Lets see if we can keep this thread a little more civil.

I found this interview very interesting.  A lot of soft balls thrown at Trump, he explained his back pedalling on his more extreme issues as a lot of his claims as opening bids for negotiation purposes.  Which .. whatever .. I still think that those are insincere claims he used to get elected.

He does now come across way more presidential then he did prior to the election.  A lot of his noise, yelling, and rhetoric has been scaled back.

Do respect this one though:

Quote

 

Lesley Stahl: Are you gonna take the salary, the president’s salary?

Donald Trump: Well, I’ve never commented on this, but the answer is no. I think I have to by law take $1, so I’ll take $1 a year. But it’s a -- I don’t even know what it is.

Donald Trump: Do you know what the salary is?

Lesley Stahl: $400,000 you’re giving up.

Donald Trump: No, I’m not gonna take the salary. I’m not taking it.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-donald-trump-family-melania-ivanka-lesley-stahl/

6 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

The real twist is, they're correct!  On those three anyway.  Taking emotion out of it, facts are facts.  I know the alt right doesnt like that.  But its true.

Allegations are not facts, and allegations that cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt do not result in charges, why do people find this basic legal concept so hard to understand? 

Impeachment is a political act, not a strictly legal one. 
In fact,  if there were no Watergate tapes, Nixon and his underlings, just might of gotten away with his/their obstruction, perjury, campaign finance violations, political dirty tricks, etc....

But that didn't not make any of it, right.

 

1 minute ago, pigseye said:

Allegations are not facts, and allegations that cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt do not result in charges, why do people find this basic legal concept so hard to understand? 

This makes no sense.  Your post (which I replied to) had nothing to do with basic legal concepts.  If you want to try again, thats cool.  But my reply stands, even if it went over your head.

1 minute ago, do or die said:

Impeachment is a political act, not a strictly legal one. 
In fact,  if there were no Watergate tapes, Nixon and his underlings, just might of gotten away with his/their obstruction, perjury, campaign finance violations, political dirty tricks, etc....

But that didn't not make any of it, right.

 

This sounds like a basic legal fact that some people dont understand.  But the new nationalist narrative is, if you dont cuff & stuff Trump, he must be 100% exonerated.

It makes the Clinton impeachment awfully embarrassing for a lot of GOP in hindsight.

1 minute ago, do or die said:

Impeachment is a political act, not a strictly legal one. 
In fact,  if there were no Watergate tapes, Nixon and his underlings, just might of gotten away with his/their obstruction, perjury, campaign finance violations, political dirty tricks, etc....

But that didn't not make any of it, right.

 

Except Nixon, unlike Trump,  was never accused of treason which would have led to legal removal from office  and not a rap on the knuckles like impeachment. 

10 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Huh?  You're either confusing me with someone else or you're trolling again.  I never said anything of the sort, and Im not a leftist.  But again, facts arent something you're interested in.

It sucks when a wish doesn't come true but you have let it go.

4 minutes ago, Zontar said:

It sucks when a wish doesn't come true but you have let it go.

It sucks even more when the wish is for a white supremacy and it DOES come true.  

7 minutes ago, Zontar said:

Except Nixon, unlike Trump,  was never accused of treason which would have led to legal removal from office  and not a rap on the knuckles like impeachment. 

You do know Nixon resigned in disgrace, right?  He DID leave office.  

This almost feels like The Watchmen or maybe a new season of Man in the High Castle...

Barr no-show causes chaotic scene in House

Good exchange, the function of government institutions must be respected as they're preservation is more important than current politics.

7 minutes ago, do or die said:

Impeachment is a political act, not a strictly legal one. 
In fact,  if there were no Watergate tapes, Nixon and his underlings, just might of gotten away with his/their obstruction, perjury, campaign finance violations, political dirty tricks, etc....

But that didn't not make any of it, right.

