nothingburger wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:
^Nothingburger.
yup. That was an incredibly unoriginal set of talking points straight from the far Right Wing Hannity/Limbaugh playbook. I mean, even for Gary, that was unoriginal and uninteresting. Usually he throws some kooky/absurd twist in there on top of the talking points.
L L wrote:
The Democrats already have made motions to impeach but did not have enough votes because of no Republican support.
Mueller's report is not even necessary for impeachment.
But it would be helpful.
Right. No need to wait for evidence of a crime! This isn't about the rule of law or justice. This is a coup to undo an election. This is a direct attack on #3, an attempt to undermine our electoral system.
Thanks for making that clear.
Democrats, always guilty of what they accuse others of doing.
Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:
nothingburger wrote:
^Nothingburger.
yup. That was an incredibly unoriginal set of talking points straight from the far Right Wing Hannity/Limbaugh playbook. I mean, even for Gary, that was unoriginal and uninteresting. Usually he throws some kooky/absurd twist in there on top of the talking points.
Occasionally the boring truth needs to be stated clearly.
We are witnessing an attempted coup by Democrats. That's what's happening.
L L wrote:
The Democrats already have made motions to impeach but did not have enough votes because of no Republican support.
Mueller's report is not even necessary for impeachment.
But it would be helpful.
It would not be wise to make any move on Trump before Mueller's report comes out. There could be a backfire of public opinion.
Bransem wrote:
L L wrote:
The Democrats already have made motions to impeach but did not have enough votes because of no Republican support.
Mueller's report is not even necessary for impeachment.
But it would be helpful.
It would not be wise to make any move on Trump before Mueller's report comes out. There could be a backfire of public opinion.
Ahem, no. The only opinion that be affected is that of Trumpkins--they have already made up their minds. Trumpkins are less than 30% of the population. ... Do you intend to gerrymander public opinion to give Trumpkins a 4x voting-weight?
DiscoGary wrote:
We know there is no case against Trump because it would have leaked by now. No leaks of evidence = no evidence.
This whole thing was cooked up by the Clinton campaign and aided by Obama and his stooges in the FBI and DOJ to undo the results of the election. This is a coup by the Democrats. We know this because we texts from high ranking FBI officials saying it.
They had to do this because the election of Trump would open the door to investigations of all the corruption that went on under Obama. So they struck first. It worked for a while, but the tide has turned and the people can see the man behind the curtain.
Ont thing is certain. Dems are not accepting the results of the election.
What do you call guilty pleas and criminal indictments of high ranking Trump administration members? Just noise? Yes, the lack of leaks out of the Mueller camp proves that there is nothing there. The idea that Mueller (the former FBI director and a Republican) is doing his job and running a tight ship rather than Democratic mudslinging machine is simply beyond the realm of possibility.
Please cite the texts from high ranking FBI officials saying that this is a coup by Democrats. Then, please explain why Hillary Clinton and the FBI cooked up the dossier only to use it AFTER the election. Please explain why the FBI released damaging information about Hillary Clinton right before the election, and did nothing to impede Trump's chances. If the "Deep State" Obama and Clinton had all colluded with Russia to bring Trump down at any cost... he wouldn't have fvking won!!!
By the way, anything to negative say about Trump calling people who don't applaud his fat ass "treasonous", Mr. Individual Rights?
Public Opinion wrote:
Bransem wrote:
It would not be wise to make any move on Trump before Mueller's report comes out. There could be a backfire of public opinion.
Ahem, no. The only opinion that be affected is that of Trumpkins--they have already made up their minds. Trumpkins are less than 30% of the population. ... Do you intend to gerrymander public opinion to give Trumpkins a 4x voting-weight?
What? ESL?
L L wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Mueller is coming.
But at what rate?
I think the election will come and the Democrats will win the house, be seated and start impeachment proceedings before Mueller comes with all that he may need to prosecute or even indict.
Even if Flynn, Manafort, Gates and Papadopoulos all flip and testify about things they know about Trump, it will still be their word vs. his. He'll take the fifth.
That will be a long, long process.
The only way it goes quick is if Trump takes a deal and resigns.
Does anyone here think Trump would ever resign and admit to anything?
L L,
You are right to be concerned about timing and weaselness of Trump and his complicit Republicans, but here are my comments:
1) Flynn, Manafort, Gates, and Papadopoulos HAVE already flipped.
2) NOT just their word vs. his. Their words will be independently corroborated, and they are all under potential criminal prosecution if they lie. Also, Trump is a known liar and even IF you could just boil it down to them vs. him (you can't), he loses that battle.
