Um, yes it does. That is 100% legit grounds for firing Mueller.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
McGahn could refuse on the grounds of being Trump's lawyer anyways.
Printable View
Um, yes it does. That is 100% legit grounds for firing Mueller.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
McGahn could refuse on the grounds of being Trump's lawyer anyways.
False, reported for fake comments.
Which part? That it is conflict of interest when asking about something directly involving himself or that attorneys have ethical obligations to their clients that would lead to their disbarrment if they violated?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
You're just dead setting on making excuses up for Trump's illegal actions.
What illegal action did he do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Dude, there is nothing here. Quit buying into the bread and circus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
https://i.imgur.com/YdkrSBy.jpg
Curious where you got that image. Looks like Russian propaganda because it is totally contradictory to reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Reported for reporting in the wrong thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
I've just reported myself for the same because of this post.
I've just reported myself again because of the previous sentence.
I've just reported myself again because of the previous sentence.
I've just reported myself again because of the previous sentence.
I've just reported myself again because of the previous sentence.
I've just reported myself again because of the previous sentence.
I've just reported myself again because of the previous sentence.
I've just reported myself again because of the previous sentence.
I've just reported myself again because of the previous sentence.
I've just reported myself again because of the previous sentence.
I've just reported myself again because of the previous sentence.
I've just reported myself again because of the previous sentence.
I've just reported myself again because of the previous sentence.
I've just reported myself again because of the previous sentence.
I've just reported myself again because of the previous sentence.
I've just reported myself again because of the previous sentence.
I've just reported myself again because of the previous sentence.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_G777JJtwU...-star-trek.gif
You're Russian propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
You got me, the Russian hookers I slept with at the Kremlin last night left it on the bedside table. :blush:Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tikrhc3uCs
What does Backlash do when he's not drunk posting on the PC or owning/leasing/managing a restaurant?
FTFYQuote:
Originally Posted by Back
Watches MSNBC on loop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
So intent is clearly a crucial component even if unsuccessful. Now this goes back to your other argument that he was simply being totally honest and wanting to avoid a conflict of interest. Which, even if true and Trump is totally innocent, it's likely a very good thing that he was pressured to not do it because I don't think his presidency could have survived the outrage.Quote:
So accordinging to Cornell Law School, "Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers."
A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendantÂ’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.
He has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Twice.
Trump might be able to survive the inevitable obstruction report in a non-election year, but it's going to come out right around the primaries. That's bad news. The GOP will turn on him the second he becomes an even more serious political liability than he is now.
Or, this will result in the craziest candidates winning the GOP nomination for their races- which just makes it even more likely the Dems take the house. And that's going to guarantee impeachment.
LOL That's the most retarded thing I've heard in a couple of days, and Back posted yesterday, so...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheisia
kekQuote:
Originally Posted by time4Rheisia
Keep telling yourself that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
What are you? The fucking precrimes division now? Intent only matters when a criminal action has occurred. There has been no crime here. He never actually did anything. Mueller, nor the investigation,m was in no way effected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsk Tsk
Lets call this what it is, a "nothing burger". Excellent counsel stopped trump from making a mistake. That is all this is here.
An "endeavor" to obstruct justice is what makes it a crime, even if there is no actual obstruction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
No endeavor was made, he was wanting to fire Mueller because of perceived conflict of interest, which was conflict about a golf club membership. The "endeavor" (that never occurred) was about that. Not obstructing the investigation. Mueller would have been replaced.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Having read section 1503 on "endeavoring to obstruct justice" it still requires an action. No action left that office. It is more on attempting to destroy evidence, but failing to, or trying to coerce someone into lying under Oath, but they still tell the truth. It is broad, but it still requires action.
He told McGahn to fire Mueller.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
And they were like "That's a bad idea because reasons. It's such a bad idea that I'd quit my job first." and he was like "Ok nevermind."Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Stop being so desperate. Nothing is going to come out of this. All this false hope is going to make you roll up a monk.
And you're basing this assumption off what? In an alternate reality where Trump is a Democrat you'd be all over this like Wrathbringer on a piece of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
I've had a monk ever since they first allowed conversions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Under United States law an investigation doesn't even have to be taking place for prosecutable obstruction to occur. This necessarily means that affecting an investigation is irrelevant.Quote:
Except that nothing that Trump did involving this supposed order had any effect on Mueller or the investigation in anyway.
What's more plausible for a June attempt to fire Mueller, a golf club membership that he knew about since the inception of the investigation in May, or the reports in June that Mueller was specifically investigating the President?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Mueller's replaceability is irrelevant, just as Cox's was in 1973.Quote:
The "endeavor" (that never occurred) was about that. Not obstructing the investigation. Mueller would have been replaced.
https://www.askideas.com/media/37/Ma...-Gif-Image.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Rheisia
Cut a fart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
I've never been on you so not sure what you meant by that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
So when is Mueller and this partisan lynch mob going to stop wasting our damn money since there is obviously no Russian collusion?
Mueller is an establishment RINO buddy of Comey, his hand picked team are full of Democrats, Democrat donors/supporters and never Trumpers, his FBI investigators were so biased that even he could not cover for them and after a year in office, there is nothing. Not one solid shred of collusion. He is on a mission and manufacturing a cause to line his pockets and only you foolish MSM/MSNBC/CNN zombies can't see it. The Democrats continue to beat this dead horse so they can try and retain some semblance of relevance after their campaign of obstruction and Schumer's folly has substantially weakened them and destroyed the last shreds of credibility they may have had. And in the process of this political ouroboros they have pretty well destroyed the FBIs reputation for a decade if not a generation.
