

Until supported and PROVED by FACTS.....   everything else is an OPINION and therefore useless, much like the seeded article. 

However, when one considers that Robert Mueller has been relegated to sifting through the TWEETS an individual made, that should, to logical minds at least, indicate that there has been a complete lack of anything evidentiary or factual discovered that rise to the level of a chargeable offense.

Of course, that's just my opinion and I will note now, as useless as the other SHIT that has been seeded.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XDm9mm @5    one week ago
Of course, that's just my opinion and I will note now, as useless as the other SHIT that has been seeded.

Thank you for confirming what's been obvious.  

 
 
JBB
6  JBB    one week ago

Trump obstructed justice on Russiagate so many times Mueller cannot decided which ones to indict him for...

Returning home on Sunday afternoon it never ceases to amaze what mischief the righteous have been up to.

 
 
XDm9mm
6.1  XDm9mm  replied to  JBB @6    one week ago

Now THAT was a funny post.

THANKS!!!

 
 
Drakkonis
7  Drakkonis    one week ago
Obstruction of justice bombshell will explode before midterms

I guess saying the sun will rise in the morning is only slightly more obvious. Of course there's going to be a bombshell. First, because everything seems to be a bombshell these days, but more importantly, someone somewhere in the Democratic party is working on some "bombshell" they figure will help them in the election. It won't matter whether or not it's true. What will matter more is the timing of the dropping of this bombshell. The dropping of this bombshell will be late in the game and intended to cause an effect similar to what the Dems felt Comey did to Clinton. 

 
 
XDm9mm
7.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Drakkonis @7    one week ago

And I'm sure it will blowup in their faces like all of the previous 'bombshells' they've tried to toss.

The left has been relegated to trying to tell people opinions are facts and good news is bad.   Only in the world of Bizzaro will what the democrats try daily be relevant.

In the Bizarro world of "Htrae", society is ruled by the Bizarro Code which states

"Us do opposite of all Earthly things! Us hate beauty! Us love ugliness! Is big crime to make anything perfect on Bizarro World!"

In one episode, for example, a salesman is doing a brisk trade selling Bizarro bonds: "Guaranteed to lose money for you".

Later, the mayor appoints Bizarro No. 1 to investigate a crime, "Because you are stupider than the entire Bizarro police force put together". This is intended and taken as a great compliment.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World

 
 
Sean Treacy
7.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Drakkonis @7    one week ago

That's an excellent point. 

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7.2.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.2    one week ago

laughing dude

 
 
Skrekk
8  Skrekk    one week ago

Interesting that yesterday Trump unwittingly tweeted an admission to conspiring with Russia (or attempting to do so).   It's also a reversal from his previous lies about the meeting in Trump Tower:

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/did-trump-just-admit-attempted-collusion-these-reporters-seem-to-think-so/

President Donald Trump blasted out a tweet Sunday morning — amongst many — declaring that reports saying he’s worried his son Don Jr. could be in legal trouble are a “complete fabrication.” But he also described the infamous meeting at Trump Tower as a “meeting to get information on an opponent.”

Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics – and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 5, 2018

That’s interesting, because Don Jr.’s initial statement about meeting said its focus was “a program about the adoption of Russian children,” and not an attempt to seek out dirt from the Russians on Hillary Clinton

As Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigates potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, the Trump Tower meeting has come under scrutiny.

NBC News’ Chuck Todd pointed out that in the tweet, “the president admits his campaign did willingly reach out to Russians for dirt on Clinton.”

“Attempted collusion?” he asked.

Um…In this tweet, the president admits his campaign did willingly reach out to Russians for dirt on Clinton. Attempted collusion? https://t.co/1b8L8hPy1b — Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) August 5, 2018

Others drew the same conclusion, noting that Trump appears to have just given up on denying accusations of collusion.

