The Swamp

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.

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?

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.

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.

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try to manufacture genuine, passionate conviction when agreeing that they could no longer abide by Trump after he rescinded the Omaha World Herald's press credentials.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

calling for totally unreasonable legal charges against a sitting president.

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

The Intercept hung Reality Winner out to dry.

tennbengal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:41 am

calling for totally unreasonable legal charges against a sitting president.

okey-dokey.

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.

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.

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/

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/

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.