• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Bus Driver

Impeachment = Violence

115 posts in this topic

Roger Stone says any politician who votes for Impeachment is "endangering their own life".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Both sides are armed..."  Nope. I can see a one-sided kerfuffle happening, however. 

"Endangering their own life." That is the cynical civics Mr. Stone has been manipulating for quite a while.

WTF Roger? Trump's unsuitability for the job is the problem. And not even Andrew Jackson should try this stuff right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reminds me of the homeless guy in every major city with a sign that says   'the end is near'

stone's jacket is a little cleaner though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Dooh!

 

 

Ahh.  Looked, but didn't see that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Trump supporters would get violent for ANY impeachment reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, solosailor said:

So Trump supporters would get violent for ANY impeachment reason?

Trump's critics have called for his impeachment without ANY grounds. Stone's point is that if Trump supporters perceived that impeachment were to proceed without legitimate grounds there would be in violence. I suspect he's right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Dog said:

Trump's critics have called for his impeachment without ANY grounds.

This is a blatant and obvious fucking lie.

Stone's point is that if Trump supporters perceived that impeachment were to proceed without legitimate grounds there would be in violence. I suspect he's right.

And Hillary would be worse.

Dog, why do you lie so much? Is the truth soo-o unpalatable to you personally? Or are you so dazzled by Trump's brilliance (gold! gold everywhere!) that you don't see what is under your nose?

Grounds for impeachment are well laid out. 1- financial impropriety 2- personal interests contrary to the good of the country 3- mental instability and any one of those should have been grounds for the Electoral College to not seat Trump in the first place, but the uber-partisan Republicans wouldn't hear of it. Now responsible Republicans are wondering if they do start impeachment proceedings before Mueller weighs in, will they get a 10X bigger basket of snakes with Pence?

Frankly I'm glad to see so many Republicans repudiating Nazism and thinking of the good of the country over party, but I'm disappointed that you're not fully on board.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Trump's critics have called for his impeachment without ANY grounds. Stone's point is that if Trump supporters perceived that impeachment were to proceed without legitimate grounds there would be in violence. I suspect he's right.

after the trumpkin uprising gets shut down....which will be fun to watch as the bloodied trumpsters are dragged off to jail.....i predict there will be a new anti-police movement called trump-lives-matter....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Trump's critics have called for his impeachment without ANY grounds. Stone's point is that if Trump supporters perceived that impeachment were to proceed without legitimate grounds there would be in violence. I suspect he's right.

I've called for impeachment based on two grounds, obstruction of justice and violating the emoluments clause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

I've called for impeachment based on two grounds, obstruction of justice and violating the emoluments clause.

There has been no finding wrt those things so they can't form grounds for impeachment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

There has been no finding wrt those things so they can't form grounds for impeachment.

They don't care.   They know in their little progressive hearts that Trump should never have won and impeachment is simply a means to correct that terrible mistake.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dog said:

There has been no finding wrt those things so they can't form grounds for impeachment.

Investigations are still ongoing.  Until he's exonerated, they are still grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impeachment is the will of the American people and if Congress sees fit to go there, we go there. The Constitution describes "high crimes and misdemeanors," it is entirely up to Congress to decide how that is interpreted.  If fatso's want to get off their wide body Barcaloungers and throw a fit about it let them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

Investigations are still ongoing.  Until he's exonerated, they are still grounds.

Not in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dog said:

Trump's critics have called for his impeachment without ANY grounds. Stone's point is that if Trump supporters perceived that impeachment were to proceed without legitimate grounds there would be in violence. I suspect he's right.

Illuminate legitimate grounds, please...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, solosailor said:

So Trump supporters would get violent for ANY impeachment reason?

I would have no problem with Pence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, solosailor said:

So Trump supporters would get violent for ANY impeachment reason?

It's ok!  Trump will

- pay for legal representation if you're caught 

- pardon anyone who is convicted and important enough

Go for it, dudes!  Trump has your back!  You might be made a scapegoat, but hey, if you believe, and go down,  the revolution will honor your memory!  This is bigger than yourself!  This is your immortality!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Amati said:

It's ok!  Trump will

- pay for legal representation if you're caught 

- pardon anyone who is convicted and important enough

Go for it, dudes!  Trump has your back!  You might be made a scapegoat, but hey, if you believe, and go down,  the revolution will honor your memory!  This is bigger than yourself!  This is your immortality!

