Donald John Trump is no longer president: what does it mean for you?

vladjet2000 said:

The whole point of the Mueller report was to find out if he colluded with the Russians.
The result is a 300 page report saying that there isn't any conclusive evidence that he did. BUT he may have interfered with justice, which is not the scope of the report.
Mueller didn't specify anything clearly. It was a total fiasco. He said that he cannot indict the president. He didn't say there is a valid reason to. He just said he can't indict, which is correct. His report would be provided to congress who asked for the report, and they can do something about it.
That story has since ended. If the dems let it go, there's nothing there.

Click to expand...

Well seeing as there are essentially two parts to the report (and one deals with 45's potential obstruction) it's pretty hard to cast that aside completely as out of bounds. The president's reaction and ongoing efforts were not something they could have anticipated when they set the parameters for the initial investigation. It went on to take a level of significance far beyond trivial.

Nothing can be expected to be spelled clearly when it's served up in partly redacted legalese and bound by other administrative factors such as DOJ policy.

Anyhow, merely stating it has "ended" or that it is "done" may be wishful thinking but does not make it so. No smoking gun does not mean no liability whatsoever IMO.

Yes, in our era of short attention spans and in the face of other pending matters, this train has effectively left the station. I wouldn't write it off completely just yet. It could come back in parts (or whole) when certain conditions are met or if new information is uncovered. If this happens or not will no doubt be conditional on the right political conditions being present as well.

There is room for a healthy middle ground somewhere between "the holy grail" and "nothing burger"

Guys this is pointless, some CNN watching guy tells others not to watch Fox lol laughable to say the least. I don't even know where that even came from

Fact is Mueller report concluded that there was not enough evidence to conclude anything. Russia collusion train has been derailed already regardless of what you think has happened, so get on board the next ukrain hype train!

The impeachment hearing is on going so let's see what happens


Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

Grim said:

Impeachment Hearing today:


Stewart: Are you aware of any bribery activity committed by Donald Trump?
Yovanovitch: No.

Stewart: Are you aware of Donald Trump committing any criminal activity?
Yovanovitch: No.


It's on record. How much did this bogus hearing today cost to the American taxpayers?

Click to expand...

She was fired 2 months before it happened...

kahos said:

You can be philosophical all you want, this is not about justice. This is about justice department's position that sitting president's can't be indicted. It's not about moral righteousness, it's about stability and safeguarding the office of the President (from itself I guess) even if it temporarily prevents justice being served in the short term.

There's a new D.A in California that won't prosecute people from defecating in the streets of San Francisco. Will you take up the cause of homeless people shitting everywhere as "innocent because they haven't been tried in a court of law" Surely stating anything bad about these people will be libel by nature?

Likewise, the U.S diplomat's wife can't be prosecuted for the traffic collision in the U.K that killed a man because she was covered by diplomatic immunity. Will you ask everyone to stop calling her a deplorable human being because she wasn't convicted in a court in the U.K. (Even if we know that will never happen?)


There's a lot more at play than a single man's innocence/guilt here. This is also about protecting institutions. This is about the system protecting itself.

To interpret this as vindication is dishonest.

There's a difference between pressing the pause button and the stop button.

Click to expand...

That's a whole lot of typing just to spit out the truth in your first sentence. "this is not about justice", that's right, this is nothing more than continuing to try and smear cheetos hoping that something happens or it will generate enough negative towards him that people going to vote Democrat at the next election as they don't have anyone to beat cheetos in 2020. I'll just make sure that I take a piss before reading the 2020 results so I don't spoil myself laughing if that clown wins again.

Grim said:

Then it was the perfect opportunity for her to unload on the record. She had NOTHING concrete to share.

Her testimony is a complete waste of time just like this 'impeachment' inquiry.

It was just to share her feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings over being fired.

Are they now impeaching Trump for "undeserving firings" or is it bribery?