So, when will they stop wasting our money?
Says the hyper-partisan Faux News zombie.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Don't know how many times I have to say it, no matter how much you want it to be true, I am not a TV zombie like yourself, I don't own one and I don't watch it. Sorry. OH and they have Crappy News Network on at work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
OH, and I never lied and said I was non-partisan like you and so many other mush headed Socialists.
You do realize Faux News isn't just limited to the TV right? They're on the internet as well? And no one accused you of lying about not being a wack job partisan.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
It isn't one GOP senator though, Mueller has bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. Mueller is a Republican. The person who appointed him, Rosenstein, is a Republican. These facts don't stop idiots like Rocktar from screaming this is all a vast left wing conspiracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Necro
https://media.giphy.com/media/fokaptLvSWs6I/200.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Though I agree Trumps a silver spoon spoiled little cunt, that's not actually a photo of Mueller. Mueller did enlist in the Marines and attended bootcamp at Parris Island but he went from there through OCS and received his commission. When he was in VietNam he was an officer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Necro
Here's the real photo of Mueller in Vietnam
http://cdn1-www.craveonline.com/asse..._Rambo_III.jpg
Rep added.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
The Mueller investigation could go on for another two years and still cost less than the new refrigerators in Air Force One.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
With that said, if you have first hand knowledge that there is no Russian collusion please feel free to contact the investigation at your earliest convenience. I'm sure they would love to hear from you.
The refrigerators are probably Samsungs, that is why they are so expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
So because they are on the internet I automatically watch them? Do I need to point out how amazingly ridiculous this inference is? And you did imply that somehow you felt I was disingenuous in being a partisan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Latrin says he is a Republican too. What's your point? At one time, slavery had support and women lacking the right to vote along with the 3/5ths rule. Popular support for something or someone does not make them right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
The point is that your notion that this is a partisan witch hunt isn't ground in reality. It has support from people all across the political spectrum.
No, I didn't. There was never any doubt about you being a political hack. As I've said before you're the conservative equivalent of Ashliana.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
President Trump not only sought to have special counsel Robert Mueller fired, he also sought to discredit top FBI officials out of fear that they could be witnesses against him.
Following former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate intelligence committee last June, Trump ordered aides to smear three potential FBI witnesses who could confirm that the President tried to end or influence Mueller’s investigation, Foreign Policy reported on Friday.
Cool, so add witness tampering to the list.
They are not refrigerators. They are officially called "cold chiller units". Get it straight :).Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
And yeah, the cost is beyond ridiculous ($24 million).
A regular 747 costs upward of 350 million. Even with the modifications specifically for Air Force One, it's not a lot in comparison.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday said special counsel Robert Mueller should take a look at reports that President Trump tried to fire him last summer.
"I don't know if the story is true or not, but I know this, Mueller should look at it," Graham said on ABC's "This Week."
Graham's comments follow a New York Times report this week saying Trump wanted to fire Mueller last June.
Trump reportedly backed off of the order when White House counsel Don McGahn threatened to quit.
"Don McGahn, if the story is true in the New York Times, did the right thing, and the good news is the president listened," Graham said.
"The investigation needs to go forward without political interference, and I'm sure it will," he continued. “As a matter of fact, I think Mr. Mueller is the perfect guy to get to the bottom of all this, and he will.”
"I see no evidence President Trump wants to fire Mueller now," he continued. "I don't know what happened back last year, but it's pretty clear to me that everybody in the White House knows it would be the end of President Trump's presidency if he fired Mr. Mueller."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Quote:
The two current Air Force One planes are due for replacement. The planes are highly customized Boeing 747-200B series jets that were purchased under President Ronald Reagan's administration and began service in 1990 under President George H. W. Bush. But because Boeing shut down its 747-200 production several years ago, it has become extremely difficult to replace the planes' parts, according to the trade publication Defense One. That's why, during his second term in office, President Barack Obama ordered a replacement fleet for the Air Force One program that will be built based on the new 747-8 series.
https://www.livescience.com/57933-fa...force-one.htmlQuote:
All of the customization and facilities cost a lot. According to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) letter obtained by Judicial Watch, Obama's Air Force One cost taxpayers $206,337 every hour it flew. Building the replacement 747-8 jets will also be expensive — an estimated $3.73 billion over 12 years. But that's still a small portion of the entire defense budget of $8.132 trillion over that same 12-year time frame, according to Politifact. But because those costs are driven by national security concerns, they could go up in time, too.
I was trying to find how long AF-1 could stay in flight and that's top secret crypto shit I guess.
It's capable of mid-air refueling, so, pretty much indefinitely as long as the logistics are available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
So now we are listening to Lindsey Graham?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
https://media1.tenor.com/images/fcfb...itemid=4716826
What does Obama with his Teleprompter have to do with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Necro
Is he not a Republican?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
A Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee said he supports Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s potential interference in the 2016 election and Donald Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia.
Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Rep. Trey Gowdy said he “100 percent” supports Mueller.
“I told my Republican colleagues, ‘Leave him the hell alone’ and that’s still my advice,” Gowdy said.
Came by a guy talking about a helicopter he piloted in Vietnam that could have it's lubrication systems serviced in flight so I think we can assume AF-1 can stay in flight indefinitely. I would be willing to bet every critical system is serviceable in flight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Says somewhere it's designed to accommodate up to 70 passengers. 24 million really is not a whole lot considering what's being accomplished.
