The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)

govmentchedda · Post by **govmentchedda** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:17 pm

Joe K, are you a criminal defense lawyer? While I tend to agree with others here more in this "debate" or discourse, you enunciated a very good point a few posts ago in that we should consider a defendant/candidate less odious than Trump.

Post by **Sabo** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:24 pm

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:17 pm Joe K, are you a criminal defense lawyer? While I tend to agree with others here more in this "debate" or discourse, you enunciated a very good point a few posts ago in that we should consider a defendant/candidate less odious than Trump.

I just assumed everyone on the Swamp is a lawyer. How else can we explain all the free time we have to post here?

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:27 pm

Sabo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:24 pm
govmentchedda wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:17 pm Joe K, are you a criminal defense lawyer? While I tend to agree with others here more in this "debate" or discourse, you enunciated a very good point a few posts ago in that we should consider a defendant/candidate less odious than Trump.
I just assumed everyone on the Swamp is a lawyer. How else can we explain all the free time we have to post here?

Billable. Hours.

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:26 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:19 pmNo matter what evidence is compiled, Trump's 35% will refuse to believe it. Trump will tell them it's Fake News, it's the Deep State lying to bring him down because he is doing tremendous things to make America great, and the haters are jealous or don't want to see the little guy win.

I would be curious to the response if Fox News suddenly flipped and went anti-Trump.

Post by **brian** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:28 pm

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:26 pm
The Sybian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:19 pmNo matter what evidence is compiled, Trump's 35% will refuse to believe it. Trump will tell them it's Fake News, it's the Deep State lying to bring him down because he is doing tremendous things to make America great, and the haters are jealous or don't want to see the little guy win.
I would be curious to the response if Fox News suddenly flipped and went anti-Trump.

I would pay to see that.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:41 pm

If this happens, I hope they do it as a "sadly, now he's gone too far" moment that their viewers will parrot and I very hope that singular incident is really, really hilarious. Like I want to see people try to manufacture genuine, passionate conviction when agreeing that they could no longer abide by Trump after he rescinded the Omaha World Herald's press credentials.

Post by **brian** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:46 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:41 pm If this happens, I hope they do it as a "sadly, now he's gone too far" moment that their viewers will parrot and I very hope that singular incident is really, really hilarious. Like I want to see people try to manufacture genuine, passionate conviction when agreeing that they could no longer abide by Trump after he rescinded the Omaha World Herald's press credentials.

I hope I live long enough to see high school textbooks detail how conservatives were OK with Trump kidnapping brown babies, but spending $10 million for a gold toilet on Air Force One was a bridge too far.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:58 pm

I'd like to predict that if they ever turn, it'll be something even dumber than that.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:30 pm

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:26 pm
The Sybian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:19 pmNo matter what evidence is compiled, Trump's 35% will refuse to believe it. Trump will tell them it's Fake News, it's the Deep State lying to bring him down because he is doing tremendous things to make America great, and the haters are jealous or don't want to see the little guy win.
I would be curious to the response if Fox News suddenly flipped and went anti-Trump.

About 1/4th of Fox personalities have turned on Trump, and the supporters turn on those personalities. Shep is cuck, and well, I'll let Neil Cavuto read the e-mails he received when he went off script and criticized Trump for one thing:

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:45 pm

This is the United States in the 21st Century.

Jeff Sessions announces a religious liberty task force to combat “dangerous” secularism

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:31 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:30 pm
DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:26 pm
The Sybian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:19 pmNo matter what evidence is compiled, Trump's 35% will refuse to believe it. Trump will tell them it's Fake News, it's the Deep State lying to bring him down because he is doing tremendous things to make America great, and the haters are jealous or don't want to see the little guy win.
I would be curious to the response if Fox News suddenly flipped and went anti-Trump.
About 1/4th of Fox personalities have turned on Trump, and the supporters turn on those personalities. Shep is cuck, and well, I'll let Neil Cavuto read the e-mails he received when he went off script and criticized Trump for one thing:

I know there is the occasional negative commentary, but I mean full-on reversal. Like "Three Dolts on a Divan" (copyright: Charlie Pierce), Hannity, and Judge Jeannine.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:23 pm

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:31 pm
I know there is the occasional negative commentary, but I mean full-on reversal. Like "Three Dolts on a Divan" (copyright: Charlie Pierce), Hannity, and Judge Jeannine.

