The Unknown Poster

Lol Fox

This doesn’t have been an worse for Rudy unless he stuck his fingers on his ears and said nanananana I cant hear you. He refused to even listen to the clip of himself contradicting himself and then tried to lie about it again after. What a fall from grace

My gf worked at this law firm

So the issue wouldn't be if he actually sexually assaulted someone, its only if he's found guilty in court? Knowing a President is unlikely to be permitted to be indicted, how would that work? Thats a very convenient way to say "if he is proven in court to have committed a crime, I would turn against him" when he cant actually be taken to court for a crime...

Sexual assault would not be a redline?

Given your answer in the previous post, I think I understand. For example to me, being a racist is a red line. Being a homophobe is a red line. We can't always know whats in the heart of the person but Trump doesnt hide who he is. I dont care who he sleeps with. Paying people off raises concerns of blackmail though. Those are legitimate concerns. Quid pro quo doesnt sit well with me either. I wouldnt condone impeaching him over it. But I wouldnt vote for him. Sexual assault is a red line (trump has multiple accusers, including a very young girl).

Like I said, we cant go back so no one can say. If you want to take exception to someone saying he wouldn't win, you cant also say he would. To over-look how badly he was doing right before the Comey thing (and the fact Trump and his team thought he'd lose) is silly. Sure, the Russian Collusion and micro-targeting did a fine job of creating a victory in the electoral college out of a resounding popular vote defeat. But it turned on the Comey news. Speaking of Trump, if you liked him then and would vote for him now, what's your red line?

One of the votes was unanimous as I recall (Im too busy to look it up right now, and dont really care to be honest lol). My point being, if Congress voted unanimously or even mostly, it doesnt make something right or wrong, it just makes it lawful (to the US perspective anyway). And it becomes a voting issue...if people dont like how their representative does his/her job, vote for someone else next time. Impeachment should be for criminality. I've said that from the beginning with Trump too. They dont get to impeach because they regret who won. Thats for the next election. One million dead in Iraq says it was a fierce war. We can debate whether they should have gone in or not. But to suggest a President of the United States is a mass murderer for ordering troops to conduct war is absurd in my opinion. War Criminal would be a far more suitable allegation but in this case, I dont think it merits it. Bush isn't a war criminal. You might dislike him enough to think so, but he isn't. Opinions are opinions and facts are facts. I dont begrudge people who dont like W. I did (I know some people like to think Im a leftist liberal but Im not). But debating W is a rabbit hole that isnt really relevant. We should agree to disagree!

Geeez...WWE stock jumps from $43 (which is really high) to $51 after the news I posted yesterday. You know, there was a time WWE stock was at like $7 and I really considered buying $10,000 worth because we knew it would rise but this much?

He wouldnt win. I mean, we cant do what you're proposing so who knows. But he was as good as gone until Comey opened his yap. Even Trump thought so. I wont make it personal but if someone says "knowing what we do, I'd still vote for Trump"....yikes.

Didnt everyone vote in favour of invading Iraq? And Bush was not a mass murderer. Hyperbole like that ends any sensible discussion. I do agree that only the elite can really become President right now. And the type of reform it would take to change that, none of the people in power would ever do. Although, even if you're a young idealist, the power changes you. Clinton's are a good example (though I admit I like them). Its hard not to paint everyone with the same brush. But then the only answer is to not care, stop voting and take it as it comes. Who wants that? One thing Trump has shown us is, it can always be worse. So being engaged and taking part in the process is important. Abandoning it wont work.

Thats a good idea. Ill take my niece. Along as the weather is decent. Mid October...?

Im not sure if its a gender thing but this crops up a lot. Whenever Hilary says anything its, "why doesnt she go away". But older male politicians, doesnt happen. She doesnt have to go away. The Clintons are big time leaders in the Democratic party, whether we like it or not.

To be fair, Trump and his admin reference Obama (and Clinton) far more than Obama referenced his predecessors.

As I read other opinions, he's probably correct in that Trump *could* be indicted. But he would not be tried while President. The Supreme Court has never weighed in (Nixon resigned before they would have had to) but I cant imagine they'd allow it. But if Mueller find indictable offenses were committed by Trump, I imagine he'd not indict. He'd refer it back to Rosenstein and let the DOJ decide. It would almost assuredly result in Impeachment in the House (especially if the Dems win control this year). Its hard to imagine the Senate convicting though. But you never know, if the GOP majority wants to wash its hands of trump, or if the offenses are really nasty, they might turn on him. There is a feeling some of the work being done at the State level might be to pardon-proof certain people. The President? Maybe. Its also possible nothing happens until he's out of office. He could also be named as an unindicted co-conspirator. Which isnt something you want if you're the President.

Video at the link

The other opinion is that a president CAN be indicted but likely not tried until out of office. “ Washington (CNN)Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, says he thinks President Donald Trump could be indicted, despite Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani expressing otherwise. "The President is not above the law, and an indictment -- if that's the course that Robert Mueller chooses to go -- I believe would be upheld by the courts," Blumenthal said on CNN's "The Situation Room."

Hmmmm “there has been much speculation about who leaked the confidential documents, and the Treasury Department’s inspector general has launched a probe to find the source. That source, a law-enforcement official, is speaking publicly for the first time, to The New Yorker, to explain the motivation: the official had grown alarmed after being unable to find two important reports on Cohen’s financial activity in a government database. The official, worried that the information was being withheld from law enforcement, released the remaining documents. The report also refers to two previous suspicious-activity reports, or sars, that the bank had filed, which documented even larger flows of questionable money into Cohen’s account. Those two reports detail more than three million dollars in additional transactions—triple the amount in the report released last week. Which individuals or corporations were involved remains a mystery. But, according to the official who leaked the report, these sars were absent from the database maintained by the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or fincen. The official, who has spent a career in law enforcement, told me, “I have never seen something pulled off the system. . . . That system is a safeguard for the bank. It’s a stockpile of information. When something’s not there that should be, I immediately became concerned.” The official added, “That’s why I came forward.”

No surprise here. We’ve talked about this. Mueller will submit report to Rosenstein with a recommendation. If there are indictable offendes it would likely be refered to the House for impeachment.

Trump has had so many scandals that, had they happened to Obama, any one of which would have been career threatening. The sheer abundance of insanity around trump has sort of changed the standard. For the worse.

Asked for home care, was offered death instead. (A bit more to it but essentially that’s his story)