In name only. Come on dude, Graham?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Yes, Graham. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean he isn't a Republican. That's not how this works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Graham will say anything, honestly man, Lindsey is a POS and should not be trusted at all. There's nothing more that fucker would love than to find some bullshit to implicate Russia, he's a fucking warmonger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Spoken like a Putin apologist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
What reason do I have to dislike Putin or the Russian people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Is Hillary Clinton a terrible human being?
One article I read claimed ~3 weeks, with the food stored in those new freezers. They're gigantic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
I was guessing around a month.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
They're highly specialized machines from 1990. They're not going to be cheap. Not to mention since it's AF1 they have to go through the military's procurement procedures.
They also aren't really mass produced. There aren't factories configured to make those specific friges.
Chuck Todd asked a good question in his intro this morning on Meet the Press. After the leak that Trump tried to fire Mueller, why was it so easy for every news network to get quick private off-the-record confirmation of that fact from the White House, even while the President denied it publicly?
Quote:
What's not so predictable is what happens next, the attempted firing has prompted many questions: who leaked the story about President Trump's intentions and why? Why was it so easy for news organizations to quickly match the Times' scoop unless someone wanted this story out? And was it a sign that President Trump is, again, considering the dismissal of Mueller? Is it a warning to him to not to do it? Or was this a trial balloon to see if he can?
More...
Ken Starr, the special prosecutor who referred Bill Clinton to the House for impeachment, was on ABC's This Week today. He mostly said that, based on what is publicly known about Trump's behavior with Comey and Mueller, he does not believe Trump committed the crime of obstruction of justice. Then Martha Raddatz asked Starr about Trump lying to the public..
Lying to the public is not a crime, of course. I did not realize that it was grounds for impeachment, nor did I realize it was part of the basis for the impeachment of Bill Clinton.Quote:
RADDATZ: Mr. Starr -- Mr. Starr, I want to -- I want to jump in, here. I want to ask you about -- you talked about lying, you talked about President Clinton. I want to ask you about President Trump’s public denial that he’d -- he had even thought of firing Robert Mueller.
One of the reasons you cited is grounds for impeachment against President Clinton was Clinton’s public denials of having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. You wrote the president made and caused to be made false statements to the American people about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky by publicly and emphatically stating in January 1998 that I did not have sexual relations with that woman, and these allegations are false.
The president also effectively delayed a possible congressional inquiry. This represents substantial and credible (ph) information that may constitute grounds for an impeachment. If the reports are correct that President Trump sought to have Mueller fired, then his public denial would be false.
So would that be grounds for impeachment?
STARR: I think lying to the American people is a serious issue that has to be explored. I take lying to the American people very, very seriously. So absolutely, I think – what Dan was talking about was this effort to get rid of the investigation.
More...
Anything that the House wants to bring charges for can be grounds for impeachment, it should indeed be a crime, however if lying to the public is a crime, then Obama needs to be hauled off because "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Clinton was prosecuted for perjury under oath to a grand jury. Not lying to the people. Starr wants to get paid for his appearance.
Hillary also lied under oath to Congress. So, the Dems need to think seriously about wanting to haul up Trump on this bullshit. Also, to impeach, it will take a majority in the house and then over 60 in the senate to convict. Amazingly unlikely with this economy that they can win enough seats. All this is doing is hurting their cause and deflecting from real issues. Also, if they gained a warrant by false means, it kind of invalidates any other evidence Mueller gets on anyone.
It's a shit show and nothing the Dems can do will change it, Mueller is damaged, the investigation is a joke and the FBI looks like many members drank the cool aid to cover for Hillary. Their reputation is shot to hell with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
From Nixon's Articles of Impleachment:
8. making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct
Stop eating lead paint chips.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
We can all agree that President Obama is in serious trouble... whoops!!! Obama is no longer President, and is Constitutionally ineligible to run for President again. Ha! Ha! I guess we should stop whining about other people, after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
We can definitely agree that President Hilary Clinton is also in big trouble... WHOO-OOPS!!! Ha! Ha! Hilary Clinton is not actually President. I guess we should stop whining about other people, after all.Quote:
Hillary also lied under oath to Congress. So, the Dems need to think seriously about wanting to haul up Trump on this bullshit.
In fact precisely 67 Senators are required to convict, but as always you are missing the point. What if the Republicans foresee a bloodletting in the midterms, as is usually the case for the party controlling the Presidency? What if they further realize that a billionaire New York banker is not much of a Republican anyway, and shed themselves of him and his Vice so as to secure the Presidency for at least another two years? You don't think Paul Ryan or worst case Michael Pence would be far more suited to the goals of the Republican establishment? Keep dreaming.Quote:
Also, to impeach, it will take a majority in the house and then over 60 in the senate to convict. Amazingly unlikely with this economy that they can win enough seats. All this is doing is hurting their cause and deflecting from real issues.
It is actually 2/3rd of the members present. It can be less than 67.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need_to_knowQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
So glad you support the double standard for lying in politics. We knew you did, at least this way you come clean about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Also glad that you are soft on crime when it comes to your preferred candidate.Quote:
We can definitely agree that President Hilary Clinton is also in big trouble... WHOO-OOPS!!! Ha! Ha! Hilary Clinton is not actually President. I guess we should stop whining about other people, after all.