3) Other than the fact that the longer he is in office the more damage there is, I don't really care how long it takes. Trump needs to be exposed and punished, and future Presidents and government officials need to understand that they can not engage in treasonous-like activities without being caught.
4) I'm not sure Trump will admit guilt and resign or not (I suppose only if given a plea bargain), but there is past history of him finally admitting guilt to things in court he was accused of in business relationships when the screws were really applied to him. But again, I just want to see justice served, and I am patient with regard to that.
Trader of Posts wrote:
What? ESL?
Trump does have that problem.
DiscoGary wrote:
We know there is no case against Trump because it would have leaked by now. No leaks of evidence = no evidence.
Do you disagree there was evidence that Trump sent Flynn to talk sanctions relief to the Russians before his inauguration and that he fired Comey to halt that investigation?
L L wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:
We know there is no case against Trump because it would have leaked by now. No leaks of evidence = no evidence.
Do you disagree there was evidence that Trump sent Flynn to talk sanctions relief to the Russians before his inauguration and that he fired Comey to halt that investigation?
Sending people to talk to other administrations during the transition is not a crime. They all do it.
Comey was fired AFTER he told Trump that Trump was NOT the target of the investigation and because Comey was a grand-standing political hack who was rewriting Federal law to keep Hillary from going to trial. At one point or another everyone wanted Comey fired. He should be investigated for collusion with the Hillary campaign.
DiscoGary wrote:
We are witnessing an attempted coup by Democrats. That's what's happening.
Wow. You honestly believe that Donald Trump and/or his campaign and then later staff are not guilty of...
* Improper contact with Russians before the election
* Obstruction of Justice
I would list more things, but just the two above, you don't see ANY evidence of this at all? AND, you believe that Trump is 100% innocent of these things and that the Democrats, along with a mostly Republican-led and staffed group of intelligence agencies, have conspired to take the election away from him?
Really? That is honestly what you think? Dude, that is CRAZY thinking.
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
DiscoGary wrote:
He should be investigated for collusion with the Hillary campaign.
He. Cost. Her. The. Election.
DiscoGary wrote:
L L wrote:
Do you disagree there was evidence that Trump sent Flynn to talk sanctions relief to the Russians before his inauguration and that he fired Comey to halt that investigation?
Sending people to talk to other administrations during the transition is not a crime. They all do it.
So why did Flynn lie about it to the FBI? That's a crime.
Standing up for what is right wrote:
I'm glad all the Republicans on the intelligence committee stood up and voted against the release of the Democrat's rebuttal of the Nunes memo since the Dems did the same to Nunes's memo.
For the record, Democrats didn't want either memo to be released. The only reason they drafted their own Democratic political memo was to add balance to the Republican political memo.
The Gallant Pig Man wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:
He should be investigated for collusion with the Hillary campaign.
He. Cost. Her. The. Election.
He.Protected.Her.From.Being.Charged.With.Gross.Negligence.
Citizen Runner wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:
Sending people to talk to other administrations during the transition is not a crime. They all do it.
So why did Flynn lie about it to the FBI? That's a crime.
Right. He didn't need to lie. He screwed up, which is the whole point of this witch hunt, to get members of the Trump administration to screw up ... because there never were any crimes before this investigation started. If there were we would know by now.
Don't believe you own side's propaganda. That is the way of frustration and disappointment.
DiscoGary wrote:
That's a great ad. Hard hitting. Nothing racist or sexist about it. It's a good thing someone is fighting back against the SJW bullies.
Or, as your fellow Trumpette just posted on another thread:
"Obama, Holder, Lynch.....
First time 3 third worlders were in charge together...
What did they do?
Turned the US into a 'banana republic' as if we were S America or Africa..."
You folks occasionally do a good job clarifying who you are.
Flynn wasn't just charged with lying he plead to lying which looks like he made a deal where he plead to a lessor charge in exchange for something.
Papadopoulos plead to lying as well.
And they are still turning the screws on Manafort and Gates.
There is absolutely knowledge that Mueller has that the public does not.
And I don't know what gets shared with Congress along the way.
Well There You Have It wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:
That's a great ad. Hard hitting. Nothing racist or sexist about it. It's a good thing someone is fighting back against the SJW bullies.
Or, as your fellow Trumpette just posted on another thread:
"Obama, Holder, Lynch.....
First time 3 third worlders were in charge together...
What did they do?
Turned the US into a 'banana republic' as if we were S America or Africa..."
You folks occasionally do a good job clarifying who you are.
What's wrong with the ad?