Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Ghengis Jon]

Next up, Soylent Green!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/22/us/washington-human-composting-legal-trnd/index.html

[Kapture1]

Democrat Darling Michael Avenatti expects to be indicted in the next 48 hours lmao

[iam416]

two years on an investigation found no collusion, so what are you accusing him of covering up?

It's an immutable fact that Ds still can't process and, really, won't ever be able to process.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Because Mueller found no collusion, all investigations into campaign finance violations, or lawbreaking within the Trump Inaugural Committee, or emoluments investigations, etc etc etc must now stop also.

[Kapture1]

Because Mueller found no collusion, all investigations into campaign finance violations, or lawbreaking within the Trump Inaugural Committee, or emoluments investigations, etc etc etc must now stop also.

you know that is not what the dems are screaming cover-up over.

You're just gonna play stupid huh?

[Dr. Strangelove]

you know that is not what the dems are screaming cover-up over.

You're just gonna play stupid huh?

[froot loops]

No collusion and no deals!

[Kapture1]

well yeah, why the fuck wouldn't he? the democrats are determined to destroy the man because they are a bunch of lunatics that still haven't accepted the fact they lost in 2016


You blew your load on collusion, which was a lie. You lost, accept it.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Because Mueller found no collusion, all investigations into campaign finance violations, or lawbreaking within the Trump Inaugural Committee, or emoluments investigations, etc etc etc must now stop also.

To your first question, yes. No collusion so what more needs to be redone by the various committees continuing to review the Mueller Report. Nothing to see there.

On your second question, this is pretty easy. Prosecutors involved in looking into the things you speak of, cannot indict a sitting president. Pelosi is not going to allow the circus that would be an impeachment hearing in the House. Even if there was one and a trial took place in the Senate, that body would not convict.

Trump may be an entirely objectionable person for all the reasons outlined clearly here. But, no, "campaign finance violations, or lawbreaking within the Trump Inaugural Committee, or emoluments investigations, etc etc etc" will not be allowed to rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" on which the Ds would have to make their case in the House, against the D leadership's objections, to move the impeachment process forward.

[froot loops]

If they double up their efforts on investigating Trump can he go on Presidential Strike?

[Kapture1]

So the Democrats will demand that he step aside as chairman & a criminal investigation must be launched.
And that he must release his tax returns, accountant records, and banking information


Don't ever believe all they care about is the rule of law.

[Kapture1]

[Dr. Strangelove]

To your first question, yes. No collusion so what more needs to be redone by the various committees continuing to review the Mueller Report. Nothing to see there.

On your second question, this is pretty easy. Prosecutors involved in looking into the things you speak of, cannot indict a sitting president. Pelosi is not going to allow the circus that would be an impeachment hearing in the House. Even if there was one and a trial took place in the Senate, that body would not convict.

Trump may be an entirely objectionable person for all the reasons outlined clearly here. But, no, "campaign finance violations, or lawbreaking within the Trump Inaugural Committee, or emoluments investigations, etc etc etc" will not be allowed to rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" on which the Ds would have to make their case in the House, against the D leadership's objections, to move the impeachment process forward.

I'm not getting your point. I understand that no law enforcement body in the country can take on a sitting President. Are you saying Congress should not be allowed to either?

Congress is the only body in America that was explicitly given the power to remove the President. We all know the specific phrase but they can literally do so for any reason, really, if they don't care about winning in the next election.

I really don't care if there's impeachable material in what Dems get from Trump's banks and tax forms. I think it should be public knowledge. It's an unofficial precedent, for Presidents to release their financials, sure, but it's a good one and Congress have every right to use its subpoena power to get them. If you think that spells electoral disaster for the Dems, so be it. I don't. I don't think upper middle class white women are going to feel sympathy for Trump having his tax returns poured over because most of them assume he's done bad shit at one point or another. I also don't think Dems are the only ones going to take blame for Washington gridlock when Trump calls a press conference just to whine about the grievances he has and announce he's going on strike until Dems leave him alone.

That's a winning message with the suburban voters Trump needs in 2020? Ok, if you think so. But I don't.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Jeff, you're a fossil. You lived this. Did you recall that public support for impeachment was only at 19% at the start of the Watergate hearings in June of 1973? By the time he resigned it was in the high 50's.

D7H9Mi3W4AQ9HY4.jpg

[Dr. Strangelove]

Monmouth University, (which has an A+ rating on Nate Silver's site--the gold standard of accurate polling, in other words) has a new poll out showing Trump's approval at 40%

Other notables:

67% say Don McGahn should testify
73% say Robert Mueller should testify
37% say Trump deserves reelection (!). 60% say it's time for a change

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_us_052219.pdf/