Actually, he has been pretty good as a President and the sooner that a lot of RINOs like you figure that out, the more secure their seats and this country would be. And while Pence and certainly Ryan would be more in line with what the establishment might like, they would be much less effective in promoting a Conservative policy.Quote:
In fact precisely 67 Senators are required to convict, but as always you are missing the point. What if the Republicans foresee a bloodletting in the midterms, as is usually the case for the party controlling the Presidency? What if they further realize that a billionaire New York banker is not much of a Republican anyway, and shed themselves of him and his Vice so as to secure the Presidency for at least another two years? You don't think Paul Ryan or worst case Michael Pence would be far more suited to the goals of the Republican establishment? Keep dreaming.
In the end, always good to hear a 100% nonsensical spewing of emotions and blather serving no purpose. Keep up the good work. One question though, are you able to maintain a straight face when you tell people you are Conservative and Republican in person? If so, how? And if they believe you, I want to know where you live because that is a warped reality I need to stay away from.
You're okay with Trump lying.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
If it were so easy Faramir would have just took the ring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
https://i.imgur.com/QtboUjG.gif
Impeachment is NOT going to happen. Please get over it.
Democrats couldn't get the vote out for a presidential election, I foresee very little change from the midterms. I'll actually go out on a limb and say that the Democrats will see loses in the Northwest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Necro
There will be no impeachment.
Reported for spelling Kool Aid with a C.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Yes I agree and I'm glad that you finally said something useful. It may have taken you 33,567 tries, but you did it buddy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
https://media.giphy.com/media/3otPoS...sO8o/giphy.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
The best political outcome for Democrats would be if Mueller uncovers and publishes evidence of unethical and low-level criminal behavior by Trump, and Congress then votes not to impeach. Impeaching would be satisfying but politically dumb in the absence of proof of criminal behavior that is so serious that impeachment is a broadly bipartisan effort. The public will disapprove of any impeachment proceeding that appears to be politically based. Nixon's impeachment, a bipartisan effort based on serious criminal behavior, was not popular with the public at the time.
Should Democrats prefer President Pence or a weakened President Trump?
Well fuck, you are right, it was late, blame it on the scotch. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Reported for spelling skotch with a C.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Quote:
WASHINGTON — Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, disregarding Justice Department warnings that their actions would be “extraordinarily reckless,” voted Monday evening to release a contentious secret memorandum said to accuse the department and the F.B.I. of misusing their authority to obtain a secret surveillance order on a former Trump campaign associate.
More...
Quote:
The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Wednesday warned lawmakers not to publicly release a memo purporting to detail surveillance abuses by the U.S. government for fear it will harm national security and ongoing investigations.
Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd, in a letter to the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), said the Republican push to release a memo they say reveals political bias at the FBI and DOJ would be "extraordinarily reckless" without a review by those agencies.
More...
Quote:
President Trump blew up in anger after learning that a top Department of Justice (DOJ) official had warned against releasing a classified memo by Republican staffers that allegedly proves an anti-Trump bias in the DOJ and FBI, Bloomberg reported Monday.
Trump was furious when he learned that Associate Attorney General Stephen Boyd had said it would be “extraordinarily reckless” to release the classified memo.
More...
Quote:
Other sources told Bloomberg that Trump had also personally reprimanded Attorney General Jeff Sessions and other DOJ officials earlier in the week, telling them they needed to improve in their jobs or be remembered as the worst in history.
Democrats will regret standing with law enforcement against President Trump. That's not going to win them any votes.
Meanwhile it looks like the Trump administration is refusing to carry out the sanctions on Russia passed by Congress last year, saying they're not needed.. -_-
Considering sanctions are an act of war and it's in the worlds best interest that the two countries with the largest nuclear arsenals get along, I'm not seeing a problem here. When was the last time Europe paid their fucking bill?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
I have tyrants in my own back yard to worry about, what Putin is doing on the other side of town is of little interest to me.
Well that confirms it! TRUMP IS GUILTY!Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Says the Putin apologist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Sanctions are not an act of war. If we physically blockaded them, that is, but refusing to do business with them isn't.
And Trump isn't not enforcing the sanctions, he is just dragging ass on it and not doing all of the recommendations.
What am I apologizing for? Europe not paying for their own defense while they give themselves "free healthcare".Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
You will have to forgive me if I tire of American blood and treasure being pissed away on one European fuck up after another. Let them be Trotskys, it's what most of them want anyway.
You might want to catch up on today's news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I have read todays news. It says he is still enforcing them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
You are one ignorant fuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Link?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Sanctions are an act of war. Do we threaten other nations that would continue to do business with Russia?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I'd like a link too. Nothing I've read, even stories from 3 hours ago, points to him not enforcing sanctions, just that he is dragging ass at doing it. Falling behind on deadlines and such, as he did last October.
BTW, Neveragain, if Sanctions are an act of War, we've been at war with Russia since 2004, they have economic sanctions on us and the EU. So, maybe in YOUR HEAD they are an act of war, but to the diplomats and other countries of the world, except North Korea, they are not. Threats are also not an act of war. Acting upon threats with force (not sanctions) is.
Honestly we have been at war with Russia since the end of WW2. If this were not the case, both countries wouldn't be able to blow the world up. We probably would not be in Afghanistan, 9/11 probably would have never happened, the Korean war................of course most of this would have never happened if the US never allowed itself to get suckered into going to war for European imperial lands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
We will have to agree to disagree on what an act of war is.
We are talking about actual war. Sanctions are not an act of war. Period.
The Trump administration, under fire from lawmakers for not punishing Moscow over election meddling, said Monday it will not implement Russia-related sanctions mandated by Congress last year because the threat itself is acting as a “deterrent.”
The decision was made public after nightfall on deadline day for implementing sanctions against those who do business with Russian defense and intelligence firms, as required under a 2017 law.
