Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

[spjunkies]

2 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

 

Im a trump supporter. If they find evidence of collusion, i will be all for impeachment. If all they find i that he obstruction of justice... well, i think that is a perversion of justice and a political gotcha.  It is interesting that everyone trump knows has ties to russia. On one hand you expect it because he is a businessman, having ties to russia oligarchs isn't that surprising.. but, the fact that every single person he is associated with has russian is strange.. i wonder how many of Obamas cabinet and staff had ties to foreign governments. Probably not that many, since we would have heard about it by now.

 

I give you major props for acknowledging that there seems to be a problem instead of turning a blind eye.

[mistertim]

3 minutes ago, spjunkies said:

 

I give you major props for acknowledging that there seems to be a problem instead of turning a blind eye.

 

I agree in general, however obstruction of justice is not a "political gotcha". The FBI and LE in general take that **** very seriously. It's not jaywalking.

Edited May 27, 2017 by mistertim

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RedskinsMayne]

7 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I agree in general, however obstruction of justice is not a "political gotcha". The FBI and LE in general take that **** very seriously. It's not jaywalking.

 

 

There is no real obstruction of justice if he is innocent.

[Larry]

Because, as we all know, the way our government shares intelligence with other governments, is for relatives of the President who at the time we were being told would have no official capacity whatsoever, (and therefore it's OK for them to retain ownership and control of the President's companies), negotiate with the foreign government's ambassador to use the foreign government's embassy as a meeting place. 

 

[mistertim]

2 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

 

There is no real obstruction of justice if he is innocent.

 

If he's innocent of what?

[RedskinsMayne]

3 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

If he's innocent of what?

 

 

any and all crimes, except obstruction. If they convict him of any crime then obstruction is reasonable as well, if they convict him of no crime but obstructing justice that is not reasonable.

Edited May 27, 2017 by RedskinsMayne

[Larry]

I see we're attempting to move the rules from the "if he has nothing to hide, then he should just hand over everything" standard used for Clinton, Obama, and Hillary, to the "well, it's not obstruction to hide things or kill an investigation unless they can prove that you're guilty, despite your obstruction" standard.  

[RedskinsMayne]

6 minutes ago, Larry said:

I see we're attempting to move the rules from the "if he has nothing to hide, then he should just hand over everything" standard used for Clinton, Obama, and Hillary, to the "well, it's not obstruction to hide things or kill an investigation unless they can prove that you're guilty, despite your obstruction" standard.  

 

I'm not.  Others may have used those arguments against hillary, obama, and clinton but i didn't. Also, what investigation did obama have where he was supposed to hand over everything????

 

 

My main problem with Hillary is that she has been in the game for 30 years and has zero to show for it. Also, her "why does it matter now" in response to the benghazi disaster said a lot about her character. Could care less about emails. I'm also not a lock her up person. She's finished. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2017 by RedskinsMayne

[Larry]

Just now, RedskinsMayne said:

 

I'm not.  Others may have used those arguments against hillary, obama, and clinton but i didn't. Also, what investigation did obama have where he was supposed to hand over everything????

 

 

Benghazziiii!

 

(And his birth certificate).  

 

(Benghazi was an investigation of Obama.  Until he got re-elected, and then they didn't need a fake investigation to dig up dirt against him any more.  And suddenly it became an investigation of Hillary, instead )  

 

[Llevron]

22 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

 

There is no real obstruction of justice if he is innocent.

 

There totally is if he is obstructing them from getting info on someone else. I.e. Kush

[mistertim]

Obstruction of justice is a crime, regardless of whether the alleged crime that the person is attempting to thwart the investigation of ends up being proven true or not.

Edited May 27, 2017 by mistertim

[Larry]

Wondering if The Right actually has the chutzpah to try to claim that Kush's ploy was actually an undercover op, designed to trick ignorant commies into giving him a Lektor machine.  (Movie reference.)  

[RedskinsMayne]

5 minutes ago, mistertim said:

Obstruction of justice if a crime, regardless of whether the alleged crime that the person is attempting to thwart the investigation of ends up being proven true or not.

 

 

I know it is, technically. Morally though, it's sort of rediculous to convict someone of obstructing justice even though justice wasn't actually obstructed.

[Larry]

Just now, RedskinsMayne said:

 

 

I know it is, technically. Morally though, it's sort of rediculous to convict someone of obstructing justice even though justice wasn't actually obstructed.

 

Right.  

 

Same reason we don't prosecute bank robbers if they don't actually get any money.  

'

[RedskinsMayne]

Just now, Larry said:

 

Right.  

 

Same reason we don't prosecute bank robbers if they don't actually get any money.  

'

 

sorry, but i think that is a false analogy.  In a bank robbery, there is a victim, the teller who is emotionally distressed... whose the victim when trump asks someone to stop investigating something he is innocent of (if it turns out he is innocent)?

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Larry]

1 minute ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

sorry, but i think that is a false analogy.  In a bank robbery, there is a victim, the teller who is emotionally distressed... whose the victim when trump asks someone to stop investigating something he is innocent of (if it turns out he is innocent)?

 

And fires them, if they don't comply with his perfectly moral order not to try to find out the truth about the crime he's investigating.  

[visionary]

 

[RedskinsMayne]

7 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

And fires them, if they don't comply with his perfectly moral order not to try to find out the truth about the crime he's investigating.  

 

 

well, i mean, it's not like he didn't need firing. Even the democrats agreed with that.

 

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-before-trump-fired-fbi-director-james-comey-democrats-wanted-his-dismissal-20170510-story.html

 

Ried, Pelosi, Cohen, and Shumer all wanted him gone.

 

That said, the fact that republicans and democrats both wanted him gone probably meant he was a good fbi director. It's just funny to see democratic leaders get upset about the firing when just a few months before they were calling for his head.

 

 

Edited May 27, 2017 by RedskinsMayne

[Larry]

Just now, RedskinsMayne said:

 

 

well, i mean, it's not like he didn't need firing. Even the democrats agreed with that.

 

And the Republicans didn't.  

 

Until he started looking into the Russians.  (And found a bunch of Trumpettes who kept showing up.)  Then, suddenly, the Democrats fired him.  

 

[visionary]

 

[twa]

so when can we expect charges and arrests?

 

I ain't getting any younger here.

[dfitzo53]

No reason to rush that. 

[twa]

1 minute ago, dfitzo53 said:

No reason to rush that. 

 

I'm good.