napacat posted:.  Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense. 
......that led to 34 indictments, convictions and/or guilty pleas, spelled out exactly how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to ensure their poodle Trump won, and with any luck will lead to the poodle's indictment for obstruction when he's defeated in 2020, as per the consensus that he'd have been charged now if not the President.  
bman posted:
napacat posted:.  Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense. 
......that led to 34 indictments, convictions and/or guilty pleas, spelled out exactly how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to ensure their poodle Trump won, and with any luck will lead to the poodle's indictment for obstruction when he's defeated in 2020, as per the consensus that he'd have been charged now if not the President.  

Wow...what drivel.  None of the indictments were related to the Trump campaign colluding with Russia.  Manafort’s crime was from years prior.  The rest...process crimes and BS.  

You can’t obstruct justice for a “crime” your not guilty of or did not exist.  How long are most of you going to believe this charade?    Looking forward to excitement ahead!

napacat posted:
bman posted:
napacat posted:.  Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense. 
......that led to 34 indictments, convictions and/or guilty pleas, spelled out exactly how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to ensure their poodle Trump won, and with any luck will lead to the poodle's indictment for obstruction when he's defeated in 2020, as per the consensus that he'd have been charged now if not the President.  

Wow...what drivel.  None of the indictments were related to the Trump campaign colluding with Russia.  Manafort’s crime was from years prior.  The rest...process crimes and BS.  

You can’t obstruct justice for a “crime” your not guilty of or did not exist.  How long are most of you going to believe this charade?    Looking forward to excitement ahead!

I'm pretty sure that one can obstruct justice without being accused of a crime. Maybe Irwin or another learned legal mind can clarify? Several hundred former prosecutors - both Democrats and Republicans - seem to think so!

And Papadopoulos, Stone and 12 Russians were indicted or charged by Mueller for reasons directly related to the Trump campaign.

Maybe you wanna check sources beyond Hannity and Ingraham? 

napacat posted:
bman posted:
napacat posted:.  Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense. 
......that led to 34 indictments, convictions and/or guilty pleas, spelled out exactly how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to ensure their poodle Trump won, and with any luck will lead to the poodle's indictment for obstruction when he's defeated in 2020, as per the consensus that he'd have been charged now if not the President.  

 

You can’t obstruct justice for a “crime” your not guilty of or did not exist.  

I am trying to avoid this nonsense - but how is anyone convinced by this garbage?  Of course you can obstruct justice regardless of whether you are found guilty of the underlying crime or in your distorted view, the crime "did not exist" - whatever that means. 

That is like saying you can not be guilty of witness tampering, bribing witnesses, bribing jurors, etc., if "the crime did not exist" or one is found not guilty. It is preposterous.  There is also a basic crime known as the attempted crime (bet it murder, theft, kidnapping etc.) which does not require succesful completion of the crime but is focused on intent and effort - all of which has completely been ignored by the sycophants who want so hard to believe their poor Trump is a victim.  Spare me

I understand your reluctance to get involved, jc.  That said, it's important that we hear from someone who actually knows what they're talking about from time to time.   This is especially important in matters of the law.

It's amazing that a certain poster here, who claims to get his news from a variety of sources, seems to echo many Faux News talking points so frequently.

PH

napacat posted:
bman posted:
napacat posted:.  Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense. 
......that led to 34 indictments, convictions and/or guilty pleas, spelled out exactly how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to ensure their poodle Trump won, and with any luck will lead to the poodle's indictment for obstruction when he's defeated in 2020, as per the consensus that he'd have been charged now if not the President.  

Wow...what drivel.  None of the indictments were related to the Trump campaign colluding with Russia.  Manafort’s crime was from years prior.  The rest...process crimes and BS.  

You can’t obstruct justice for a “crime” your not guilty of or did not exist.  How long are most of you going to believe this charade?    Looking forward to excitement ahead!

Hey Perry Mason there is no indictment for colluding because there is no crime of collusion. Second you absolutely can be guilty of obstruction if you interfere with a law enforcement investigation.

You are a profoundly ignorant man, and terrible debater, and it's obvious your brilliant conclusions come straight from Fox "News."

Yes, TOM. The incessant references to "no collusion," are a hallmark of indoctrinated trumpistas.  