Since the law took effect six months ago, said State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert, “We estimate that foreign governments have abandoned planned or announced purchases of several billion dollars in Russian defense acquisitions.”
The decision was less concrete than some lawmakers envisioned when the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act passed last summer. Though also mentioning Iran and North Korea, the law was billed as a U.S. response to Moscow’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.
A list of potential targets was drawn up last month in anticipation of Monday’s deadline for implementing secondary sanctions. Instead, a State Department official said there is no need for them to be put into place now “because the legislation is, in fact, serving as a deterrent.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.14fa503b0e94
don't even bother, he's a bigger troll than mcgyverQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFLJ1pFnESwQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Like I said, we will have to disagree.
Fuck you. Yuppies drink micro brew, non GMO, flavored, craft beers, Hennessy or Patron around here because some pop music twat said it was cool. If they have bling, they waste money on Gray Goose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Necro
https://youtu.be/LS-ErOKpO4E
Oh, and about the sanctions, try and buy a new import Saiga or Vepr.
Okay, so Ron Paul and North Korea considers it an act of war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
I think it is hilarious that you people think refusing to do business with a country is an act of war. Do consider it a war on WalMart when people refuse to shop there?
Scotch tastes like an Irishmans ass after a long night of drinking Guinness.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
You have experience with that huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
I'm not going to threaten your sovereignty because I don't want you doing business with WalMart. I would completely expect you to punch me in the face if I knocked the groceries out of your hands that you just purchased at WalMart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
How is an economic sanction threatening anyone's sovereignty? Where have we threatened to invade a country for doing business with Russia? Again, you are confusing economic sanctions with a blockade. A blockade IS an act of war. That is when we are physically preventing other nations from trading with Russia. We aren't parking fleets around Russia's shores saying no one can enter. Our economic sanctions are US not trading with Russia. We aren't preventing anyone else from doing shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
If the Congress wanted to really hurt Russia, all they would have to do is allow the export of Natural Gas to Europe in substantial quantities. Russia'a economy would be in shambles in a year or so.
Economic sanctions are solely designed to cause uprising from within the state being sanctioned by creating shortages among the lower class. You don't need fleets around Russian shores when all you need to do is freeze their bank accounts, I think you're a bit naive as to how this works in the digital age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
These guys are more rabid Putin cocksockers than the bots.
I really don't care about Putin considering we just got rid of an administration that held a gun to our head and forced us to purchase "insurance". We used to call that the mafia. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by BigWorm
You're naive to think that economic sanctions from the US do a damn thing to Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Infact, economic sanctions are referred to as a PENALTY. You make the US angry, we penalize you by not doing business with you.
So it's a complete waste of taxpayer time and money?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Is that kind of like, the US can interfere with other countries elections but a few Russian videos and we strip the will of 60+ million American voters? (For future reference .03 * 60,000,000 = 1.8 million)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
At least be honest when you say America won't do business with you, you actually mean, you won't be buying or selling oil. Of course there was the fantastic idea of the grain embargo that nearly wiped out the American farmer because Russia invaded Afghanistan, yes the same Afghanistan we are occupying at this very moment.
But you're right, they're not an act of war.
what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
It was a Benghazi joke. Need me to explain it or have you been getting into the indicas again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
I get it now and no, no indicas for me.
Turns out the GOP talking point of FBI bias against Trump doesn't hold any water. They've been accusing FBI agent Strzok of helping Hillary during the 2016 investigation but it's been revealed that he co-wrote the memo supporting the re-opening of the case after emails were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop. Comey went public with this information after receiving the memo. :lol2:
Judge Andrew Napolitano said Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation has reached a "new tenor," which is not good news for President Donald Trump.
On "The Daily Briefing" on Thursday, Napolitano pointed to a New York Times report that Mueller is zeroing in on a June 2016 meeting between Trump campaign officials and a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower.
He explained that Mark Corallo, a former spokesman for Trump's legal team, is expected to interview with Mueller's team. Corallo reportedly will tell investigators that White House communications director Hope Hicks wanted to prevent the release of emails in which Donald Trump Jr. set up the Trump Tower meeting to get dirt on Hillary Clinton.
"If he says that credibly, he's going to paint out a case for a conspiracy to obstruct justice, a conspiracy to hide documents, knowing that the special counsel would be looking for them because they are relevant to the core of what he's looking at: any relationship between the Trump campaign and the Russian government," Napolitano said.
The report alleges Hicks said on a conference call last summer that the emails about the meeting "will never get out," prompting concern from Corallo that she could potentially seek to obstruct justice. A lawyer for Hicks has denied the account.
Hope Hicks was interviewed by the special counsel in late December over a period of 2 days. Wouldn't be surprised if one of the sealed indictments has her name on it.
WASHINGTON — Lawyers for President Trump have advised him against sitting down for a wide-ranging interview with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, according to four people briefed on the matter, raising the specter of a monthslong court battle over whether the president must answer questions under oath.
His lawyers are concerned that the president, who has a history of making false statements and contradicting himself, could be charged with lying to investigators. Their stance puts them at odds with Mr. Trump, who has said publicly and privately that he is eager to speak with Mr. Mueller as part of the investigation into possible ties between his associates and Russia’s election interference, and whether he obstructed justice.
Mr. Trump’s decision about whether to speak to prosecutors, expected in the coming weeks, will shape one of the most consequential moments of the investigation. Refusing to sit for an interview opens the possibility that Mr. Mueller will subpoena the president to testify before a grand jury, setting up a court fight that would drastically escalate the investigation and could be decided by the Supreme Court.