POTUS deep-sixes the “adoption” lie. Collusion is fine and everyone does it. https://t.co/Pg0IIq6MBm — Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) August 5, 2018

Oh. My. God. https://t.co/xzJlzngoYH — Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) August 5, 2018

Out: “NO COLLUSION!”

In: “SOME COLLUSION!” https://t.co/IsFqNh3u7p

— David Frum (@davidfrum) August 5, 2018

So not adoptions then? https://t.co/gz65pOAk0W — Alex Ward (@AlexWardVox) August 5, 2018

Oh wow. Here’s a U.S. president, for the first time in American history, admitting that his campaign accepted offers of help from Russia: https://t.co/lmPtzs1jNz — Casey Michel 🇰🇿 (@cjcmichel) August 5, 2018

Ooooopsie.

We are going to be hearing about this tweet a whole lot for a long time. As well as whatever insane nonsense Rudy comes up with to explain it. https://t.co/4UlhnAPYhz

— Adam Davidson (@adamdavidson) August 5, 2018

SOME COLLUSION! https://t.co/YW6mTzjovR — Dave Itzkoff (@ditzkoff) August 5, 2018

oops you just admitted it was collusion! https://t.co/vTIEM2d3hS — Topher Spiro (@TopherSpiro) August 5, 2018

You mean, a meeting about adoptions, the subject of which was “not a campaign issue”?https://t.co/7VHwAv8tyM — Julia Davis (@JuliaDavisNews) August 5, 2018

No need for a Trump tweet to confirm that! We had the email trail since last summer. I’ve been writing about this over and over: attempted collusion is proven. Attempted murder & murder are separated by outcome, not intent. Same with attempted collusion. https://t.co/0BfCHuHeL4 https://t.co/sBn53iDKri — Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) August 5, 2018

Recall that original explanation for this meeting, in statement from Don Jr that POTUS helped write was that this was “a short introductory meeting…primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children…” 1/ https://t.co/166X7pdHNA — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) August 5, 2018

4/ POTUS this morning said: “This was a meeting to get information on an opponent…”

So please feel free to be the judge as to who has been sharing fabrications.

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) August 5, 2018
 
 
Skrekk
8.1  Skrekk  replied to  Skrekk @8    one week ago
 
 
Skrekk
8.2  Skrekk  replied to  Skrekk @8    one week ago

Also a great article about Trump's effort to obstruct justice in the Mike Flynn case:

If, therefore, Trump understood the legal jeopardy that Flynn faced, that would demonstrate such intent—and make for a much stronger case for obstruction against the president. Conversely, if Trump believed that Flynn was no longer under criminal investigation, or had been cleared, the president could not have had corrupt intent. But previously undisclosed evidence indicates just the opposite—that President Trump was fully informed that Flynn was the target of prosecutors.

I have learned that a confidential White House memorandum, which is in the special counsel’s possession, explicitly states that when Trump pressured Comey he had just been told by two of his top aides—his then chief of staff Reince Priebus and his White House counsel Don McGahn—that Flynn was under criminal investigation. This memo, the existence of which I first disclosed in December in Foreign Policy, was, as one source described it to me, “a timeline of events [in the White House] leading up to Flynn’s resignation.” It was dated February 15, 2017, and was prepared by McGahn two days after Flynn’s forced resignation and one day after Trump’s meeting with Comey. As I reported, research for the memo was “primarily conducted by John Eisenberg, the deputy counsel to the president and legal adviser to the National Security Council,” who, in turn, was “assisted by James Burnham, another White House counsel staff member.” 

During my reporting, I was allowed to read the memo in its entirety, as well as other, underlying White House records quoted in the memo, such as notes and memos written by McGahn and other senior administration officials. My reporting for this story is also based on interviews with a dozen former and current White House officials, attorneys who have interacted with Mueller’s team of investigators, and witnesses questioned by Mueller’s investigators.

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/07/31/what-trump-knew-and-when-he-knew-it/
 
 
Greg Jones
9  Greg Jones    one week ago

None of above matters, because he did not commit a provable crime.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
9.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Greg Jones @9    one week ago
None of above matters, because he did not commit a provable crime.

