Page 24 of 28 FirstFirst ... 14 22 23 24 25 26 ... LastLast
Results 691 to 720 of 815

Thread: Trump 2019 - There are still children in detention separated from their parents

  1. #691
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,171
    Mentioned
    376 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by theimage13 View Post
    Then you're really not gonna want to see this
    I did one of those tests to see if I could spot “which of these two photos is AI generated and which is a real person.” I started to notice some tells, usually some detail in the hair... but I still only got about 75% right and I was staring closely and looking for it. Scary shit.

    re: 25 amendment, there’s so much evidence on clear display that is openly troubling mental health professionals enough to speak out, there’s just no non-partisan check or system in place to go there. It’s a completely impotent option

    EDIT: Ok, I just watched this doctored Pelosi clip. This isn't even close to a good job. I could throw together something that sounds infinitely better in minutes. The fact that both Trump and Giuliani were apparently fooled by this only makes them look dumb.
    Last edited by Jinsai; 05-25-2019 at 11:13 AM.

  2. #692
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Republic of Texas
    Posts
    6,219
    Mentioned
    441 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinsai View Post
    I did one of those tests to see if I could spot “which of these two photos is AI generated and which is a real person.” I started to notice some tells, usually some detail in the hair... but I still only got about 75% right and I was staring closely and looking for it. Scary shit.
    10 to 1, this shit is gonna be all over the place in the run up to 2020, what with integrity being pretty much over, and people getting their news from facebook.

    Doesn't this seem like a plot point from some 80s dystopian cyberpunk story?

    Welcome to the future. We're pretty much fucked.

  3. #693
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Laughingstock of the World (America)
    Posts
    3,576
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinsai View Post
    EDIT: Ok, I just watched this doctored Pelosi clip. This isn't even close to a good job. I could throw together something that sounds infinitely better in minutes. The fact that both Trump and Giuliani were apparently fooled by this only makes them look dumb.
    I don't know if they were fooled by them or not. I think they just know derogatory content when they see it and will deploy it regardless of authenticity or any moral compass.

    As bad as this is, I still don't want Democrats to fight back in the same way. If the entire GOP wants to resort to this bullshit, then I want to see the Democrats stand in stark contrast. I want it to be laughably obvious that one party is out there tweeting about policy ideas an engaging in meaningful conversations while another party is out there spewing doctored memes and generally taking a crap on the country. I do not want to stoop. I would sooner leave my family and friends behind and start a new life in a different country than find myself having to endure an entire political system dominated by doctored propaganda.

  4. #694
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    1,367
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    The deep fake stuff also has the potential to cut both ways, not only convincing people that bullshit is real, but also giving people a plausible excuse to deny objective truth.

    I recently came across a pretty convincing Trump "pee tape" video, and I'm assuming it's fake of course, but I also had the thought that, what if this really was the actual pee tape and I didn't even take it seriously because my guard is up and I generally assume everything is fake? That exact thought process could be used to deny anything, including stuff that was truly authentic. If the pee tape was actually real and the actual tape really did leak somehow, Trump people could just claim that it was another deep fake. It wouldn't mean anything.

    Essentially, there will be no such thing as evidence anymore. People can just drift off into whatever void they want, believing literally anything, and any evidence to the contrary will just be discarded as a deep fake. It'll bethe "post-truth" era on steroids.

  5. #695
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Laughingstock of the World (America)
    Posts
    3,576
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mantra View Post
    The deep fake stuff also has the potential to cut both ways, not only convincing people that bullshit is real, but also giving people a plausible excuse to deny objective truth.

    I recently came across a pretty convincing Trump "pee tape" video, and I'm assuming it's fake of course, but I also had the thought that, what if this really was the actual pee tape and I didn't even take it seriously because my guard is up and I generally assume everything is fake? That exact thought process could be used to deny anything, including stuff that was truly authentic. If the pee tape was actually real and the actual tape really did leak somehow, Trump people could just claim that it was another deep fake. It wouldn't mean anything.

    Essentially, there will be no such thing as evidence anymore. People can just drift off into whatever void they want, believing literally anything, and any evidence to the contrary will just be discarded as a deep fake. It'll bethe "post-truth" era on steroids.
    There will still be evidence. It's just going to become harder and harder to establish it. Decades ago, simply having something on video usuallymeant it was authentic. These days, if you want to convince someone you saw a UFO you can give a couple hundred bucks to a hungry film student and get a pretty plausible looking thing. Our best hope is to keep one step ahead and make sure that any video recordings being made bear some sort of technology that can be used to authenticate it.