Former White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon reportedly met with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators multiple times over the past week.
Two sources told NBC News that Bannon was interview by Mueller’s team for nearly 20 hours spread over multiple days.
Washington (CNN) Former Trump campaign adviser Rick Gates is finalizing a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller's office, indicating he's poised to cooperate in the investigation, according to sources familiar with the case.
Gates has already spoken to Mueller's team about his case and has been in plea negotiations for about a month. He's had what criminal lawyers call a "Queen for a Day" interview, in which a defendant answers any questions from the prosecutors' team, including about his own case and other potential criminal activity he witnessed.
Gates' cooperation could be another building block for Mueller in a possible case against President Donald Trump or key members of his team.
Once a plea deal is in place, Gates would become the third known cooperator in Mueller's sprawling probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. It would also increase the pressure to cooperate on Gates' co-defendant Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chairman, who has pleaded not guilty to Mueller's indictment and is preparing for a trial on alleged financial crimes unrelated to the campaign. Gates pleaded not guilty on October 30 alongside Manafort.
Trump fucks up everything he touches. Now our IC is going to have to make some serious changes to keep their work from getting punted about like a political football, just because Nunes and trump wanted to spin some B.S. memo on Fox.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...losures-415596Quote:
Mehta said the government would normally be entitled to deference in asserting the need to keep its investigative work under wraps, but perhaps no longer with respect to the dossier.
“This isn’t the ordinary case,” Mehta told a Justice Department lawyer, Anjali Motgi. “I don’t know of any time the president has declassified the fact of a counterintelligence investigation. That’s going to be a hard sell given what the president has done. … This is a new frontier and it has an impact.”
~ 07-21-2017Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2p55BmwmJM
Any bets that Starman will reach Mars before or if there is an impeachment?
I believe he's going to miss Mars by many miles and fly off into a horrific disintegration without making that orbit. But who knows; maybe he'll show up in the last scene of some future Planet of the Apes remake.
"The Humanity! You did it, you really did it! You trashed this find automobile!!!"
Either way it will be really cool to check in on the feed over the coming months, watching Mars come into view as it gets closer and closer should prove to be pretty spectacular. I think the car idea was yuge and will gain spacex shit tons of investments.
https://media1.britannica.com/eb-med...4-935741FC.jpg
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b05c2bcaca8989
13 Russian Nationals Indicted For Interfering With U.S. Elections
The special counsel also indicted three Russian entities on Friday.
Actual indictment here.Quote:
Thirteen Russian nationals and three Russian entities were indicted on Friday, “accused of violating U.S. criminal laws in order to interfere with U.S. elections and political processes,” according to the special counsel’s office.
Mueller just indicted a bunch of people whose names are unpronounceable.
Quote:
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office said Friday that a grand jury indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities for alleged interference in the 2016 presidential elections, during which they boosted the candidacy of Donald Trump.
The indictment says that the defendants by early to mid-2016 were "supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ... and disparaging Hillary Clinton."
More...
So... STILL no collusion....
Shocked I am.
Utterly SHOCKED!
Know what name is easy to pronounce though?Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Text_Logo.png
Total nothingburgerQuote:
Originally Posted by Back
-Beyond the 13 people indicted, Mueller announced the Feb. 12 guilty plea of a California man for identity theft, Richard Pinedo, who is cooperating with prosecutors. The indictment of Russian individuals and companies also suggests a broader conspiracy than Mueller charged, saying grand jurors heard about others involved in the scheme.
Not even a year in and they've got 18 people so far either indicted or plead guilty and cooperating. Yeah, they totally have squat. What are you going to say when they round up Kushner and Don Jr?
They've tried to destroy the FBI over this. Nunes memo, trump tweets, surrogates on TV railing against Mueller and the FBI. These folks need to atone.
Sounds like they were using software that controls multiple sock puppets to troll comment sections. This still does not change the fact that Hillary Clinton is a terrible human being who corrupted the DNC thus cheating the Democrats out of their best candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FormalTatt...restricted.gif
The fancy indictments are never the first indictments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Necro
These particular indictments have a specific purpose- it's a statement to the American people that the Russian interference was and is real. A way to counter the dangerous attacks the Right is making on the investigation.
And to Android's point- they basically already have Kushner. The sheer number of incidents that just the public is aware of- plus the fact that the IRS has started sending out subpoenas to people with financial entanglements tells you everything you need to know. And Don Jr has a good chance of a conspiracy charge or two if Mueller's team really hits this hard.
Not only that but it just made it practically impossible for Trump to fire Rosenstein.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheisia
Exactly. At this point, any move against Rosenstein or Mueller becomes a move against America's safety. And it would instantly make Trump even more vulnerable to accusations of collusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
ftfyQuote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
The FBI has made it's own bed in this mess. In case you don't understand how, here it is simplified:
1. Political party pays for opposition research. Company that does research pays foreign shitbag ex-spy. Shitbag makes a bunch of shit up and calls it research, gets paid and smartly bows out. Political party goes ape shit over made up crap, then decides to pass it all around. RINO tool McCaine gets takes made up shit and gives it to the FBI though they likely already had it. News media publishes "bombshell" stores and people go crazy over made up shit. Then the FBI leaders with some pretty clear political bias and likely knowledge of the POTUS at the time, knowing this is made up shit and unsubstantiated use the made up shit AND the news stories of made up shit go to the FISA court. The FBI leaders don't disclose their own political bias when they sign off on the made up shit seeking a warrant to spy on a US citizen under false pretense. (side note, we know the CIA and NSA do this shit, the FBI likely does this shit, but this was all done "above board" to try and prosecute people and derail a political campaign to get their political hero into office. They then wire tap citizen, when called out about the wire tap, deny it and then later call a special prosecutor to investigate the winner of the election since their hero was defeated.