Trump's base is large enough that those morons will always have an audience for their demagoguery and will never need to change.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:12 pm

I think Hannity used to and might still draw a salary from Trump?

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:45 pm

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:31 pm
I know there is the occasional negative commentary, but I mean full-on reversal. Like "Three Dolts on a Divan" (copyright: Charlie Pierce), Hannity, and Judge Jeannine.

Actually, they were all (except Hannity) anti-Trump early on in the primaries, until Trump started looking like he was going to win. The network was actively working against Trump at first.

No way Hannity or Pirro ever turn on Trump. The network would have to fire them first. Brian Kilmeade, one of the 3 dolts, turned on Trump a while back and has spoken out several times. Doocey is too fucking stupid to have an opinion that isn't spoon fed to him, and Jesus Barbie just wants Trump to being on the Apocalypse so she can Rapture out of here ASAP. The worse Trump does, the sooner she meets Jesus. It's fun to read the comments when Judge Napolitano just straight reads a statute that is against the Conservative grain, or impedes Trump. They flip the fuck out that the Judge is a traitor, beta cuck, Deep State, never Trumper who can never be trusted again, followed by calling Libtards sheep.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:52 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:45 pm
DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:31 pm
I know there is the occasional negative commentary, but I mean full-on reversal. Like "Three Dolts on a Divan" (copyright: Charlie Pierce), Hannity, and Judge Jeannine.
Actually, they were all (except Hannity) anti-Trump early on in the primaries, until Trump started looking like he was going to win. The network was actively working against Trump at first.

No way Hannity or Pirro ever turn on Trump. The network would have to fire them first. Brian Kilmeade, one of the 3 dolts, turned on Trump a while back and has spoken out several times. Doocey is too fucking stupid to have an opinion that isn't spoon fed to him, and Jesus Barbie just wants Trump to being on the Apocalypse so she can Rapture out of here ASAP. The worse Trump does, the sooner she meets Jesus. It's fun to read the comments when Judge Napolitano just straight reads a statute that is against the Conservative grain, or impedes Trump. They flip the fuck out that the Judge is a traitor, beta cuck, Deep State, never Trumper who can never be trusted again, followed by calling Libtards sheep.

An honest question here - how can you stand to watch more than 3 minutes of that network? I get angry watching 20 second clips of these idiots.

I mean, I can't take CNN or MSNBC for more than a few minutes, and ultimately, I'm on the same side as them.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:03 pm

Pruitt wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:52 pm
The Sybian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:45 pm
DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:31 pm
I know there is the occasional negative commentary, but I mean full-on reversal. Like "Three Dolts on a Divan" (copyright: Charlie Pierce), Hannity, and Judge Jeannine.
Actually, they were all (except Hannity) anti-Trump early on in the primaries, until Trump started looking like he was going to win. The network was actively working against Trump at first.

No way Hannity or Pirro ever turn on Trump. The network would have to fire them first. Brian Kilmeade, one of the 3 dolts, turned on Trump a while back and has spoken out several times. Doocey is too fucking stupid to have an opinion that isn't spoon fed to him, and Jesus Barbie just wants Trump to being on the Apocalypse so she can Rapture out of here ASAP. The worse Trump does, the sooner she meets Jesus. It's fun to read the comments when Judge Napolitano just straight reads a statute that is against the Conservative grain, or impedes Trump. They flip the fuck out that the Judge is a traitor, beta cuck, Deep State, never Trumper who can never be trusted again, followed by calling Libtards sheep.
An honest question here - how can you stand to watch more than 3 minutes of that network? I get angry watching 20 second clips of these idiots.

I mean, I can't take CNN or MSNBC for more than a few minutes, and ultimately, I'm on the same side as them.

I don't watch any of these shows, I just go to clip aggregators and watch the most interesting segments. I usually just watch when people I respect are being interviewed, or Fox when something is shocking to the point of being funny. I am starting to like Ari Berman on MSNBC, though. He is intelligent, but doesn't take himself seriously at all. He quotes hip hop songs a bit too often, but whatever. I think Rachel Maddow's content would be worth watching daily, but I can't stand her smug delivery, and constant fake stifling of laughter as she discusses the stupidity of Trump or the GOP. That, and she drags out a 5 minute setup into 20 minutes.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:27 pm

It's hilarious to me that the right uses the word 'cuck' so much when Manafort and Stone are literally cuckolds. And the metaphorical 'cucks' are the Republicans because they let Trump fuck their party while they watched.