  6. #696
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,171
    Mentioned
    376 Post(s)
    Now Trump is tweeting "numerous Japanese Officials" have told him that they think Democrats would rather see America fail than the Republican Party succeed: Death Wish!!!!

    Numerous Japanese Officials...

  7. #697
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Republic of Texas
    Posts
    6,219
    Mentioned
    441 Post(s)
    So I was thinking: I SURE do hope really, seriously, undeniably damming evidence against trump comes to light, because, if not, millions of people may think one party was just trying to take down the other.

    It would be awful if nothing happens as a result of these investigations, and, could ultimately galvanize trump's supporters, and even possibly sway a few independents.
    Last edited by elevenism; 05-29-2019 at 05:47 AM.

  8. #698
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Laughingstock of the World (America)
    Posts
    3,576
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)

  9. #699
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,171
    Mentioned
    376 Post(s)
    Mueller to speak today at 11am?

  10. #700
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northwest Indiana
    Posts
    2,249
    Mentioned
    90 Post(s)
    And...he did nothing. And will continue to do nothing by not testifying before Congress. What a poop crumb.

  11. #701
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,171
    Mentioned
    376 Post(s)
    What's ultimately frustrating is there's a clear attack on our checks and balances, and so we have Mueller come forward and try to clearly/legally restate "no, we didn't totally exonerate him" and we're back to square one because he won't say "yes, he's guilty, and this unique constitutional crisis requires me to spell that out to you like you're toddlers."

    If one side can say that what he implied was "we need to impeach" and the other side is reading it as "Ok, case closed, let's focus on the foreign governments influencing our election thing, Trump didn't do anything wrong" then we have gotten nowhere. Call me a skeptic, but I don't even think we've made any ground on the "hey we should work together to stop hostile foreign actors from manipulating our democracy" tip. We won't get there, because Trump feels that the accusation de-legitimizes his election (and it fucking does).
    Last edited by Jinsai; 05-29-2019 at 01:59 PM.

  12. #702
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Canton, Ohio
    Posts
    808
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Are any of you really surprised? Come on, now.

  13. #703
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,171
    Mentioned
    376 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Demogorgon View Post
    Are any of you really surprised? Come on, now.
    Nothing surprises me... not even when Trump responds to Mueller reiterating clearly "we did NOT exonerate him" with a tweet saying "case closed, let's move on."

    And here we are again, with our collective dick in our hands, saying "whaaaa?" I'm fucking SICK of this shit. I'm not surprised or unsurprised. I'm just fucking furious.

  14. #704
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    464
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    I'm kind of looking at this now, and thinking Trump's won, at least until the end of his term, but I really like how Mueller has handled it, to be honest, even though it's not working out how I had hoped it would.

    Mueller is a man of integrity. He has created a report that contains everything that he can to shed light on what happened in a fair and balanced way. He could jump into the political/talk show fray, and he could make accusations, but he won't. He could write a book, but instead he wrote a report.

    It's up to congress to take his report and impeach him if they want to. There's clearly enough evidence there. And yes, the Senate would shoot it down and it would be for nothing.

    Someone suggested that they keep launching investigations instead of impeaching to help keep these issues front and centre in peoples minds, but that's not going to work. Especially with Mueller refusing to testify beyond his initial report.

    So why not impeach at this point? The investigations won't go anywhere that Mueller hasn't gone. There's enough evidence to do it, and yes the republican senate will let him walk, and yes, his base will be galvanized. You're not going to convert his base anyways, so just take a stand.

    You're going to lose, but take the stand anyways. Draw the line in the sand. Impeach him.

  15. #705
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Bronx
    Posts
    269
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    We've now reached the point where not impeaching is an even bigger political risk than impeaching, even though we know damn well that the Senate Republicans will let him off regardless. I can only hope that the Democrats have a backup plan so they can rebound after the inevitable. A good place to start is to make a list of the Senators whose seats are up for grabs in 2020, especially the Senate Republicans who have proven themselves to be partisan shitheads who will continue to stick up for Trump no matter what. 2020 is seriously going to get ugly.

