Kelly the Dog Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 It means that the only pivot that Trump can do now is to quit. He's never faced a situation where he kept on getting pummeled, because he walked away from the arenas where he was losing the fights. He can't do that now. That has been my prediction for the last three or so months. I don't think there is any collusion (although I don't know), but I think that financial records revealed will show he doesn't have what he says, he was involved in very shaky, illegal deals, he doesn't want to be impeached so before his term is up he will just quit before that happens.
Tiberius Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 That has been my prediction for the last three or so months. I don't think there is any collusion (although I don't know), but I think that financial records revealed will show he doesn't have what he says, he was involved in very shaky, illegal deals, he doesn't want to be impeached so before his term is up he will just quit before that happens. Do you think he will pardon himself or try and get a promise out of Pence to pardon him? I'm not sure he would give up power without some shield for his (possible) wrong doing
Kelly the Dog Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 Do you think he will pardon himself or try and get a promise out of Pence to pardon him? I'm not sure he would give up power without some shield for his (possible) wrong doing He won't need to pardon himself. Pence is such a scumbag that they will have a deal in place. It's one of the reasons I strongly believe he will quit. Pence can pardon him after the accusations come out but before a trial or conviction would take place. So Trump will be able to lie and say this was all a witch hunt and he didn't do anything he is accused of, and he's doing this because Washington and the media are so bad and he's doing it for his family and the country. For once he will be right, doing it for the good of the country.
DC Tom Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 It means that the only pivot that Trump can do now is to quit. He's never faced a situation where he kept on getting pummeled, because he walked away from the arenas where he was losing the fights. He can't do that now. He'll have quit by this time next year. In accordance with the prophecy.
GG Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 He won't need to pardon himself. Pence is such a scumbag that they will have a deal in place. It's one of the reasons I strongly believe he will quit. Pence can pardon him after the accusations come out but before a trial or conviction would take place. So Trump will be able to lie and say this was all a witch hunt and he didn't do anything he is accused of, and he's doing this because Washington and the media are so bad and he's doing it for his family and the country. For once he will be right, doing it for the good of the country. And this is where we disagree. There won't be a need for a pardon because there's probably nothing illegal. But the bigger stain to Trump will be a public disclosure that he's an empty suit. That would be enough for him to run to avoid that disclosure.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 And this is where we disagree. There won't be a need for a pardon because there's probably nothing illegal. But the bigger stain to Trump will be a public disclosure that he's an empty suit. That would be enough for him to run to avoid that disclosure. Fair enough. I would bet anything he has illegal dealings that will be uncovered. They may not be so egregious for a normal prosecutor to try to indict a sitting President. My disagreement with you may be that I think there is a very good chance that Trump will piss off Mueller and his entire team so much - by publicly lying about them and disparaging them - that they intentionally stick it to him more than they would an Obama or Bush or Clinton if they did the same thing. And it will be wholly Trump's azzholiness at fault.
GG Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 Fair enough. I would bet anything he has illegal dealings that will be uncovered. They may not be so egregious for a normal prosecutor to try to indict a sitting President. My disagreement with you may be that I think there is a very good chance that Trump will piss off Mueller and his entire team so much - by publicly lying about them and disparaging them - that they intentionally stick it to him more than they would an Obama or Bush or Clinton if they did the same thing. And it will be wholly Trump's azzholiness at fault. Please do not insult azzholes by lumping in Trump
boyst Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 Sure I do. sparky. I shudder to think where I'd be in life without Mensa caliber thinkers such as yourself. you realize you're a nutless twit here right? You link bull **** then can't back it up. You do this on TSW as well
Deranged Rhino Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 Was Mueller raid on Manafort home an intimidation stunt? I woke up to numerous alerts on my phone about an FBI raid on Paul Manafort’s home in connection to the investigation into possible Russian interference in our election. At first, it appeared that the raid happened this morning, but a deeper reading showed it occurred on July 26. Just throwing this out there: What was the big news on the 26th that overtook everyone's social media and political conversations while dominating the news cycle? Oh... right... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/trump-transgender-military.html No one can say Trump's team doesn't know what they're doing in terms of media manipulation. Knowing what we know today, it makes you wonder if that tweet wasn't a preemptive bid to control the news cycle for that day. When a big story breaks (like this North Korea flare up), we should be looking to see what else is happening/what they're trying to distract attention from.
Nanker Posted August 10, 2017 Posted August 10, 2017 Agreed. Just not really sure what you are saying. You've been away too long. GG's been on Trump's azz from before day 1. He'll have quit by this time next year. In accordance with the prophecy. Thus it was written. It is canon. Thus shall it be. Echoes of "Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow. Vice President Ford will be sworn in as President at that hour in this office" swirl around newsrooms everywhere. It's dense in the air, like a fog of opium smoke. Please do not insult azzholes by lumping in Trump He is in a League of his own... and owning.