There are 10 specific references to conspiracy in the Mueller report, at least 3 of which are SO rock solid, that hundreds of former federal prosecutors (of all parties) indicate that if the person who was responsible for them were anyone other than our feckless president, they would be prosecuted.  Wonder why we don't hear about this from these folk.

PH

purplehaze posted:

Yes, TOM. The incessant references to "no collusion," are a hallmark of indoctrinated trumpistas.  

There are 10 specific references to conspiracy in the Mueller report, at least 3 of which are SO rock solid, that hundreds of former federal prosecutors (of all parties) indicate that if the person who was responsible for them were anyone other than our feckless president, they would be prosecuted.  Wonder why we don't hear about this from these folk.

PH

They're sheltered by the acting State-Run "news" outlet they consume for hours at a time.

purplehaze posted:

at least 3 of which are SO rock solid, that hundreds of former federal prosecutors (of all parties) indicate that if the person who was responsible for them were anyone other than our feckless president, they would be prosecuted.  

I'm no fan of the Tangerine Man, but the fact that prosecutors see a reason to prosecute, doesn't mean a crime was committed, only that they feel there is enough evidence to bring proceedings against Trump, which also doesn't mean there is enough evidence there that a conviction is likely.  Lots of reasons prosecutors initiate proceedings, not all of which are based solely on the law and the facts at hand.  

I would also tend to give less weight to the views of prosecutors in such matters.  Of course prosecutors see a crime, it's what they are trained to do.  If that many bi-partisan judges (or defence counsel for that matter) said the same thing the prosecutors did, it would be more telling IMHO. 

The Old Man posted:
napacat posted:
bman posted:
napacat posted:.  Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense. 
......that led to 34 indictments, convictions and/or guilty pleas, spelled out exactly how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to ensure their poodle Trump won, and with any luck will lead to the poodle's indictment for obstruction when he's defeated in 2020, as per the consensus that he'd have been charged now if not the President.  

Wow...what drivel.  None of the indictments were related to the Trump campaign colluding with Russia.  Manafort’s crime was from years prior.  The rest...process crimes and BS.  

You can’t obstruct justice for a “crime” your not guilty of or did not exist.  How long are most of you going to believe this charade?    Looking forward to excitement ahead!

Hey Perry Mason there is no indictment for colluding because there is no crime of collusion. Second you absolutely can be guilty of obstruction if you interfere with a law enforcement investigation.

You are a profoundly ignorant man, and terrible debater, and it's obvious your brilliant conclusions come straight from Fox "News."

Old Man...I'm sure FOX is exactly where AG Barr gets his news from, which is what most likely prompted him to want to open up an investigation into where this all began.  I'm sure he was home watching Hannity and said..."you know what, I should probably look into this wacky theory that this was a conspiracy against Trump".  I see now.  Thanks for opening my eyes.

csm posted:
purplehaze posted:

at least 3 of which are SO rock solid, that hundreds of former federal prosecutors (of all parties) indicate that if the person who was responsible for them were anyone other than our feckless president, they would be prosecuted.  

I'm no fan of the Tangerine Man, but the fact that prosecutors see a reason to prosecute, doesn't mean a crime was committed, only that they feel there is enough evidence to bring proceedings against Trump, which also doesn't mean there is enough evidence there that a conviction is likely.  Lots of reasons prosecutors initiate proceedings, not all of which are based solely on the law and the facts at hand.  

I would also tend to give less weight to the views of prosecutors in such matters.  Of course prosecutors see a crime, it's what they are trained to do.  If that many bi-partisan judges (or defence counsel for that matter) said the same thing the prosecutors did, it would be more telling IMHO. 

There are prosecutors, and then there are prosecutors.

Federal prosecutors simply don't bring charges unless the likelihood of conviction is very high.  Latest stats indicate a conviction rate well in excess of 90%.  I'm not sure where you get the impression that prosecutors "see crimes."  You make it sound like they're actively looking to bring specious cases. There simply isn't the capacity to bring charges willy-nilly in our current system.  If a crime is recognized  and federal prosecutors examine the available evidence and decide to charge, the chances of conviction are extremely good.

Keep in mind that this was a group of over 700 retired prosecutors who served at the federal level.  Sitting judges would NEVER make statements regarding potential prosecutions.  It's not what they do.  The large body of defense lawyers out there might have very well signed onto an opinion letter contradicting the opinions of these federal prosecutors.  We haven't seen anything.  And we won't.  