Also, Manafort's daughter's texts reveal some heinous and despicable shit.

I think I mentioned this already, but since his trial started today I feel like it's worth mentioning again.

The dude forced his wife into orgies with lots of different men to the point the daughters worry if she's had an STD test! Why is this not on the news?

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:51 pm

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:17 pm Joe K, are you a criminal defense lawyer? While I tend to agree with others here more in this "debate" or discourse, you enunciated a very good point a few posts ago in that we should consider a defendant/candidate less odious than Trump.

Mostly civil practice but I’ve done some criminal stuff over the years. Nothing at all like this, though. (Not that many cases are.) The Manafort trial will be interesting. If he’s convicted, it’ll send a lot of chills through the DC lobbyist community as the type of stuff Manafort did is probably pretty widespread. I saw today that Mueller referred Tony Podesta and Greg Craig (both serious Democratic heavyweights) for potential criminal charges related to the Manafort allegations.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 7:40 am

I recently heard a scary "Reply All" podcast about the QAnon idiots. A bunch of deluded and deranged conspiracy believers...

Who Pretty Much Worship Trump

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:16 am

Just reading the coverage about the opening statements from Manafort and he is fucked. His defense seems to be based almost solely on attacking Gates. The problem is that almost all of the charges were put in place with lots of paper back-up before Gates even turned.

And Mueller's team has over 30 other witnesses.

Fucked.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:19 am

Giff · Post by **Giff** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:34 am

Wonder why Glenn deleted 27k tweets?

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:36 am

Because he runs a shady operation.

The Intercept hung Reality Winner out to dry.

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:36 am

I'm also pretty frustrated with a lot of the discourse in here.

Maybe we need another thread that is truly about analyzing real-life legal stuff. Calling the president a traitor is a wholly different exercise from talking about whether you could indict/convict any of these guys on treason.

If we can't separate that out, it's going to be a very fruitless and circular discussion in here.

For the record, I'm fine calling this lot traitors. Even if through ignorance and/or such a huge self-preservation/promotion as to blind them from any other consideration. Ignorance of the law and all that.

But it sure sounds as dumb as "lock her up" if you are seriously calling for prosecutors to put these assholes up for treason. And as much as we were giving degen shit for not quite grasping the lost cause of the 35 percent, you seem to be willing to chuck the independent/moderates that would be totally put off by coming off as blind-eyed lunatic lefties calling for totally unreasonable legal charges against a sitting president.

Hammer them in the court of public opinion. But if you want to get all Law & Order in here, don't flame out on people trying to have a reasonable discussion.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:37 am

Giff wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:34 am Wonder why Glenn deleted 27k tweets?

Because PUTIN told him too! Or maybe, just this:

The claims that he deleted Tweets for nefarious reasons are laughably absurd. If he actually did anything wrong, it would be pretty damn easy for the FBI or whoever to recover deleted Tweets.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:41 am

calling for totally unreasonable legal charges against a sitting president.

okey-dokey.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:41 am

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:36 am Because he runs a shady operation.

The Intercept hung Reality Winner out to dry.

I don’t even think Greenwald was involved in the publication of that story. And I really don’t understand why Trump critics have directed roughly 100 times the anger at the Intercept than they have at the federal prosecutors who threw the book at Winner (like they have with other admirable whistleblowers). That seems like very misdirected anger.

Giff · Post by **Giff** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:44 am

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:48 am

tennbengal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:41 am
calling for totally unreasonable legal charges against a sitting president.
okey-dokey.

If you really think you can make treason stick when we're not engage in active warfare, I don't really know what to say to you. The last charges of treason go back to stuff that happened in WW2. We've had a bunch of people rung up on ESPIONAGE charges.

So, yeah, okey fucking doke.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:51 am

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:36 am I'm also pretty frustrated with a lot of the discourse in here.

Maybe we need another thread that is truly about analyzing real-life legal stuff. Calling the president a traitor is a wholly different exercise from talking about whether you could indict/convict any of these guys on treason.

If we can't separate that out, it's going to be a very fruitless and circular discussion in here.

For the record, I'm fine calling this lot traitors. Even if through ignorance and/or such a huge self-preservation/promotion as to blind them from any other consideration. Ignorance of the law and all that.