Why is she an 'expert witness' when she knows nothing about anything? Please explain.







hehehe

If impeached, Trump can STILL run for President and win.
If removed from office, if the Senate permits it, Trump can STILL run for President and win.

Click to expand...

They are probably trying to see why a seasoned diplomat was fired weeks before all this happened?

J’espère que vous vous rendez compte que des deux bords vous êtes autant brainwashés autant les uns que les autres...
Trump pourrait se couper la graine en conférence de presse et avouer qu’il est secrètement un homme trans que certains le défenderaient en disant que c’est stratégique et que c’est un génie.

kahos said:

Well seeing as there are essentially two parts to the report (and one deals with 45's potential obstruction) it's pretty hard to cast that aside completely as out of bounds. The president's reaction and ongoing efforts were not something they could have anticipated when they set the parameters for the initial investigation. It went on to take a level of significance far beyond trivial.

Nothing can be expected to be spelled clearly when it's served up in partly redacted legalese and bound by other administrative factors such as DOJ policy.

Anyhow, merely stating it has "ended" or that it is "done" may be wishful thinking but does not make it so. No smoking gun does not mean no liability whatsoever IMO.

Yes, in our era of short attention spans and in the face of other pending matters, this train has effectively left the station. I wouldn't write it off completely just yet. It could come back in parts (or whole) when certain conditions are met or if new information is uncovered. If this happens or not will no doubt be conditional on the right political conditions being present as well.

There is room for a healthy middle ground somewhere between "the holy grail" and "nothing burger"

Click to expand...

did you ever see a US president go on trial after he was no longer in office for something he did while in office? I said it's done because the report doesn't find anything worthwhile on the Russian side and it's not going to come back in 2 or 6 years for the alleged obstruction. if the dems cannot pursue that now, for all intents and purposes it's dead and buried.
the main problem is that because the democrats made a huge deal out of the Russian collusion and it turned to dust so voters might be suspicious of the impeachment. it's the it's the boy who cried wolf of politics. at one point the democrats' demonization of Trump becomes his biggest ally.

vladjet2000 said:

did you ever see a US president go on trial after he was no longer in office for something he did while in office?

Click to expand...

That's not to say it can't happen. The biggest impediment right now is the office this person currently holds. The likelihood of this happening depends on the political climate once he steps down. I mean, crooked Hillary should have been in jail by now... yet despite the chants, Trump has moved on.

Roger Stone, a longtime friend and ally of U.S. President Donald Trump, has been found guilty of witness tampering and lying to Congress about his pursuit of Russian-hacked emails damaging to Hillary Clinton's 2016 election bid.

Stone was convicted, in a decision released Friday, of all seven counts in an indictment that accused him of lying to Congress, tampering with a witness and obstructing the House investigation into whether the Trump campaign co-ordinated with Russia to tip the 2016 election.

Stone has denied wrongdoing and consistently criticized the case against him as politically motivated. He did not testify during the trial and his lawyers did not call any witnesses in his defence.


Stone, 67, could face up to 20 years in prison.

5 other former Trump associates who ran afoul of the law
Judge Amy Berman Jackson rejected prosecutors' request that Stone be jailed following his conviction. She said Stone will be subject to the same conditions he faced following his arrest, including a gag order preventing him from talking to media.

Stone becomes the latest Trump associate convicted on an assortment of charges, which have included lying to Congress or the FBI, bank and tax fraud, and failing to register as a foreign agent for lobbying purposes.

The list also includes his former presidential campaign chair, Paul Manafort, and Manafort's colleague Rick Gates, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen, and campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos.

Many of the cases arose from investigative work undertaken by the team assembled by special counsel Robert Mueller, who was probing contacts between Russia and Trump campaign and transition teams.

Click to expand...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/stone-trial-verdict-trump-1.5360939

So if there was "nothing wrong" how are people getting convicted?

Trump is a shitty friend if he forgot to stop people committing offences / trying to cover up something that requires no cover up in the first place.

