The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
Moderators: Shirley, Sabo, brian, rass, DaveInSeattle
- govmentchedda
- The Dude
- Posts: 12759
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:36 pm
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
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.
Until everything is less insane, I'm mixing weed with wine.
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
I just assumed everyone on the Swamp is a lawyer. How else can we explain all the free time we have to post here?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.
THERE’S NOWT WRONG WITH GALA LUNCHEONS, LAD!
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
Billable. Hours.Sabo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:24 pmI just assumed everyone on the Swamp is a lawyer. How else can we explain all the free time we have to post here?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.
Dances with Wolves (1) - BSF
"This place was rockin'," said BSF21.
"There is nothing ever uncommon about BSF21."
"This place was rockin'," said BSF21.
"There is nothing ever uncommon about BSF21."
- DSafetyGuy
- The Dude
- Posts: 8786
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:29 pm
- Location: Behind the high school
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
I would be curious to the response if Fox News suddenly flipped and went anti-Trump.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.
“All I'm sayin' is, he comes near me, I'll put him in the wall.”
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
I would pay to see that.DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:26 pmI would be curious to the response if Fox News suddenly flipped and went anti-Trump.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.
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
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.
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
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 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.
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
I'd like to predict that if they ever turn, it'll be something even dumber than that.
- The Sybian
- The Dude
- Posts: 18972
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
- Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
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:DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:26 pmI would be curious to the response if Fox News suddenly flipped and went anti-Trump.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.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
-Pruitt
- Pruitt
- The Dude
- Posts: 18105
- Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:02 am
- Location: North Shore of Lake Ontario
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
This is the United States in the 21st Century.
Jeff Sessions announces a religious liberty task force to combat “dangerous” secularism
Jeff Sessions announces a religious liberty task force to combat “dangerous” secularism
"beautiful, with an exotic-yet-familiar facial structure and an arresting gaze."
- DSafetyGuy
- The Dude
- Posts: 8786
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:29 pm
- Location: Behind the high school
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
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.The Sybian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:30 pmAbout 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:DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:26 pmI would be curious to the response if Fox News suddenly flipped and went anti-Trump.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.
“All I'm sayin' is, he comes near me, I'll put him in the wall.”
- Pruitt
- The Dude
- Posts: 18105
- Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:02 am
- Location: North Shore of Lake Ontario
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
Trump's base is large enough that those morons will always have an audience for their demagoguery and will never need to change.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.
"beautiful, with an exotic-yet-familiar facial structure and an arresting gaze."
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
I think Hannity used to and might still draw a salary from Trump?
"What a bunch of pedantic pricks." - sybian
- The Sybian
- The Dude
- Posts: 18972
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
- Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
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.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.
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 to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
-Pruitt
- Pruitt
- The Dude
- Posts: 18105
- Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:02 am
- Location: North Shore of Lake Ontario
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
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.The Sybian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:45 pmActually, 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.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.
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.
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.
"beautiful, with an exotic-yet-familiar facial structure and an arresting gaze."
- The Sybian
- The Dude
- Posts: 18972
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
- Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
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.Pruitt wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:52 pmAn 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.The Sybian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:45 pmActually, 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.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.
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.
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.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
-Pruitt
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
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?
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?
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
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.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.
- Pruitt
- The Dude
- Posts: 18105
- Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:02 am
- Location: North Shore of Lake Ontario
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
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
Who Pretty Much Worship Trump
"beautiful, with an exotic-yet-familiar facial structure and an arresting gaze."
- Nonlinear FC
- The Dude
- Posts: 10883
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
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.
And Mueller's team has over 30 other witnesses.
Fucked.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
Wonder why Glenn deleted 27k tweets?
well this is gonna be someone's new signature - bronto
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
Because he runs a shady operation.
The Intercept hung Reality Winner out to dry.
The Intercept hung Reality Winner out to dry.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
- Nonlinear FC
- The Dude
- Posts: 10883
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
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.
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.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
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.
-
- The Dude
- Posts: 12014
- Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:07 pm
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
okey-dokey.calling for totally unreasonable legal charges against a sitting president.
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
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.
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
LOL.
well this is gonna be someone's new signature - bronto
- Nonlinear FC
- The Dude
- Posts: 10883
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
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.tennbengal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:41 amokey-dokey.calling for totally unreasonable legal charges against a sitting president.
So, yeah, okey fucking doke.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
I cannot eloquently put into words the reasons why I feel so strongly about treasonous/traitorous actions by this administration.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.
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/
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
- A_B
- The Dude
- Posts: 23445
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:48 amIf 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.tennbengal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:41 amokey-dokey.calling for totally unreasonable legal charges against a sitting president.
So, yeah, okey fucking doke.
EXCUSE ME...
You know what you need? A lyrical sucker punch to the face.
- Nonlinear FC
- The Dude
- Posts: 10883
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
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.Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:51 amI cannot eloquently put into words the reasons why I feel so strongly about treasonous/traitorous actions by this administration.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.
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/
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."
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
Wittingly or not he engaged in a form of gaslighting, and you knocked it the fuck out of the park.Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:51 amI cannot eloquently put into words the reasons why I feel so strongly about treasonous/traitorous actions by this administration.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.
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/
Noli Timere Messorem
-
- The Dude
- Posts: 12014
- Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:07 pm
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
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.Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:48 amIf 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.tennbengal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:41 amokey-dokey.calling for totally unreasonable legal charges against a sitting president.
So, yeah, okey fucking doke.
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.
Last edited by tennbengal on Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
Your previous statement reads a whole lot better with this addendum.Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:05 amHave 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.Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:51 amI cannot eloquently put into words the reasons why I feel so strongly about treasonous/traitorous actions by this administration.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.
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/
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."
Noli Timere Messorem
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
Yes. Very, very fair point on the legal definition.EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:08 amYour previous statement reads a whole lot better with this addendum.Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:05 amHave 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.Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:51 amI cannot eloquently put into words the reasons why I feel so strongly about treasonous/traitorous actions by this administration.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.
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/
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."
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.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
- Nonlinear FC
- The Dude
- Posts: 10883
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
Maybe take your frustrations out on the appropriate people. You want to call this treason, have it.tennbengal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:07 amSo 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.Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:48 amIf 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.tennbengal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:41 amokey-dokey.calling for totally unreasonable legal charges against a sitting president.
So, yeah, okey fucking doke.
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.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
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).
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
-
- The Dude
- Posts: 12014
- Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:07 pm
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
Oh boy, thanks!Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:25 amMaybe take your frustrations out on the appropriate people. You want to call this treason, have it.tennbengal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:07 amSo 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.Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:48 amIf 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.tennbengal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:41 amokey-dokey.calling for totally unreasonable legal charges against a sitting president.
So, yeah, okey fucking doke.
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.
- Nonlinear FC
- The Dude
- Posts: 10883
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm
Re: The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)
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.)Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:15 amYes. Very, very fair point on the legal definition.EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:08 amYour previous statement reads a whole lot better with this addendum.Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:05 amHave 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.Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:51 amI cannot eloquently put into words the reasons why I feel so strongly about treasonous/traitorous actions by this administration.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.
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/
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."
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 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.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.