B-Man Posted August 10, 2017 Posted August 10, 2017 Mueller’s Raid on Manafort’s Home by Andrew C. McCarthy Original Article There are two possible rationales for a search warrant under the circumstances. First, the legitimate rationale: Investigators in good faith believed Manafort, who is either a subject of or witness in their investigation, was likely to destroy rather than surrender relevant evidence. Second, the brass-knuckles rationale: The prosecutor is attempting to intimidate the witness or subject — to say nothing of others who are similarly situated — into volunteering everything he may know of an incriminating nature about people the prosecutor is targeting.
K-9 Posted August 10, 2017 Posted August 10, 2017 Mueller’s Raid on Manafort’s Home by Andrew C. McCarthy Original Article There are two possible rationales for a search warrant under the circumstances. First, the legitimate rationale: Investigators in good faith believed Manafort, who is either a subject of or witness in their investigation, was likely to destroy rather than surrender relevant evidence. Second, the brass-knuckles rationale: The prosecutor is attempting to intimidate the witness or subject — to say nothing of others who are similarly situated — into volunteering everything he may know of an incriminating nature about people the prosecutor is targeting. If Mr. McCarthy took the time to research what is required for the FBI to obtain such a warrant, he would have known that proffering his second point above was not necessary; it's redundant. The very nature of serving such a warrant is intimidating but a prosecutor can't list "intimidation" as a reason for obtaining it; the judge would summarily dismiss the request.
Tiberius Posted August 10, 2017 Posted August 10, 2017 If Mr. McCarthy took the time to research what is required for the FBI to obtain such a warrant, he would have known that proffering his second point above was not necessary; it's redundant. The very nature of serving such a warrant is intimidating but a prosecutor can't list "intimidation" as a reason for obtaining it; the judge would summarily dismiss the request. I'm sure brietbart and Hannity will "find out" the judge once said something nice about Hillary or is a member of the Deep State or something
K-9 Posted August 10, 2017 Posted August 10, 2017 I'm sure brietbart and Hannity will "find out" the judge once said something nice about Hillary or is a member of the Deep State or something Are they finished ripping on McMaster yet? Impugning the character of Mueller and his team is one thing, but attacking the federal judiciary is another animal entirely.
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 10, 2017 Posted August 10, 2017 (edited) Are they finished ripping on McMaster yet? Impugning the character of Mueller and his team is one thing, but attacking the federal judiciary is another animal entirely. A precedent set by the last President in his 2010 State of the Union Address, and then re-affirmed in 2012 when he chastised the Court as "a group of unelected people," asserting that it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the court to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Edited August 10, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker
K-9 Posted August 10, 2017 Posted August 10, 2017 A precedent set by the last President in his 2010 State of the Union Address, and then re-affirmed in 2012 when he chastised the Court as "a group of unelected people," asserting that it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the court to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Criticizing the policy decisions of the judiciary goes back to our founding so I think that precedent was set long, long before 2010 but I understand your larger point. Just to be clear, I wasn't referring to criticizing the judiciary over disagreement with its court decisions, I am referring to attempts at impugning the character of the judges themselves, like we've seen with the attempts to smear Mueller and his appointees.
GG Posted August 10, 2017 Posted August 10, 2017 Criticizing the policy decisions of the judiciary goes back to our founding so I think that precedent was set long, long before 2010 but I understand your larger point. Just to be clear, I wasn't referring to criticizing the judiciary over disagreement with its court decisions, I am referring to attempts at impugning the character of the judges themselves, like we've seen with the attempts to smear Mueller and his appointees. Mueller and his appointees are not part of the judiciary. You'd have a better argument if you brought up the Indiana judge.
Tiberius Posted August 10, 2017 Posted August 10, 2017 Mueller and his appointees are not part of the judiciary. You'd have a better argument if you brought up the Indiana judge. He was talking about the judge that issued the warrant
K-9 Posted August 10, 2017 Posted August 10, 2017 (edited) Mueller and his appointees are not part of the judiciary. You'd have a better argument if you brought up the Indiana judge. In response to my post, Tiberius posted a comment about right wing media perhaps going after the judge that issued the warrant for the FBI search of Manafort's home. I am referring to that judge specifically vis a vis similar attempts to smear Mueller and Co. I'm well aware of what Mueller is and isn't a part of in the process, but I appreciate the heads up none the less. Edited August 10, 2017 by K-9
GG Posted August 10, 2017 Posted August 10, 2017 In response to my post, Tiberius posted a comment about right wing media perhaps going after the judge that issued the warrant for the FBI search of Manafort's home. I am referring to that judge specifically vis a vis similar attempts to smear Mueller and Co. I'm well aware of what Mueller is and isn't a part of in the process, but I appreciate the heads up none the less. You have to understand that most of the board has that idiot on ignore.
Recommended Posts