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

Grim said:
It's already kahos right now, imagine when Trump actually wins 2020.
Click to expand...

I LOL'ed. Well played.

darkwalker said:
If there was no collusion, there was no crime. How can you obstruct if you didn't commit a crime?
Click to expand...

That's an overly simplistic statement.

You can't be charged for "collusion" in the U.S any more than you could be charged for "battery" in Canada. They are simply not chargeable offences. The words do matter in the legal realm. Mueller established this from the onset. As to the conspiracies and other other offences he was investigating, my take is that there's a combination of issues with evidence and other considerations at hand.

For instance, some of the offences involved a monetary component. The information may have a "value" but it may not be monetary. How do you assess a price on what dirt on Hillary is "worth" if it's "given away" and you didn't pay for it in cash? Trump would have been smart enough to be one step removed from all the "higher risk activities"

Then there's the very significant hurdle that you can't indict a sitting president. Much less if the you had to rely on what could be deemed unreliable witnesses to secure a conviction.

The threshold for conviction is high. Proving offences of that nature beyond a reasonable doubt isn't easy. The stakes are way too high to go at it unless there's a 99.9% likelihood of success.

Part of the reason Trump didn't go down for the obstruction is that people failed to act on his most outlandish requests. Mueller was very clear that Trump wasn't beyond any reproach and that there were many instances that could amount to obstruction.

You guys stick to your overly simplistic black and white world. Seems like there's little room for nuances in your beliefs.

I don't believe that Trump is guilty of all the allegations made against him. I also don't believe he's a beacon of honesty and beyond any reproach for anything, ever.

No point arguing about this now. The truth will come out sooner or later. Likely after he has left office.
 
Last edited:
Trump is the "truth"? That's a fucking sad state of affairs. That's next level 1984 shit. The man is a "genius" AND a pathological liar. He's lied so often it's hard to figure out when he is or isn't lying anymore.

The mob has been investigated for decades. Whoever hasn't been charged yet must be really trustworthy and well vetted individuals by that logic.

Remember when the hells angel got away with it all? Must've not committed any crimes.

Americans are as patriotic as they are proud. They probably can't bear the thought to have the "leader of the free world" go down on corruption charges "3rd world shit-hole style."

Trump is always the "victim" but a significant amount of people in the justice / intelligence communities are republicans. They may not love every aspect of of his presidency , but they dread answering to AOC a lot more... That right there is sufficient motivation to afford him some leeway.

They're gonna ride it out while he's in office and then find reasons to delay /not to pursue this when he's not.

If you surround yourself with liars and yes-men, it's hard to have them testify against you with any sort of credibility.

Is crooked Hillary in jail yet? No? Must be reasons why they don't go after the former administrations too hard...
 
Last edited:
kahos said:
You can't be charged for "collusion" in the U.S any more than you could be charged for "battery" in Canada. They are simply not chargeable offences. The words do matter in the legal realm. Mueller established this from the onset. As to the conspiracies and other other offences he was investigating, my take is that there's a combination of issues with evidence and other considerations at hand.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that "collusion" is not a crime and "conspiracy" is a crime? And since collusion is not a crime, Mueller made sure we understood that we should not look for "collusion" (since it's not chargeable and will do nothing) but for "conspiracy"?
 
darkwalker said:
Are you saying that "collusion" is not a crime and "conspiracy" is a crime? And since collusion is not a crime, Mueller made sure we understood that we should not look for "collusion" (since it's not chargeable and will do nothing) but for "conspiracy"?
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

Here's what I initially quoted from the report.

"(...) collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law."
Click to expand...

Here's a larger quote from page two of the report that addresses this head on:

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.
Click to expand...

Mueller could never prove or deny "collusion" as it's outside the scope of the parameters he was working with in the first place.

This is why it borders on the meaningless / dishonest to say that after all was said and done he found no collusion. That was not a possible outcome of his inquiry to begin with.

It was smart of trump and his team to focus on "collusion" to shape the narrative.
 
As much as you want this to be all about Biden (or whoever trump is fixated upon these days), it's really besides the point.

Gotta love this new emerging narrative.

"Shokin, Hero of the People, anti-corruption crusader!"

It's somehow missing the part where one of his deputies resigned over corruption at the PG's office:

Former Deputy Prosecutor General Vitaliy Kasko claims that Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin gave him instructions, which he himself got from Member of Parliament Ihor Kononenko, to intervene in a case.

"My desire to resign is due to the fact that today's top officials of the prosecutor's office have actually turned it into the body saturated with corruption and cover-up, while any attempts to bring in change are persecuted immediately. It's not justice and law that are in charge here, but arbitrary rule and lawlessness. (...)"
Click to expand...

Read more on UNIAN: https://www.unian.info/politics/127...-against-my-team-than-against-yanukovych.html

That and the claims that the Burisma probe was essentially dormant for years under Shokin... Not so much a tireless crusade...
However, Vitaliy Kasko, who had been Shokin’s deputy overseeing international cooperation before resigning in February 2016 citing corruption in the office, produced documents to Bloomberg that under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma had been dormant.

"There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky," Kasko told Bloomberg. "It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015."
Click to expand...


https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-checking-joe-biden-hunter-biden-and-ukraine/
 
Grim said:
He resigned and went on to post a claim that would greatly help Joe Biden/John Kerry & Sons?
I'm sure they simply threw 1 million dollar cash his way in a brown envelope.

