Chula

What do you think will happen to Don Jr.?

The bolded will be essentially impossible to establish in court given the lack of legislation and the 2010 ruling that limited the rule to bribes and kickbacks.

Ja, I absolutely do not consider DTJ to be reliable, sorry we can't agree on that.

Analogies are nice but are far from legislation that courts rely on to make their decisions. I don't see a case here.

Daddy is going to throw him, Manafort, and Kushner under the bus and plead ignorance about the whole thing.

So he's lying and/or made up the emails which are going to bring a ton of crap down on his head?

This is not going to come down to a Federal court. It's going to come down to the court of public opinion and the Senate. It's going to get harder and harder for GOP senators to back Trump since he and his team have repeatedly lied to them and made them look bad to their constituents.

The key thing is how many Americans continue to have this recent apathy towards Russia. The more people that wake up and remember that Russia is not only an enemy, but also a terrible regime, the better.

How whacked is it that older folks in southern or rural states who voted for Trump have been blinded about history and are now buying Trump's Russia sales pitch. :crazy:

Potentially. My philosophy is that people with a history of dishonesty have far higher standards to meet than normal before I can trust them. I'm not going to say that it's a false flag but I'm not going to say that it's totally true either.

Oh. In that case, Trump will never be impeached, let alone have a trial.

I can't be certain of any outcome in this day and age. Given that your assumption is true, how well do you think impeaching someone over something that isn't illegal will go with constituents?

How so? Read up on the impeachment hearings on Nixon, Clinton, and Jackson. In retrospect this issue is far worse than both Clinton and Jackson and on par with Nixon IMO.

Audio of today's White House press briefing:

Reporter: Question about bombshell.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders: I'm going to refer you to outside counsel.
Reporter: Question about bombshell.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders: I'm going to refer you to outside counsel.
Reporter: Question about bombshell.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders: I'm going to refer you to outside counsel.
Reporter: Question about bombshell.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders: I'm going to refer you to outside counsel.
Reporter: Question about bombshell.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders: I'm going to refer you to outside counsel.
Reporter: Question about bombshell.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders: I'm going to refer you to outside counsel.
Reporter: Question about bombshell.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders: I'm going to refer you to outside counsel.

:bonkhead::bonkhead::bonkhead::D

All of those previous impeachments and impeachment attempts had a Congress on the opposite side of the aisle from them, unlike Trump. That's my reasoning for that particular pithy statement.

And Johnson's impeachment was BS imo. It was essentially entrapment.

The good news about all this drama is that nothing is getting done.

This is also the bad news.

That's my point. I think Congress on his side are going to start slinking away from the guy as the stench gets worse and worse.

Hell, even before all of this he hasn't been able to get anything done through Congress. And Neil Gorsuch doesn't count. A chipmunk could have been the GOP president and Gorsuch would have been confirmed.

You honestly think whatever is put in place by the person working on it will hold them accountable. You got to be kidding me.

It is like putting a wolf in charge of guarding sheep.

Sanctuary citiy policies only apply to the local law enforcement. On a state and federal level, there is nothing that those policies can do to stop the feds coming in. So it isn't unconstitutional.

The only reason Trump is trying so hard to discredit MSM is so that whenever he lies to the public with half truths on Twitter. He believes that his supporters will take his word for it over whatever the MSM reports. Dictatorship 101. Controlling the media.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

I understand what you mean, but pushing through an impeachment on shaky legal grounds is going to be just as or even more politically unsound as standing by Trump.

If immigration is a federally handled issue, then any immigration laws issued by smaller forms of government are unconstitutional :wave:.

It's been less than a year. We're in a drip drip drip process. Sooner or later the puddle is going to get pretty damn big. And it's raining right now.

When asked about the mood of GOP folks on Capital Hill this morning the two words used were "errosion" and "corrosion" of support for the President.

http://dr35ey0x3otoq.cloudfront.net/...864b03e629.gif

Talk ain't never been cheaper.

Not supporting the president =/= will to convict him on weak legal grounds

I agree. The press acting like this is airtight is lol.

KNOCK! KNOCK! KNOCK!

The Senate handles impeachment proceedings.

Kushner lied on his forms to get security clearance.
Trump Jr. lied on his forms to get security clearance.
Michael Flynn lied about Russian connections.
Jeff Sessions lied about Russian connections.
Paul Manafort lied about Russian connections.
And on and on.......

Trump has two options:
1. Pleads ignorance and looks stupid and incompetent and completey out of control of his presidential campaign and current cabinet.
2. Owns up and becomes the biggest liar of them all.

Trump Jr. committed a crime. Manafort and Kushner were in on it. As soon as a foreign government reached out and basically said "We can help you win", the FBI should have been brought in.

The absolute worst thing to do was to respond with "Awesome!"

