Firewithin Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 I'd let AOC peg me, full stop. Give it to me, mamacita. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 So she's threatening to retaliate against Donald Trump's family with punitive investigatons because one of them said something mean about her? I am aware of the right wing campaign to brand her as stupid, but this remark is stupid. And I am aware that they will come up with leftist boogeymen no matter what but this serves it up to them on a platter(and may even be grounds down the road to challenge the legitimacy of an investigation). Either something is worth investigating or it's not. Period. Your personal feelings should have nothing to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwheel86 Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 9 minutes ago, Chairslinger said: So she's threatening to retaliate against Donald Trump's family with punitive investigatons because one of them said something mean about her? I am aware of the right wing campaign to brand her as stupid, but this remark is stupid. And I am aware that they will come up with leftist boogeymen no matter what but this serves it up to them on a platter(and may even be grounds down the road to challenge the legitimacy of an investigation). Either something is worth investigating or it's not. Period. Your personal feelings should have nothing to do with it. They did a million Benghazi hearings, can't we get at least 1? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 13 minutes ago, Chairslinger said: So she's threatening to retaliate against Donald Trump's family with punitive investigatons because one of them said something mean about her? I am aware of the right wing campaign to brand her as stupid, but this remark is stupid. And I am aware that they will come up with leftist boogeymen no matter what but this serves it up to them on a platter(and may even be grounds down the road to challenge the legitimacy of an investigation). Either something is worth investigating or it's not. Period. Your personal feelings should have nothing to do with it. Nah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firewithin Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 one could say hes.......... Cohen to jail YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 23 minutes ago, Firewithin said: one could say hes.......... Cohen to jail YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwheel86 Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Is Cohen protecting someone? Why potentially burn Trump regarding Russia by cooperating with Mueller but not cooperate with SDNY regarding the non Russia stuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 8 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said: Is Cohen protecting someone? Why potentially burn Trump regarding Russia by cooperating with Mueller but not cooperate with SDNY regarding the non Russia stuff? An easy guess is that he's angling to get the feds to let his family keep some of the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Just now, osxmatt said: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwheel86 Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 5 minutes ago, Jason said: An easy guess is that he's angling to get the feds to let his family keep some of the money. By not cooperating? Wouldn't that be a reason to take all his money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwheel86 Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 tf...? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Jwheel86 said: tf...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CayceG Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 4 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said: tf...? No, sir. It does not do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Just now, CayceG said: No, sir. It does not do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwheel86 Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 I'm jumping the gun, but could McConnell pull a Merrick Garland on an Impeachment trial? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 3 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said: I'm jumping the gun, but could McConnell pull a Merrick Garland on an Impeachment trial? No, I don't believe so. The constitution states that the Senate MUST hold a trial if the House impeaches, and Senate rules back that up: https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/senaterules.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CayceG Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Can't the Senate just change the rules? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneticBlueprint Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 4 hours ago, Chris- said: I'd let AOC peg me, full stop. Give it to me, mamacita. My wife kind of looks like her. Sex has been better lately. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneticBlueprint Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Mueller says Manafort told ‘discernible lies,’ including about contacts with employee alleged to have Russian intelligence tieshttps://wapo.st/2L38m73 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 5 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: No, I don't believe so. The constitution states that the Senate MUST hold a trial if the House impeaches, and Senate rules back that up: https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/senaterules.pdf Just now, CayceG said: Can't the Senate just change the rules? I don't think this is a real concern because.... 1. If McConnell has enough support to not convict, which is very likely considering the hyper partisanship and super high bar to convict, then it seems to me the best political defense to the House impeaching would be for the Senate to take it up and not convict. This would present a facial he said, she said for them politically. To not take it up would add weight to a "what are they hiding" attack. Sure, it prevents Dems from presenting their case in public, but they'll do that in the House, anyway. 2. If McConnell doesn't have the support to prevent conviction, he doesn't have the support to charge the rule, presumably. And even if he did, this would mean you would theoretically have a court case framed as the House and Senate wanting to impeach/convict a president but essentially one man is preventing it. I doubt even this SCOTUS would set that precedent just to help Trump eek out the last 6-12 months of his presidency by the time any of this was ruled on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewhyteboar Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 If the left/Democrats could let bygones be bygones after the primary, I'd want Trump on the ballot. Impeachment is for suckers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwheel86 Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 My brain is running through scenarios. Let's say there is no impeachment or he survives it. DoJ policy is they don't indict a sitting President, If Trump loses in 2020, he's now open to indictments. Would Trump risk "norms" protecting him once out of office, or would he resign ahead of 2020 in exchange for a pardon from Pence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 5 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said: My brain is running through scenarios. Let's say there is no impeachment or he survives it. DoJ policy is they don't indict a sitting President, If Trump loses in 2020, he's now open to indictments. Would Trump risk "norms" protecting him once out of office, or would he resign ahead of 2020 in exchange for a pardon from Pence? Another scenario: Trump wins in 2020. Burn it all down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 16 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said: My brain is running through scenarios. Let's say there is no impeachment or he survives it. DoJ policy is they don't indict a sitting President, If Trump loses in 2020, he's now open to indictments. Would Trump risk "norms" protecting him once out of office, or would he resign ahead of 2020 in exchange for a pardon from Pence? He'd pardon himself then let the courts drag it out until he dies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwheel86 Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 6 minutes ago, osxmatt said: Another scenario: Trump wins in 2020. Burn it all down. But is he willing to take that risk and the problem returns in 2024. The Republicans and Pence won't do it during the 2020 or 2024 transition, it doesn't benefit them. But if he resigns before 20 then he could make a deal with Pence to "go away" in exchange for the pardon and endorsement. One way or another, Trump is going to be the most politically active former President ever. The Republicans aren't going to want him defacto controlling the party through Twitter and MAGA rallies forever. Trump in jail and off Twitter benefits the Republican Party since it returns control of the party to the Jebs of the GOP. A democratic DoJ is the best outcome for the GOP, they can rally the base by crying victim and Trump is off Twitter. Trump making a deal with Pence is the only other way for Trump to get out clean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.