But it sure sounds as dumb as "lock her up" if you are seriously calling for prosecutors to put these assholes up for treason. And as much as we were giving degen shit for not quite grasping the lost cause of the 35 percent, you seem to be willing to chuck the independent/moderates that would be totally put off by coming off as blind-eyed lunatic lefties calling for totally unreasonable legal charges against a sitting president.

Hammer them in the court of public opinion. But if you want to get all Law & Order in here, don't flame out on people trying to have a reasonable discussion.

I cannot eloquently put into words the reasons why I feel so strongly about treasonous/traitorous actions by this administration.

Every single day I read story after story after story about collusion and conspiracy. There are indictments and guilty pleas surrounding people directly and indirectly related to the administration.

And any time there's an opening to denounce or go against Russia it isn't taken. At some point a mountain of circumstantial evidence and coincidence is enough for me to justify how I feel.

Is it empirical and ironclad? No. Because I'm not an investigator. So if you want that discourse please feel free to invite all your lawyer friends to a thread and discuss it. Until then, I'll be who I am, reading what I read, and interpreting the information as such.

Also, if you go to this subreddit and read every post laid out in excruciating, deliberate detail and come away so feeling how you feel, fine. But quite simply, this is the closest I'll get to an inner circle of investigation and fact finding:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitPoppinKreamSays/

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:58 am

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:48 am
tennbengal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:41 am
calling for totally unreasonable legal charges against a sitting president.
okey-dokey.
If you really think you can make treason stick when we're not engage in active warfare, I don't really know what to say to you. The last charges of treason go back to stuff that happened in WW2. We've had a bunch of people rung up on ESPIONAGE charges.

So, yeah, okey fucking doke.

EXCUSE ME...

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:05 am

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:51 am
Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:36 am I'm also pretty frustrated with a lot of the discourse in here.

Maybe we need another thread that is truly about analyzing real-life legal stuff. Calling the president a traitor is a wholly different exercise from talking about whether you could indict/convict any of these guys on treason.

If we can't separate that out, it's going to be a very fruitless and circular discussion in here.

For the record, I'm fine calling this lot traitors. Even if through ignorance and/or such a huge self-preservation/promotion as to blind them from any other consideration. Ignorance of the law and all that.

But it sure sounds as dumb as "lock her up" if you are seriously calling for prosecutors to put these assholes up for treason. And as much as we were giving degen shit for not quite grasping the lost cause of the 35 percent, you seem to be willing to chuck the independent/moderates that would be totally put off by coming off as blind-eyed lunatic lefties calling for totally unreasonable legal charges against a sitting president.

Hammer them in the court of public opinion. But if you want to get all Law & Order in here, don't flame out on people trying to have a reasonable discussion.
I cannot eloquently put into words the reasons why I feel so strongly about treasonous/traitorous actions by this administration.

Every single day I read story after story after story about collusion and conspiracy. There are indictments and guilty pleas surrounding people directly and indirectly related to the administration.

And any time there's an opening to denounce or go against Russia it isn't taken. At some point a mountain of circumstantial evidence and coincidence is enough for me to justify how I feel.

Is it empirical and ironclad? No. Because I'm not an investigator. So if you want that discourse please feel free to invite all your lawyer friends to a thread and discuss it. Until then, I'll be who I am, reading what I read, and interpreting the information as such.

Also, if you go to this subreddit and read every post laid out in excruciating, deliberate detail and come away so feeling how you feel, fine. But quite simply, this is the closest I'll get to an inner circle of investigation and fact finding:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitPoppinKreamSays/

Have you read my posts in this thread and attached any kind of overall thinking? I guess not. I've been pretty damn consistent. I'm with you. These guys are scumbags. They are almost certainly guilty of all sorts of conspiracy and collusion. Lock them up.

It's not treason by the legal definition. Saying that doesn't invalidate ANY of what you are saying/know to be true.

Last time I'll say it: Unless they change the legal definition of treason, there's a fundamental flaw in trying to bring actual charges on these grounds. It is what it is. And it's not really that important to the cause. Other than it is just counterproductive to get worked up with the lack of "treason talk."

EnochRoot · Post by **EnochRoot** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:06 am

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:51 am
Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:36 am I'm also pretty frustrated with a lot of the discourse in here.

Maybe we need another thread that is truly about analyzing real-life legal stuff. Calling the president a traitor is a wholly different exercise from talking about whether you could indict/convict any of these guys on treason.

If we can't separate that out, it's going to be a very fruitless and circular discussion in here.