I see you're already hedging your bet.  Wise move. 

 
 
Skrekk
9.2  Skrekk  replied to  Greg Jones @9    one week ago
he did not commit a provable crime

Trump's tweet yesterday was an admission to conspiracy with the Russians, and he previously admitted to conspiracy after the fact for the bogus story he dictated about the meeting.

And now it seems that he's directly on the hook for obstruction regarding the Mike Flynn case.    Looks like both Trump and Junior are royally screwed.    I wonder if he'll swallow the indictment better if it's gold-plated?

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
9.2.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Skrekk @9.2    6 days ago

Junior better get used to the fact that daddy in law will indeed throw him under a bus to cover his own ass.  Hell, he would dig up his father and throw him under a bus if he though it would advantage him.

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
9.2.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @9.2.1    5 days ago

Make that daddy and not daddy in law.  Jarod and the Trump boys are so much alike that I sometimes get them confused.

 
 
MrFrost
9.3  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @9    one week ago
None of above matters, because he did not commit a provable crime.

You know this how, exactly? 

*crickets*

 
 
Sean Treacy
10  Sean Treacy    one week ago

The interesting thing about this opinion is it shows what a slender reed the Democrats are now hanging their hopes on. Picking the most controversial count of impeachment against Nixon, which was never even voted upon by the House, as the precedent to base an impeachment on is simply desperate. Recall the Republicans realized how pointless bringing a charge based on lying about a "matter under investigation" would be and did not bring impeachment charges on those grounds despite the lies of Bill "finger wagging" Clinton and his minions.  

The whole Trump strategy vis a vis Mueller is based off the Clinton Starr playbook and now Democrats want to impeach Trump for following their example. Too funny. 

 
 
Skrekk
10.1  Skrekk  replied to  Sean Treacy @10    one week ago

Interesting that the GOP's loony effort to impeach Rosenstein for doing his job well might turn out out to have adverse consequences for Trump when he's impeached.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/gop-efforts-impeach-rod-rosenstein-could-have-unintended-consequences-donald-ncna897576

 
 
JohnRussell
10.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @10    one week ago

People just want Donald Trump gone. He is the greatest embarrassment to this country in any of our lifetimes. 

If he is gone by impeachment , or by resignation, or god forbid we have to wait to vote him out in 2020, we all just want him gone. 

I am wondering though, where Trump's good news will come from from now until the midterms. Polling is showing Democrats winning the House back and possibly the Senate. Where will the good news for him come from in the next few months? His rallies? Everyone but his deplorables looks at these rallies and believe the man is nuts. I hope he has a rally every week, with the crazy conspiracy wackos in his audience in force.  If he starts an unnecessary war, do you think that will make undecided voters go GOP? I don't.  Is the news on the "Russian" front going to get better for Trump? Not a chance. As the summer ends and the election approaches, the facts from Mueller are going to make Trump look more guilty, not less. 

 
 
Sean Treacy
10.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @10.2    one week ago
People just want Donald Trump gone.

I agree that 1/3 want to remove him by any means necessary. But unless Mueller finds evidence of an actual crime that will get approximately half the Republican party to agree he should be the first President impeached and removed from office, this isn't going anywhere.  Lying to the Press or asking Comey to go easy on Flynn without actually interfering in the investigation and prosecution of Flynn just isn't going to do that. 

.  If he starts an unnecessary war, do you think that will make undecided voters go GOP? I don't.  Is the news on the "Russian" front going to get better for Trump? Not a chance. As the summer ends and the election approaches, the facts from Mueller are going to make Trump look more guilty, not less. 

The Republicans are almost certain to lose the House and Mueller will paint Trump's actions and statements in the worst possible light. But there's still no "there, there" and If someone like me who didn't vote for Trump and would rather have Pence as President doesn't think there's any justification for impeachment, the core Trump supporters certainly won't either. 