 

If Nixon had Fox News, he never would have been impeached.  It's one of the reasons Fox exists.  

"A Plan for Putting the GOP on TV News" (read it here) is an unsigned, undated memo calling for a partisan, pro-GOP news operation to be potentially paid for and run out of the White House. Aimed at sidelining the "censorship" of the liberal mainstream media and delivering prepackaged pro-Nixon news to local television stations, it reads today like a detailed precis for a Fox News prototype."

Roger Ailes' Secret Nixon-Era Blueprint for Fox News

https://gawker.com/5814150/roger-ailes-secret-nixon-era-blueprint-for-fox-news

17 minutes ago, do or die said:

Impeachment is a political act, not a strictly legal one. 
In fact,  if there were no Watergate tapes, Nixon and his underlings, just might of gotten away with his/their obstruction, perjury, campaign finance violations, political dirty tricks, etc....

But that didn't not make any of it, right.

 

Nixon is not a good example, since he resigned.

Clinton is more on point, with Starr playing the part of Mueller. Starr found direct evidence of perjury and obstruction and the house brought charges and he was impeached, the senate tried the case and dropped the charges.

Mueller could not find direct evidence, like Starr did, that is the big difference that everyone seems to want to gloss over.

31 minutes ago, Zontar said:

So instead of cheerleading "the walls are closing in " for over two years why weren't you angry that no criminal charges would be forthcoming and the whole thing was a waste of time?

You didn't because the leftist fantasy was the election would be nullified and Trump in handcuffs . 

 

Waste of time?

 

Edited May 2, 20196 yr by Wideleft

6 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Nixon is not a good example, since he resigned.

Clinton is more on point, with Starr playing the part of Mueller. Starr found direct evidence of perjury and obstruction and the house brought charges and he was impeached, the senate tried the case and dropped the charges.

Mueller could not find direct evidence, like Starr did, that is the big difference that everyone seems to want to gloss over.

This isnt true.  Maybe we need a truth Czar to keep the Trumpologists in line. lol

1 minute ago, Wideleft said:

 

Waste of time?

 

What he meant was, its a waste of time if all you're going to do is throw alt right trump-ites in jail.  Its only worth it if you somehow get Hilary.

Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

This isnt true.  Maybe we need a truth Czar to keep the Trumpologists in line. lol

Truth and facts literally don't matter to them.  

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-tells-supporters-what-youre-seeing-not-whats-happening

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/22/how-kellyanne-conway-ushered-in-the-era-of-alternative-facts/?utm_term=.0284ef6d3af7

11 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

It sucks even more when the wish is for a white supremacy and it DOES come true.  

Yes, it's the desire for white supremacy to point out a sham investigation meant to undermine and embarrass  a presidency out of anger because the preferred candidate of leftists,,career trough feeders ,fashionable media and Hollywood ran a horrible campaign and lost an election that was promised to her. 

Your reality is as asinine as your fantasies.

4 minutes ago, Zontar said:

Yes, it's the desire for white supremacy to point out a sham investigation meant to undermine and embarrass  a presidency out of anger because the preferred candidate of leftists,,career trough feeders ,fashionable media and Hollywood ran a horrible campaign and lost an election that was promised to her. 

Your reality is as asinine as your fantasies.

Sorry my reply went over your head.  Embracing a clear white nationalist President is pretty sad.   

And again, you seem motivated by a desire to troll and bait.  You can't call the Meuller investigation a sham and also hold it up as an exoneration.  You cant have it both ways.  You're all over the place in your attacks on me but you have yet to make a true statement to support your perspective.  Which is too bad because as a conservative myself, I could (and have, in fact, which makes your previous remarks about my position hilarious)...it would be nice to see a real counter argument made from time to time (as hard as it is with this guy in the White House)

Im waiting.

 

Edited May 2, 20196 yr by The Unknown Poster

Finding corruption was never the aim of the investigation. They are crumbs compared to the main course which was collusion. Truthers got no satisfaction from it. They wanted Trump's scalp and failed.