 

 

Grow up , son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Moderate said:

I would have no problem with Pence

Would you trust him, alone, with your wife, sisters, daughters, or mother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Moderate said:

Grow up , son.

It makes me glad that you don't believe Trump's promises.  It is kind of cynical on your part though....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Amati said:

Would you trust him, alone, with your wife, sisters, daughters, or mother?

Ill trust him as long as he pays cash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Moderate said:

Ill trust him as long as he pays cash

Pimping?  Silly boy, Trump, er, Pence, never pays for it.  He's a winner! B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Amati said:

Pimping?

In god we trust, all others pay cash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Amati said:
38 minutes ago, Moderate said:

I would have no problem with Pence

Would you trust him, alone, with your wife, sisters, daughters, or mother?

I'm sure he wouldn't have touched them, since he apparently prefers boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ishmael said:

I'm sure he wouldn't have touched them, since he apparently prefers boys.

Ooops!  Judges?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Amati said:

Would you trust him, alone, with your wife, sisters, daughters, or mother?

Pence doesn't trust himself with anyone other than his own wife. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Amati said:

Illuminate legitimate grounds, please...

Actual, as opposed to alleged, crimes and misdemeanors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Amati said:

Ooops!  Judges?

I think that applies to members of SA only..... Not public figures, and as far as I can tell, neither Pence, nor Trump are actual SA members.

I could be 100% wrong on this though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Actual, as opposed to alleged, crimes and misdemeanors.

Impeachment is a trial where it's determined if it's a high crime and misdemeanor  as opposed to alleged.

so in you mind, we can't have an impeachment because it hasn't occurred, the trial that is.  Kinda a catch 22 eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

Impeachment is a trial where it's determined if it's a high crime and misdemeanor  as opposed to alleged.

so in you mind, we can't have an impeachment because it hasn't occurred, the trial that is.  Kinda a catch 22 eh?

Beat me to it. :) Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But would it be ok for Trump to put a bounty on Congress, or say the Liberal Judiciary and pardon anyone who signs up to do the work ahead of time?  Or after?

if so, it would be unstoppable. Like a license to kill.  It would also explain Trump's loyalty to his base...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dogs often circle a few times before they shit. Some say it's because they always shit in a north/south axis.... I think that's incorrect, because my dog sometimes shits facing east/west, and sometimes north/south..... And he doesn't always circle before squatting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mrleft8 said:

Dogs often circle a few times before they shit. Some say it's because they always shit in a north/south axis.... I think that's incorrect, because my dog sometimes shits facing east/west, and sometimes north/south..... And he doesn't always circle before squatting.

Ours circles before and during.  Makes pickup at night, um, more interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Pence doesn't trust himself with anyone other than his own wife. 

And presumably the Pence's don't believe in birth control, so the scenario gets more bizarre from there....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2017 at 9:47 AM, Dog said:

Trump's critics have called for his impeachment without ANY grounds. Stone's point is that if Trump supporters perceived that impeachment were to proceed without legitimate grounds there would be in violence. I suspect he's right.

When I was in college the Republican Party determined that lying was grounds for impeachment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dog said:

Actual, as opposed to alleged, crimes and misdemeanors.

Are you of the opinion that President Trump has committed no crimes?  

Do you believe Mr. Mueller will exonerate President Trump at the conclusion of his investigation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lark said:

When I was in college the Republican Party determined that lying was grounds for impeachment.  

The Pride of the GOP doesn't lie, he just doesn't prioritize the truth as much as others do....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

Dogs often circle a few times before they shit. Some say it's because they always shit in a north/south axis.... I think that's incorrect, because my dog sometimes shits facing east/west, and sometimes north/south..... And he doesn't always circle before squatting.

The reason they circle a few times it to knock down the tall weeds so their butts don't get tickled when they squat.  They even do it when there aren't weeds.  Go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

The reason they circle a few times it to knock down the tall weeds so their butts don't get tickled when they squat.  They even do it when there aren't weeds.  Go figure.

I had a dog that would circle three times in a river, to stir up the sediment.   He would then lay down, butt upstream, and drink the water filtered through his thick coat.   :huh:   I suppose that way he didn't get water up his nose.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mark K said:

The Clenched Fist Of Truth v. what? The Gaping Orifice Of Lies?