That is so black and white illegal it's not debatable. Maybe not in the word for word court of law, but the Senate can determine that this **** is not presidential. Doesn't serve the American people. Doesn't help our standing on the International stage. Is just plain wrong on every level.

It's not "conviction", for the third time. It's impeachment.

I can repeat things too
Not supporting the president =/= will to convict him on weak legal grounds
Not supporting the president =/= will to convict him on weak legal grounds
Not supporting the president =/= will to convict him on weak legal grounds
Not supporting the president =/= will to convict him on weak legal grounds
Not supporting the president =/= will to convict him on weak legal grounds
Not supporting the president =/= will to convict him on weak legal grounds
Not supporting the president =/= will to convict him on weak legal grounds
Not supporting the president =/= will to convict him on weak legal grounds
Not supporting the president =/= will to convict him on weak legal grounds
Not supporting the president =/= will to convict him on weak legal grounds
Not supporting the president =/= will to convict him on weak legal grounds
Not supporting the president =/= will to convict him on weak legal grounds

Also, you can be impeached and not convicted of the crime you are impeached for, like Clinton did.

Uh, no. For reasons already stated that you'll continue to ignore.

Which would make it so debatable that it ceases being a black and white issue.

I find it inspiring that you think the Senate will take it upon itself to determine this, but your wishful thinking is only going to set you up for disappointment, sorry bro.

lock it up Jan

Are you drunk? You're not paying any attention to my context. You are just arguing at this point.

Foreign governments are not allowed to be involved in influencing a US election.

It's illegal.

Once again, here's the text of the email that Trump Jr. responded to with "AWESOME!"

Are you purposely being obtuse just to debate, or are you really this obtuse. Please count to 10 and take a few deep breaths before responding.

I'm not trying to fight you. I'm just trying to apply logic about something that is so wrong on so many levels.

You cool with the fact that one of our 2-3 biggest enemies on the planet, and an ugly regime/country might have ultimately helped elect our current leader?

And we are already paying for it. The Senate just voted to keep Russian sanctions in place and Trump is currently trying to find a way to veto it.

caught you

:D:D:D

Damn.

What I'm cool with is wholly irrelevant. I'm talking legal definitions, or as some might call it "obtuseness."

It is illegal for foreign governments to influence elections through fiscal means. It hasnt always been this way, it was tightened from the more general description you gave earlier to only include money in a 2010 decision. Releasing damaging information does not fall under that.

Yes it does. Every legal analyst agrees. Been hearing it all day from both sides.

Frown is running for Senate against Batlord who is expected to win.

I, being from Butt****istan, provide Batlord with information that Frown likes to **** and kill puppies. He accepts it and uses it in his campaign.

Frown loses.

Bat broke a law. Not his first, actually just one of many, ...... many.

But he screwed up using my information to help him win. He committed a Federal crime.

Not anymore.

This has been a big part of my point for a while now.

Cause everyone knows analysts aren't useless ****s who just blather for a paycheck. Just like all those analysts who insisted that Trump could never win.

Yes it does. Every legal analyst agrees. Been hearing it all day from both sides.

Frown is running for Senate against Batlord, who is expected to win.

I, being from Butt****istan, provide Frown with information that Bat likes to **** and kill puppies. He accepts it and uses it in his campaign.

Frown wins.

Frown broke a law. Not his first, actually just one of many, ...... many.

But he screwed up using my information to help him win.

But like, what about the law and what it actually says? How come that's irrelevant?

The Senate.

How many more times do I have to state this. The senate decides if a president is toxic and then votes to impeach.

It's the rules. Deal with it. Just like Trump won even though getting over 3 million less votes.

The rules is the rules.

Don't you think that impeaching and convicting someone over something that's not illegal would have significant blowback from constituents, especially for the GOP senators? I maintain that for as long as the is a red majority in the senate, Trump will not be impeached because I think that standing with your party is a far less risky move.

That's what I've been saying this whole time.

Let's pick it up again tomorrow. You're simply ignoring everything I've posted in the last few hours just to argue.

One last point. Once a president gets rancid, party lines dissolve. I got to see both Nixon and Clinton on a daily basis. Politicians are selve serving pricks at the end of the day and will toss a president overboard if it insures they are re-elected.

Irony. Irony. Irony. Ironic ironic ironic. Irony. Irony. Irony. Irony.

If your stance is really so bulletproof, it should be easy to explain without all the logical leaps that you've been making.

Pay attention son.

If that's the copout you want to go with, so be it. It's not like the holes in your logic are going to get filled up overnight.

Interesting how Clinton won the trial regardless of that toxicity because of the weak legal premise of his impeachment.

Pay attention son. I'm tired and not feeling well.

Tough titties. Take your own advice if you're not down for this.

The Sturmabteilung?

South Atlanta

Communists can never commit to anything.