  16. #706
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Laughingstock of the World (America)
    Posts
    3,576
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by eskimo View Post
    I'm kind of looking at this now, and thinking Trump's won, at least until the end of his term, but I really like how Mueller has handled it, to be honest, even though it's not working out how I had hoped it would.

    Mueller is a man of integrity. He has created a report that contains everything that he can to shed light on what happened in a fair and balanced way. He could jump into the political/talk show fray, and he could make accusations, but he won't. He could write a book, but instead he wrote a report.

    It's up to congress to take his report and impeach him if they want to. There's clearly enough evidence there. And yes, the Senate would shoot it down and it would be for nothing.

    Someone suggested that they keep launching investigations instead of impeaching to help keep these issues front and centre in peoples minds, but that's not going to work. Especially with Mueller refusing to testify beyond his initial report.

    So why not impeach at this point? The investigations won't go anywhere that Mueller hasn't gone. There's enough evidence to do it, and yes the republican senate will let him walk, and yes, his base will be galvanized. You're not going to convert his base anyways, so just take a stand.

    You're going to lose, but take the stand anyways. Draw the line in the sand. Impeach him.
    By continuing to investigate, you can get into more financial records. The further you get there, the more likely it is that NY could go after him. If by some miracle we get the jackass out of office in time, SDNY could prosecute before the statute of limitations runs out on his older crimes. I don't know about you, but I desperately want to see Private Citizen Donald prosecuted for all the various tax crimes he's been accused of. That's not gonna happen if they just stop investigating.

    And here's my take on impeachment: his base is his base. No one who isn't voting for him next year will change their mind if the Republican senate holds a party-line vote not to impeach. The only people who will feel he's been exonerated are those who are already voting for him. I don't think being "cleared" by the senate will give him any new votes. I think it's important for both precedent and history books (as well as simple moral values) to begin impeachment proceedings. But if the goal is to actually remove him from office, I still firmly believe the 25th must be revoked. This is literally what it was designed for, but they screwed up and made it so that people who feel loyal to the president, and not the office of the president, are the ones deciding his fate.

  17. #707
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Laughingstock of the World (America)
    Posts
    3,576
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Also happening in America, in an actual government report:

    “Increasing export capacity from the Freeport LNG project is critical to spreading freedom gas throughout the world by giving America’s allies a diverse and affordable source of clean energy.”

    “With the U.S. in another year of record-setting natural gas production, I am pleased that the Department of Energy is doing what it can to promote an efficient regulatory system that allows for molecules of U.S. freedom to be exported to the world.”

  18. #708
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    10,480
    Mentioned
    781 Post(s)
    I’ve watched the Mueller statement three times (I recorded it).

    He said a LOT.

    He clearly contradicted Barr at least four times.

    His statement was really valuable.

    I’m currently reading the Mueller Report on Kindle.

    Edit: To summarize: It seems that the Mueller Report, itself, is Mueller’s Congressional Trump impeachment instruction manual.
    Last edited by Cat Mom; 05-30-2019 at 10:03 AM.

  19. #709
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Laughingstock of the World (America)
    Posts
    3,576
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat Mom View Post
    I’ve watched the Mueller statement three times (I recorded it).

    He said a LOT.

    He clearly contradicted Barr at least four times.

    His statement was really valuable.

    I’m currently reading the Mueller Report on Kindle.
    My main takeaway (at least in regard to the innocence v guilt question) was that the ONLY reason he wasn't charged was because he's the President. It sounded like the evidence was there to at least try him, but the DOJ said "yeah, you can't do that". Did I interpret the statement right, or am I missing something?

    edit: hahahahahaha, he literally just admitted that Russia got him elected.

    Last edited by theimage13; 05-30-2019 at 10:11 AM.

  20. #710
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northwest Indiana
    Posts
    2,249
    Mentioned
    90 Post(s)
    How so? I didn’t see it that way. Refusing to come before Congress was particularly infuriating.

    Yes, it’s their job to act upon impeachment but he could’ve helped out a bit by not being Hombro Secreto.

    Pelosi isn’t great but trying to impeach wouldn’t work at all, you know, unless they got the guy that investigated Trump to maybe elaborate a little on that redacted report.

  21. #711
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    10,480
    Mentioned
    781 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by theimage13 View Post
    My main takeaway (at least in regard to the innocence v guilt question) was that the ONLY reason he wasn't charged was because he's the President.
    Correct.

    Mueller didn't say he would refuse to testify. He said he would reiterate what is in the report; that the report speaks for itself.

    Yesterday, he retired from the Department of Justice, the special investigation is closed; what he is saying is that it is now up to CONGRESS to do an investigation, and a lot (most) of what they need has already been done.

    The report contains a lot of information, but Congress can interview the FBI members who conducted the investigation and wrote the reports contained in the final report, and can conduct an additional investigation.

    Subpoenaing Mueller in an attempt to get him to opine or provide ADDITIONAL information, outside of what he already provided in a 440 page report, will be futile.

    He provided a report, plus there are literally thousands of pages of underlying documents and hundreds of DoJ personnel who investigated the matter.

    Mueller isn't being cagey or secretive. He's merely doing his job, and he stated it in perhaps legal terms that aren't straight forward for those who can't grok legalese as easily as others, but it's all there. Clearly.
    Last edited by Cat Mom; 05-30-2019 at 04:10 PM.

  22. #712
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Laughingstock of the World (America)
    Posts
    3,576
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Well, that's maddening. But I have the utmost respect for him for having integrity and professionalism in a time where both are in astonishingly short supply. If only it led to results. I guess that's why nobody plays fair.

  23. #713
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    10,480
    Mentioned
    781 Post(s)
    To be more clear:

    First, there is a lot of talk about the "OLC opinion." Office of Legal Counsel.

    This relates to the Nixon-era Constitutional crisis, related not only to Nixon and the Watergate break-in and the subsequent coverup, but ALSO to Vice President Spiro Agnew, who was being investigated for corruption and ultimately resigned due to said investigation (and was replaced by Gerald Ford).

    See this regarding Spiro Agnew: MEMORANDUM FOR THE UNITED STATES CONCERNING THE VICE PRESIDENT'S CLAIM OF CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY.

    In 2000, the OLC issued this opinion ("The OLC Opinion"): A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution.

    The above documents are important in that they, as of now, are legal precedent. Mueller cites the OLC opinion in his report and in his above press conference. So does Barr.

    Here is a transcript of Mueller's statement of yesterday, May 29, 2019.

    Here are some quotes from Mueller's statement that I believe are important, with some of my highlights and some of my own notes:

    The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation, and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under longstanding department policy [Cat Mom Note: the OLC], a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited. A special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. The department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report, and I will describe two of them for you.

    First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available [Cat Mom Note: In other words, to preserve the evidence for Congress, which CAN indict a sitting President via Impeachment]. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.

    And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing [Cat Mom Note: THIS MEANS IMPEACHMENT BY CONGRESS]. And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. [Cat Mom Note: This means no court, meaning CONGRESS has to be the Court]

    So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. That is the office’s final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president. We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general, as required by department regulations.
    Now, I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner. [Cat Mom Note: To YOU meaning the Press] I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter. There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress. In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

    So beyond what I’ve said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress. And it’s for that reason I will not be taking questions today, as well.
    Cat Mom Note: He's saying that he gave Congress a road map to impeachment. He and the DoJ, and the FBI spent two years in an investigation and Mueller composed a 440-page report; many of the members of Congress haven't even READ the full report. Cheating or being lazy by having Mueller come in and be deposed is just lazy. Read the report is what he's saying. Everything is there. The underlying supporting evidentiary (discovery) documents is all they need.

    Here is Barr's press statement after he wrote his letter which Barr claimed "summarized" the Mueller report, below.

    Note that Barr said this, below. Note that Barr uses the term "collusion" in quotes because that is what Trump uses, even though there is no statute that mentions (or bars) collusion (the proper term, here, is conspiracy):

    But the Special Counsel found no evidence that any Americans – including anyone associated with the Trump campaign – conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA in carrying out this illegal scheme. Indeed, as the report states, “[t]he investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation.” Put another way, the Special Counsel found no “collusion” by any Americans in the IRA’s illegal activity.
    Mueller, yesterday, said this:

    This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.
    "NO" evidence and "insufficient" evidence - in law - are two different things, ESPECIALLY if one or more parties are possibly OBSTRUCTING and preventing additional evidence from being obtained.

