President Trump Says If House Democrats Attack - He Will Declassify Info That Will Destroy Them.

a reply to: ghostingmiranda

Bluffing and bull#ting with the laws of the country.
If he has evidence of a crime and he is witholding that he is committing a crime as well.
Accessory after the fact....

a reply to: boogiegk

I really need a emoji that implies a stifled laugh.

When was that dude?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Blarneystoner

Hmmm... seems someone is taking this a little bit personally while claiming he doesn't care about it.

Interesting.

TheRedneck

Hmmm.... Nope.

See, I don't spend all my time here and I don't think that anything I say here is of any consequence. And I certainly don't pretend that conversations here are important or facilitate any sort of change. I kind of feel sorry for those that do.... including you brother.

BTW - you've been here long nough to know what Ad Hominem and Strawman arguments are but you consistently use them. One more reason to pity you.... smh... sad.

Have a lovely day...

a reply to: pteridine

Clinton did not approve any warrants the judges on the panel did. Nothing was, what's that word ginned? ginned up? The dossier was only part of the data used to obtain the warrant on Carter Page.
And can you tell me why a warrant for a nobody on the trump campaign who wasn't even working for the campaign any longer has become so very important? Its a friggin bone you guys won't let go of even though there's no meat on it.
Just like the U1 story...
My posts reflect reality. They reflect what is really happening and it has nothing to do with the fantasys flung around these parts.
This week and the next few are going to be pretty rough for this crowd to take.

a reply to: pteridine

What trials? Mueller will issue a report and he has indicated that he is wrapping things up from what he has communicated to defense attorneys involved in the case so I expect some kind of resolution very soon.

This week sentencing memos for Michael Flynn ( today) and Paul Manafort ( Friday) will be released to the public for the first time.
And better look out for witness tampering charges with trumps tweets about Jerome Corsi... They moved in that direction on Manafort when he tried to contact witnesses.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: pteridine

What trials? Mueller will issue a report and he has indicated that he is wrapping things up from what he has communicated to defense attorneys involved in the case so I expect some kind of resolution very soon.

This week sentencing memos for Michael Flynn ( today) and Paul Manafort ( Friday) will be released to the public for the first time.
And better look out for witness tampering charges with trumps tweets about Jerome Corsi... They moved in that direction on Manafort when he tried to contact witnesses.

All of this remains to be seen. As of now, there is only speculation; yours that the Clintons and others will not be tried for their actions and mine that there were many criminals in the Obama Administration, including Obama, and that at least some will be tried for their crimes.

If there are 60,000 sealed indictments, I have a better chance of being correct.

a reply to: carewemust

The people voted Trump in to drain the swamp and bring Justice, not engage in political blackmail, which is a form of corruption.

Just release it already!

a reply to: Sillyolme

What trials? Mueller will issue a report and he has indicated that he is wrapping things up from what he has communicated to defense attorneys involved in the case so I expect some kind of resolution very soon.

What trials indeed.

There won't be any trials or report unless Acting AG Whitaker decides it is warranted. If he does, the DOJ may make a referral to Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings. However, given the DOJ ignoring Congressional criminal referrals, I fully expect Congress to ignore/reject any such referral from the DOJ (although it is unlikely Whitaker will make any such referral no matter what)

And better look out for witness tampering charges with trumps tweets about Jerome Corsi... They moved in that direction on Manafort when he tried to contact witnesses.

That's just silly. He's allowed to express his opinion and he's allowed to point out factual information. He's merely exercising his first amendment rights. Again, not that any of it matters since like I explained to you several times already Mueller can't use the restroom with AG Whitaker accompanying him.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Mueller has been neutered. Please don't force me to make that point any clearer.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Bluffing and bull#ting with the laws of the country.
If he has evidence of a crime and he is witholding that he is committing a crime as well.
Accessory after the fact....

You are full of it.

It does not make you an "accessory" to have evidence of a crime without revealing it any more than it makes you a member of a conspiracy by merely being aware of the conspiracy, the intent to violate the law or issuing statements of support for said conspiracy.

You need to learn a lot more about US law. I recommend cracking open Title 18 USC and reading the precise statutes: there is no "spirit of the law" it must be precisely as it is written. To the very letter.