How many of Obama's close friends and advisers were convicted? This is not something I've ever cared to research but I'm sure there are a few people keeping track here that would be more than happy to let me know.

kahos said:

That's not to say it can't happen. The biggest impediment right now is the office this person currently holds. The likelihood of this happening depends on the political climate once he steps down. I mean, crooked Hillary should have been in jail by now... yet despite the chants, Trump has moved on.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/stone-trial-verdict-trump-1.5360939

So if there was "nothing wrong" how are people getting convicted?

Trump is a shitty friend if he forgot to stop people committing offences / trying to cover up something that requires no cover up in the first place.

How many of Obama's close friends and advisers were convicted? This is not something I've ever cared to research but I'm sure there are a few people keeping track here that would be more than happy to let me know.

Click to expand...

could it happen? yes. will it happen? I think it won't.
Mueller went sniffing around and found all sorts of crap.
Manafort and Gates are in prison for not declaring income from their work as political consultants with pro Russian political figures in Ukraine. Mueller went sniffing and they lied about being in touch with Russians, but it was a different subject. They didn't want this crap to come out, but it did. That means absolutely nothing for Trump.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trials_of_Paul_Manafort

Papadopolos served 12 days in jail for telling an Australian that Russians had hacked the DNC which he found out from mifsud, instead of telling the CIA. that was it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Papadopoulos
funny thing is mifsud obviously knew and told several people and lied about it, same as papadopoulos (who only told one) and he didn't get indicted. nobody knows why.
also, still no word on when Hillary will do her time for the emails. she deleted the emails and lied about it, but still nobody will go after her. she's american royalty basically. had it been someone you had not heard about before the election, you could bet that that person would rot in jail for a long long time.

Stuff like this puts a big damp on whatever Mueller did. You can't discuss who or why? why not? you are in front of the lawmakers.

Cohen went down for campaign violations, tax fraud, etc. The CIA suspected he went to Prague to meet with Russians but they have no proof of him going anywhere.
He also lied about the Trump Towers in Moscow, which is unrelated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cohen_(lawyer)

Flynn was actually a registered Democrat. Its still not very clear to me what happened to him but he's in appeal now. it seems he leaked information to a Russian informant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn

I agree that there are lots of people on this list. But it looks like Mueller was very selective when he handed down indictments and the Trump campaign people were all investigated by the FBI at one point or another before Trump became president and nobody knows why. The FBI shot down its own credibility, and Mueller's unwillingness to be even a little bit transparent makes his whole investigation a sham. I thought he would find something, but not only was he unable to find something worthwhile, he also has the audacity to not answer questions about how he got there. Had he said "dudes, there's nothing wrong, go home", it would have made him look better imho. he tried spinning stuff and lost all credibility.

Obama didn't have any scandals, the birth certificate was the only thing and that was beyond dumb. The Republicans had nothing and they were hanging on to whatever they could find.

I think there's going to be a gentleman's agreement after Trump leaves the White House. They won't pursue this so long as he stays out of trouble and keeps a reasonably low profile. He'll get to keep his brash persona but there will be clear lines that are not to be crossed.

The partisans want him gone ASAP but the last thing they want is a scorned and cornered trump going nuclear on the establishment.

It also goes against the idea of "american exceptionalism" to even admit that things were not OK in the white house. I think they'd rather pretend all is well/above board than admit that things went sideways for a few years or that they were wrong to trust him.

Once the man is dead and gone for some time, we might see some interesting stories come out.

The investigation did not
establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in its election interference activities.

Ukrain hype train already derailed? lol

Danny, it looks like it's another nothing burger dude lol


Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

Grim said:

The impeachment inquiry (as of today) summed up in less than a minute (From Trump's twitter):

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1195531896433848320

This is undeniable unless you have a Ph.d in mental gymnastics.

Click to expand...

good old donald in desperation mode going into full spin mode. Who's testifying next week? People that were on the call. Who else is testifying next week Sondland who has had direct conversations with Senior Orange. Impeachable offense doesn't need to be an illegal act. Is getting a blowjob in the oval office illegal? Show me where.