Pretty much. The Gaping Orifice is understandably aggravated because she routinely breaks the main lefty Taboo by saying bad things about gun bans and confiscation programs. Therefore, when she denounces violence, she must be calling for it. Oh, and white supremacy too. Especially white Russians! EEK!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

click the link, read the thread...

Stone wasn't giving his opinion, he was explaining what he's been up to lately.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only two presidential impeachment trials were political, one was over a president firing a cabinet secretary (well within presidential powers and the other over lying about a blowjob.  Impeachment, as it has been practiced, is a political process rather than judicial.  Trump has said and done more than enough to be impeached but just hasn't committed enough of a political transgression to warrant the action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2017 at 6:47 AM, Dog said:

Trump's critics have called for his impeachment without ANY grounds.

You mean to say that being a constantly lying sack of shit as well as manifestly incompetent are not grounds for impeachment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

You mean to say that being a constantly lying sack of shit as well as manifestly incompetent are not grounds for impeachment?

No, I don't believe they are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

No, I don't believe they are. 

Doesn't rise to the offense of a blowjob you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

Doesn't rise to the offense of a blowjob you mean.

Blowjob from a fat Polack, extenuating circumstances as you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

Doesn't rise to the offense of a blowjob you mean.

Blowjobs are not grounds for impeachment either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dog said:

Blowjobs are not grounds for impeachment either.

How about obstruction of justice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Dog said:

Blowjobs are not grounds for impeachment either.

Anything that meets the current standard for "High crimes and misdemeanors" in the House of Representatives is chargeable. If they say it is, it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

How about obstruction of justice?

How does a blowjob obstruct justice?

Blowing the judge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

How does a blowjob obstruct justice?

Blowing the judge?

If the investigator is looking into blowjobs and you use your presidential powers to fire said investigator, it might be obstruction of justice for a blowjob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

How does a blowjob obstruct justice?

Blowing the judge?

Which is why "blow the guy" takes on an entirely different meaning outside the world of sailboat racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2017 at 6:47 AM, Dog said:

Trump's critics have called for his impeachment without ANY grounds. Stone's point is that if Trump supporters perceived that impeachment were to proceed without legitimate grounds there would be in violence. I suspect he's right.

Republicans were pretty OK with impeaching Clinton for getting a blow job or was it that he got a blowjob while under oath? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dog said:

Blowjobs are not grounds for impeachment either.

What about anal? Are we good with that or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bhyde said:

What about anal? Are we good with that or not?

She is.

 

calm.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dog said:

Blowjobs are not grounds for impeachment either.

The meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" can include a heck of a lot of stuff. The meaning of the world "misdemeanors" at that time meant "bad behavior".  

 

 

Quote

 

1788, Hamilton went on to say that impeachment was intended ''for those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.'' Hamilton added, ''They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself.''

Hamilton's capitalization of ''political,'' more than one legal commentator noted, signified that the Founders meant impeachment to deal with official misdeeds of a high order, not with petty squabbles.

Or scandals involving assertions of perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power? Hamilton was silent on a point, for a change.

But he made it clear (in The Federalist, No. 69) that he and his colleagues did anticipate the possibility that an impeachment proceeding might embarrass the Chief Executive. One difference between the President and the British King, he noted, was ''the one would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and inviolable.''

The Federalist pulled no punches when predicting that proceedings to remove office holders in a Republic are likely to be painful and divisive for the country. That was only to be expected, Hamilton said. ''Is it not designed,'' he asked his readers, ''as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men?''

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/14/us/testing-president-constitution-federalist-papers-have-unusual-public-airing.html

Essentially, an impeachable offence is anything the majority of the House says it is. Impeachment does not mean removal from office, as demonstrated by the Clinton situation, he was impeached by the House but not the Senate, yet it is correct to say he was impeached. Hamilton believed it to be a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, HardOnWind said:
On 8/25/2017 at 9:47 AM, Dog said:

Trump's critics have called for his impeachment without ANY grounds. Stone's point is that if Trump supporters perceived that impeachment were to proceed without legitimate grounds there would be in violence. I suspect he's right.

Republicans were pretty OK with impeaching Clinton for getting a blow job or was it that he got a blowjob while under oath? 