 
 
Skrekk
10.2.2  Skrekk  replied to  Sean Treacy @10.2.1    one week ago
But unless Mueller finds evidence of an actual crime that will get approximately half the Republican party to agree he should be the first President impeached and removed from office, this isn't going anywhere.

Your side loses the House in November and likely loses the Senate.   So impeachment is a done deal and conviction in the Senate will likely need 17 GOP votes at the very most.

Moreover the voters will remember the politicians who voted against removing this sociopath.    They'll also remember that the GOP as a whole was responsible for his election but refused to constrain him.

 
 
Sean Treacy
10.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Skrekk @10.2.2    one week ago
So impeachment is a done deal and conviction in the Senate will likely need 17 GOP votes at the very most.

By all means, engage in a party line impeachment of a President with a 43% approval rating and a clear majority opposing impeachment. That won't even get unanimous support form the Democrat caucus, let alone any Republican votes. 

Until support for impeachment reaches over 60%, Trump isn't in any danger of being removed. 

 
 
JohnRussell
10.2.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @10.2.3    one week ago

Impeachment of Trump will depend on other damaging information coming from Mueller, something "more serious" , or coming in the form of some sort of breakdown by Trump where he flies into public rage. I don't think either possibility is far fetched at all. 

He is the biggest liar and most unethical president the nation has ever seen. Frankly , the odds are higher that he can continue this way for four years than that something will happen to cut him short. 

 
 
Silent_Hysteria
11  Silent_Hysteria    one week ago

Obstruction is a stretch at this point.  Unless mueller has something we don't know about.  Possibility but us common folk don't know anything right now

 
 
Skrekk
11.1  Skrekk  replied to  Silent_Hysteria @11    one week ago
Obstruction is a stretch at this point.

LOL.   Not only is there proof of Trump's obstruction in the Flynn case, but his actions after the Trump Tower meeting with Russians constitute conspiracy after the fact if not obstruction too.     Both Trump and Junior are screwed.

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/07/31/what-trump-knew-and-when-he-knew-it/

 
 
Silent_Hysteria
11.1.1  Silent_Hysteria  replied to  Skrekk @11.1    one week ago

You and mueller BFFs?  Does he high five you as he tells you about the inner workings?  

Hey.  I GET wanting there to be something there. I get hoping he gets kicked out.  People have sides. 

Acting like you are on the inside of the investigation, know what's there, and have your law degree is asinine though.  Don't be that guy.  The internet jail house lawyer.  It's sad

 
 
Skrekk
11.1.2  Skrekk  replied to  Silent_Hysteria @11.1.1    one week ago
You and mueller BFFs?

Maybe you should read the article before you make another uniformed comment?

 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Skrekk @11.1.2    one week ago

Maybe you should. Nothing new. Still no interference in the investigation or prosecution of Flynn. 

 
 
Silent_Hysteria
11.1.4  Silent_Hysteria  replied to  Skrekk @11.1.2    one week ago

Read it.  It's speculation, hopes, and dreams.  From the beginning of this there have been "sources" saying all sorts of things that never came to be.  Remember bannon was going to jail?  Bannon was flipping on trump? Kelly was flipping?  

This is where the left is now.  Where saying we aren't privy to all the info and don't know for a fact what is going on or what will happen is offensive l.  As I said.  This could end up being the lefts Benghazi if nothing comes of it. 

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
11.1.5  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Silent_Hysteria @11.1.4    one week ago
 Remember bannon was going to jail?  Bannon was flipping on trump? Kelly was flipping?  

No. No. And. No. 

As for Bannon, I do know that Scumbag and Bannon have had a war of words since Bannon got booted.  Let's go to the "paper of record,"  harharhar--but it is one of them for your sort, right?):

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/3/steve-bannons-book-on-donald-trump-starts-war-of-w/

 
 
Skrekk
11.1.6  Skrekk  replied to  Silent_Hysteria @11.1.4    one week ago
Read it.  It's speculation, hopes, and dreams.