So when the same document says this:

One who has no knowledge of the unlawful plan does not become a member of a conspiracy simply because one happens to be present at an event or transaction or because one happens to commit an act which inadvertently furthers some object of the unlawful plan or conspiracy. One does not become a member of a conspiracy through an association with members of the conspiracy or by the mere knowledge that a conspiracy exists.

You should be very concerned about the prospects for any sort of criminal outcome on this.

SOURCE: www.justice.gov...

Some more good reading

www.nytimes.com...

"Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia"

thehill.com...

"Lisa Page bombshell: FBI couldn’t prove Trump-Russia collusion before Mueller appointment"

Since you know so much about federal law, care to enlighten us on the reason for Mueller's appointment when the investigators themselves admit there wasn't any evidence of so-called "collusion" ? Because if you had bothered to read the law regarding appointment of special counsel, you'd see this was a requirement (not one of those optional things you guys like to imagine when it doesn't suit your needs)

originally posted by: interupt42
Exactly , any trump supporters that support this is in fact no better than the blind Hillary supporters.

Highly disappointing and he must be held to the fire on this. If he has prove that the Democrats broke the law and are in fact the scum that most reasonable adults can see , then he needs to do the right thing for the people and expose them versus bribing them to do his bidding.

No.

You need to stop and think... and understand what he is up against.

Timing is everything.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: interupt42
Exactly , any trump supporters that support this is in fact no better than the blind Hillary supporters.

Highly disappointing and he must be held to the fire on this. If he has prove that the Democrats broke the law and are in fact the scum that most reasonable adults can see , then he needs to do the right thing for the people and expose them versus bribing them to do his bidding.

No.

You need to stop and think... and understand what he is up against.

Timing is everything.

The more time goes by the more likely nothing will happen. Fast forward to 2019 the neacon republicans in congress will point the finger to house controlled democrats and vice versa. Then the blame game will continue.

I always said that trump was the lesser risk between Trump and Hillary because at worst trump would become hillary. It appears that is the way its going.

The wall is BS and not needed to control immigration. you just need to prosecute the companies that hire illegals and the vast majority will stop coming. That also frees up the resources and man power to keep an eye on the smaller percentage of illegals that come here solely with bad intentions.

The net neutrality repeal was BS and gave full control to the deep state on the last frontier where the little guy had a voice bigger than the corporations.

Hiding prove of the unethical and possibly of illegal activities of the left for leverage is no different than what we have had before.

I'm willing to wait by the next election and that is only because its been a crazy election, but very little expectations and the more time goes by the less appealing trump is becoming. Everyday that goes by its beginning to look more likely that we have traded one puppet master for another . So when is you time limit to call out his BS? next election, never, etc?

a reply to: carewemust

The queen newbie just threatened Trump jr. Here comes the hammer and bye bye Dems if they do try to question anyone from Trumps family.

originally posted by: RudeMarine
a reply to: carewemust

The queen newbie just threatened Trump jr. Here comes the hammer and bye bye Dems if they do try to question anyone from Trumps family.

You're referring to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? She's just a fly in the room. Annoying, but nothing more.

originally posted by: TheRedneckBut, he can't fund a wall. The House needs to do that.

No, actually, he could declare it a National Security issue, and fund it from the military budget.

I'm still wondering why he hasn't done that. He could then also arrange to have the same amount in the form of aid to Mexico reassigned, and presto, Mexico paid for it.

a reply to: tanstaafl

There's a bill introduced that will eliminate welfare/medical benefits for Illegals, and build the wall with that money. In two years, the wall would be finished. No increase in debt.

Don't talk about it, do it. And while he's at it, how about the rest of the JFK files.

originally posted by: interupt42
The wall is BS and not needed to control immigration.

The wall Trump is talking about building is far from BS. Will it be 100% effective? Of course not, but it will reduce successful illegal entries dramatically.

you just need to prosecute the companies that hire illegals and the vast majority will stop coming.

