twa Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, tshile said: Congress can impeach of pretty much anything, i thought? Why does him being president now make him immune to prosecution for crimes beforehand? I guess I honestly don't know the answers to those... Yes they can, they just need a justification for the masses. THe theory on not prosecuting a sitting President is to prevent political prosecutions, the practice is to have enough evidence to remove them THEN prosecute Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 1 minute ago, tshile said: If they're able to show the whole thing was designed so russia woul dhelp him get elected so he could do russia favors... ? seems like it certainly should be illegal.... Okay. That seems likely. If this was a clear quid-pro-quo situation, than that is almost certainly illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 SHS is such a loser 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, PeterMP said: He seems to be the opposite of control freak to me. He seems to not care about details at all as long as he gets the result that he wants. But assuming, he even knew, I'm not sure where the crime is (though I'm also not an election law expert). Again, let's assume that he knew that Kushner or Don Jr. was meeting with a Russian operative to coordinate campaign activities (e.g. events and ad buys) with Russian sponsored fake news stories, is that actually illegal? I believe it's against Federal law for foreign individuals and governments to interfere with our elections. If a candidate works with a foreign individual and governments to interfere with our election, that's collusion, a felony, I.e., high crime. That's an impeachable offense. If we don't nip this in the bud, any foreign government or government representative can interfere with our elections in the future with impunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 (edited) SHS talking about taxes. Guarrantee that no questions about taxes. SHS...but Clinton SHS...P. was minor actor P. was not honest Campaign never acted on these invites. Edited October 30, 2017 by AsburySkinsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, twa said: Yes they can, they just need a justification for the masses. THe theory on not prosecuting a sitting President is to prevent political prosecutions, the practice is to have enough evidence to remove them THEN prosecute Right but I always took that to mean not for things he did while president. to protect an unliked president from being removed from office on nonsense charges. or to protect from a president not doing what they thought was right for fear of being legally chased after by opponents i pointed out he might actually get in trouble for things he did long ago. if he was involved in money laundering in the late 90's and early 00's, i fail to see the logic in protected him from that now. that's not a political prosecution... it's a rather easy application of the law. Edited October 30, 2017 by tshile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Her Southern accent is very pronounced today, sign of stress. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 SHS...President doesn’t recall what P said at the Foreign Policy meeting with Sessions. There is the first “the President does not recall”. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, tshile said: Right but I always took that to mean not for things he did while president. to protect an unliked president from being removed from office on nonsense charges. i pointed out he might actually get in trouble for things he did long ago. if he was involved in money laundering in the late 90's and early 00's, i fail to see the logic in protected him from that now. that's not a political prosecution... it's a rather easy application of the law. statute of limitations if it is that old, but they could of course impeach for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 1 minute ago, LadySkinsFan said: Her Southern accent is very pronounced today, sign of stress. Her right eye is farther out of alignment...a sign of blunt force trauma. Damn...one question on tax reform...lost bet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 From plea agreement with Popodouplos, Sessions may be one of the three unnamed campaign people listed. If I were him, I'd be shaking in my little shoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 4 minutes ago, PeterMP said: Okay. That seems likely. If this was a clear quid-pro-quo situation, than that is almost certainly illegal. Getting to the point where there's ample evidence of that and that Trump was actually involved is probably.... less than 1% chance... But, I think it's the worst case for him and it's still on the table... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 8 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said: I believe it's against Federal law for foreign individuals and governments to interfere with our elections. If a candidate works with a foreign individual and governments to interfere with our election, that's collusion, a felony, I.e., high crime. That's an impeachable offense. If we don't nip this in the bud, any foreign government or government representative can interfere with our elections in the future with impunity. Interfere is a vague term. The guy that compiled the Trump dossier was British. Was that illegal? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/collusion-trump-russia-campaign.html "A federal law, Section 30121 of Title 52, makes it a crime for any foreigner to contribute or donate money or some “other thing of value” in connection with an American election, or for anyone to solicit a foreigner to do so. Legal experts struggled to identify any precedent for prosecutions under that statute, but that phrase is common in other federal criminal statutes covering such crimes as bribery and threats, said Richard L. Hasen, an election-law professor at the University of California, Irvine. Courts have held, in other contexts, that a “thing of value” can be something intangible, like information." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 So..Papa(dopoulos) does preach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 She’s pissed. Keeps saying that P was in one meeting, stresses that he was an advisor. Keeps stressing that he was a volunteer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HooHog Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 4 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said: From plea agreement with Popodouplos, Sessions may be one of the three unnamed campaign people listed. If I were him, I'd be shaking in my little shoes. Why do you think Trump had lunch with him today. Hopefully it was just the two of them and Trump gets caught up in some good old fashioned witness tampering. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 SHS, not aware of the doscussion that said someone low level needed to travel to Russia. Transgender military question...are you kidding?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Don't you consider all these communications with Russians in the Spring and Summer and then Trump taking Ukraine language out of the Republican platform a quid pro quo? Great memory reference! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 SHS: Trump does not recall the content of the meeting where P spoke about Russia invitation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 1 minute ago, LadySkinsFan said: Don't you consider all these communications with Russians in the Spring and Summer and then Trump taking Ukraine language out of the Republican platform a quid pro quo? Seriously? It doesn't matter what any of us think, but what can be proven. If thought was enough to be impeached, he woud be the first President to ever be impeached as soon as the oath of office was administered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 18 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said: What ever happened to him? Is Manafort a Hillary plant? it's like he never left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haithman Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 12 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: SHS...President doesn’t recall what P said at the Foreign Policy meeting with Sessions. There is the first “the President does not recall”. I thought he had one of the greatest memories of all time last week? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 (edited) 1 minute ago, haithman said: I thought he had one of the greatest memories of all time last week? His “great” memory was brought up on that very subject. Edited October 30, 2017 by AsburySkinsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: His “great” memory was brought up on that very subject. Yes, a couple of times, rather snarkily I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said: Don't you consider all these communications with Russians in the Spring and Summer and then Trump taking Ukraine language out of the Republican platform a quid pro quo? Great memory reference! I think the circumstances will strongly suggest a quid pro quo. The question then becomes, can they go beyond mere circumstantial evidence. Papadopoulis is huge, he likely bridges the gap, at least for some people (likely Manafort and a few other major players). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now