It's investigative reporting from a very credible journalist.    You can choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore it.

 
 
Silent_Hysteria
11.1.7  Silent_Hysteria  replied to  Skrekk @11.1.6    one week ago

It's speculation.  Just as "bannon is flipped! Bannon is going to jail" those "investigative journalists" did as well.  Speculating is not facts.  Again.  None of us know for certain what is known or not.  Not sure why that is so controversial.  

Tgis is why it's scary to me.  Because the media has gotten many on the left so certain something big is going to happen that IF it doesn't.  They will lose their mind.  I'm already predicting that IF mueller finds nothing he will be accused of not pressing charges to avoid a crisis or etc.  

 
 
Skrekk
11.1.8  Skrekk  replied to  Silent_Hysteria @11.1.7    one week ago
It's speculation.

Sounds more like it's reporting.

 
 
Vic Eldred
11.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Silent_Hysteria @11.1.7    one week ago
Because the media has gotten many on the left so certain something big is going to happen that IF it doesn't.  They will lose their mind.  I'm already predicting that IF mueller finds nothing he will be accused of not pressing charges to avoid a crisis or etc.

Yup, You will see how quick the left & the media turn on Mueller. He won't be called a man of integrity anymore! They will picket his home, make death threats and if they win the House call for impeachment anyway!

 
 
MrFrost
11.1.10  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1.9    4 days ago

If this investigation fails, dems can always start another one. I mean, benghazi was investigated 9 times in 4 years... 

 
 
Vic Eldred
11.1.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @11.1.10    4 days ago

We will trade you any time. You can do all the congressional investigations and we will do the DOJ & special counsel investigations.

 
 
MrFrost
11.2  MrFrost  replied to  Silent_Hysteria @11    one week ago
Unless mueller has something we don't know about.

IMG_20171031_084533.jpg

 
 
Skrekk
11.2.1  Skrekk  replied to  MrFrost @11.2    one week ago

To that point, the object of one of the obstruction of justice cases against Trump, Mike Flynn, himself pleaded guilty of lying to the FBI in an effort to obstruct justice in the investigation of collusion with Russia.    That guilty plea was part of a plea bargain to avoid more serious charges and so Flynn is now a cooperating witness...... 

 
 
MrFrost
11.2.2  MrFrost  replied to  Skrekk @11.2.1    6 days ago

Bingo, exactly. 

 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.2.3  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  MrFrost @11.2    5 days ago
Unless mueller has something we don't know about.

yepp. mueller now knows trump is not giving him an interview or the time of day.

 mueller is fishing a dry hole.

 
 
MrFrost
11.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.3    5 days ago

He has already bagged 109 fish. No a bad hole I would say. 

Pretty funny that trumps lawyers insist that trump not be asked ANYTHING about  obstruction of justice. Gee...I wonder why? Couldn't be that he is guilty of it? Nawww....of course not.. LOL 

You are aware that trump cannot refuse a subpoena, right? He may think he is above the law....he isn't...no one in this country is. 

 
 
MrFrost
11.2.5  MrFrost  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.3    5 days ago
mueller now knows trump is not giving him an interview or the time of day.

Yea, just an FYI? Muller is the boss, not trump with regards to this investigation... If Muller wants trump in front of him for an interview? It WILL happen. Count on it. 

 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.2.6  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  MrFrost @11.2.5    4 days ago
If Muller wants trump in front of him for an interview? It WILL happen. Count on it. 

not a chance.. but you hang on to that... it is all you have.

 

 
 
MrFrost
11.2.7  MrFrost  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.2.6    4 days ago

He cannot refuse a subpoena. 

 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.2.8  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  MrFrost @11.2.7    3 days ago

if mueller could force trump to talk he would not be "asking".  

I know that is hard to grasp but think on it awhile.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Studiusbagus
Bob Nelson


45 visitors