    Here is William Barr's letter.

    Note that it states:

    Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.
    In other words: NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE OLC MEMO, EVEN THOUGH THE MUELLER REPORT CLEARLY STATES THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS GUIDED BY AND THE FINAL REPORT WAS BASED ON THE OLC MEMO.


    Last edited by Cat Mom; 05-30-2019 at 04:42 PM.

  24. #714
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,171
    Mentioned
    376 Post(s)
    I think Mueller needs to realize something here... the public doesn't read. They need to hear words come out of faces. That's where the public is at, and the current administration is totally in lock-step with that public, because that's the attention span and interest that goes into politics/law in large when we're talking about Trump's base.

    "Read the report? Well, I don't have time for that, and Hannity already told me I shouldn't bother."

  25. #715
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    10,480
    Mentioned
    781 Post(s)
    Well, see, THIS IS WHERE THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS COME IN.

    Which is what I feel that Mueller was trying to do, what he was trying to say.

    The hearings is what will get the public attention and what will, step-by-step, set out the details of the Mueller Report.

    Trump and his ass-kissing cronies are playing a game of chicken, here.

    They are saying, "Yeah, look what happened when you impeached CLINTON! He was found not guilty by the Senate and his popularity when he left office was, like, 85%!!!"

    But Trump ain't Bill Clinton and this ain't the Monica Lewinsky situation.

    This isn't even the KEN STARR situation.

    Ken Starr was an INDEPENDENT COUNSEL with FAR MORE POWERS.

    Since that time, a new piece of legislation was passed that created an office of "Special Counsel" that limits those powers.

    So whenever you see assholes like Newt Gingrich going on about Ken Starr, know he's totally full of shit.

    Also, all of this impeachment stuff relative to Trump is also COMPLETELY TAKING ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE RUSSIANS INTERFERING WITH THE ELECTION.

    Which they did!

    Mueller was also indicating, in his press conference, that the Russians are going to do this, again, and the Republicans aren't doing anything about it.
    Last edited by Cat Mom; 05-30-2019 at 02:54 PM.

  26. #716
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,282
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    That business of not being able to charge a president with a crime, does that mean a president could shoot someone on national TV and not be arrested? What’s a federal crime as opposed to any other crime?

  27. #717
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    10,480
    Mentioned
    781 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WorzelG View Post
    That business of not being able to charge a president with a crime, does that mean a president could shoot someone on national TV and not be arrested? What’s a federal crime as opposed to any other crime?
    Yes, even if the President shot someone; the charge (“high crimes and misdemeanors”) would come from the House of Representatives (impeachment, which is the Congressional version of indictment), then the Senate would hold a hearing as to guilt and the worst punishment would be removal from office; then the President could be indicted by a criminal court and that would not be double jeopardy.

    Edit, sorry, regarding your question regarding Federal crimes:

    Per our U.S. Constitution, most crimes are state crimes, per individual statutes of each state (we are a republic, comprised of separate individual state governments; each state has its own constitution).

    Federal crimes mostly relate to if the defendant crossed state lines, or the crime occurred on a shared body of water, or if you injure or kill a member of U.S. Congress or a Federal judge, or certain drug-related crimes, or whenever the crime is under Federal jurisdiction (IRS, bankruptcy, ATF, FBI, etc.)

    The District of Columbia (Washington D.C.) is not a state, does not have its own government or governing constitution or laws, so the District therefore uses Federal laws.
    Last edited by Cat Mom; 05-30-2019 at 04:36 PM.

  28. #718
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    10,480
    Mentioned
    781 Post(s)

  29. #719
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,282
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    no wonder he doesn’t want to combat it when it’s in his party’s favour. But I’m not sure history will look on Trump as a good thing for the Republican Party in the end

  30. #720
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Republic of Texas
    Posts
    6,219
    Mentioned
    441 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick_Nicholas View Post
    We've now reached the point where not impeaching is an even bigger political risk than impeaching, even though we know damn well that the Senate Republicans will let him off regardless.
    is it, though? I'm torn on this subject.

    There isn't much chance of removing him from office, and I can just hear it: TOTAL EXONERATION, BY THE SENATE!

Posting Permissions