For the record, I'm fine calling this lot traitors. Even if through ignorance and/or such a huge self-preservation/promotion as to blind them from any other consideration. Ignorance of the law and all that.

But it sure sounds as dumb as "lock her up" if you are seriously calling for prosecutors to put these assholes up for treason. And as much as we were giving degen shit for not quite grasping the lost cause of the 35 percent, you seem to be willing to chuck the independent/moderates that would be totally put off by coming off as blind-eyed lunatic lefties calling for totally unreasonable legal charges against a sitting president.

Hammer them in the court of public opinion. But if you want to get all Law & Order in here, don't flame out on people trying to have a reasonable discussion.
I cannot eloquently put into words the reasons why I feel so strongly about treasonous/traitorous actions by this administration.

Every single day I read story after story after story about collusion and conspiracy. There are indictments and guilty pleas surrounding people directly and indirectly related to the administration.

And any time there's an opening to denounce or go against Russia it isn't taken. At some point a mountain of circumstantial evidence and coincidence is enough for me to justify how I feel.

Is it empirical and ironclad? No. Because I'm not an investigator. So if you want that discourse please feel free to invite all your lawyer friends to a thread and discuss it. Until then, I'll be who I am, reading what I read, and interpreting the information as such.

Also, if you go to this subreddit and read every post laid out in excruciating, deliberate detail and come away so feeling how you feel, fine. But quite simply, this is the closest I'll get to an inner circle of investigation and fact finding:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitPoppinKreamSays/

Wittingly or not he engaged in a form of gaslighting, and you knocked it the fuck out of the park.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:07 am

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:48 am
tennbengal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:41 am
calling for totally unreasonable legal charges against a sitting president.
okey-dokey.
If you really think you can make treason stick when we're not engage in active warfare, I don't really know what to say to you. The last charges of treason go back to stuff that happened in WW2. We've had a bunch of people rung up on ESPIONAGE charges.

So, yeah, okey fucking doke.

So LOL hiding behind the sitting president BS when he is only a sitting president because of his fucking treason. But, sure, let's all pretend that things are fucking normal and none of this isn't completely bonkers crazy town abnormal because a fucking criminal has been installed as president by a foreign power and white nationalists in this country.

Okey-dokey. It's all good, I am sure the centrists dems have a good handle on things and the elections in November will be free and fair and definitely not thrown.

But keep on fighting the good fight at making sure the verbiage is just so.

EnochRoot · Post by **EnochRoot** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:08 am

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:05 am
Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:51 am
Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:36 am I'm also pretty frustrated with a lot of the discourse in here.

Maybe we need another thread that is truly about analyzing real-life legal stuff. Calling the president a traitor is a wholly different exercise from talking about whether you could indict/convict any of these guys on treason.

If we can't separate that out, it's going to be a very fruitless and circular discussion in here.

For the record, I'm fine calling this lot traitors. Even if through ignorance and/or such a huge self-preservation/promotion as to blind them from any other consideration. Ignorance of the law and all that.

But it sure sounds as dumb as "lock her up" if you are seriously calling for prosecutors to put these assholes up for treason. And as much as we were giving degen shit for not quite grasping the lost cause of the 35 percent, you seem to be willing to chuck the independent/moderates that would be totally put off by coming off as blind-eyed lunatic lefties calling for totally unreasonable legal charges against a sitting president.

Hammer them in the court of public opinion. But if you want to get all Law & Order in here, don't flame out on people trying to have a reasonable discussion.
I cannot eloquently put into words the reasons why I feel so strongly about treasonous/traitorous actions by this administration.

Every single day I read story after story after story about collusion and conspiracy. There are indictments and guilty pleas surrounding people directly and indirectly related to the administration.

And any time there's an opening to denounce or go against Russia it isn't taken. At some point a mountain of circumstantial evidence and coincidence is enough for me to justify how I feel.

Is it empirical and ironclad? No. Because I'm not an investigator. So if you want that discourse please feel free to invite all your lawyer friends to a thread and discuss it. Until then, I'll be who I am, reading what I read, and interpreting the information as such.

Also, if you go to this subreddit and read every post laid out in excruciating, deliberate detail and come away so feeling how you feel, fine. But quite simply, this is the closest I'll get to an inner circle of investigation and fact finding:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitPoppinKreamSays/
Have you read my posts in this thread and attached any kind of overall thinking? I guess not. I've been pretty damn consistent. I'm with you. These guys are scumbags. They are almost certainly guilty of all sorts of conspiracy and collusion. Lock them up.

