DogofWar1 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 https://mobile.twitter.com/tbonier/status/875704273077760000 P.S. still feeling good about that 6 month to 1 year prediction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Just pointing out, I think people are paying way too much attention to rumors and things. IMO, there really hasn't been a whole lot of evidence presented, here, of anything but Russian interference in our elections (a crime of which, possibly, only Russians are guilty), and obstruction of justice. (Which, IMO, Trump has already publicly confessed to.) Now, because of the dirty nature of a lot of the people involved in this administration, it's entirely possible that an investigation will dig up whole truckloads of things that look bad, politically. Cronyism. Association with bad people. Diversion of funds. Things that may well look bad, (especially to people predisposed to see things that way.) But it's possible that the big, bombshell, crime of the century, Watergate Part 2, thing that people are perched in front of the TV waiting for, may not appear. Let's freak out when actual evidence of major things get announced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 1 hour ago, DogofWar1 said: https://mobile.twitter.com/tbonier/status/875704273077760000 P.S. still feeling good about that 6 month to 1 year prediction. I feel like we need/deserve at least a full two years of Trump. Enough time for us to learn our lesson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 If we learned anything from Newt Gingrich in the 90's, it's that obstruction is enough for impeachment. Indeed, the more and more this goes on the more this looks like the digital equivalent of Watergate. Replace hotel with email server, and swap a few other things, and you're there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isifhan Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 6 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said: If we learned anything from Newt Gingrich in the 90's, it's that obstruction is enough for impeachment. Not according to New Gingrich in the 2017's! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 1 minute ago, Isifhan said: Not according to New Gingrich in the 2017's! Which 2017 Newt? The one that liked Mueller or the one that dislikes him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted June 16, 2017 Author Share Posted June 16, 2017 23 minutes ago, Larry said: Let's freak out when actual evidence of major things get announced. The person most in need of this advice is Trump. Wonder how the meltdown will look if him and his associates/campaign end up getting charged with serious crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 12 hours ago, Larry said: So, the Trump administration is now advising the American people not to pay attention to anonymous leaks of hacked data that may or may not have been planted by another country? Yeah, like NOW this is a big thing, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isifhan Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 21 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said: Which 2017 Newt? The one that liked Mueller or the one that dislikes him? Yeah that one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Looks like I'm getting my wish for a RICO investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 16 minutes ago, No Excuses said: The person most in need of this advice is Trump. Wonder how the meltdown will look if him and his associates/campaign end up getting charged with serious crimes. Only thing is that, IIRC, it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to charge Trump with a crime due to precedent of a sitting POTUS and being criminally indicted. To challenge that successfully you'd probably need an absolutely airtight, no way to question it, case. Even if Mueller decides that he definitely could charge Trump with obstruction and/or something else, it is unlikely that the POTUS precedent would be overturned on it. So what happens in the end then, if the evidence bears out that Trump did obstruct? Mueller says that his findings are that Trump definitely obstructed justice and any other person definitely would be indicted and would likely be found guilty but that since he is POTUS he won't actually be charged with the crime? Then what? You know the WH would just ignore it and spin it. Would Congressional Republicans keep defending him and stonewall when it comes to impeachment? I wouldn't put it past them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 I must disagree with Trump on one prediction he made during campaigning. I'm not yet tired of all this winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted June 16, 2017 Author Share Posted June 16, 2017 48 minutes ago, Corcaigh said: I must disagree with Trump on one prediction he made during campaigning. I'm not yet tired of all this winning. You can tell from his twitter meltdowns he's miserable every single morning. It makes me happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, No Excuses said: You can tell from his twitter meltdowns he's miserable every single morning. It makes me happy. He created his own prison. #creed #ScottStapp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExoDus84 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 So Trump's lawyer has even retained his own lawyer? Definitely just sounds like a witch hunt. Also, Gingrich must be off his ADHD medicine, or at the very least had his windpipe replaced with his anus. He's really talking out of his ass recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 1 hour ago, No Excuses said: You can tell from his twitter meltdowns he's miserable every single morning. It makes me happy. I legitimately believe that he had no desire to actually be President. He ran to raise his brand awareness and stroke his ego, but he never really thought he'd win. Once he actually got the Republican nomination he was kinda forced into it, but he kept saying ridiculous stuff to try to tank his own chances but instead the morons in this country ate it up and voted him in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExoDus84 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, Warhead36 said: I legitimately believe that he had no desire to actually be President. He ran to raise his brand awareness and stroke his ego, but he never really thought he'd win. Once he actually got the Republican nomination he was kinda forced into it, but he kept saying ridiculous stuff to try to tank his own chances but instead the morons in this country ate it up and voted him in. Given the amount of time he's spent golfing, tweeting, and watching cable news, I'd have to agree with you. I always figured he ran as a means to do what he only really cares about doing; hyping his brand/family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isifhan Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 7 minutes ago, visionary said: That right there, is awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 42 minutes ago, visionary said: Lame. If the dude is striving for irony, he should have used the phrase "If the President does it, it's not illegal." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 "The president cannot obstrusct justice." World will be better when these dudes start dying off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 17 minutes ago, Warhead36 said: I legitimately believe that he had no desire to actually be President. He ran to raise his brand awareness and stroke his ego, but he never really thought he'd win. Once he actually got the Republican nomination he was kinda forced into it, but he kept saying ridiculous stuff to try to tank his own chances but instead the morons in this country ate it up and voted him in. That's kinda my theory. He got in because he figured it was cheap advertising. But then he stood in front of a crowd, and he said something racist. And the crowd roared approval. And once that happened, he's hooked. That's the most powerful aphrodisiac he's experienced in his life. Since then, he's done whatever gets him that feedback, and whatever makes him short-term money (in that order.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Lol, so he was just referring to 'fake news' as if it was real. Odd that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.