Donald Trump

HughFreakingDillon

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

if it hasn't happened yet, I don't see it happening

That's what people said about impeachment and then that happened twice in the span of two years.

I picked 2022. So still plenty of time for that. 

I think that's what people said about removal, not impeachment. 

Unless people were confused by what impeachment meant, I'm not sure that was the case. 

Or maybe those same people are under the impression that an indictment means he goes to prison...

I guess I'm not sure why people would say he wouldn't get impeached. With the D's controlling the House, I don't think that was ever in question. I think the question was would be be convicted by the senate. 

either way, I still don't see it happening. The guy has been stealing and raping for decades with zero consequence. No reason to believe anything will happen now. 

The Juggler

The impeachment threads were full of people saying he would never be impeached. 

HughFreakingDillon

The Juggler said:

The impeachment threads were full of people saying he would never be impeached. 

I guess we're being nitpicky here, as it really doesn't matter, but even up to and including the time to vote, I knew SEVERAL people (albeit canadians who may have been unfamiliar with the american process) that thought being impeached meant being convicted and removed. 

but anyway, you could be right that people knew it meant next to nothing tangible but thought it wasn't going to happen anyway. just not sure why. 

The Juggler

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

The impeachment threads were full of people saying he would never be impeached. 

I guess we're being nitpicky here, as it really doesn't matter, but even up to and including the time to vote, I knew SEVERAL people (albeit canadians who may have been unfamiliar with the american process) that thought being impeached meant being convicted and removed. 

but anyway, you could be right that people knew it meant next to nothing tangible but thought it wasn't going to happen anyway. just not sure why. 

But also being indicted still doesn't mean he's going to jail. Earlier you talked about zero consequences. He could be indicted and then win in court.

I still think the odds of him being indicted next year are not horrible. Whether that results in a conviction is another story. 

HughFreakingDillon

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

The impeachment threads were full of people saying he would never be impeached. 

I guess we're being nitpicky here, as it really doesn't matter, but even up to and including the time to vote, I knew SEVERAL people (albeit canadians who may have been unfamiliar with the american process) that thought being impeached meant being convicted and removed. 

but anyway, you could be right that people knew it meant next to nothing tangible but thought it wasn't going to happen anyway. just not sure why. 

But also being indicted still doesn't mean he's going to jail. Earlier you talked about zero consequences. He could be indicted and then win in court.

I still think the odds of him being indicted next year are relatively good. Whether that results in a conviction is another story. 

yeah, obviously. sure, maybe he'll be indicted. I still doubt that, but even if he does, he'll never get convicted. and even on the remote chance that does happen, he won't spend a second of his life behind bars. 

The Juggler

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

The impeachment threads were full of people saying he would never be impeached. 

I guess we're being nitpicky here, as it really doesn't matter, but even up to and including the time to vote, I knew SEVERAL people (albeit canadians who may have been unfamiliar with the american process) that thought being impeached meant being convicted and removed. 

but anyway, you could be right that people knew it meant next to nothing tangible but thought it wasn't going to happen anyway. just not sure why. 

But also being indicted still doesn't mean he's going to jail. Earlier you talked about zero consequences. He could be indicted and then win in court.

I still think the odds of him being indicted next year are relatively good. Whether that results in a conviction is another story. 

yeah, obviously. sure, maybe he'll be indicted. I still doubt that, but even if he does, he'll never get convicted. and even on the remote chance that does happen, he won't spend a second of his life behind bars. 

LOL....but literally all I am talking about and all that thread is pertaining to is when or if he will be indicted. Not when or if he will go to jail. 

HughFreakingDillon

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

The impeachment threads were full of people saying he would never be impeached. 

I guess we're being nitpicky here, as it really doesn't matter, but even up to and including the time to vote, I knew SEVERAL people (albeit canadians who may have been unfamiliar with the american process) that thought being impeached meant being convicted and removed. 

but anyway, you could be right that people knew it meant next to nothing tangible but thought it wasn't going to happen anyway. just not sure why. 

But also being indicted still doesn't mean he's going to jail. Earlier you talked about zero consequences. He could be indicted and then win in court.

I still think the odds of him being indicted next year are relatively good. Whether that results in a conviction is another story. 

yeah, obviously. sure, maybe he'll be indicted. I still doubt that, but even if he does, he'll never get convicted. and even on the remote chance that does happen, he won't spend a second of his life behind bars. 

LOL....but literally all I am talking about and all that thread is pertaining to is when or if he will be indicted. Not when or if he will go to jail. 

that's fine. and as an extension of talking about being indicted, I'm just saying it won't go further than that. kind of a "then what's the fucking point" comment. 

The Juggler

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

The impeachment threads were full of people saying he would never be impeached. 

I guess we're being nitpicky here, as it really doesn't matter, but even up to and including the time to vote, I knew SEVERAL people (albeit canadians who may have been unfamiliar with the american process) that thought being impeached meant being convicted and removed. 

but anyway, you could be right that people knew it meant next to nothing tangible but thought it wasn't going to happen anyway. just not sure why. 

But also being indicted still doesn't mean he's going to jail. Earlier you talked about zero consequences. He could be indicted and then win in court.

I still think the odds of him being indicted next year are relatively good. Whether that results in a conviction is another story. 

yeah, obviously. sure, maybe he'll be indicted. I still doubt that, but even if he does, he'll never get convicted. and even on the remote chance that does happen, he won't spend a second of his life behind bars. 

LOL....but literally all I am talking about and all that thread is pertaining to is when or if he will be indicted. Not when or if he will go to jail. 

that's fine. and as an extension of talking about being indicted, I'm just saying it won't go further than that. kind of a "then what's the fucking point" comment. 