It's not treason by the legal definition. Saying that doesn't invalidate ANY of what you are saying/know to be true.

Last time I'll say it: Unless they change the legal definition of treason, there's a fundamental flaw in trying to bring actual charges on these grounds. It is what it is. And it's not really that important to the cause. Other than it is just counterproductive to get worked up with the lack of "treason talk."

Your previous statement reads a whole lot better with this addendum.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:15 am

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:08 am
Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:05 am
Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:51 am
Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:36 am I'm also pretty frustrated with a lot of the discourse in here.

Maybe we need another thread that is truly about analyzing real-life legal stuff. Calling the president a traitor is a wholly different exercise from talking about whether you could indict/convict any of these guys on treason.

If we can't separate that out, it's going to be a very fruitless and circular discussion in here.

For the record, I'm fine calling this lot traitors. Even if through ignorance and/or such a huge self-preservation/promotion as to blind them from any other consideration. Ignorance of the law and all that.

But it sure sounds as dumb as "lock her up" if you are seriously calling for prosecutors to put these assholes up for treason. And as much as we were giving degen shit for not quite grasping the lost cause of the 35 percent, you seem to be willing to chuck the independent/moderates that would be totally put off by coming off as blind-eyed lunatic lefties calling for totally unreasonable legal charges against a sitting president.

Hammer them in the court of public opinion. But if you want to get all Law & Order in here, don't flame out on people trying to have a reasonable discussion.
I cannot eloquently put into words the reasons why I feel so strongly about treasonous/traitorous actions by this administration.

Every single day I read story after story after story about collusion and conspiracy. There are indictments and guilty pleas surrounding people directly and indirectly related to the administration.

And any time there's an opening to denounce or go against Russia it isn't taken. At some point a mountain of circumstantial evidence and coincidence is enough for me to justify how I feel.

Is it empirical and ironclad? No. Because I'm not an investigator. So if you want that discourse please feel free to invite all your lawyer friends to a thread and discuss it. Until then, I'll be who I am, reading what I read, and interpreting the information as such.

Also, if you go to this subreddit and read every post laid out in excruciating, deliberate detail and come away so feeling how you feel, fine. But quite simply, this is the closest I'll get to an inner circle of investigation and fact finding:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitPoppinKreamSays/
Have you read my posts in this thread and attached any kind of overall thinking? I guess not. I've been pretty damn consistent. I'm with you. These guys are scumbags. They are almost certainly guilty of all sorts of conspiracy and collusion. Lock them up.

It's not treason by the legal definition. Saying that doesn't invalidate ANY of what you are saying/know to be true.

Last time I'll say it: Unless they change the legal definition of treason, there's a fundamental flaw in trying to bring actual charges on these grounds. It is what it is. And it's not really that important to the cause. Other than it is just counterproductive to get worked up with the lack of "treason talk."
Your previous statement reads a whole lot better with this addendum.

Yes. Very, very fair point on the legal definition.

Is there a word or some associated grouping of words that is stronger than conspiracy, but less than treason? Murder has degrees. Does whatever the hell this situation is have degrees? Espionage implies secretive stuff. This is way too out in the open.

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:25 am

tennbengal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:07 am
Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:48 am
tennbengal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:41 am
calling for totally unreasonable legal charges against a sitting president.
okey-dokey.
If you really think you can make treason stick when we're not engage in active warfare, I don't really know what to say to you. The last charges of treason go back to stuff that happened in WW2. We've had a bunch of people rung up on ESPIONAGE charges.

So, yeah, okey fucking doke.
So LOL hiding behind the sitting president BS when he is only a sitting president because of his fucking treason. But, sure, let's all pretend that things are fucking normal and none of this isn't completely bonkers crazy town abnormal because a fucking criminal has been installed as president by a foreign power and white nationalists in this country.

Okey-dokey. It's all good, I am sure the centrists dems have a good handle on things and the elections in November will be free and fair and definitely not thrown.

But keep on fighting the good fight at making sure the verbiage is just so.

Maybe take your frustrations out on the appropriate people. You want to call this treason, have it.

Post by **brian** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:27 am

Racketeering. Basically the same thing that mob families are put on trial for. And I wouldn't be shocked to one day see Trump and his family hauled up on RICO charges (which has the distinct benefit of potentially being state crimes and not subject to presidential pardon power).