PH

 

purplehaze posted:
csm posted:
purplehaze posted:

at least 3 of which are SO rock solid, that hundreds of former federal prosecutors (of all parties) indicate that if the person who was responsible for them were anyone other than our feckless president, they would be prosecuted.  

I'm no fan of the Tangerine Man, but the fact that prosecutors see a reason to prosecute, doesn't mean a crime was committed, only that they feel there is enough evidence to bring proceedings against Trump, which also doesn't mean there is enough evidence there that a conviction is likely.  Lots of reasons prosecutors initiate proceedings, not all of which are based solely on the law and the facts at hand.  

I would also tend to give less weight to the views of prosecutors in such matters.  Of course prosecutors see a crime, it's what they are trained to do.  If that many bi-partisan judges (or defence counsel for that matter) said the same thing the prosecutors did, it would be more telling IMHO. 

There are prosecutors, and then there are prosecutors.

Federal prosecutors simply don't bring charges unless the likelihood of conviction is very high.  Latest stats indicate a conviction rate well in excess of 90%.  I'm not sure where you get the impression that prosecutors "see crimes."  You make it sound like they're actively looking to bring specious cases. There simply isn't the capacity to bring charges willy-nilly in our current system.  If a crime is recognized  and federal prosecutors examine the available evidence and decide to charge, the chances of conviction are extremely good.

Keep in mind that this was a group of over 700 retired prosecutors who served at the federal level.  Sitting judges would NEVER make statements regarding potential prosecutions.  It's not what they do.  The large body of defense lawyers out there might have very well signed onto an opinion letter contradicting the opinions of these federal prosecutors.  We haven't seen anything.  And we won't.  

PH

 

Right,  Fed prosecutors don't bring charges unless the likely hood of conviction is very high.  They also don't write reports about their investigation.  You either recommend charges or you don't because you cannot support the charges with evidence.    I suspect we are going to learn a lot more soon.  Notice how they are all turning on each other?  

purplehaze posted:
csm posted:
purplehaze posted:

at least 3 of which are SO rock solid, that hundreds of former federal prosecutors (of all parties) indicate that if the person who was responsible for them were anyone other than our feckless president, they would be prosecuted.  

I'm no fan of the Tangerine Man, but the fact that prosecutors see a reason to prosecute, doesn't mean a crime was committed, only that they feel there is enough evidence to bring proceedings against Trump, which also doesn't mean there is enough evidence there that a conviction is likely.  Lots of reasons prosecutors initiate proceedings, not all of which are based solely on the law and the facts at hand.  

I would also tend to give less weight to the views of prosecutors in such matters.  Of course prosecutors see a crime, it's what they are trained to do.  If that many bi-partisan judges (or defence counsel for that matter) said the same thing the prosecutors did, it would be more telling IMHO. 

There are prosecutors, and then there are prosecutors.

Federal prosecutors simply don't bring charges unless the likelihood of conviction is very high.  Latest stats indicate a conviction rate well in excess of 90%.  I'm not sure where you get the impression that prosecutors "see crimes."  You make it sound like they're actively looking to bring specious cases. There simply isn't the capacity to bring charges willy-nilly in our current system.  If a crime is recognized  and federal prosecutors examine the available evidence and decide to charge, the chances of conviction are extremely good.

Keep in mind that this was a group of over 700 retired prosecutors who served at the federal level.  Sitting judges would NEVER make statements regarding potential prosecutions.  It's not what they do.  The large body of defense lawyers out there might have very well signed onto an opinion letter contradicting the opinions of these federal prosecutors.  We haven't seen anything.  And we won't.  

PH

 

PH while conviction rates are very high, I don't think you can use that as evidence that prosecutors don't initiate proceedings for reasons other than a high likelihood of conviction.  There are politically-motivated proceedings brought all the time.  More importantly, the prosecutors all said that they would initiate proceedings based on the report.  Not that Trump would be convicted.  Important distinction and one that seemingly is being ignored.  

"Seeing crimes" was perhaps a poor choice of words on my part, but what I meant was that prosecutors generally are predisposed to think people are guilty once they've decided to prosecute.  There is a certain lack of objectivity, for whatever reason, vis a vis those accused of crimes in my experience.  Not a criticism either by the way.  I think I'd feel the same way if i was on that side of the table for any period of time (one of the primary reasons I don't practice criminal law). 