They are sad, angry and lashing out in all directions looking for a new scandal to pin hopes on.

16 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

This isnt true.  Maybe we need a truth Czar to keep the Trumpologists in line. lol

A direct quote from Nadler,

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Nadler said, “The job of Congress is much broader than the job of special counsel.” He explained that Mueller’s role was to find criminal action. The various House committees, he said, “have to look for abuses of power. We have to look for obstruction of justice. We have to look for corruption.” 

Mueller found no criminal action, unlike Starr who did in his investigation of clinton. Everything else now is just political gamesmanship with no teeth. 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/no-conspiracy-no-exoneration-the-conclusions-from-the-mueller-report

Edited May 2, 20196 yr by pigseye
link

4 minutes ago, Zontar said:

Finding corruption was never the aim of the investigation. They are crumbs compared to the main course which was collusion. Truthers got no satisfaction from it. They wanted Trump's scalp and failed.

They are sad, angry and lashing out in all directions looking for a new scandal to pin hopes on.

Actually, the aim of the investigation was:

Quote

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, in his role as Acting Attorney General for matters related to the campaign due to the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, appointed Mueller, a former Director of the FBI, to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) with authority to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, including exploring any links or coordination between Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and the Russian government; "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation"; and any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).^[107]

Truth.

1 minute ago, pigseye said:

A direct quote from Nadler,

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Nadler said, “The job of Congress is much broader than the job of special counsel.” He explained that Mueller’s role was to find criminal action. The various House committees, he said, “have to look for abuses of power. We have to look for obstruction of justice. We have to look for corruption.” 

Mueller found on criminal action, unlike Starr who did in his investigation of clinton. Everything else now is just political gamesmanship with no teeth. 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/no-conspiracy-no-exoneration-the-conclusions-from-the-mueller-report

What part of the quote are you disputing?  

Im not sure I'd consider impeachment "no teeth", but I suppose opinions vary.

5 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

.  You can't call the Meuller investigation a sham and also hold it up as an exoneration. 

 

One most certainly can because no matter how the investigation was conducted what matters is the result. The result was no collusion,  no obstruction. Even with the deck stacked against him. Which goes along way in explaining the resulting hysteria and anger.

26 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Nixon is not a good example, since he resigned.

Clinton is more on point, with Starr playing the part of Mueller. Starr found direct evidence of perjury and obstruction and the house brought charges and he was impeached, the senate tried the case and dropped the charges.

Mueller could not find direct evidence, like Starr did, that is the big difference that everyone seems to want to gloss over.

 

3 minutes ago, pigseye said:

A direct quote from Nadler,

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Nadler said, “The job of Congress is much broader than the job of special counsel.” He explained that Mueller’s role was to find criminal action. The various House committees, he said, “have to look for abuses of power. We have to look for obstruction of justice. We have to look for corruption.” 

Mueller found no criminal action, unlike Starr who did in his investigation of clinton. Everything else now is just political gamesmanship with no teeth. 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/no-conspiracy-no-exoneration-the-conclusions-from-the-mueller-report

Re'quoting your original post that I referred to as not true.  Your reply doesnt seem relevant.  Your original post is still untrue.

1 minute ago, Zontar said:

One most certainly can because no matter how the investigation was conducted what matters is the result. The result was no collusion,  no obstruction. Even with the deck stacked against him. Which goes along way in explaining the resulting hysteria and anger.

Again, truth Czar would say you are maliciously posting untrue things.  Your post is factually false.  Please stop doing that.  It just muddies the thread.  

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

What part of the quote are you disputing?  

Im not sure I'd consider impeachment "no teeth", but I suppose opinions vary.

clinton was impeached because starr found direct criminal evidence against him.

trump may be impeached even though mueller did not find the same direct criminal evidence.

but i wouldn't expect you to give a **** either way.