Personally, I do not recognize the government as having a legitimate, constitutionally delegated authority to regulate private interactions between private people that do not rise to the level of a common law crime (requires a damaged party that is NOT the government). This does include prostitution, narcotics, as well as who can hire who for any kind of work). If you disagree, please cite the appropriate delegation of authority in the Constitution (would be in Article I Section 8).

Attempts to control private interactions between private people are not only a waste of time and resources (endless drug war anyone?), much more importantly, are a primary source of laws destructive to our civil liberties.

That also frees up the resources and man power to keep an eye on the smaller percentage of illegals that come here solely with bad intentions.

And the vast majority of these would be stopped by the wall.

The net neutrality repeal was BS and gave full control to the deep state on the last frontier where the little guy had a voice bigger than the corporations.

Actually, it is your comment that is BS. You do know that the 'net neutrality' that was repealed had not even gone into effect yet, right?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: tanstaafl

There's a bill introduced that will eliminate welfare/medical benefits for Illegals, and build the wall with that money. In two years, the wall would be finished. No increase in debt.

Works for me. And the savings would just continue after the wall was 'paid for' too...

a reply to: tanstaafl

The wall Trump is talking about building is far from BS. Will it be 100% effective? Of course not, but it will reduce successful illegal entries dramatically.

Its BS, because you aren't fixing the issue you are instead making money of the symptoms. There is no need for it. Its going to take billions to build and maintain by the tax payers and not necessary. Its the most expensive and least effective method to keep illegals out. You build a wall they will go under it ,above it, and around it .

Its the old never let a good crisis go to waste mentality.

The majority of illegals are coming here because American business are giving them incentives to come here.
You take away their incentives to come here you stop the majority of them, If you stop the majority of them coming here then we already have the resources to control and monitor the few that are coming here as terrorists.

Personally, I do not recognize the government as having a legitimate, constitutionally delegated authority to regulate private interactions between private people that do not rise to the level of a common law crime (requires a damaged party that is NOT the government).

I' feel libertarian principles are best now due to rampant corruption, so I agree with smaller gov't. However there needs to be regulations to prevent Monopolies and Oligarchs which is what the ISP industry is.

Net neutrality was what allowed the success of the internet and the global market place to exist. Removing net neutrality is giving control to the deep state and its Oligarch full control of a global market place and free speech. Or are you ok with companies and gov't dictating the winners and losers of the free market and free speech?

Attempts to control private interactions between private people are not only a waste of time and resources (endless drug war anyone?),

or building a wall anyone?
The drug war is a waste of time and resources because Americans are giving drug dealers incentives to smuggle them here illegally. However, unlike the drug war we can put a STOP to the illegals incentive to come here by making it to costly for American companies to hire them. You take away the incentive away for illegals then the majority wont come.

And the vast majority of these would be stopped by the wall.

No they won't, they will just go under, around it, and above it . Or do you want a dome?

Even a dome wont work because you have 3 big lobbying groups that are making way to much money from the illegals to let a little wall get in their way. A big portion of them will be allowed to simply walk through the door. their is too much money on the line with this like the drug war. They aren't looking for solutions they are looking for ways to capitalize of a crisis. That wall won't do squat until you get rid of the incentive for them to come here. Many are already risking their life and financial situations to come here you

These illegals aren't coming here just for the heck of it they are coming here because they are getting jobs and can provide for their family back home. the only manageable solution is to STOP that incentive instead of fighting an uphill battle with the wall.

Actually, it is your comment that is BS. You do know that the 'net neutrality' that was repealed had not even gone into effect yet, right?

Actually your comments shows you have no clue what your talking about and are regurgitating what foxnews and the gop neocon are telling you.

Actually Net neutrality has been repealed and gone into effect twice since the inception of the internet, the first time it was repealed and went into effect was for a very short period. Then Verizon started to Extort Netflix by purposely slowing down their customers and their was a backlash from it and hence the repeal was temporarily halted until Trump FCC head got in their .

This time the repeal of net neutrality went into effect on June 11th , the reason you aren't being effected yet is because they learned from the backlash of last time and they are going to slowly implement the changes this time around, so when you realize you are effected it will be too late.

www.theverge.com...
As of June 11th, the legal protections against content discrimination on the internet are gone. As far as the FCC is concerned, net neutrality is dead.