I also know judges wouldn't ever say something like that, which was my point.  Judges would want to see all evidence presented and witnesses subject to cross-examination before rendering any decision. People seem to be making the leap that because a number of prosecutors would initiate proceedings, that the Orange Menace is guilty of obstruction.  My point is simply that you can't make that leap (similar to Hilary, you couldn't make the leap that the reports of what she did equaled a crime). 

No one has any idea as to whether Trump obstructed justice, and won't regardless of what anyone thinks, unless and until a trial happens.

csm posted:
purplehaze posted:
csm posted:
purplehaze posted:

at least 3 of which are SO rock solid, that hundreds of former federal prosecutors (of all parties) indicate that if the person who was responsible for them were anyone other than our feckless president, they would be prosecuted.  

I'm no fan of the Tangerine Man, but the fact that prosecutors see a reason to prosecute, doesn't mean a crime was committed, only that they feel there is enough evidence to bring proceedings against Trump, which also doesn't mean there is enough evidence there that a conviction is likely.  Lots of reasons prosecutors initiate proceedings, not all of which are based solely on the law and the facts at hand.  

I would also tend to give less weight to the views of prosecutors in such matters.  Of course prosecutors see a crime, it's what they are trained to do.  If that many bi-partisan judges (or defence counsel for that matter) said the same thing the prosecutors did, it would be more telling IMHO. 

There are prosecutors, and then there are prosecutors.

Federal prosecutors simply don't bring charges unless the likelihood of conviction is very high.  Latest stats indicate a conviction rate well in excess of 90%.  I'm not sure where you get the impression that prosecutors "see crimes."  You make it sound like they're actively looking to bring specious cases. There simply isn't the capacity to bring charges willy-nilly in our current system.  If a crime is recognized  and federal prosecutors examine the available evidence and decide to charge, the chances of conviction are extremely good.

Keep in mind that this was a group of over 700 retired prosecutors who served at the federal level.  Sitting judges would NEVER make statements regarding potential prosecutions.  It's not what they do.  The large body of defense lawyers out there might have very well signed onto an opinion letter contradicting the opinions of these federal prosecutors.  We haven't seen anything.  And we won't.  

PH

 

PH while conviction rates are very high, I don't think you can use that as evidence that prosecutors don't initiate proceedings for reasons other than a high likelihood of conviction.  There are politically-motivated proceedings brought all the time.  More importantly, the prosecutors all said that they would initiate proceedings based on the report.  Not that Trump would be convicted.  Important distinction and one that seemingly is being ignored.  

"Seeing crimes" was perhaps a poor choice of words on my part, but what I meant was that prosecutors generally are predisposed to think people are guilty once they've decided to prosecute.  There is a certain lack of objectivity, for whatever reason, vis a vis those accused of crimes in my experience.  Not a criticism either by the way.  I think I'd feel the same way if i was on that side of the table for any period of time (one of the primary reasons I don't practice criminal law). 

I also know judges wouldn't ever say something like that, which was my point.  Judges would want to see all evidence presented and witnesses subject to cross-examination before rendering any decision. People seem to be making the leap that because a number of prosecutors would initiate proceedings, that the Orange Menace is guilty of obstruction.  My point is simply that you can't make that leap (similar to Hilary, you couldn't make the leap that the reports of what she did equaled a crime). 

No one has any idea as to whether Trump obstructed justice, and won't regardless of what anyone things, unless and until a trial happens.

Fair post with the exception of:  (similar to Hilary, you couldn't make the leap that the reports of what she did equaled a crime). Destroying subpoenaed emails, taking hammers to her devices and wiping hard drives clean with bleach bit...right...no possible crimes there.  

The more I think of her, the happier I am that I voted for Trump.

As a former prosecutor, my experience was that there were two different standards by which investigators and prosecutors operated.  Criminal investigators, who are originally assigned to investigate a potential crime when a complaint is filed, operate under a "probable cause" standard.  Their goal was to build up enough evidence to support a finding that that there was probable cause to believe that a crime had occurred.  Once such a finding was made, their job was mostly complete and the file was transferred to the prosecuting office, where the prosecutor then made a decision whether to file criminal charges.  In doing so, the prosecutor would use a stricter standard of evaluating the evidence to determine whether he could meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard necessary for a trial.  Prosecutorial discretion played a role, and included factors such as the victim's willingness to cooperate and ability to withstand the rigors of a trial, the availability of witnesses, evidence and experts and their associated costs, and factors that might affect the likelihood of a plea bargain.