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:28 am

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:25 am
tennbengal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:07 am
Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:48 am
tennbengal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:41 am
calling for totally unreasonable legal charges against a sitting president.
okey-dokey.
If you really think you can make treason stick when we're not engage in active warfare, I don't really know what to say to you. The last charges of treason go back to stuff that happened in WW2. We've had a bunch of people rung up on ESPIONAGE charges.

So, yeah, okey fucking doke.
So LOL hiding behind the sitting president BS when he is only a sitting president because of his fucking treason. But, sure, let's all pretend that things are fucking normal and none of this isn't completely bonkers crazy town abnormal because a fucking criminal has been installed as president by a foreign power and white nationalists in this country.

Okey-dokey. It's all good, I am sure the centrists dems have a good handle on things and the elections in November will be free and fair and definitely not thrown.

But keep on fighting the good fight at making sure the verbiage is just so.
Maybe take your frustrations out on the appropriate people. You want to call this treason, have it.

Oh boy, thanks!

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:30 am

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:15 am
EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:08 am
Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:05 am
Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:51 am
Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:36 am I'm also pretty frustrated with a lot of the discourse in here.

Maybe we need another thread that is truly about analyzing real-life legal stuff. Calling the president a traitor is a wholly different exercise from talking about whether you could indict/convict any of these guys on treason.

If we can't separate that out, it's going to be a very fruitless and circular discussion in here.

For the record, I'm fine calling this lot traitors. Even if through ignorance and/or such a huge self-preservation/promotion as to blind them from any other consideration. Ignorance of the law and all that.

But it sure sounds as dumb as "lock her up" if you are seriously calling for prosecutors to put these assholes up for treason. And as much as we were giving degen shit for not quite grasping the lost cause of the 35 percent, you seem to be willing to chuck the independent/moderates that would be totally put off by coming off as blind-eyed lunatic lefties calling for totally unreasonable legal charges against a sitting president.

Hammer them in the court of public opinion. But if you want to get all Law & Order in here, don't flame out on people trying to have a reasonable discussion.
I cannot eloquently put into words the reasons why I feel so strongly about treasonous/traitorous actions by this administration.

Every single day I read story after story after story about collusion and conspiracy. There are indictments and guilty pleas surrounding people directly and indirectly related to the administration.

And any time there's an opening to denounce or go against Russia it isn't taken. At some point a mountain of circumstantial evidence and coincidence is enough for me to justify how I feel.

Is it empirical and ironclad? No. Because I'm not an investigator. So if you want that discourse please feel free to invite all your lawyer friends to a thread and discuss it. Until then, I'll be who I am, reading what I read, and interpreting the information as such.

Also, if you go to this subreddit and read every post laid out in excruciating, deliberate detail and come away so feeling how you feel, fine. But quite simply, this is the closest I'll get to an inner circle of investigation and fact finding:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitPoppinKreamSays/
Have you read my posts in this thread and attached any kind of overall thinking? I guess not. I've been pretty damn consistent. I'm with you. These guys are scumbags. They are almost certainly guilty of all sorts of conspiracy and collusion. Lock them up.

It's not treason by the legal definition. Saying that doesn't invalidate ANY of what you are saying/know to be true.

Last time I'll say it: Unless they change the legal definition of treason, there's a fundamental flaw in trying to bring actual charges on these grounds. It is what it is. And it's not really that important to the cause. Other than it is just counterproductive to get worked up with the lack of "treason talk."
Your previous statement reads a whole lot better with this addendum.
Yes. Very, very fair point on the legal definition.

Is there a word or some associated grouping of words that is stronger than conspiracy, but less than treason? Murder has degrees. Does whatever the hell this situation is have degrees? Espionage implies secretive stuff. This is way too out in the open.

It's a massive conspiracy meant to undermine the very sanctity and structure of our country (Putin's goal, probably not Trump because he's just the patsie here.)

It's of historically epic proportion. I don't know man, I agree, conspiracy seems way too soft a term.

I don't want people to get things twisted... I'm the fucking guy that predicted Trump was going to come in and pull a Putin and bomb his own people if things got rough to stir up a terrorism scare. And while I think he has enough wag the dog tools available, I still wouldn't put that past him. Though he's fucked himself with the IC now to the extent something like that is probably off the table.

So, fellas, if you think me saying treason won't stick in court means I'm some normalizing, enabler. Respectfully, you haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying for 2 years.

Not going to curse at anyone, but pretty frustrating.