"What's the point" is different than saying "if it hasn't happened yet, I don't see it happening." Lol. 

You can debate whether or not a former president being indicted for the first time ever is important or not all you want (it is), I just happen to think it still might happen. 

gimmesometruth27

if the law does not apply to the president, or a former president, then what is the point of having laws?

seriously. if the law does not apply to the most powerful, or formerly most powerful person in the country, of what use is the law?

mrussel1

gimmesometruth27 said:

if the law does not apply to the president, or a former president, then what is the point of having laws?

seriously. if the law does not apply to the most powerful, or formerly most powerful person in the country, of what use is the law?

You have to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt.  Trump is smart enough to insulate himself, so proving what the media represents to be clearly him,  isn't always easy. 

gimmesometruth27

how do you know trump was highly involved in the insurrection?

because it failed.

just like everything else he has had a hand in for his entire life.

mrussel1

gimmesometruth27 said:

how do you know trump was highly involved in the insurrection?

because it failed.

just like everything else he has had a hand in for his entire life.

That's actually the best circumstantial evidence you can find.  I agree. 

Gern Blansten

If heads don't roll due to the Jan 6th commission we are just fucked. Mark Meadows needs to serve time along with several others.

mrussel1

Gern Blansten said:

If heads don't roll due to the Jan 6th commission we are just fucked. Mark Meadows needs to serve time along with several others.

It's not a criminal investigation.  

static111

Gern Blansten said:

If heads don't roll due to the Jan 6th commission we are just fucked. Mark Meadows needs to serve time along with several others.

We are fucked either way.  Disinformation and Alternative Facts have too much of a hold in this country. 

Gern Blansten

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

If heads don't roll due to the Jan 6th commission we are just fucked. Mark Meadows needs to serve time along with several others.

It's not a criminal investigation.  

But it can uncover evidence that might lead to one....hopefully

mrussel1

static111 said:

Gern Blansten said:

If heads don't roll due to the Jan 6th commission we are just fucked. Mark Meadows needs to serve time along with several others.

We are fucked either way.  Disinformation and Alternative Facts have too much of a hold in this country. 

I agree.  There's just a flat denial of reality that is happening that extends far beyond news bias.  

ikiT

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

If heads don't roll due to the Jan 6th commission we are just fucked. Mark Meadows needs to serve time along with several others.

It's not a criminal investigation.  

ikiT

DOJ would do criminal stuff.  Merrick or the FBI doesn't seem to be doing that.

ikiT

Joe should just roll MG onto the SCOTUS and install someone as AG will prosecute ex- (and complicit current) R leadership.

mrussel1

ikiT said:

Joe should just roll MG onto the SCOTUS and install someone as AG will prosecute ex- (and complicit current) R leadership.

Let's be sure we know the crime first, and that the individuals are specifically culpable under a statute.  Otherwise we are just acting like a bunch of right wingers. 

static111

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Gern Blansten said:

If heads don't roll due to the Jan 6th commission we are just fucked. Mark Meadows needs to serve time along with several others.

We are fucked either way.  Disinformation and Alternative Facts have too much of a hold in this country. 

I agree.  There's just a flat denial of reality that is happening that extends far beyond news bias.  

It makes me sick because it isn't just a D or R issue and it is starting to affect people in my life.

Gern Blansten

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1470410164268421127

Good thread here.  Talks about how Meadow's book is contradictory to the evidence being uncovered.

mickeyrat

Gern Blansten said:

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1470410164268421127

Good thread here.  Talks about how Meadow's book is contradicting the evidence being uncovered.

you mean contradicted by the evidence. . 

ikiT

https://instagram.com/p/CXb2ey_jhnG/embed/

Gern Blansten

mickeyrat said:

Gern Blansten said:

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1470410164268421127

Good thread here.  Talks about how Meadow's book is contradicting the evidence being uncovered.

you mean contradicted by the evidence. . 

Fixed....thanks professor

Halifax2TheMax

What is POOTWH hiding? What's the big kerfluffle? No charitable giving? Undervalued real estate assets? Tax cheating? Underreported or non-reported  sources of income? Standing on principle for every hard working tax paying 'Murican? What gives?

Trump tax records can be released by Treasury Department to House, judge rules

A federal judge on Tuesday rejected former president Donald Trump’s long-running effort to block the Treasury Department from turning over his tax records to the House Ways and Means Committee, but put the ruling on hold pending an expected appeal.

U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a former Trump Justice Department official appointed to the court in 2017, said even if the former president’s attorneys were correct that House Democrats wanted his records only to expose them for political gain, they were “wrong on the law.”

“A long line of Supreme Court cases requires great deference to facially valid congressional inquiries. Even the special solicitude accorded former Presidents does not alter the outcome. The Court will therefore dismiss this case,” McFadden wrote in a 45-page opinion.

The House Ways and Means Committee sought years’ worth of Trump’s tax returns, saying it wanted to review the effectiveness of the presidential audit program. Trump sued to block the release of the records, saying it was an attempt to harass him and dig up political dirt.

Judge orders Trump tax records released by Treasury Dept. to House - The Washington Post

gimmesometruth27

i am so sick of winning.




meaning that dump keeps losing in court, yet we are nowhere closer to seeing what we need to see.

mfc2006

gimmesometruth27 said:

i am so sick of winning.




meaning that dump keeps losing in court, yet we are nowhere closer to seeing what we need to see.

This process is painstakingly slow.

mickeyrat

mfc2006 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i am so sick of winning.




meaning that dump keeps losing in court, yet we are nowhere closer to seeing what we need to see.

This process is painstakingly slow.

and we are one step closer to whatever resolution will be had.