Why won't he wave executive privilege and let the white-house staff testify?

Grim said:

The impeachment inquiry (as of today) summed up in less than a minute (From Trump's twitter):

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1195531896433848320

This is undeniable unless you have a Ph.d in mental gymnastics.

Click to expand...

I made a mistake, I finished watching and then I scrolled down to see what people posted. The level of stupidity is off the charts. That or some people are crazier than those in the looney bin. They must allowed computer access in the insane asylum because no person that posts those kinds of things is fit to walk around free in society.

Just to give you an example there are more than a few posts claiming that Donald Trump is preventing witnesses from testifying when as far as I know it's Schifty Schitt that's not allowing the minority to call the key witnesses they want. Double standard much?

All I see are Democrats grand standing, appealing to emotion with zero cold hard facts, you know base truths, then the republicans step in, drop simple questions and it falls apart. That or mental gymnastics. You can see that the direct QPQ is starting to fall apart so I'm fairly certain their next play is to shift to "obstruction" by the firing of that deep state wench. It's literally the Russia collusion play book mad libbed.

EDIT:

Here's the snippit from the hearing that lead me to conclude she's a low level deep state loyal Obama holdover ready to cover for them.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/z9QswOE1GoY/

250Rocket said:

I made a mistake, I finished watching and then I scrolled down to see what people posted. The level of stupidity is off the charts. That or some people are crazier than those in the looney bin. They must allowed computer access in the insane asylum because no person that posts those kinds of things is fit to walk around free in society.

Just to give you an example there are more than a few posts claiming that Donald Trump is preventing witnesses from testifying when as far as I know it's Schifty Schitt that's not allowing the minority to call the key witnesses they want. Double standard much?

All I see are Democrats grand standing, appealing to emotion with zero cold hard facts, you know base truths, then the republicans step in, drop simple questions and it falls apart. That or mental gymnastics. You can see that the direct QPQ is starting to fall apart so I'm fairly certain their next play is to shift to "obstruction" by the firing of that deep state wench. It's literally the Russia collusion play book mad libbed.

EDIT:

Here's the snippit from the hearing that lead me to conclude she's a low level deep state loyal Obama holdover ready to cover for them.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/z9QswOE1GoY/

Click to expand...

The White House instructed potential witnesses NOT to comply with the subpoenas they had received. Eg: Rudy. Unless Schiff controls the white house, he's not the one running interference on that one. Both sides obviously have some angles to play.

What appeal to emotions are you thinking of? This has to be the most boring / tedious impeachment ever. It's about as exciting as filling out your income tax. It's a lot more technical than emotional. It's pretty hard to get your average mid west american fired up over some latin words he had never heard before. (quid pro quo)

It's easy to cherry pick some footage of "defence counsel" asking "tough questions" to some witnesses. It's what their game plan calls for.

Ambassadors come and go. It was his prerogative to replace her. It'd be hard to spin this as obstruction.

kahos said:

I think there's going to be a gentleman's agreement after Trump leaves the White House. They won't pursue this so long as he stays out of trouble and keeps a reasonably low profile. He'll get to keep his brash persona but there will be clear lines that are not to be crossed.

The partisans want him gone ASAP but the last thing they want is a scorned and cornered trump going nuclear on the establishment.

It also goes against the idea of "american exceptionalism" to even admit that things were not OK in the white house. I think they'd rather pretend all is well/above board than admit that things went sideways for a few years or that they were wrong to trust him.

Once the man is dead and gone for some time, we might see some interesting stories come out.

Click to expand...

Trump and low profile don't go together. even if such a deal would be reached, he would still be too arrogant to respect it. I doubt he'd stick to his own end, calling it "the worst deal ever". he has a loud mouth and unfortunately he's in the history books now.

kahos said:

The White House instructed potential witnesses NOT to comply with the subpoenas they had received. Eg: Rudy. Unless Schiff controls the white house, he's not the one running interference on that one. Both sides obviously have some angles to play.

