Rigged for Hillary wrote:
L L wrote:
I think it’s all going to go down quickly for Trump.
I don’t know of it will be soon, but when it starts for real, it will be quick.
Like preparing a building for implosion. It takes a while to determine where to put all of the explosives for the structure to collapse straight down.
But when the lever is pulled, it’s all down on seconds.
Mueller has been strategically placing detonating devices for a while.
The Manafort and Cohen news is big.
We still have to settle the Flynn plea.
And Don Jr hasn’t been interviewed yet. Roger Stone has not been indicted yet.
REMINDER: Still no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion
Trump will be re-elected
Liberal heads will keep exploding for the next 6 plus years
Mueller never
Clownpole forever
Trump will not be re-elected. He will be impeached and convicted or he will resign. There is a small chance that Mueller will indict him while he is still President, and in that case, I'm not sure what happens. I do not expect that to happen. Best chance is that he resigns as part of a plea deal.
I will be proven right about the 2016 election and everything I've said since about Trump.
You were slightly interesting when it wasn't as crystal clear as it is now (it was long been crystal clear to me) that Trump was going down. That you are hanging on to foolish hope now makes you very uninteresting. I likely can't respond to you anymore unless you somehow become interesting again.
No reasonable person can possibly believe that Trump could be re-elected in 2020. He has just been named by Cohen as a co-conspirator to a felony. Apparently you don't understand the significance.
This is going to end very badly for Trump as I have said for months.
Mueller is coming. I will be proven right.
The clown is done.
LOL . . . .
The first two members of Congress to publicly support Donald Trump for president have been indicted!!!! . . . . Chris Collins (R-NY) and Duncan Hunter (R-CA). Interesting, yes?
Watching FOX trying to spin this is good for a few laughs. It's like an alternate universe.
This is going down EXACTLY as I said it would.
Flagpole wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
REMINDER: Still no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion
Trump will be re-elected
Liberal heads will keep exploding for the next 6 plus years
Mueller never
Clownpole forever
Trump will not be re-elected. He will be impeached and convicted or he will resign. There is a small chance that Mueller will indict him while he is still President, and in that case, I'm not sure what happens. I do not expect that to happen. Best chance is that he resigns as part of a plea deal.
I will be proven right about the 2016 election and everything I've said since about Trump.
You were slightly interesting when it wasn't as crystal clear as it is now (it was long been crystal clear to me) that Trump was going down. That you are hanging on to foolish hope now makes you very uninteresting. I likely can't respond to you anymore unless you somehow become interesting again.
No reasonable person can possibly believe that Trump could be re-elected in 2020. He has just been named by Cohen as a co-conspirator to a felony. Apparently you don't understand the significance.
This is going to end very badly for Trump as I have said for months.
Mueller is coming. I will be proven right.
The clown is done.
I think in many eyes this will all be pointless unless Trump is shown to have conspired with Russians (ie: collusion) and that all boils down to the Trump Tower meeting.
Alan
Right wing columnist in the Amazon Washington Post sees it as bad for the president:
Flagpole may be proven correct eventually.
Should really be noted wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
They’re all tainted. Sad how the breakdown in ethical leadership from both parties infects this country.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/12/27/whats-behind-the-claim-that-hillary-clinton-got-84-million-in-illegal-contributions/?utm_term=.637e64506e2cYou are a Trumpette every bit as much as Lying Gary. Deflect, contort, excuse, lie . . . all because you are afraid of people who are not white.
#Sad
Sad is your comment when you know absolutely nothing about me.
#Worthless
Flagpole wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
REMINDER: Still no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion
Trump will be re-elected
Liberal heads will keep exploding for the next 6 plus years
Mueller never
Clownpole forever
Trump will not be re-elected. He will be impeached and convicted or he will resign. There is a small chance that Mueller will indict him while he is still President, and in that case, I'm not sure what happens. I do not expect that to happen. Best chance is that he resigns as part of a plea deal.
I will be proven right about the 2016 election and everything I've said since about Trump.
You were slightly interesting when it wasn't as crystal clear as it is now (it was long been crystal clear to me) that Trump was going down. That you are hanging on to foolish hope now makes you very uninteresting. I likely can't respond to you anymore unless you somehow become interesting again.
No reasonable person can possibly believe that Trump could be re-elected in 2020. He has just been named by Cohen as a co-conspirator to a felony. Apparently you don't understand the significance.
This is going to end very badly for Trump as I have said for months.
Mueller is coming. I will be proven right.
The clown is done.
Trump WILL be easily re-elected.
He will not be impeached nor will he resign
YOU will be going down as the biggest clown in LR history
I will be proven right as I've been since Trump won in 2016
There is no Russian collusion- it is nothing but a fantasy in your TDS infected brain
The Flagpolian Flop is coming
Mueller never
Clownpole forever
Good morning! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine am?
Rigged for Hillary wrote:Trump WILL be easily re-elected.
He will not be impeached nor will he resign
YOU will be going down as the biggest clown in LR history
I will be proven right as I've been since Trump won in 2016
There is no Russian collusion- it is nothing but a fantasy in your TDS infected brain
The Flagpolian Flop is coming
Mueller never
Clownpole forever
I know you can't possibly believe half of what you write. I can't, for the life of me, understand what would motivate you to write these things? Credible hypotheses seem to be:
- (very) low intelligence; I don't think this is true, you come across as having at least approximately average intelligence
- mental illness; I don't have any real basis to believe this, but Occam's razor applies in many situations, and this does seem like the simplest explanation
- you are being paid, or otherwise incentivized, to spread nonsense; it's tempting to believe this, but I suspect a lot less of this is actually happening than what we are lead to believe
- you're stubborn and proud, too much to admit the blatantly obvious wrongheadedness of the views you've been expressing
Maybe you'll come back around to reality before reality really hits you hard when Trump gets what's coming.
