Largent80 wrote:How did guns end up in "The Russia Thing"?
Largent80 wrote:No, y'all took it to the next level, quit trying to deflect everything river dog, you always seem like a guy that feels the need to have the last word on everything, right?
Because when I look at any thread you post in, almost exclusively you do this. Whatever, good on ya if that's what you feel you need to do.
Since were here.... ASSAULT weapons are meant for killing people, pretty clear isn't it. Target practice....Hahahahha. I live in Texas people here can't wait to kill people with these things. And it has happened in the last few months here.
It's simply a matter of time until the next one right? You know it, everyone knows it. Hopefully it isn't YOU, but it certainly could be, and guess what?...YOUR assault gun (if you have one) doesn't guarantee your survival. So go ahead and argue about the varieties of these weapons, but regardless, they were made to kill people. There is zero argument.
Oh, and M eullar A in't G oing A way....MAGA.
I live in Texas people here can't wait to kill people with these things.
Oh, and M eullar A in't G oing A way....MAGA.
Oh, and M eullar A in't G oing A way....MAGA.
Jackass much?, Why YES you do
idhawkman wrote:Interesting how the 4 pieces of evidence presented to the FISA court all have roots coming from Clinton.
1. Steele Dossier - paid for by the DNC through a front legal firm.
2. Yahoo News article by Issakoff (Not sure of correct spelling of his name) that was handed to him by Steele (who by the way is a foreign agent)
3. Australian diplomat who overheard that kid in a bar in London that "started" the whole Collussion case. He raised $25M for the Clinton foundation.
4. Sid Bloomenthal who fed the dossier dirt to the state department which the FBI used as corroborating evidence in the FISA warrant application.
So all road lead to Hillary Clinton and the dirty works gang. Mueller's charter being based on that dossier is looking more and more like anything he charges will be thrown out based on the fruit of the poison tree issue.
I feel that the only thing Mueller will do is end up indicting many more Russians because they will never be extradited by Russia and there will never be a trial to show how much money Mueller has squandered away on no evidence at all.
But it would help make the investigation more credible.
burrrton wrote:I agree, but it's plenty credible as-is, and it would be legal malpractice to allow him to testify under these circumstances.
RiverDog wrote:Malpractice for his lawyers, but politically it would be great for Trump.
burrrton wrote:I see your point, of course, but I keep finding myself reminded of the old saying (and it's echoed by literally every attorney with whom I'm friends) that if you allow them to question it long enough, they could indict a turnip (it's more for police than attorneys, but you get the point).
They already nailed a couple of them on process violations (they didn't do what they were being questioned about, but rather either lied or made a misstatement during questioning)- what are the odds a blowhard like Trump would get caught up in a similar situation? 98%? 99%?
Then, what are the odds the reaction would match the severity? 0.1%? 0.0000000001%?
As such, I think he'd be crazy to let them grill him.
RiverDog wrote:Yea, I heard similar comments this morning on NBC, with a talking head saying quite emphatically that "Trump shouldn't even be a subject in this investigation!", and I thought to myself "how could he not be a subject? I thought that was the whole purpose of the investigation, to see if he or his surrogates had any involvement."
But I'm stopping short of Idahawk's concern about money being wasted on this investigation. It has to be done. There was some serious chit that happened to our election and we have to make certain that there wasn't a cooperative effort between a candidate and a foreign government. I know that had the tables been reversed and it was Clinton that had won and there was as much evidence of wrongdoing that there is in this incident that I'd want a full, credible, and complete investigation.
I'd like to see Trump give a deposition. I can understand his legal team not wanting him to testify under the same principle that a criminal defense attorney does not want his client to testify in a case that they are sure to win. But it would help make the investigation more credible.
He has plenty of experience in giving depositions so even if he was hiding something, there's almost no chance that he'd stick his foot in his mouth.
But it only gave reasons why Trump shouldn't testify and gave very little as to why he should, which is primarily be that it would give him a huge political weapon.
