Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Impeachment Thread


Impeachment  

198 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Donald Trump be impeached for obstruction of justice?



Recommended Posts

On 9/26/2019 at 7:50 PM, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

What are you so mad about? That he presented facts refuting your opinion? That he said he’s tired of the argument? That he put “witch hunt” in quotation marks?  Either way, toughen up a little bit. Christ.

 

Very well, since we are all more or less beholden to confirmation bias.

 

  • On the "fact" as you call it (by adoption of the prior poster's comments), that "over 30 convictions" have been secured in connection with Mueller's investigation (prior poster's comment), let's dig a bit deeper.  There were actually 34 indictments secured (not "convictions," which is very "different" from "indictments").  Of the 34 people indicted, 26 of them were Russian nationals or operatives that will never be extradited, much less tried in a U.S. Court, much less ever convicted, much less ever see the inside of a prison cell. in the United States.  That leaves 8 to deal with.  Of those 8, you have:

    (1) Manafort (convicted, 7.5 year sentence, good riddance),

  •     (2) Rich Gates (cooperating with prosecutors, indicted but not yet convicted, will almost certainly be offered a nice deal which we can chalk up as a conviction.
  •     (3) Papadopoulos (obstruction by lying to federal investigators. Entered plea and served 14 days in prison.  Convicted).
  •     (4) Flynn (pled guility, cooperated, and served no time. Counts as a conviction.)
  •     (5) Michael Cohen (3+ years in prison, guilty plea.  Even though his conviction had nothing to do with Russia, it was still a conviction.)
  •     (6) Roger Stone (indicted, awaiting trial in November.  Not convicted. Yet.)
  •     (7) Richard Pinedo (identity fraud con-man for 26 Russians (maybe less of them, not sure), sentenced to 6 months in plea bargain.  Convicted.)
  •     (8) Alex Van Der Swann (pled guilty to obstruction, sentenced to 30 days.  Convicted.)
  •  
  • So, at the end of this part of the analysis, the "fact" that "over 30" people were convicted as a result of the Mueller investigation turns out not to be fact at all.  34 were initially indicted, and only 7 can be said to have been convicted at this time. One big fish remains pending.  Now, that's not to say that those 7 convictions is anything to laugh at.  And I wish that the 26 that will never see the inside of a U.S. Courtroom could be brought to justice.  But.....  the conclusion that this was not a "witch hunt" based on the false premise that the investigation secured "over 30 convictions" is a bad, bad, idea to adopt.  After all, conclusions are only as sound as the basis upon which they are made.  Again there is a definite and critical difference between a conviction and an indictment, particularly where 26 of the 34 (76%) will never even result in a prosecution.  I think we can agree that facts are important in intelligent discourse, and that indictments without so much as a chance for a criminal conviction are a waste of time and resources. Unless, of course, Putin decides to ship these people here.
  •  
  • Now, does the fact that 7 convictions were secured (and perhaps soon 8 ) mean that this was not a "witch hunt?"  It really depends on what kind of "witch" the prosecutors here were "hunting."  I believe the witch being "hunted" here was persons, whoever they may be, that participated in the Russian interference in the 2016 election through criminal conduct.  Mueller was clear that Trump was not the target, even though many believed he was from the outset, so Mueller agree with my definition of the witch(es) being hunted.  I think (or do i know??) most rational people will agree that Russia made efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, so we can assume that there must be some "witches" somewhere.  Unfortunately, at the end of the hunt, we have (1) Papadopoulus, a 30 year old campaign aid that lied to investigators about trying to set up a meeting between Trump's campaign and the Russians (which he couldn't arrange); (2) Manafort, a scum-bag tax fraud who failed to report $30 million in funds he earned lobbying for a Ukrainian politician(s) (without registering to do so) and lying about it to investigators, (and being dumb enough to try to influence witnesses). But this conduct was unrelated to Trump; (3) Gates, the toady of Manafort convicted of similar crimes unrelated to the Trump campaign, (4) Cohen, an attorney that paid a porno star hush money for Trump and lied about it, (5) Flynn, who reached out to some Russian political contact in the context of his anticipated role in Trump's administration, then lied about it to both Trump (who dismissed him when it became public) and the Feds because he was dumb enough to think it was a crime to do so when it wasn't (guilty mind, not guilty actions = still unfit to serve), (5) Pinedo, who sold the 26 Russians fugitives fake IDs, and (7) Van Der Swann, who is a Dutch ***hole that worked at a law firm that counseled Manafort and Stone on their Ukraine dealings.  (8) Stone, who remains pending.