The policy’s fate was sealed back in December 2017, when FCC chairman Ajit Pai’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order was approved in a 3-2 vote along party lines.


arstechnica.com...

The repeal of net neutrality rules will finally take effect on June 11

www.fcc.gov...
The FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom Order Think PATRIOT ACT, which took effect on June 11,

FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom Order = repealing net neutrality principles

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: tanstaafl



The wall Trump is talking about building is far from BS. Will it be 100% effective? Of course not, but it will reduce successful illegal entries dramatically.

Its BS, because you aren't fixing the issue you are instead making money of the symptoms. There is no need for it. Its going to take billions to build and maintain by the tax payers and not necessary. Its the most expensive and least effective method to keep illegals out. You build a wall they will go under it ,above it, and around it .

Its the old never let a good crisis go to waste mentality.

The majority of illegals are coming here because American business are giving them incentives to come here.
You take away their incentives to come here you stop the majority of them, If you stop the majority of them coming here then we already have the resources to control and monitor the few that are coming here as terrorists.

Personally, I do not recognize the government as having a legitimate, constitutionally delegated authority to regulate private interactions between private people that do not rise to the level of a common law crime (requires a damaged party that is NOT the government).

I' feel libertarian principles are best now due to rampant corruption, so I agree with smaller gov't. However there needs to be regulations to prevent Monopolies and Oligarchs which is what the ISP industry is.

Net neutrality was what allowed the success of the internet and the global market place to exist. Removing net neutrality is giving control to the deep state and its Oligarch full control of a global market place and free speech. Or are you ok with companies and gov't dictating the winners and losers of the free market and free speech?

Attempts to control private interactions between private people are not only a waste of time and resources (endless drug war anyone?),

or building a wall anyone?
The drug war is a waste of time and resources because Americans are giving drug dealers incentives to smuggle them here illegally. However, unlike the drug war we can put a STOP to the illegals incentive to come here by making it to costly for American companies to hire them. You take away the incentive away for illegals then the majority wont come.

Building the wall is exactly a waste like the drug war because there is an incentive to do sell drugs and to come here illegally.. where their is a demand/incentive they will find ways around it. We can easily get rid of the incentive for illegals to come unlike the drugs.

And the vast majority of these would be stopped by the wall.

No they won't, they will just go under, around it, and above it . Or do you want a dome?

Even a dome wont work because you have 3 big lobbying groups that are making way to much money from the illegals to let a little wall get in their way. A big portion of them will be allowed to simply walk through the door. their is too much money on the line with this like the drug war. They aren't looking for solutions they are looking for ways to capitalize of a crisis. That wall won't do squat until you get rid of the incentive for them to come here. Many are already risking their life and financial situations to come here you

These illegals aren't coming here just for the heck of it they are coming here because they are getting jobs and can provide for their family back home. the only manageable solution is to STOP that incentive instead of fighting an uphill battle with the wall.

Actually, it is your comment that is BS. You do know that the 'net neutrality' that was repealed had not even gone into effect yet, right?

Actually your comments shows you have no clue what your talking about and are regurgitating what foxnews and the gop neocon are telling you.

Actually Net neutrality has been repealed and gone into effect twice since the inception of the internet, the first time it was repealed and went into effect was for a very short period. Then Verizon started to Extort Netflix by purposely slowing down their customers and their was a backlash from it and hence the repeal was temporarily halted until Trump FCC head got in their .

This time the repeal of net neutrality went into effect on June 11th , the reason you aren't being effected yet is because they learned from the backlash of last time and they are going to slowly implement the changes this time around, so when you realize you are effected it will be too late.

www.theverge.com...
As of June 11th, the legal protections against content discrimination on the internet are gone. As far as the FCC is concerned, net neutrality is dead.

The policy’s fate was sealed back in December 2017, when FCC chairman Ajit Pai’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order was approved in a 3-2 vote along party lines.


arstechnica.com...

The repeal of net neutrality rules will finally take effect on June 11

www.fcc.gov...
The FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom Order Think PATRIOT ACT, which took effect on June 11,

FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom Order = repealing net neutrality principles