"Slam dunk" cases never saw the inside of a courtroom; guilty plea agreements would be entered and sentence restrictions agreed upon.  

 

napacat posted:
The Old Man posted:
napacat posted:
bman posted:
napacat posted:.  Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense. 
......that led to 34 indictments, convictions and/or guilty pleas, spelled out exactly how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to ensure their poodle Trump won, and with any luck will lead to the poodle's indictment for obstruction when he's defeated in 2020, as per the consensus that he'd have been charged now if not the President.  

Wow...what drivel.  None of the indictments were related to the Trump campaign colluding with Russia.  Manafort’s crime was from years prior.  The rest...process crimes and BS.  

You can’t obstruct justice for a “crime” your not guilty of or did not exist.  How long are most of you going to believe this charade?    Looking forward to excitement ahead!

Hey Perry Mason there is no indictment for colluding because there is no crime of collusion. Second you absolutely can be guilty of obstruction if you interfere with a law enforcement investigation.

You are a profoundly ignorant man, and terrible debater, and it's obvious your brilliant conclusions come straight from Fox "News."

Old Man...I'm sure FOX is exactly where AG Barr gets his news from, which is what most likely prompted him to want to open up an investigation into where this all began.  I'm sure he was home watching Hannity and said..."you know what, I should probably look into this wacky theory that this was a conspiracy against Trump".  I see now.  Thanks for opening my eyes.

Fox is not News.  It is an entertainment program!

For some strange reason your genes do not allow you to ascertain common sense from BS.

The total thing with the buffon is to keep a job that he is totally unquailed for.  By far the lowest IQ president ever, and sort of matches your IQ level.

I see that Miami will be under water soon with the so called Climate Change, and trust  that you are in that area.

This thread used to contain intelligent comments, until you provided your "Random Thoughts"i

flwino posted:
napacat posted:
The Old Man posted:
napacat posted:
bman posted:
napacat posted:.  Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense. 
......that led to 34 indictments, convictions and/or guilty pleas, spelled out exactly how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to ensure their poodle Trump won, and with any luck will lead to the poodle's indictment for obstruction when he's defeated in 2020, as per the consensus that he'd have been charged now if not the President.  

Wow...what drivel.  None of the indictments were related to the Trump campaign colluding with Russia.  Manafort’s crime was from years prior.  The rest...process crimes and BS.  

You can’t obstruct justice for a “crime” your not guilty of or did not exist.  How long are most of you going to believe this charade?    Looking forward to excitement ahead!

Hey Perry Mason there is no indictment for colluding because there is no crime of collusion. Second you absolutely can be guilty of obstruction if you interfere with a law enforcement investigation.

You are a profoundly ignorant man, and terrible debater, and it's obvious your brilliant conclusions come straight from Fox "News."

Old Man...I'm sure FOX is exactly where AG Barr gets his news from, which is what most likely prompted him to want to open up an investigation into where this all began.  I'm sure he was home watching Hannity and said..."you know what, I should probably look into this wacky theory that this was a conspiracy against Trump".  I see now.  Thanks for opening my eyes.

Fox is not News.  It is an entertainment program!

For some strange reason your genes do not allow you to ascertain common sense from BS.

The total thing with the buffon is to keep a job that he is totally unquailed for.  By far the lowest IQ president ever, and sort of matches your IQ level.

I see that Miami will be under water soon with the so called Climate Change, and trust  that you are in that area.

This thread used to contain intelligent comments, until you provided your "Random Thoughts"i

Brilliant post.  

I been thinking quite a while about what motivates Trump.  As a rational person with a long history participating in and observing politics, I like to think I know a thing or two about it and have been baffled as to why he says and does the things he does, most of which can only hurt him politically in the long run.  And what I've decided motivates him is different from what most commentators say. 

After watching him shoot himself in the foot more times than I can count, tell thousands of easily provable lies, and do nothing to expand his base so that he has a chance of re-election, my view is that he talks and acts as he does because he was not loved by his parents or perhaps anyone else as a child.  But now he is loved by millions of people: his base.