 

So, if the "witches" being "hunted" were "persons participating in Russian Interference with the 2016 Election," I would surmise that Mueller did the following:  Ventured into the woods for a good old fashioned "witch-hunt," hoping he would get some witches, saw 26 witches on a cliff across a large ravine, called them crooks and then said goodbye, and finally turned back into the woods to look for some witches that he could actually shoot and bring home.  Along the way, he shot at least 1 (and perhaps soon 2) decent sized bucks (but not witches), 1 very old and contrite possum, a few squirrels, and a retarded (proverbially of course) Dutch weasel.  Some would look at this and exclaim that Mr. Mueller shot and dragged "over 30" witches out of the woods as a result of his hunt, filleted them, and that all of the townsfolk had a good old fashion barbecue.  Not me.

 

Now, if the "Witch" being hunted was in fact the President, I would say that there is still one very fat, orange, disgraceful, toupee'd witch still sitting in our White House cackling about the whole affair. In fact, this whole witch hunt has actually improved his standing, and he's even been able to learn some new spells---  the type that convince Americans that aren't paying attention that he actually is not a witch.

 

(2) On the issue of whether or not the Mueller investigation was a waste of money (or a net gain).  Candidly, I was not aware of the extent of the asset seizure regarding Manafort.  However, the most recent report submitted shows that the total stands at about $32 million.  Manafort has agreed to forfeit assets holding a gross value of about $42-46 million.  One might conclude, based on this, that Mueller just made the U.S. a cool $10-14 million!  Not so fast though...  much of what Manafort agreed to forfeit is real property that is liened up by the banks that provided him with the financing to purchase those properties. For example, the $3.0 million Trump Tower condo "forfeited" by Manafort has a balance exceeding its value, with the mortgage in default.  Another property owned in Brooklyn valued at $4.1 million has liens totaling nearly twice its value, the $3.2 million SoHo apartment is liened to its full value, and his $7.3 million property in the Hamptons is also liened in by the same lender for the Brooklyn property.  So...  after the government auctions these properties (never get fair market value at an auction), we'll have a net figure we can look at, which will have to back out those liens.  The government will get Manafort's equity in these properties, but it doesn't get to jump ahead of secured lenders. The only "money in the bank" so to speak is a $4.5 million life insurance policy and 3 banks accounts belonging to Manafort containing an undisclosed amount of funds.  For the sake of all of us, I hope there's a ton of cash in those accounts.  If I was the wagering type, i'd bet once the dust settles the investigation will be in the red. (there's also another $2 million or so collected from other defendants).

 

(3) Paraphrasing:  "The Mueller Report demonstrates that Trump committed a crime, but Mueller concluded that a sitting president cannot be charged...."  I'm not going to open this can of worms on the issue of whether the report demonstrates criminal conduct, other than to say that this statement is akin to saying "we just spent $32 million trying to prove that Trump was a witch, and here's what we found so you be the judge, but the whole time we knew we couldn't (or wouldn't) do anything about it anyway."  But here's some bushmeat.

 

Bottom line here is that this newest set of allegations on the Ukraine, if they can be substantiated by reliable evidence, constitute the best chance that Democrats have for removing Trump from office. If the Dems are smart, they'll keep the Russian interference allegations out of it. If this ends up being another "witch hunt where no witches were shot but we got to waive at 26 witches and we got some other bushmeat that we can eat," type of hunt, or even if it ends up being a "wild goose chase," the Dems will have doomed this country to another 4 years of having a "baboon" lounging in our White House.  As much as I loathe the idea of hoping that a sitting president has engaged in serious criminal conduct. 

 

Now, the other 86 of you can have the last word.

 

Edited by kfrankie
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Havent you spent the last 6 months complaining that the Dems don’t have the balls to impeach?

I believe it has been longer than that but whatever.  However long it has been, it has been with plenty of evidence they could have done it with.  So well after halfway through his corrupt term, they finally are brave enough to launch and impeachment inquiry.. Yea they are really showing how much balls they have.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I believe it has been longer than that but whatever.  However long it has been, it has been with plenty of evidence they could have done it with.  So well after halfway through his corrupt term, they finally are brave enough to launch and impeachment inquiry.. Yea they are really showing how much balls they have.  

 

Some folks need more evidence.  Some need more balls.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, visionary said:
 

 

Noice!! Looks like the Dems finally grew one testicle. Y’all better not **** up! Push this thing into Moscow Mitch’s Senate and let the Grand Oligarch’s Party show exactly what kind of “patriots” they are.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, brandymac27 said:

 

 

 

That he has to be managed at all is really all that needs to be said.  

 

 

2 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Pence is implicated in the cover up. He should be impeached also. This whole administration is complicit in committing crimes against the Constitution, and need to be removed.

One might say, it’s time to drain the swamp.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Until the fat lady sings... I don't believe McConnell will allow the right thing or do the right thing. He's more corrupt even than Trump.

Yeah. If he can avoid even having a trial, he will do that. Or he will just have a vote. Trump won't be removed and this will be one issue in 2020. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Jumbo locked this topic
  • Jumbo unlocked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...