jesseriley wrote:
Witnesses, since you asked, include Mueller himself, his whole team, and everyone who cooperated. Hundreds, at least.
Advantages to resigning/making a deal include retaining pension/presidential perks. It saves time as well, trump isn’t young or healthy in case you missed it.
Mueller is not testifying. Please explain yourself. He is not testifying.
Flagpole wrote:
Trumpanzee Finder wrote:
You can’t argue with pure stupidity. They point to ice ages and say that’s why this is fake news. They point to some democrat who may have lied and say that’s why trump hasn’t done anything wrong. It’s completely warped. These guys have more teeth than brain cells - don’t waste yours on them.
CORRECT! I have told you, Fat Hurts, that you should stop replying to Rigged, because he is EITHER a troll or just flat insane...Sally too, but Sally has shown some time lately outside of insaneville (but still too much time in it). Right-wing conspiracy theories and supporting Trump is not a recipe for a healthy mind.
Agreed.
I don't think I've ever actually debated the science with either of them. But lately, it has become more clear that you just can't waste your time with the deniers who think it's a conspiracy.
Belief in a global scientific conspiracy really does show a paranoid departure from reality.
So debating climate change with Sally or Rigged would be like visiting the mental ward and trying to convince a patient he really is not Napoleon.
Fat hurts wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
CORRECT! I have told you, Fat Hurts, that you should stop replying to Rigged, because he is EITHER a troll or just flat insane...Sally too, but Sally has shown some time lately outside of insaneville (but still too much time in it). Right-wing conspiracy theories and supporting Trump is not a recipe for a healthy mind.
Agreed.
I don't think I've ever actually debated the science with either of them. But lately, it has become more clear that you just can't waste your time with the deniers who think it's a conspiracy.
Belief in a global scientific conspiracy really does show a paranoid departure from reality.
So debating climate change with Sally or Rigged would be like visiting the mental ward and trying to convince a patient he really is not Napoleon.
I have never said it is a conspiracy. BUT, if you are unwilling to say that the Earth WILL cool in the future and that the "warmest days on record" is meaningless, then you are not a serious person in this discussion. If you admit that the Earth WILL cool in the not-to-distant future, then I will consider engaging in discourse with you. Otherwise, forgetaboutit!
"The study reported that only two states, California and New York, and the District of Columbia saw firearm mortality rates decline in recent years. This is notable considering these jurisdictions' relatively strict gun laws.
"New York observes several key restrictions on gun ownership that severely curtail access to firearms. The state outlaws the possession of so-called 'assault weapons,' a category of military-style semi-automatic rifle that was dramatically expanded in 2013 with the passage of the NY SAFE Act in 2013. That legislation also implemented universal background checks for private sales and strengthened safe storage requirements."
.
.
Apologies in advance to anyone offended--I know how distressing those "fact" things are to some people.
Sally Vix wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
He might not, but it's probably his best option. He should make a deal.
Huh? Why would it be his best option? He is president of the greatest nation in the world. Why would resigning be his best option? You have continually said that he is open to criminal prosecution when he is no longer president. Why oh why would resigning be his best option? Please clarify Flagpole because that was not a very smart thing to say.. He can continue to be president OR he can resign and face criminal prosecution. Yet you say resigning is his best option? Please elaborate.
Oh Sally...I once stated you were not a troll, but I have changed my mind. You simply can NOT be as dim as you appear. Did you read the linked article, or did you spout off before being properly educated on the topic as usual?
Trump is facing impeachment. He WILL be impeached. He has a CHANCE, and a better one everyday, of being removed from office. Even if he isn't removed via impeachment and conviction, he will be out of office in just over a year, because he will not win re-election (unless he cheats again or space aliens prevent it). At that time, he is vulnerable to all kinds of punishment, including financial and prison. If he sees this coming soon enough (it's time now), he COULD try to make some sort of a deal to resign for lessening or removal of punishment for his federal crimes. He is still going to face state crimes for which I believe he will see prison time, but it is his best option to try to make some sort of a deal that allows him to avoid more time. Resigning also allows him to say the Deep State or hateful liberals put him in a no-win situation (all BS, but he will be able to say that).