So, he never really cared if he won the election, nor if he is re-elected.  He doesn't care if he is mocked by most of the world.  Nor does he care if he accomplishes anything politically, especially not anything with broad appeal or even appeal outside his base. 

All that matters to him is his base.  He keeps them loyal by pandering to their basest desires:  racism, sexism, far-right policies, attacking basic democratic principles and American values, etc.  He knows what they like and he gives it to them.  And in return, they love him unconditionally, something he never got before he was President, not from his parents, not from his kids, not from his wives and lovers.  That's why he has so many events with his disciples, says the nutty things he does on Twitter and elsewhere, and doesn't care what anyone outside his base thinks.  He's got them in his pocket as long as he continues to feed their biases and their hatred for their perceived enemies.

napacat posted:
The Old Man posted:
napacat posted:
bman posted:
napacat posted:.  Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense. 
......that led to 34 indictments, convictions and/or guilty pleas, spelled out exactly how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to ensure their poodle Trump won, and with any luck will lead to the poodle's indictment for obstruction when he's defeated in 2020, as per the consensus that he'd have been charged now if not the President.  

Wow...what drivel.  None of the indictments were related to the Trump campaign colluding with Russia.  Manafort’s crime was from years prior.  The rest...process crimes and BS.  

You can’t obstruct justice for a “crime” your not guilty of or did not exist.  How long are most of you going to believe this charade?    Looking forward to excitement ahead!

Hey Perry Mason there is no indictment for colluding because there is no crime of collusion. Second you absolutely can be guilty of obstruction if you interfere with a law enforcement investigation.

You are a profoundly ignorant man, and terrible debater, and it's obvious your brilliant conclusions come straight from Fox "News."

Old Man...I'm sure FOX is exactly where AG Barr gets his news from, which is what most likely prompted him to want to open up an investigation into where this all began.  I'm sure he was home watching Hannity and said..."you know what, I should probably look into this wacky theory that this was a conspiracy against Trump".  I see now.  Thanks for opening my eyes.

God your as bad at sarcasm as you are with logic. Here, as many others have, have sold their souls to the despot in chief. Go away little flea.

The Old Man posted:
napacat posted:
The Old Man posted:
napacat posted:
bman posted:
napacat posted:.  Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense. 
......that led to 34 indictments, convictions and/or guilty pleas, spelled out exactly how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to ensure their poodle Trump won, and with any luck will lead to the poodle's indictment for obstruction when he's defeated in 2020, as per the consensus that he'd have been charged now if not the President.  

Wow...what drivel.  None of the indictments were related to the Trump campaign colluding with Russia.  Manafort’s crime was from years prior.  The rest...process crimes and BS.  

You can’t obstruct justice for a “crime” your not guilty of or did not exist.  How long are most of you going to believe this charade?    Looking forward to excitement ahead!

Hey Perry Mason there is no indictment for colluding because there is no crime of collusion. Second you absolutely can be guilty of obstruction if you interfere with a law enforcement investigation.

You are a profoundly ignorant man, and terrible debater, and it's obvious your brilliant conclusions come straight from Fox "News."

Old Man...I'm sure FOX is exactly where AG Barr gets his news from, which is what most likely prompted him to want to open up an investigation into where this all began.  I'm sure he was home watching Hannity and said..."you know what, I should probably look into this wacky theory that this was a conspiracy against Trump".  I see now.  Thanks for opening my eyes.

God your as bad at sarcasm as you are with logic. Here, as many others have, have sold their souls to the despot in chief. Go away little flea.

Not overly witty...keep that bad sense of humor.  You’ll need it.   

It’s obvious that anyone who continues to claim “no obstruction” hasn’t actually read the Mueller Report.  And their bleatings of “no collusion and no obstruction” would do a complete 180 if you swapped in President Obama and his key advisers as the protagonist and merry band of buffoons instead of Putin’s Bitch and his campaign team.  

As for a judicial assessment of what the Report details, former judge Andrew Napolitano who works for a fake news network stated that Putin’s Bitch likely did obstruct justice.  Oh wait, he works for Fox.  Definitely NOT fake news, per Putin’s Bitch himself........ 

purplehaze posted:

I agree with much of your post, b-man... with the exception of trump's caring about getting re-elected.  He desperately wants to be re-elected.  It will be the only thing keeping him from facing the legal system for at least a little while longer.