Flagpole wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
You are not correct. The US Constitution states: … he [the President] shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
There has to be an offense against to US first.
A pardon for an offense does presume that the accused is guilty. Only a court of law can prove someone guilty. The person is still presumed innocent until a court says otherwise.
In fact, presidents have pardoned people before trial because the president thinks that person is innocent. This is a good use of the pardon as it can prevent a miscarriage of justice. It would make no sense for an innocent person to admit guilt.
There is no requirement that the accused sign something or say something to indicate guilt.
Fat hurts,
You simply are not correct. If a person accepts a pardon, it is an admission of guilt. Again, go read up on Burdick v. United States.
"A pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt."
Consider that you have learned something today.[/quote]
I looked at Burdick before I ever posted about this. I've read up on it already.
What you are talking about in your quote is merely dictum. It had no bearing on the Burdick case and is therefore far from being settled case law. Google it and you will see that legal scholars disagree on this point. Accepting a pardon doesn't mean you are guilty. And as this was not the central question in Burdick, it has never been tested.
From a practical and Constitutional standpoint, it makes no sense that accepting a pardon means you are guilty. Let's say an insane prosecutor way back when indicted Mother Teresa for spouse abuse under federal domestic violence laws. Since she was never married, the president concludes that she is innocent and grants her a pardon. Nobody in their right mind would think that accepting the pardon means she is guilty of the crime.
If the "guilt theory" of pardons was ever tested, I am confident it would be dismissed. Flagpole, I know that you want it to be true because you think it helps your case on this thread. My advice to you is to give it up. Michael Cohen just handed you plenty of redemption yesterday. The president cheated to win the election and Cohen just plead guilty to that fact.
Flagpole wins.
Trump TV wrote:
Trump will likely quit the "job" soon. He just has to convince himself that he can start a Trump TV Network with other people paying all of the costs while Trump is entirely in charge--the Trumpian Way. Trump's first task is to hire Sean Hannity to do all the work while Trump makes the decisions--the Trumpian Way. Hannity will find a way to wiggle out of his Fox contact with other people paying the cost of breaking the contact which ends in 2020--the Trumpian Way.
I've been saying for a long time that Trump won't resign. I still think it's very unlikely but you have given me something to think about.
If Trump believes that he can make enough money by resigning then maybe he will think it's worth it.
I still doubt it though. Trump loves wielding power and he leaves office only under direct threat of physical force.
Conspiracy to commit a felony is a felony. Complicity in committing a felony--that is, being an accomplice--is a felony.
In federal court, Michael D. Cohen pleaded guilty to committing multiple felonies. Conspiring with him, and complicit, in some of the acts was Donald J. Trump.
Please help me understand: What part of that is not clear?
Oh, and be it noted: The felonies to which Michael Cohen pleaded guilty had nothing to do with Russia.
present, esq. wrote:Oh, and be it noted: The felonies to which Michael Cohen pleaded guilty had nothing to do with Russia.
And Hilary emails! Squirrel!
You're making good points. I feel like the Russia connection between Cohen and Trump will become more clear to us all, and very quickly, however.
Fat hurts wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
A pardon for an offense does presume that the accused is guilty. Only a court of law can prove someone guilty. The person is still presumed innocent until a court says otherwise.
In fact, presidents have pardoned people before trial because the president thinks that person is innocent. This is a good use of the pardon as it can prevent a miscarriage of justice. It would make no sense for an innocent person to admit guilt.
There is no requirement that the accused sign something or say something to indicate guilt.
Fat hurts,
You simply are not correct. If a person accepts a pardon, it is an admission of guilt. Again, go read up on Burdick v. United States.
"A pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt."
Consider that you have learned something today.
I looked at Burdick before I ever posted about this. I've read up on it already.
What you are talking about in your quote is merely dictum. It had no bearing on the Burdick case and is therefore far from being settled case law. Google it and you will see that legal scholars disagree on this point. Accepting a pardon doesn't mean you are guilty. And as this was not the central question in Burdick, it has never been tested.
From a practical and Constitutional standpoint, it makes no sense that accepting a pardon means you are guilty. Let's say an insane prosecutor way back when indicted Mother Teresa for spouse abuse under federal domestic violence laws. Since she was never married, the president concludes that she is innocent and grants her a pardon. Nobody in their right mind would think that accepting the pardon means she is guilty of the crime.
If the "guilt theory" of pardons was ever tested, I am confident it would be dismissed. Flagpole, I know that you want it to be true because you think it helps your case on this thread. My advice to you is to give it up. Michael Cohen just handed you plenty of redemption yesterday. The president cheated to win the election and Cohen just plead guilty to that fact.
Flagpole wins.[/quote]
Wow you just lowered the bar even more. So funny.
Let me remind you that a month prior to the election, the DNC/HRC campaign colluded with NBC to roll out an audio of a private conversation between two guys talking about poon from 11 years earlier..... and then rolled out a woman every few days who claimed to have been harassed/assaulted by Trump... so they could paint a woman-hating narrative.
But hush money for a consensual affair from a decade earlier is cheating? Come on. Grow up.
Awsi Dooger wrote:
https://twitter.com/mluckovichajc/status/1032047453120409600
Gotta love Luckovich. The best in the business and this may be one of his best.
Trump endorsed by GOP criminals wrote:
LOL . . . .
The first two members of Congress to publicly support Donald Trump for president have been indicted!!!! . . . . Chris Collins (R-NY) and Duncan Hunter (R-CA). Interesting, yes?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-first-2-congressmen-to-endorse-trump-have-been-indicted/ar-BBMgJBL
Who was the third?