Well, a legalistic technicality: he was impeached for lying about a blowjob. Lying is bad. Imagine what would have happened if Clinton had lied about something important, like selling uranium to the Russians or running a kiddy porn ring in a basement.

Lying is SO-O bad that the Republicans have foisted off on the nation a President who lies constantly just to drive home the point.

Will he get impeached for that? He's pretty much innocent by reason of having an "R" after his name, fr a significant portion of the country's voters and legislators.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, a legalistic technicality: he was impeached for lying about a blowjob. Lying is bad. Imagine what would have happened if Clinton had lied about something important, like selling uranium to the Russians or running a kiddy porn ring in a basement.

Lying is SO-O bad that the Republicans have foisted off on the nation a President who lies constantly just to drive home the point.

Will he get impeached for that? He's pretty much innocent by reason of having an "R" after his name, fr a significant portion of the country's voters and legislators.

-DSK

Good point.  Bill Clinton was Impeached over a lie.  

Is a lie grounds for Impeaching President Trump?  Lord knows we have a plethora from which to choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, a legalistic technicality: he was impeached for lying about a blowjob. Lying is bad. Imagine what would have happened if Clinton had lied about something important, like selling uranium to the Russians or running a kiddy porn ring in a basement.

Lying is SO-O bad that the Republicans have foisted off on the nation a President who lies constantly just to drive home the point.

Will he get impeached for that? He's pretty much innocent by reason of having an "R" after his name, fr a significant portion of the country's voters and legislators.

-DSK

Bill Clinton was impeached for obstructing justice and lying under oath to a grand jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dog said:

Bill Clinton was impeached for obstructing justice and lying under oath to a grand jury.

He was a Democrat impeached by a Republican Congress, the lying was the best thing they could come with after spending ~four years and >$60 million investigating. And he lied about a blow job, period.

And Republicans want to screech "You unfair partisans, you!" at Democrats all the time. How about cleaning your own house? Maybe something about beams and motes is in order? But no, it's about power and money, fuck the country.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

He was a Democrat impeached by a Republican Congress, the lying was the best thing they could come with after spending ~four years and >$60 million investigating. And he lied about a blow job, period.

And Republicans want to screech "You unfair partisans, you!" at Democrats all the time. How about cleaning your own house? Maybe something about beams and motes is in order? But no, it's about power and money, fuck the country.

-DSK

I'm sorry to resort to reality here but Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

I'm sorry to resort to reality here but Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

About a blowjob

By a Republican Congress

Who spent >$60 million of our hard-earned money on a fishing expedition for SOMETHING to impeach him over.

If you want to use the facts, you can cherry pick some of them but not all of them

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

About a blowjob

By a Republican Congress

Who spent >$60 million of our hard-earned money on a fishing expedition for SOMETHING to impeach him over.

If you want to use the facts, you can cherry pick some of them but not all of them

-DSK

Perjury and obstruction of justice in a effort to subvert the judicial process in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

Perjury and obstruction of justice in a effort to subvert the judicial process in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. 

Both charges resulted from Clinton's involvement with Monica Lewinsky, which should never have been investigated in the first place. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/explainthree122098.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Both charges resulted from Clinton's involvement with Monica Lewinsky, which should never have been investigated in the first place. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/explainthree122098.htm

Both charges resulted from Clintons efforts to subvert the judicial process and deny an American citizen her right to pursue justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dog said:

Both charges resulted from Clintons efforts to subvert the judicial process and deny an American citizen her right to pursue justice.

Both charges resulted from Clinton's involvement with Monica Lewinsky, which should never have been investigated in the first place. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/explainthree122098.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Both charges resulted from Clinton's involvement with Monica Lewinsky, which should never have been investigated in the first place. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/explainthree122098.htm

Clinton's involvement with Lewinski was evidence of a pattern of behavior that formed part of Paula Jones's case against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

Clinton's involvement with Lewinski was evidence of a pattern of behavior that formed part of Paula Jones's case against him.

Cite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, badlatitude said:

JFC you made the claim

If you don't even understand the case there's no point in this. Go educate yourself. I've got work to do here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

If you don't even understand the case there's no point in this. Go educate yourself. I've got work to do here.