PH

True, I hadn't thought of that.  Also, he hates to lose of course, but when he does he just says the system was rigged against him.  Remember when he said that every day for weeks before the 2016 election?  Funny that he never says it now.....

bman posted:
purplehaze posted:

I agree with much of your post, b-man... with the exception of trump's caring about getting re-elected.  He desperately wants to be re-elected.  It will be the only thing keeping him from facing the legal system for at least a little while longer.

PH

True, I hadn't thought of that.  Also, he hates to lose of course, but when he does he just says the system was rigged against him.  Remember when he said that every day for weeks before the 2016 election?  Funny that he never says it now.....

He's still a whiny bitch.  It's another component of his personality that I'll add to your very accurate summation of him.  He's an angry hominid.  Anger fuels almost everything he says and does.  Sad.

PH

Personally I think hes a little bit smarter than many of us give him credit for but not nearly as smart as he or his followers believe. His whole plan relies on him being unpredictable, saying anything and creating uncertainty amongst his foes. Did he really mean that? Would he really do that?

Over time though they learn behind his chaos he has little to no actual plan and is just winging it to see what he can come up with.  We've gotten virtually nowhere with our biggest issues in health care, infrastructure, his wall, immigration reform etc. Eventually the other side catches on to his bluffing which is evidenced by China walking back on what they negotiated recently. He's got an expiration date on most things he tries and his solution when things blow up has been bankruptcy in the past. Not an option for the US though

bomba503 posted:

Personally I think hes a little bit smarter than many of us give him credit for but not nearly as smart as he or his followers believe. His whole plan relies on him being unpredictable, saying anything and creating uncertainty amongst his foes. Did he really mean that? Would he really do that?

Over time though they learn behind his chaos he has little to no actual plan and is just winging it to see what he can come up with.  We've gotten virtually nowhere with our biggest issues in health care, infrastructure, his wall, immigration reform etc. Eventually the other side catches on to his bluffing which is evidenced by China walking back on what they negotiated recently. He's got an expiration date on most things he tries and his solution when things blow up has been bankruptcy in the past. Not an option for the US though

As I personally have spent multiple days with him I do feel i have so.e insight on this issue. Addressing this smart question entirely depends on your definition of smart . Intellectual capacity or curiosity? Clearly not.   Apart from any politics - if anyone on this thread is familiar with Game of Thrones in Season 2 or 3 and probably book 2 Tywin Lannister refers to Tyrion as having low cunning.  That is what Trump has - the same capacity possessed by con artists and flim flam men or women

bomba503 posted:

Personally I think hes a little bit smarter than many of us give him credit for but not nearly as smart as he or his followers believe. His whole plan relies on him being unpredictable, saying anything and creating uncertainty amongst his foes. Did he really mean that? Would he really do that?

Over time though they learn behind his chaos he has little to no actual plan and is just winging it to see what he can come up with.  We've gotten virtually nowhere with our biggest issues in health care, infrastructure, his wall, immigration reform etc. Eventually the other side catches on to his bluffing which is evidenced by China walking back on what they negotiated recently. He's got an expiration date on most things he tries and his solution when things blow up has been bankruptcy in the past. Not an option for the US though

He always blows up a deal when about to be signed, that is his way of extracting better terms.  May work in real estate, but doubt that it will work in diplomacy.  Not sure whether China really did back out, VS not putting in concrete terms as to what they were going to do.

 

No disagreement with either comment. I said a little bit smarter as in he's not a complete moron but certainly not brilliant by any stretch. I grew up around his antics and spent much time in Atlantic City, NYC, Brooklyn,South Florida etc and have despised him since I knew who he was almost 40 years ago. I know many people personally that have worked with, for and against him. Politics aside he's utterly reprehensible by any measure.

Agree with Jcocktosten....Depends on your definition of smart.   The guy can barely speak English, contradicts himself constantly.  Once he said something like this:  "I don't think teachers should have guns in the classroom, but, frankly, sometimes they probably should."  (Thus contradicting himself in the same sentence)

He is a mean spirited cunning bastard.  Is that smart?  I don't know, but it is mean spirited, and wholly unappealing to me. 

 

irwin posted:
purplehaze posted:

I just realized that yesterday was the first time I heard Robert Mueller's voice.  

PH

How many times has he heard yours, PH?

Never.  Hope to keep it that way!  Actually, now that he's retiring, I'd love to have a beer with him.

PH

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×