What appeal to emotions are you thinking of? This has to be the most boring / tedious impeachment ever. It's about as exciting as filling out your income tax. It's a lot more technical than emotional. It's pretty hard to get your average mid west american fired up over some latin words he had never heard before. (quid pro quo)

It's easy to cherry pick some footage of "defence counsel" asking "tough questions" to some witnesses. It's what their game plan calls for.

Ambassadors come and go. It was his prerogative to replace her. It'd be hard to spin this as obstruction.

Click to expand...

Games are and always will be played, my issue always remains fairness of both sides. Trump is bad for not wanting certain people to testify yet Schitt does the same and gets a free pass? Therein lies my issue, not the fact that they are or aren't testifying but that it's one sided, always toward Dems because the media lets them get away with it.

The most literal version of it (go to 2h:39m):

Her feelings have ZERO relevance unless somebody wants to impeach Trump for hurting feelings. I'm surprised Schitt didn't have a violinist playing in the background for added effect. The cold hard fact at the base of all this emotional dancing around is like you said (and I agree), Trump could have literally fired her for any reason with no repercussions. When I compare this to more factual question like "Were you coached by the Obama state department to handle questions on Hunter Biden", one is wasting time and the other is further shining light on the situation.

What a joke, already seeding the BS in case nothing happens they can claim that there was something, but gentlemen's agreement. LMAO ohh boy

CRNKY said:

What a joke, already seeding the BS in case nothing happens they can claim that there was something, but gentlemen's agreement. LMAO ohh boy

Click to expand...

"They"
I don't have any party affiliation. I only speak for myself. But sure, keep thinking in terms of Us vs Them, black vs white if that makes it easier for you.

Remember what happened to Trump's nicely worded letter to Erdogan? The "don't be a tough guy" advice... Well, turkey got pretty much 100% of what they wanted to achieve in Syria and Ergogan hand delivered the letter back to trump at the white house... while getting praised. If you don't think Trump got leveraged on this, then I don't know what to say. That was textbook ownage. The kind of bold move Trump respects.

Having your former president go to prison / run away is some third world / eastern european shit. The americans are too proud to do this to themselves. It'll be much easier to let him be, and focus on moving forward. Dragging him through the courts wouldn't do much but it would anger his core supporters. Is it worth dealing with million of pissed off americans to lock up one person? I doubt it.

They'll let him keep his twitter account and take jabs at their policies if he cares to. Just like in the obama days.

To me, this would be a lot easier to manage than giving him a soapbox for another year or two (initial court proceedings / appeals / etc) and risk making him a martyr. It's either you focus your attention on running your nation or you get bogged down playing the trump reality TV show (Hint: there are no winners at this game) Besides, there is a real risk that some of his most fanatic supporters would do some real dumb shit for el jefe.

Most people, myself included want him out of office more than anything. I'm under no illusion that he, like the big banks, have gotten "too big to fail"

There will be very quickly be a point of diminishing return once he's out.

vladjet2000 said:

Trump and low profile don't go together. even if such a deal would be reached, he would still be too arrogant to respect it. I doubt he'd stick to his own end, calling it "the worst deal ever". he has a loud mouth and unfortunately he's in the history books now.

Click to expand...

Trump always does what is best for Trump. If he's faced with jail or working within specific boundaries, I'm sure he'll pick whichever has him running hotels, writing books and making money. Trump may bare teeth and get mad, but he doesn't bite (the hand that feeds him) It's not exactly rocket science.

In the end, it will all be one big political calculation.

Just like Trump lost interest in Hillary, the next administration will lose interest in trump once they move in to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

If this ends up being in 2020 or 2024 remains to be seen.

Speaking of 2024, I wonder if we'll get Don Jr. or Ivanka running at that point.

Cool wall. Because if there's one things Narcos aren't known for it's tunnels and creative workarounds. Oh, wait.

At a glance, It makes a strong statement, but it will only move the problem.