That's why I posted the WaPo link. The charges surrounded behavior between the president and Lewinsky. You chose to ignore that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

That's why I posted the WaPo link. The charges surrounded behavior between the president and Lewinsky. You chose to ignore that.

I hardly ignored it, I explained its significance to the Paula Jones's case. You do understand that the perjury and obstruction was wrt the Paula Jones case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

I hardly ignored it, I explained its significance to the Paula Jones's case.

The Paula Jones case has nothing to do with the charges the House made against Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

The Paula Jones case has nothing to do with the charges the House made against Clinton.

Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Really?

The Paula Jones case gave rise to the circumstances between Lewinsky and Clinton. Two other charges one for perjury, the other for abuse of power, were rejected and were not placed on the charge sheet.The charges may have stemmed from the Paula Jones case, but make no mistake, they intended to damage the president with charges surrounding his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Clinton's involvement with Lewinski was evidence of a pattern of behavior that formed part of Paula Jones's case against him.

Oh, so we are cool with the "pattern of behavior" being part of the reasoning?  Be careful, your Messiah has quite a pattern of behavior he's exhibited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Oh, so we are cool with the "pattern of behavior" being part of the reasoning?  Be careful, your Messiah has quite a pattern of behavior he's exhibited.

Yeah, I'm ok with pattern of behavior as a consideration in legal deliberations, not that it matters what I think.  Don't get you panties in a twist BD, I'm just keeping it real here. Some posters, (you included) apparently think Clinton was impeached over a blowjob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be highly likely Trump will be subpoenaed by the GJ.  In order to compel him to testify and not take the fifth, Mueller will likely offer him immunity.  This is where it gets cray cray.  If he lies to the GJ, that's grounds for impeachment and a criminal offense not covered by the immunity deal.  If he is honest, he will basically admit to obstruction of justice and the immunity deal will protect him from jail, but not impeachment.  I like how this is playing out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

It will be highly likely Trump will be subpoenaed by the GJ.  In order to compel him to testify and not take the fifth, Mueller will likely offer him immunity.  This is where it gets cray cray.  If he lies to the GJ, that's grounds for impeachment and a criminal offense not covered by the immunity deal.  If he is honest, he will basically admit to obstruction of justice and the immunity deal will protect him from jail, but not impeachment.  I like how this is playing out.

What do you expect will be the underlying offense they would want him to testify to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

It will be highly likely Trump will be subpoenaed by the GJ.  In order to compel him to testify and not take the fifth, Mueller will likely offer him immunity.  This is where it gets cray cray.  If he lies to the GJ, that's grounds for impeachment and a criminal offense not covered by the immunity deal.  If he is honest, he will basically admit to obstruction of justice and the immunity deal will protect him from jail, but not impeachment.  I like how this is playing out.

The House can reject any and all findings and do not have to impeach; it is completely their within their purview to dismiss any charges as irrelevant. States, however, are not likely to remain silent. Somewhere, and at some time, Trump and company will receive justice. Mr. Trump cannot pardon a state crime, and state prisons are hellholes, somehow, I prefer justice done right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

The House can reject any and all findings and do not have to impeach; it is completely their within their purview to dismiss any charges as irrelevant. States, however, are not likely to remain silent. Somewhere, and at some time, Trump and company will receive justice. Mr. Trump cannot pardon a state crime, and state prisons are hellholes, somehow, I prefer justice done right.

What do you expect will be the crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Dog said:

What do you expect will be the crime?

New York State will likely go after tax fraud, money laundering, conspiracy in computer hacking, conspiracy to violate privacy, loan fraud and mortgage fraud. The bad news is Trump is involved in many states, it should be interesting to see how many prosecutions he ends up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badlatitude said:

New York State will likely go after tax fraud, money laundering, conspiracy in computer hacking, conspiracy to violate privacy, loan fraud and mortgage fraud. The bad news is Trump is involved in many states, it should be interesting to see how many prosecutions he ends up with.

What are they waiting for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

What are they waiting for?

Same as Mueller, still investigating. You don't prosecute a standing president unless all your i's are dotted, and t's are crossed. No attorney general wants to lose that case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:

I hardly ignored it

You ignore it every time you try to over ride somebody who says Clinton was impeached over a blow job.

You can say that Clinton was impeached for lying over a blow job, but to say that he was impeached for lying is a case of dishonesty by omission. The root cause (pardon the pun) was the blow job.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

What do you expect will be the underlying offense they would want him to testify to?