Now, he IS a dullard AND a criminal, so he MIGHT try to find a way to stay in power even when he loses the election in 2020 if he isn't removed from office first. He will have to play the percentages, and hopefully he will accept the advice of legal counsel assuming he finds a sound lawyer...not Rudy.
You probably deserved a non-answer from me on that, but I was in a mood to answer, so I did.
Sally Vix wrote:
Rayquon Jones wrote:
Question:
Let’s say my babymomma was about to get evicted. She then calls me to say she needs a stack(that’s $1,000 for the white folks out there). I say sure........but I “need you to do me a favor though”. I say I want her to come by and swallow the anaconda.
Would that be whats called a quid pro quo???
If so, how is that different than what Trump did?
Presidential candidate Joe Biden bragged at how he was able to fire the special prosecutor of his son, Hunter. Extortion 101. I am not a lawyer but that seems Extortion 101 and he will never be president.
Sally....save the whataboutism and answer the question. Is Rayquon’s scenario a quid pro quo? If so, how is it different than what 45 did?
Ciro wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Sally, you have been told several times about how you are not right in your assessment of this. You look more and more foolish every time you bring it up. There is no debate on this. You are just flat wrong.
The foolish one is you wasting your time on Sally.
Deprive him of the attention he craves.
Yeah...I believe you to be correct. I will stop with the foolishness.
Flagpole wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Huh? Why would it be his best option? He is president of the greatest nation in the world. Why would resigning be his best option? You have continually said that he is open to criminal prosecution when he is no longer president. Why oh why would resigning be his best option? Please clarify Flagpole because that was not a very smart thing to say.. He can continue to be president OR he can resign and face criminal prosecution. Yet you say resigning is his best option? Please elaborate.
Oh Sally...I once stated you were not a troll, but I have changed my mind. You simply can NOT be as dim as you appear. Did you read the linked article, or did you spout off before being properly educated on the topic as usual?
Trump is facing impeachment. He WILL be impeached. He has a CHANCE, and a better one everyday, of being removed from office. Even if he isn't removed via impeachment and conviction, he will be out of office in just over a year, because he will not win re-election (unless he cheats again or space aliens prevent it). At that time, he is vulnerable to all kinds of punishment, including financial and prison. If he sees this coming soon enough (it's time now), he COULD try to make some sort of a deal to resign for lessening or removal of punishment for his federal crimes. He is still going to face state crimes for which I believe he will see prison time, but it is his best option to try to make some sort of a deal that allows him to avoid more time. Resigning also allows him to say the Deep State or hateful liberals put him in a no-win situation (all BS, but he will be able to say that).
Now, he IS a dullard AND a criminal, so he MIGHT try to find a way to stay in power even when he loses the election in 2020 if he isn't removed from office first. He will have to play the percentages, and hopefully he will accept the advice of legal counsel assuming he finds a sound lawyer...not Rudy.
You probably deserved a non-answer from me on that, but I was in a mood to answer, so I did.
Flag, you’re a smart poster, how did it take you so long to figure it out?
With Nixon the break-in was investigated before the election, difficulty obtaining records started the inquiry in October ‘73, a formal vote on proceedings in Feb. ‘74, closing in on impeachment when he resigned in August.
Enjoy the show.
Flagpole wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Huh? Why would it be his best option? He is president of the greatest nation in the world. Why would resigning be his best option? You have continually said that he is open to criminal prosecution when he is no longer president. Why oh why would resigning be his best option? Please clarify Flagpole because that was not a very smart thing to say.. He can continue to be president OR he can resign and face criminal prosecution. Yet you say resigning is his best option? Please elaborate.
Oh Sally...I once stated you were not a troll, but I have changed my mind. You simply can NOT be as dim as you appear. Did you read the linked article, or did you spout off before being properly educated on the topic as usual?
Trump is facing impeachment. He WILL be impeached. He has a CHANCE, and a better one everyday, of being removed from office. Even if he isn't removed via impeachment and conviction, he will be out of office in just over a year, because he will not win re-election (unless he cheats again or space aliens prevent it). At that time, he is vulnerable to all kinds of punishment, including financial and prison. If he sees this coming soon enough (it's time now), he COULD try to make some sort of a deal to resign for lessening or removal of punishment for his federal crimes. He is still going to face state crimes for which I believe he will see prison time, but it is his best option to try to make some sort of a deal that allows him to avoid more time. Resigning also allows him to say the Deep State or hateful liberals put him in a no-win situation (all BS, but he will be able to say that).
Now, he IS a dullard AND a criminal, so he MIGHT try to find a way to stay in power even when he loses the election in 2020 if he isn't removed from office first. He will have to play the percentages, and hopefully he will accept the advice of legal counsel assuming he finds a sound lawyer...not Rudy.
You probably deserved a non-answer from me on that, but I was in a mood to answer, so I did.
You say that Trump WILL be impeached. You previously said that Trump WILL lose the election. Should I believe you now when I trusted you before? Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.
Quid Pro Quo in plain sight.
Because China dared to ignore Trump's demand for creating a fake investigation of Biden, Trump has . . . . declared visa restrictions on China. The restrictions were announced by Mike Pompeo for Trump.
Of course, the Trumpain party line is that the restrictions are for something, but they are not fooling anyone.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/xinjiang-visa-restrictions-state-department/index.html
Democrats are disgusting pieces of trash!!! The civil war will be good for removing the trash.
jesseriley wrote:
With Nixon the break-in was investigated before the election, difficulty obtaining records started the inquiry in October ‘73, a formal vote on proceedings in Feb. ‘74, closing in on impeachment when he resigned in August.
Enjoy the show.
Trump's Criminal DOJ declared that the laws have changed--they haven't--since 1974 when a judge allowed Congress to have access to Watergate grand jury materials as it considered President Richard Nixon’s impeachment. In the mindlessness of the DOJ (Elizabeth Shapiro, head of the DOJ civil division) tried to argue that the impeachment proceeding against Trump did not meet the standard for releasing grand jury materials. Believe it, or not, Trump's DOJ believes he is above the law.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/08/mueller-house-democrats-impeachment-lawsuit-039516Ghost of Igloi wrote:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/whistleblower-had-professional-tie-to-2020-democratic-candidate
Gosh--that must mean that Donald Trump *didn't* release a transcript of a phone call in which he solicited a foreign leader's help against a political rival...even though Trump (and his lawyer) admitted that he did, and even though Trump later, on live television, solicited such aid from *another* foreign leader.
...And I bet that *also* means that Donald Trump didn't obstruct justice ~ten times. And that he didn't commit election-finance *felonies* for which his co-conspirator is in prison.
Wow--important article, then. Thanks for the link!
kibitzer wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/whistleblower-had-professional-tie-to-2020-democratic-candidateGosh--that must mean that Donald Trump *didn't* release a transcript of a phone call in which he solicited a foreign leader's help against a political rival...even though Trump (and his lawyer) admitted that he did, and even though Trump later, on live television, solicited such aid from *another* foreign leader.
...And I bet that *also* means that Donald Trump didn't obstruct justice ~ten times. And that he didn't commit election-finance *felonies* for which his co-conspirator is in prison.
Wow--important article, then. Thanks for the link!
Phone call transcript was a nothingburger. Next!
LetsRun really should have a "Last Page" button for threads like this.
Sally Vix wrote:
foo wrote:
And Nixon was duly elected in the 1972...
Nixon never faced an impeachment "inquiry." LOL.
Ok, I'll explain it to you..
You can justify the illegal/corrupt/unethical actions of any POTUS by saying that he was elected and therefor the other arms of government have no business in performing oversight because they would be overturning the prior election.
Since you didn't understand the Nixon analogy, let's use Clinton. I'm assuming you thought he should have been impeached. Using your own logic, why then were the Republicans trying to overturn the 1996 election?