2. The FBI was "investigating" the political hero they wall wanted to win the election for clearly criminal acts involving mishandling of classified information. "Leadership" in the FBI likely at the behest of the POTUS at the time, worked to suppress the investigation, still won't release info from requests for information and then flatly covered for their political hero by dismissing the allegations because there was no so called "intent" despite many people who self reported their mishandling of far less classified information going to prison regardless of intent.
3. The FBI has multiple forensic experts and possibly decades of testimony by those experts discredited because they admitted to falsifying reports, lab results and so on. This may result in hundreds if not thousands of cases needing to be retried or dismissed completely due to falsification.
4. The FBI was given tip information about a confessed mass murderer from 2 independent and verifiable sources about the mass murderers intentions, plans, supplies and statements well before the mass murderer had taken action and then and did nothing to prevent the mass murder.
5. The FBI was given information on multiple other mass murderers and terrorists and still did nothing to stop them all the way back to 9/11.
6. The FBI continues to deny connections to Islam in many crimes, plots and attacks despite clear and public evidence to the contrary.
So, pretty sure the FBI has made it's own bed in how shitty, blatantly political and ineffective it has become. I am 100% sure that a lot of FBI agents are indeed some of the finest people, investigators and patriots this country can muster. Unfortunately the good agents in the FBI are sullied by some of the more destructive and subversive shitbags out there. I also believe that there is a lot of bad "leadership" in the FBI and they need to clean house and spend a lot of time rebuilding their reputation.
Please note, these are the ACTIONS or INACTION of the FBI, not of Nunes, Trump, Fox News or anyone else.
This is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Necro
Rocktar foaming at the mouth over here.
Keep padding that post count.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Keeping on buying into that Russian propaganda as you help sell out your own country :)
Speaking of Don Jr. I think now it's appropriate for the trolls to apologize about the way the strongly defended the meeting in trump tower. If you recall, one of their main arguments was that the woman was just a lawyer and in no way could it be comprehended that she was an agent of the Russian government. We've known that's false but now we have another nation making it plain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheisia
Of course they won't apologize. They'll simply spin spin spin.
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/...20111217043159Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.ba30f3392fe2
BREAKING: Trump national security adviser says FBI indictments show Russian meddling in US election is beyond dispute.
There, finally. Now can trump and his supporters finally apologize for slow rolling this thing for the past 18 months and agree to do sanctions, leave Mueller's investigation in peace and quit fucking with the FBI or releasing bogus memos?
I don't think Russian meddling has ever really been in question. It's like all of a sudden we noticed Russia has tried messing with our elections over the past 70 years.
Nothing burger.
Let us not forget these little gems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP0G4vJ5OMw
No it is no small thing. Trump has repeatedly denied that they meddled at all. He says he asked putin and putin said no. "how many times can I ask" he said. No no no dude. You're being revisionist. The whole world has known, but trump, backed up by his supporters, Fox News (except for Shep Smith) and the other propaganda outlets have been calling it a hoax. You people need to recognize. Just stop, take a deep breath and admit you've been on the wrong side of this thing to protect one man when you should have worried about protecting the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
It's not over yet. Mueller will continue to peel back the layers on this thing until he gets to the big prize.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Meanwhile people like Methais will believe the current Russian propaganda going around that the FBI is fabricating all this to orchestrate a coup against Trump.
And if this thing blows up and trump is confirmed a traitor they will only say that they never really supported trump anyway. Like so many Germans who were never supporters. They for sure won't stand up and say, "Hey I was wrong. I fucked up supporting this guy." I find that galling but accept that it's just the way it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
the retardation is strong with you two this morning.
You don't ever actually say anything do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
I didn't vote for Trump and I still feel better about the future of our country knowing Hillary Clinton never became president.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
https://media.giphy.com/media/amZfgEVrf84Xm/giphy.gif
This is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Still upset over Obama?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
https://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/m...unY&w=700&q=85
Back...you lost, okay? America rejected your view of it. You calling me salty is like cwolff calling someone a retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
It's like you only want to hear what you believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I'll dumb this down as far as possible for your simplistic mind:
The Russians have been "meddling" in our elections for decades. This was never really in question. There have been TWO points of contention:
1) Russian meddling cost Hillary Clinton the election.
2) Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.
So far, there is no evidence of either 1) or 2)
And people like Backlash will believe that the only reason Hillary lost the election was because of Russia and that Trump colluded with Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
You've been fed a big giant cock.. and you're all too happy to comply.
Come up for air kid.. you're choking...
Are you at all embarrassed that you've been mindlessly echoing Russian propaganda for the past 4 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
https://media.giphy.com/media/lfJSEoiUxG66Q/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Back
Are you at all embarrassed that the best excuse the Dems could come up with is "It's Russia's fault" and you happily swallowed it whole?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
This was after your girl Hillary used her magic reset button to reset Russian relations.. and after your boy Obama said that the 1980's called.. Russia isn't a threat anymore...
Literally, you have to be the absolute dumbest of the dumb people to continue to believe in Russian collusion at this point.
Not surprised you still are solid in that camp.