What does Shokin have to do with the timeline? He was simply silenced, slandered and set aside to protect elites.

They are doing exactly the same to Trump, the POTUS.

The timeline demonstrates what happened while all they have on Trump is a clean transcript.

Pelosi can't even name a crime because Trump committed none. It is not even a formal impeachment inquiry. It is a complete farce and circus to convince people like you that Orange man bad.
Click to expand...

What does Shokin have to do with this?

He's the disgraced person you were leaning on a few days ago to support the theory that he was ousted over the Biden investigation. You know, with signed affidavits and shit.

Shokin was very much in the business of protecting the ruling party's interest. This is why he was set aside, not some shitty America centric sub-plot.

We're only talking about him because you keep bringing him back to deflect from Trump to Biden...

Want to talk about what Biden running for president means for you? Start a new thread.

It's a waste of time as he's never going to be elected. He's a joke and I'm surprised Trump would feel so threatened about some has been.
 
Grim said:
So you're denying the occurence of the events that took place in the timeline?
Shokin was the prosecutor looking into the same timeline I posted.
He was disgraced, silenced and slandered so it would never come out. Trump is getting the same treatment for the same reason.
It is soooooo obvious.
Click to expand...

Denying what? That Biden wanted this cat fired? No, that's as close to anything factual we've gotten so far.

We may not agree about motive seeing as I'm going by the generally accepted version of events and you're spinning the newer conspiracy theory version of it. Either way, I don't care about Biden...

None of these guys have much if any credibility as far as I'm concerned. The only reason we're talking about this is that you're following the game plan to a T by deflecting back to this topic whenever possible.

The more contentious this becomes, the more "reasonable" Trump's personal grudge and unusual foreign policy actions may appear.
 
Want to talk about Rudy? What about that fact he doesn't want to co-operate with the ukraine investigation?

https://www.newsweek.com/rudy-giuli...adam-schiff-led-ukraine-investigation-1461955

"President Donald Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani said he would not cooperate with the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into allegations of Ukrainian quid pro quo accusations involving the president (...)"

This ain't grade 9 Rudy, you can't throw a tantrum because you don't like whoever leads the investigation... besides, if you were all about the truth and "doing your job" for your client's sake, what does it matter?

If he had things that were so damning to Biden, surely he couldn't wait for an opportunity to let the house know...
 
Grim said:
From your own article:

"So will you not cooperate with the House Intelligence Committee?" Stephanopoulos asked on several occasions. "I wouldn't cooperate with Adam Schiff," Giuliani replied. "I think Adam Schiff should be removed."

Giuliani said if Schiff is removed and a "neutral person" is put in his place as chairman of the House committee, then he may consider cooperating with Congress.

Rudy does want to collaborate with Congress but NOT with corrupted Schiff. That's his statement.
Click to expand...


What makes you think that Giuliani has any standing to impose his will on the house? I'm friends with the president so I get to dictate which elected officials I will / won't cooperate with? What a load of horseshit. I hope they hold him in contempt should he keep going down that road.

That's outlandish and shows a lack of respect for the democratic institutions that nation is built on. And you find that upstanding somehow?
 
Last edited:
Well, this has been entertaining. Let's check back in a few weeks and see what happens.

It'll be even more interesting to come back in a year from now and see who prevailed.
 
kahos said:
Pretty much.

Here's what I initially quoted from the report.

"(...) collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law."

Here's a larger quote from page two of the report that addresses this head on:

"In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.”

Mueller could never prove or deny "collusion" as it's outside the scope of the parameters he was working with in the first place.

This is why it borders on the meaningless / dishonest to say that after all was said and done he found no collusion. That was not a possible outcome of his inquiry to begin with.

It was smart of trump and his team to focus on "collusion" to shape the narrative.
Click to expand...


Now let me quote from the MUELLER REPORT!

"In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.”"

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

Why are you still saying there is a crime?
 
CRNKY said:
ok kids break it up, you two go in different corners facing the wall till you calm down.
Click to expand...
I've got no issues with anyone here. I think we'll simply continue to have a respectul discussion as we have over the past couple days...

Wether you choose to read or interact with these posts is up to you

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
 
Stirl_ae86 said:
Probably because a few have finally started to accept what's been obvious since fall 2016
Click to expand...
That it suited the Russian federation better for Trump to win over Hillary? Sure, that's not a crime in itself. It's fair for them to have a preference. I'm sure Israel had their own preference and so forth.

I don't think Russia has never been "not involved" in elections or American domestic issues. Just like I expect the opposite to be true.

That Trump jr met with Russian officials at Trump tower on June 9th to get dirt on opponents ? That's a little more moraly ambiguous but is not being prosecuted as a conspiracy. That their interests were aligned is not a crime in itself. The Trump campaign was in it to win it. Not every one of their actions can be tied to Trump Sr.

And here we are for round two 'of leaning on foreign actors to get dirt on the opposition" Is it a crime in itself to ask? Probably not. Just how much pressure should you apply when you're using foreign policy for more than just "official use"?

Is it in line with what the public expects or deserve from their commander in chief? It'll be for their representatives to resolve.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top