I think it will focus on the Russian meeting with Junior.  They can probably tag Jr., Manafort and Jarod with a felony.   Make the big guy say he didn't know anything about it.  Make him explain why he fabricated the false response for his son.  If he tells the truth, he might get pinched for obstruction of justice.  If he lies, then we know how that will come down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

What do you expect will be the crime?

Oh, its clear.  Obstruction of Justice.  I think they already have enough to bring charges, but there are a few loose ends that could be very valuable in a criminal trial.  That's why I think they will offer Trump immunity.  Get him on the stand just like Clinton, he will have a choice.  Lie or tell the truth.  Either way he's toast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dog said:

Yeah, I'm ok with pattern of behavior as a consideration in legal deliberations, not that it matters what I think.  Don't get you panties in a twist BD, I'm just keeping it real here. Some posters, (you included) apparently think Clinton was impeached over a blowjob.

I am pretty darned sure you'll have a helluva time finding a post from me that says "Clinton was impeached over a blowjob". 

Hopefully, you won't go all TM and start with "Well you said THIS, but we all know you meant THAT."  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

You ignore it every time you try to over ride somebody who says Clinton was impeached over a blow job.

You can say that Clinton was impeached for lying over a blow job, but to say that he was impeached for lying is a case of dishonesty by omission. The root cause (pardon the pun) was the blow job.

-DSK

Dude, he wasn't impeached because he had a blowjob. He was impeached for lying to a grand jury and suborning a false testimony. Sorry BD if I lumped you in with this idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dog said:

Dude, he wasn't impeached because he had a blowjob. He was impeached for lying to a grand jury and suborning a false testimony. Sorry BD if I lumped you in with this idiot.

This part of your post is true

13 minutes ago, Dog said:

Dude, he wasn't impeached because he had a blowjob. He was impeached for lying to a grand jury and suborning a false testimony. Sorry BD if I lumped you in with this idiot.

This part is false, and misleading.

What did he lie -about-? Something important, like national security? Major financial misdeed? Oh, doesn't matter because..... he had a "D" after his name?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dog said:

Dude, he wasn't impeached because he had a blowjob. He was impeached for lying to a grand jury and suborning a false testimony. Sorry BD if I lumped you in with this idiot.

That was back when Republicans found a President who blatantly lied to be unacceptable.

Those were the days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

That was back when Republicans found a President who blatantly lied to be unacceptable.

Those were the days. 

Agreed...Today it's the Democrats turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump tweeted, "Professor...Congrats...good call!" after Lichtman predicted in October 2016 that DJT would be elected the next POTUS. What he didn't know was the same prof—a forecaster, who has called the last eight elections—also said Trump would be impeached.

Lichtman, “The Case for Impeachment,” Author's Note, xiii.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Captain Gigi said:

Trump tweeted, "Professor...Congrats...good call!" after Lichtman predicted in October 2016 that DJT would be elected the next POTUS. What he didn't know was the same prof—a forecaster, who has called the last eight elections—also said Trump would be impeached.

Lichtman, “The Case for Impeachment,” Author's Note, xiii.png

When did Lichtman write that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2017 at 8:54 PM, Bus Driver said:

I am pretty darned sure you'll have a helluva time finding a post from me that says "Clinton was impeached over a blowjob". 

Hopefully, you won't go all TM and start with "Well you said THIS, but we all know you meant THAT."  

 

 

   On 8/19/2017 at 4:53 AM,  Bus Driver said: 

This is TM. He is nothing, if not loyal. I read a similar statement, almost verbatim, in an interview with a Nazi at Charlottesville. 

Now, I am NOT saying TM is a Nazi. He just talks like one, and seems to be cool with them. Since they are aligning themselves with Team Red, he is going to defend them.

It's who he is. It's what he does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

 

   On 8/19/2017 at 4:53 AM,  Bus Driver said: 

This is TM. He is nothing, if not loyal. I read a similar statement, almost verbatim, in an interview with a Nazi at Charlottesville. 

Now, I am NOT saying TM is a Nazi. He just talks like one, and seems to be cool with them. Since they are aligning themselves with Team Red, he is going to defend them.

It's who he is. It's what he does. 

It's the TDS talking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0