Not surprised you are still in living in your own little fantasy world of denial because reality is too scary for your tiny little brain to comprehend. The portrait you paint is of a person you have constructed in your imagination to target the frustration of your own failures upon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Do you believe that Russia was meddling in this last election for both sides, or only one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
http://assets.rebelcircus.com/blog/w...015/09/WTF.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Back
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
https://i.imgur.com/e880Ien.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Back
& lol @ your virtue signaling sig
Backlash is a white supremacist.
https://media.giphy.com/media/2iBsieTJ3eO1q/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Back
According to the indictments, it seems that it was both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
"I mean, it could be Russia. But it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
"Every time [Putin] sees me, he says, 'I didn't do that,' and I believe, I really believe, that when he tells me that, he means it."
"[Putin] said he didn't meddle. He said he didn't meddle. I asked him again. You can only ask so many times. But I just asked him again, and he said he absolutely did not meddle in our election. He did not do what they're saying he did."
"So you look at it — I mean, you have Brennan, you have Clapper, and you have Comey. Comey is proven now to be a liar and he's proven to be a leaker. So you look at that, and you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently, says he had nothing to do with that."
"Even if you believe Russia 'did' it..."
"Well, that's it! He has shown the proof, the Russians really DID hack our election in favor of Trump! Solid, undeniable proof."
Seems pretty contentious to me.
And keep in mind that several people on his campaign (including all of the top campaign officials/his own son and son-in-law) had been approached by Russians offering Clinton's emails and clearly telling them that Russia was trying to get him elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
And he had also received several Intelligence briefings as a candidate that told him as much as well. (And he was warned that Russians would try to approach his campaign by the FBI)
So the question is- since he knew for a fact that Russia was trying to get him elected...why did he never report it, and why has he and his campaign spent so much time denying it?
You should look up the word "fact" since you are using it wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheisia
Sorry.
And since this has been happening since 2014 (according to the indictments), where was President Obama on this? Oh, I know:
https://i.imgur.com/0250W1b.gif
From "Russia messing with the election is a vast left wing conspiracy, fake news!" to, "Russia always messes with our elections, who cares!"
No, collusion was the conspiracy. And yes, everyone meddles in everyone's elections. It's not news. But dont let me stop you from tarding out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Sometimes, on a rare day, Wrathbringer says something isn't shart or fart related and sounds semi-intelligent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
About as often as you do which is never.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I'm hearing "They always meddle so what?" Really? Thats such a chickenshit response. I feel like people who say that don't give a fuck about country or anyone else. Just trying, and failing miserably, to cover themselves from looking like complete idiots.
Back coming back showing he can't read. The EXACT quote from WB answers this, idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
So how about those Russian sanctions now?
300 dead Russians, Thank you President Trump!Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Those aren't sanctions..Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
No, it is better. They are dead Russians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Okay..Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
If we take out 100 million more, there won't be a Russia. Problem solved forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
How many Russians did Obama kill?
Trump says that the Russian operation starting in 2014 is proof that he's innocent.
https://i.imgur.com/gDErnrq.jpg
This paragraph is from one of the emails sent to Don Jr re: Trump Tower Meeting:Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin."
Also Obama tried to get an official government warning out about the Russian meddling, but McConnell blocked him. So it's odd to place the blame squarely on him.
I think I've been very clear about Russia. I don't think they helped Hillary lose the election and I don't think the Trump Administration colluded with them to fix the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
So far, I've been correct on both counts.
So.. still no colluding. Shocker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheisia
Who placed the blame squarely on Obama? Oh, no one. I simply pointed out for 2 years Obama did nothing but whisper to him 'Hey, after I get elected, I can be more flexible'...Quote:
Also Obama tried to get an official government warning out about the Russian meddling, but McConnell blocked him. So it's odd to place the blame squarely on him.
OMG!Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
IT'S THE SMOKING GUN!
YOU DID IT PK! YOU SOLVED THE CASE!!!
Tell your sources a big thank you from all of us.
https://i.imgur.com/rNkF58H.gif
As if anyone can stop that from happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
I bet cwolff chimes in next with a bunch of extra stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Even though we've known all along that our alt-righters would try to weasel out of the things they've said, it's still shocking to see it. They will never just man up and say, "Ya, I was wrong. Totally wrong."Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheisia
They can't even offer up anything of substance to refute what happened, can only reply with grade school level insults and slander.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Wow, you were 100% correct. Are you cwolff?Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
It has been said like 345234523 times. Support isn't the same as collusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Ya, They never will. They're slippery little fish. Even when little Don meets with an agent of the Russian government to get sensitive information advertised as coming from the Russian government they made excuses. At the end of all this, if trump goes down, they will only say, "I never even liked trump, I just like seeing libtards get upset, but I never actually supported him."Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
[QUOTE=Gelston
It has been said like 345234523 times. Support isn't the same as collusion.[/QUOTE]
And what were they supporting them on again?
You need some Russia support on quoting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheisia
The special counsels investigation was never just about collusion.
Well, support isn't illegal so..Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Depends on what the support is for. Supporting someone in their cyber crimes, for examples, is illegal. Also supporting them in efforts to illegally meddle in an election can be charged as Conspiracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Conspiracy is illegal, as is obstruction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
No, that'd be collusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheisia
pssstQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20
Perhaps I should have said "Politically voiced support" rather than "tossing money at" support. I thought that was obvious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Collusion can exist without criminal conspiracy but you can't have a criminal conspiracy without collusion. If Trump, Jr, Kushner, etc are charged with a crime it's not going to be collusion, it's going to be conspiracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston