”You (Trump) are an idiot. Truly.” - US Air Force General, Michael Hayden
Flagpole wrote:
Funny. I would never lose sleep though. I would just come back the next day and have the last word, but ONLY if I stated I would. I don't care to most of the time.
So, are you are going to have the last word on the subject of you having the last word?
semsurrrrrrrrrr wrote:
Waffle, incoherent waffle.
https://www.businessinsider.com/read-trump-response-why-george-floyd-protesters-demonstrating-fox-news-2020-6?r=US&IR=T
Any president besides Trump would have answers prepared for softball questions. Instead, it's always off the cuff, word salad.
It doesn't seem like he does a single thing besides tweet and watch TV.
L L wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Funny. I would never lose sleep though. I would just come back the next day and have the last word, but ONLY if I stated I would. I don't care to most of the time.
So, are you are going to have the last word on the subject of you having the last word?
I do not need to, no, but since you asked a question, it would be rude not to answer, so this is my answer.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
semsurrrrrrrrrr wrote:
Waffle, incoherent waffle.
https://www.businessinsider.com/read-trump-response-why-george-floyd-protesters-demonstrating-fox-news-2020-6?r=US&IR=TAny president besides Trump would have answers prepared for softball questions. Instead, it's always off the cuff, word salad.
It doesn't seem like he does a single thing besides tweet and watch TV.
Um...GOLF!
semsurrrrrrrrrr wrote:
Waffle, incoherent waffle.
https://www.businessinsider.com/read-trump-response-why-george-floyd-protesters-demonstrating-fox-news-2020-6?r=US&IR=T
Let's pull out a nice little chunk that the Trumpers wouldn't see otherwise:
"Protesters for different reasons. You're protesting also because, you know, they just didn't know. I've watch — I watched very closely. Why are you here? They really weren't able to say, but they were there for a reason, perhaps." - Donald J. Trump
Flagpole wrote:
semsurrrrrrrrrr wrote:
Waffle, incoherent waffle.
https://www.businessinsider.com/read-trump-response-why-george-floyd-protesters-demonstrating-fox-news-2020-6?r=US&IR=TLet's pull out a nice little chunk that the Trumpers wouldn't see otherwise:
"Protesters for different reasons. You're protesting also because, you know, they just didn't know. I've watch — I watched very closely. Why are you here? They really weren't able to say, but they were there for a reason, perhaps." - Donald J. Trump
It is absolutely correct to say that a very sizable portion of protesters are just going along because others are and could not article a valid reason why they there. Had trump told the truth and said that they are likely protesting equality but surprise, using many metrics such as more whites killed by cops, less than ten unarmed black men killed by cops etc. that equality has been achieved and that many of the underlying ideas of BLM are false and that many BLM protesters are violent law breaking thugs, it would not have gone over well. Look up some of the chants the crowds are yelling, it's despicable. The irony of protesting the bigotry by calling all cops racist.
TBH I just wish I knew where/when (sometime this month, allegedly) Roger Stone is going to be imprisoned. I'd like to be among the crowd chanting "Lock him up! Lock him up!" when the bus rolls through the gates.
q54u wrote:
TBH I just wish I knew where/when (sometime this month, allegedly) Roger Stone is going to be imprisoned. I'd like to be among the crowd chanting "Lock him up! Lock him up!" when the bus rolls through the gates.
He might serve a short time but I’d bet money he’ll be pardoned.
PresidentTrump wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Let's pull out a nice little chunk that the Trumpers wouldn't see otherwise:
"Protesters for different reasons. You're protesting also because, you know, they just didn't know. I've watch — I watched very closely. Why are you here? They really weren't able to say, but they were there for a reason, perhaps." - Donald J. Trump
It is absolutely correct to say that a very sizable portion of protesters are just going along because others are and could not article a valid reason why they there. Had trump told the truth and said that they are likely protesting equality but surprise, using many metrics such as more whites killed by cops, less than ten unarmed black men killed by cops etc. that equality has been achieved and that many of the underlying ideas of BLM are false and that many BLM protesters are violent law breaking thugs, it would not have gone over well. Look up some of the chants the crowds are yelling, it's despicable. The irony of protesting the bigotry by calling all cops racist.
So you're saying Trump was being politically correct rather than being idiotic? Your theory seems unlikely.
It's amazing that the right wingers try to claim that Biden is senile when their guy speaks like this.
agip wrote:
q54u wrote:
TBH I just wish I knew where/when (sometime this month, allegedly) Roger Stone is going to be imprisoned. I'd like to be among the crowd chanting "Lock him up! Lock him up!" when the bus rolls through the gates.
He might serve a short time but I’d bet money he’ll be pardoned.
Any pardons will be after Election Day.
semsurrrrrrrrrrr wrote:
Racket wrote:
I could be wrong, but personally I think everyone is going to be so sick of it all that we'll just move on and Trump will fade into obscurity like other failed presidents. No one pursued Franklin Pierce to the ends of the earth for basically allowing the Civil War.
I don’t think NY will just let it go.
Here's someone who thinks that both cases are big losses for Trump and that things can move very quickly from here, such that we could see Trump's tax returns before Election Day.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-lawyer-on-tax-return-rulings-if-i-m-donald-trump-i-m-scared-right-now/ar-BB16xSC3?li=BBnbcA1And remember, there's nothing preventing the Manhattan DA from indicting Trump now, assuming they have evidence to support the charges.
Flagpole wrote:
semsurrrrrrrrrr wrote:
Waffle, incoherent waffle.
https://www.businessinsider.com/read-trump-response-why-george-floyd-protesters-demonstrating-fox-news-2020-6?r=US&IR=TLet's pull out a nice little chunk that the Trumpers wouldn't see otherwise:
"Protesters for different reasons. You're protesting also because, you know, they just didn't know. I've watch — I watched very closely. Why are you here? They really weren't able to say, but they were there for a reason, perhaps." - Donald J. Trump
Trigged, got any defense?
johnny99 wrote:
semsurrrrrrrrrrr wrote:
I don’t think NY will just let it go.
Here's someone who thinks that both cases are big losses for Trump and that things can move very quickly from here, such that we could see Trump's tax returns before Election Day.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-lawyer-on-tax-return-rulings-if-i-m-donald-trump-i-m-scared-right-now/ar-BB16xSC3?li=BBnbcA1And remember, there's nothing preventing the Manhattan DA from indicting Trump now, assuming they have evidence to support the charges.
Assume they find him guilty while he's POTUS - what then?
johnny99 wrote:
semsurrrrrrrrrrr wrote:
I don’t think NY will just let it go.
Here's someone who thinks that both cases are big losses for Trump and that things can move very quickly from here, such that we could see Trump's tax returns before Election Day.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-lawyer-on-tax-return-rulings-if-i-m-donald-trump-i-m-scared-right-now/ar-BB16xSC3?li=BBnbcA1And remember, there's nothing preventing the Manhattan DA from indicting Trump now, assuming they have evidence to support the charges.
huh? I thought nobody could indict a sitting president.
Your thinking is that not everyone will follow the DOJ guidelines on presidential immunity from indictment?
Flagpole wrote:
1100 wrote:
Fat Hurts and Flagpole have done this dance before. It has nothing to do with Trump imploding or the Trumpettes on this thread shriveling. It's just their personalities.
Anyone who has debated anything with those two knows how such an exchange will go, even before it really gets started.
That's fair. My personality is that truth will be told no matter what. I can only do that when I know the truth, and I did here, so the truth was told.
My post was really tongue and cheek. I didn't really think it had to do with trump supporters having nothing. I just used the fats and flagpole discourse as an opportunity to remind everyone that covid deniers and trump supporters have nothing.
agip wrote:
huh? I thought nobody could indict a sitting president.
Your thinking is that not everyone will follow the DOJ guidelines on presidential immunity from indictment?
There is no law, rule or statute that says you cannot indict a sitting president.
Your term "DOJ guidelines" is the most accurate way to describe it.
Mueller punked out and followed the guidelines. But he was reporting to the Deputy AG, who reported to the AG who reported the president.
There were no independent authorities in that group investigating the president.
I do believe the Manhattan DA can indict Trump right now if they pursued it.
Trump has pushed all boundaries that no other president considered pushing.
Nixon folded way before Trump has.
But Republicans in Congress were going to convict Nixon. They covered for Trump.
agip wrote:
johnny99 wrote:
Here's someone who thinks that both cases are big losses for Trump and that things can move very quickly from here, such that we could see Trump's tax returns before Election Day.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-lawyer-on-tax-return-rulings-if-i-m-donald-trump-i-m-scared-right-now/ar-BB16xSC3?li=BBnbcA1And remember, there's nothing preventing the Manhattan DA from indicting Trump now, assuming they have evidence to support the charges.
huh? I thought nobody could indict a sitting president.
Your thinking is that not everyone will follow the DOJ guidelines on presidential immunity from indictment?
Yes, that's my thinking. The DOJ opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted is not binding on any prosecutor, it's simply an opinion. Maybe in the DOJ they have to follow the opinion (based not on any law but simply on office policy), but outside of the DOJ the opinion is just that, another lawyer's opinion. No court has ever issued a decision stating that a sitting President cannot be indicted, and there is no law to that effect. Mueller deferred to the DOJ opinion, but Cy Vance in Manhattan can do what he wants, as long as he feels that it is within the bounds of the law and he is acting in good faith.
Certainly, an indictment of Trump while he was still in office would be challenged and would go to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the SC could say that you cannot indict a sitting President, you can do so but the prosecution will be stayed until the President is out of office, or you can indict and prosecute a sitting President. These are obviously uncharted waters, so exactly how it could play out is really unpredictable.
And although I think it is very unlikely that the Manhattan DA would indict Trump before Election Day, if they have the evidence to support an indictment and if Trump gets re-elected, I don't know that they would wait 4 more years to move forward with the case.
All of this assumes that the Manhattan DA has, or will acquire, evidence that Trump committed a crime or crimes and there is evidence to support an indictment. That is unknown at this time, however.
Trollminator wrote:
johnny99 wrote:
Here's someone who thinks that both cases are big losses for Trump and that things can move very quickly from here, such that we could see Trump's tax returns before Election Day.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-lawyer-on-tax-return-rulings-if-i-m-donald-trump-i-m-scared-right-now/ar-BB16xSC3?li=BBnbcA1And remember, there's nothing preventing the Manhattan DA from indicting Trump now, assuming they have evidence to support the charges.
Assume they find him guilty while he's POTUS - what then?
I have no idea.
If there was an attempt to prosecute Trump while he was in office, the case would go to the Supreme Court, maybe multiple times on multiple issues. An attempted criminal prosecution of a sitting President would obviously be unprecedented in the nation's history. The SC I think would set the ground rules for the prosecution; my guess is that if the SC permitted the indictment of a sitting President, they would likely stay the actual prosecution until the President was out of office.
I want to be clear - I don't think it is likely that Cy Vance will indict Trump while he is still in office. So this discussion is probably academic. I think that if the Manhattan DA has evidence of criminality, he will hope that Trump loses the election this November and will move forward then. The real question is what happens if Trump is re-elected; does Vance sit on the case for 4 more years, simply give up on the case, or does he dive into some murky constitutional waters and try to indict and prosecute a sitting President?
Or maybe, just maybe, Vance concludes that he doesn't have evidence that Trump committed a crime, and the whole investigation gets closed.