By refusing to testify, it would create the impression that he was hiding something, that he was afraid of Mueller.
burrrton wrote:They're going to say that (he was hiding something or afraid of Mueller) about him no matter what transpires. Literally. He gains nothing.
If he would appear, it would severely curtail the credibility of the those that continued to make those accusations while giving himself a huge propaganda weapon.
Otherwise, his adminstration is going to be relagated to nothing but his goofy rants on Twitter and he won't stand a snowball's chance in hell of re-election.
burrrton wrote:C'mon- it wouldn't make an iota of difference even to some of the nuts we have in this forum, let alone the people who've literally lost their minds on social media, which includes most of the mainstream media outlets in this country.
His reelection is one thing, but in the short term, if he even loses the House (which is likely IMO), he'll spend the next two years dealing with impeachment votes in the Senate (over which, mark my words, the Dems won't be able to explain). Those won't go anywhere, but it will halt anything he hoped to do.
IMO he better get a few more things passed that can pass with bipartisan(ish) support because it will be grinding to a halt in November.
Old but Slow wrote:Why does Trump not appear? Just askin'?
burrrton wrote:Ugh. Of course I meant 'removal from office' proceedings (I think I've made it clear in previous discussions I'm aware of the difference between the House and Senate roles?).
RiverDog wrote:It's an important investigation, but most important in American history? It's way, way too early to make such a proclamation, and even if it does bear fruit, it would have an extremely high bar to clear in order to top other investigations, like the two JFK assassination investigations, 9/11, Watergate, and so on as being the most important in American history.
You're really going overboard on this Trump thing, Hawktawk. I hope you have enough introspection to see what is abundantly clear to the rest of us.
The search does not appear to be directly related to Mr. Mueller’s investigation, but likely resulted from information he had uncovered and gave to prosecutors in New York.
burrrton wrote:The FBI raided Trump's lawyer's office today? That *cannot* be good news for Trump.
c_hawkbob wrote:And that there is how an investigation into one thing can (and often does) effect things not necessarily under the purview of that initial investigation.
Wait till it gets to the bookkeeping ...
Aseahawkfan wrote:I"m just watching and waiting. Mueller needs to show something solid soon or this is going to get tiresome. If this thing hits the two year mark with no solid evidence against Trump, I don't see much coming of it. Then again I don't see much coming of it unless the Democrats win The Congress or Mueller finds some evidence of the level of Watergate. If the best they find is some pornstar was paid off not to talk during the election, they got nothing.
Hawktawk wrote:As the NO KNOCK raid on Cohen's office, home and hotel shows there's quite a bit more than nothing and only the most pro trump rube would fail to see it. No knock is only allowed when there is substantial evidence of criminal activity and a risk of destruction of evidence as in the case of Manafort.Its about Daniels but they have all the information on every client of Cohan that he hasn't deleted or shredded already, tax returns , business dealings, a treasure trove of certain malfeasance but it was the porn star who blew the lid off the investigation. Don't forget the threat to Daniels in vegas which could involve interstate criminal activity etc. Its a huge deal..
Such a warrant is rarely issued by any court to take down any lawyer due to attorney client privilege and certainly not when its the Potus lawyer. It had to be approved by assistant AG Rod Rosenstein,Republican appointed by trump, FBI director Christopher Wray, appointed by Trump to replace Comey, and most importantly by the state Prosecutor appointed by trump to replace fired Preet Baraha in New york state who incidentally contributed $5400 to Trumps campaign and is a former law partner of Trump apologist Giuliani who had recommended him for the post.
As my new favorite host Joe Scarborough said minutes ago, none of the above mentioned people ever were registered democrats, contributed hundreds of thousands to people like Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, the democratic party etc. That was Donald J Trump doing all that....
Its simply about a bunch of law enforcement officials who are willing to put aside party as any decent american should to uphold the law and take down the seamiest sleazebag criminal enterprise ever seen in the history of the US presidency. Go get him, get em all, lock em up. HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!But the shills will buy this nothing there, vast democratic deep state conspiracy stuff anyway because they are willingly stupid.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests