Trump says he's not concerned about being impeached: 'The people would revolt'

[libertybele]

  A bunch of old farts in MAGA hats don't scare me.

But ... do they have brooms?  You've got to watch out for the brooms.

[Emjay]

  A bunch of old farts in MAGA hats don't scare me.

That's a pretty rude thing to say @corbe   Anyway, nearly all of those people carry weapons ... either canes or crutches.  My father-in-law used to keep people terrorized with his cane.  People gave him a wide berth.

But ... just to be clear, do you want Trump impeached?  And, on what grounds?

[corbe]

That's a pretty rude thing to say @corbe   Anyway, nearly all of those people carry weapons ... either canes or crutches.  My father-in-law used to keep people terrorized with his cane.  People gave him a wide berth.

But ... just to be clear, do you want Trump impeached?  And, on what grounds?

   Absolutely NOT @Emjay on the Impeachment thing, Pence is just as squiggly as Trump, IMHO. 
   In my wet dream, Trump decides against reelection and Pence is primaried, hopefully by a 'Real' Conservative.  A man can dream, right?

[Emjay]

   Absolutely NOT @Emjay on the Impeachment thing, Pence is just as squiggly as Trump, IMHO. 
   In my wet dream, Trump decides against reelection and Pence is primaried, hopefully by a 'Real' Conservative.  A man can dream, right?

@corbe   I'm glad you don't want the impeachment thing.  It would divide the country (even more) and amount to nothing.  It's amazing that a group of people (democrats) would be so lacking in self-awareness that they would think it's a good idea.

I've always hoped that Ted Cruz might be President some day but he may be too smart for us.

[Mesaclone]

So lets be clear.

If Mueller comes back and presents solid and convincing evidence that President Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin to infiltrate voting mechanisms, or to payoff political operatives, or to steal emails and intelligence from the Dems...everyone on this board will favor impeachment. We will do so, because we are not loyal to...nor do any of us worship...the man Donald Trump. What we ARE loyal to is the very "rule of law" that is at stake in this investigation and in any subsequent Impeachment effort.

Should the Democrat-Socialists and their NeverTrump Quislings attempt to Impeach a United States President...based on absurdities such as payoffs from personal funds relating to shutting up trollips...they WILL spark a fire that they cannot imagine. So the articles of an Impeachment matter as does the type of evidence/charges coming from the Mueller investigation.

While it seems VERY likely that the Mueller effort is just an extension of the bogus Russia witch-hunt effort initiated through our compromised (compromised by folks like McCabe-Comey-Brennan-Stzrok, Page, etcetera) intelligence agencies by the Hillary-Obama-DNC-Comey cabal...those of us of good conscience and respect for the law will await the evidentiary findings before taking any kind of action.

But lets be F'ing crystal clear, attempting an impeachment (based on campaign finance issues)...which is admittedly a political action and not a legal one...would be nothing less than a soft coup attempt founded on a criminally faux "insurance" policy concocted by Trump-Hating Hillary/DNC/Obamite henchman in our intelligence agencies. And we...and by we I refer to Americans who actually DO respect the rule of law and ethics in our governance...WILL stand up and fight a coup that would unseat a legally elected and governing President of the United States.

Any American who would not fight against such a coup is not deserving of citizenship...because the rule of law rests not just upon the principle of adherence to the law, but also upon the belief that elections are sacrosanct and that those who would use political tools like impeachment in a deeply unethical and politically corrupt fashion to undue them, not be allowed to succeed. The use of Impeachment in such a case would be a subversion of the Constitution's intent, not the enactment of it. The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the Ballot box are the true pillars of this nation...and anyone who is willing to allow the subversion of these pillars via a Left wing soft coup, either by action or inaction, is complicit. Our government can and must ONLY be changed through the ballot box...and we must all stand up when "other" means are employed to do what must only be done by the will of the people.

So, we will all be good citizens and await the results of the Mueller investigation. And we will all respect an impeachment charge based on strong evidence that President Trump actively worked with Vladimir Putin to alter the results of a US election. But Americans of good conscience will stand and fight...politically if possible, and in the streets if necessary...to prevent a soft coups that attempts to abuse the constitutional tool of Impeachment to overthrow the votes and will of the American populace for the simple sake of forwarding a Socialist agenda.

Anyone who chooses to stay on the sidelines in such a fight, is akin to those who stood by during the lynchings of minorities in the 50's...or who looked the other way when the Gestapo rounded up their neighbors. In some fights, you must pick a side if you are a person of conscience...this is one of those fights.

[Applewood]

If Mueller comes back and presents solid and convincing evidence that President Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin to infiltrate voting mechanisms, or to payoff political operatives, or to steal emails and intelligence from the Dems...everyone on this board will favor impeachment. We will do so, because we are not loyal to...nor do any of us worship...the man Donald Trump. What we ARE loyal to is the very "rule of law" that is at stake in this investigation and in any subsequent Impeachment effort.

@Mesaclone

Actually, that part is not true.  There are Trump supporters, including some here, who do not want Trump prosecuted for anything -- valid or not.  Why?  Because Hillary wasn't prosecuted. 

And there are some who really don't care if Trump shot and killed someone on Fifth Avenue in New York City.  He is their hero because he is "making America great again" or something.  He is a god to him and should never have to face the consequences of his actions.

[Oceander]

So lets be clear.

If Mueller comes back and presents solid and convincing evidence that President Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin to infiltrate voting mechanisms, or to payoff political operatives, or to steal emails and intelligence from the Dems...everyone on this board will favor impeachment. We will do so, because we are not loyal to...nor do any of us worship...the man Donald Trump. What we ARE loyal to is the very "rule of law" that is at stake in this investigation and in any subsequent Impeachment effort.

Should the Democrat-Socialists and their NeverTrump Quislings attempt to Impeach a United States President...based on absurdities such as payoffs from personal funds relating to shutting up trollips...they WILL spark a fire that they cannot imagine. So the articles of an Impeachment matter as does the type of evidence/charges coming from the Mueller investigation.

While it seems VERY likely that the Mueller effort is just an extension of the bogus Russia witch-hunt effort initiated through our compromised (compromised by folks like McCabe-Comey-Brennan-Stzrok, Page, etcetera) intelligence agencies by the Hillary-Obama-DNC-Comey cabal...those of us of good conscience and respect for the law will await the evidentiary findings before taking any kind of action.

But lets be F'ing crystal clear, attempting an impeachment (based on campaign finance issues)...which is admittedly a political action and not a legal one...would be nothing less than a soft coup attempt founded on a criminally faux "insurance" policy concocted by Trump-Hating Hillary/DNC/Obamite henchman in our intelligence agencies. And we...and by we I refer to Americans who actually DO respect the rule of law and ethics in our governance...WILL stand up and fight a coup that would unseat a legally elected and governing President of the United States.

Any American who would not fight against such a coup is not deserving of citizenship...because the rule of law rests not just upon the principle of adherence to the law, but also upon the belief that elections are sacrosanct and that those who would use political tools like impeachment in a deeply unethical and politically corrupt fashion to undue them, not be allowed to succeed. The use of Impeachment in such a case would be a subversion of the Constitution's intent, not the enactment of it. The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the Ballot box are the true pillars of this nation...and anyone who is willing to allow the subversion of these pillars via a Left wing soft coup, either by action or inaction, is complicit. Our government can and must ONLY be changed through the ballot box...and we must all stand up when "other" means are employed to do what must only be done by the will of the people.

So, we will all be good citizens and await the results of the Mueller investigation. And we will all respect an impeachment charge based on strong evidence that President Trump actively worked with Vladimir Putin to alter the results of a US election. But Americans of good conscience will stand and fight...politically if possible, and in the streets if necessary...to prevent a soft coups that attempts to abuse the constitutional tool of Impeachment to overthrow the votes and will of the American populace for the simple sake of forwarding a Socialist agenda.

Anyone who chooses to stay on the sidelines in such a fight, is akin to those who stood by during the lynchings of minorities in the 50's...or who looked the other way when the Gestapo rounded up their neighbors. In some fights, you must pick a side if you are a person of conscience...this is one of those fights.

An impeachment on any ground would not be a soft coup and you are treading on very dangerous ground by suggesting otherwise. 

Was the impeachment of Clinton a soft coup?  That impeachment would not be materially different from an impeachment of Trump on just about any ground, including campaign finance violations.

If you think such an impeachment of Trump would be a soft coup, then you are committed to the position that the impeachment of Clinton was an attempted soft coup, and if you supported that impeachment, then you are guilty of attempted treason.  On the other hand, if you think that the impeachment of Clinton was valid, then you are committed to the position that an impeachment of Trump would also be valid.

The way it would presumably go is that he democrats would bring articles of impeachment, and there would then be a motion to dismiss on the ground that it was not based on an impeachable offense. The Chief Justice would rule on the motion, and if he ruled against the motion, the impeachment would proceed to trial, where it would almost certainly fail.  If, on be other hand, he ruled for the motion, then the impeachment would fail at that point without a trial.

There would only be an attempted soft coup if the Chief Justice granted the motion, and the democrats nonetheless insisted on proceeding with the trial.  Up until such time, there would be no coup attempt, soft or otherwise.

[Mesaclone]

@Mesaclone

Actually, that part is not true.  There are Trump supporters, including some here, who do not want Trump prosecuted for anything -- valid or not.  Why?  Because Hillary wasn't prosecuted. 

And there are some who really don't care if Trump shot and killed someone on Fifth Avenue in New York City.  He is their hero because he is "making America great again" or something.  He is a god to him and should never have to face the consequences of his actions.

Name one who resides on this board, please....because I've been here for years now and have seen no one that fits your description.

Beyond that, I know many Trump voters and NONE of them ascribe to the kind of blind followership you impute to them. My guess is that every Trump voter on this board would say the same...that they no nobody who "worships" the President. He is a god to no one, really, and your use of the term signifies that you'd rather avoid true argumentation on issues in favor of spewing liberal memes about "worshipping" the President. Be better than that, for god's sakes, the Dems don't need any more "useful idiots" from the right running around echoing their talking points.

For the record, Trump is no more a god to people than Cruz...Obama...Clinton...Clinton...there is always a tiny sliver of people who are wildly infatuated with a particular politician...just as there are a few who think they are Napoleon. This is no more common, however, amongst Trump supporters than any of the others cited above.

What you're doing, is simply repeating an idiotic Democratic meme that strives to impugn the intellect and character of anyone supporting the President. Supporters who are just as discerning, informed and conservative as yourself. So my advice to you, which you no doubt do not want, is to quit being a "useful idiot" for the Left and use your own intellect...by all means, disagree with the President and his supporters, but using Lefty talking points should be beneath anyone on THIS board.

As with all moronic "memes", there is a sliver of truth on which they are built. In this case, its very true that many people are deeply grateful to the President for fighting to Make America Great Again...in fact, why wouldn't everyone be grateful of such a goal? It doesn't make him our hero, it makes him the leader of the conservative movement to restore reason and greatness to a nation that has...in many ways...lost its way.

[GrouchoTex]

@Mesaclone

I agree.

Good post.

[edpc]

Let’s be clear about something: The scope of the investigation does not mention collusion and is not limited to Trump.  It’s specifically mentions coordination and links to people associated with the campaign.  It has already been established that Manafort had contact with Deripaska, through Kilimnik, and continue to have contact with Kilimnik after indictment. We recently discovered Cohen add contact regarding trump Moscow, longer than previously reported. Lastly, we are aware of the Trump Tower meeting that included representatives of Russian interest.  What we don’t know are the details regarding each incident. Those things, at a minimum, fulfill the first responsibility of the investigation scope.


https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408-Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.html

[Frank Cannon]

Let’s be clear about something: The scope of the investigation does not mention collusion and is not limited to Trump.  It’s specifically mentions coordination and links to people associated with the campaign.  It has already been established that Manafort had contact with Deripaska, through Kilimnik, and continue to have contact with Kilimnik after indictment. We recently discovered Cohen add contact regarding trump Moscow, longer than previously reported. Lastly, we are aware of the Trump Tower meeting that included representatives of Russian interest.  What we don’t know are the details regarding each incident. Those things, at a minimum, fulfill the first responsibility of the investigation scope.


https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408-Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.html

Then how come not one of these pleas has to do with Russian Collusion? We got tax evasion, taxi scams, not filing proper paperwork 20 years ago, alleged lying about times and dates. It's an effing fraud.

[edpc]

Then how come not one of these pleas has to do with Russian Collusion? We got tax evasion, taxi scams, not filing proper paperwork 20 years ago, alleged lying about times and dates. It's an effing fraud.

You seem to be leaving some things out. Along with Cohen’s guilty plea for business related scams was his plea for false testimony before Congress, concerning Russian contacts. BTW - that false testimony was an integral part of a report Nunes released. So much for that. You also neglected to mention the ‘political synergy’ mentioned by a yet unnamed Russian national in the Cohen filing by Mueller.  Manafort was offering briefings, during the campaign, to Deripaska. This is a guy who’s under sanctions for ties to the Russian mob, plus he’s a Putin linked oligarch. Funny how Flynn’s lying is alleged. He was fired for it and entered a plea. Since then, he’s cooperated fully with Mueller and has been so helpful, prosecution and defense filed joint extensions on sentencing and agreed to recommend zero jail time. So much for him getting railroaded.

[Mesaclone]

An impeachment on any ground would not be a soft coup and you are treading on very dangerous ground by suggesting otherwise. 

Was the impeachment of Clinton a soft coup?  That impeachment would not be materially different from an impeachment of Trump on just about any ground, including campaign finance violations.

If you think such an impeachment of Trump would be a soft coup, then you are committed to the position that the impeachment of Clinton was an attempted soft coup, and if you supported that impeachment, then you are guilty of attempted treason.  On the other hand, if you think that the impeachment of Clinton was valid, then you are committed to the position that an impeachment of Trump would also be valid.

The way it would presumably go is that he democrats would bring articles of impeachment, and there would then be a motion to dismiss on the ground that it was not based on an impeachable offense. The Chief Justice would rule on the motion, and if he ruled against the motion, the impeachment would proceed to trial, where it would almost certainly fail.  If, on be other hand, he ruled for the motion, then the impeachment would fail at that point without a trial.

There would only be an attempted soft coup if the Chief Justice granted the motion, and the democrats nonetheless insisted on proceeding with the trial.  Up until such time, there would be no coup attempt, soft or otherwise.

Your statement assumes all impeachments to be roughly synonymous, and that opposing one as being in violation of constitutional intent means that ANY impeachment must then be outside of that intent. This assumption is, of course, a false one...because the two impeachments in question are not analogous.  On the contrary, the core causation and legal implications of both are radically different.

As an example of how an impeachment effort could violate constitutional intent, let us examine one  example.  An out of power party could bring impeachment charges based on jaywalking if they so chose, claiming that violating traffic laws imperiled the nation's sense of order and thus aided our enemies...ie treason. Such a charge would be legally absurd, of course, but as the standard for impeachment is a political one, its legal qualification could...technically...be disregarded at the will of the impeaching party. Treason in such a case, would be whatever the impeaching party decided it to be...and the courts would have no say as to the "rightness" of that conclusion, nor would the citizens of the nation be empowered to stop such a motion (until at least the next election). Were this to occur, it would not violate the constitution...which lists treason as a reason for impeachment...in its application of the impeachment process.

Yet the scenario above WOULD violate our common sense of the rule of law, respect for constitutional intent, and the general principles of Republican governance. Worse, if the impeaching party held strong enough control of the Senate, the initiated travesty would proceed to its ultimate conclusion of removal of a sitting President. In fact, it would by the nature of its charge, be a soft coup attempt in my view, as it so deviates in quality from constitutional intent and the precepts of the rule of law as to be a subversion of that exalted document. As such, it should be opposed by all means possible...by politic and protest if achievable, but no means to resist such a tyranny could be exempted.

[Mesaclone]

An impeachment on any ground would not be a soft coup and you are treading on very dangerous ground by suggesting otherwise..... 

The way it would presumably go is that he democrats would bring articles of impeachment, and there would then be a motion to dismiss on the ground that it was not based on an impeachable offense. The Chief Justice would rule on the motion, and if he ruled against the motion, the impeachment would proceed to trial, where it would almost certainly fail.  If, on be other hand, he ruled for the motion, then the impeachment would fail at that point without a trial.

There would only be an attempted soft coup if the Chief Justice granted the motion, and the democrats nonetheless insisted on proceeding with the trial.  Up until such time, there would be no coup attempt, soft or otherwise.
[/quote]

The role of the Chief Justice is not so clear as you paint it...nor is the power to accept a motion for dismissal. All the constitutions says is that the Chief Justice "presides" over the Senate during this process...it does not designate what powers he retains as provider. In fact, many argue that the Chief Justice has no such power to dismiss as, whilst he presides, the power for this process entirely rests with the legislative branch and that the Chief Justice's role is simply a symbolic and orderly one.

Here there is a Constitutional issue that I do not believe has ever been decided. What does it mean for the Chief Justice to preside over a Senate trial? According to precedent, a trial in the Senate has never been conceived as a legal proceeding. It is supposed to be a meeting of the Senate and a purely political act. As such its rules are entirely the prerogative of the Senate to establish or change at will.

To preside over a Senate meeting is very different than presiding over a criminal trial or civil trial or trial before the Supreme Court. For example, the Senate could adopt rules that would relegate the Chief Justice’s role to merely a symbolic one; judicial rules of evidence are voluntary and if adopted at all need not be binding on the Senate. All that matters in the end is how the Senate votes, there is no overriding the Senate’s political decision as in a jury trial in court and no appeal is possible.  -Quora

[bigheadfred]

This is a witch hunt.
Pure and simple.
Use any term you want to.

His actions as a private citizen are of no concern.  In the political realm.

Yes, he pissed me off.

But, by and large, his actions, as a sitting President, working towards MY  GOALS, MY GOALS, in the public sector outweigh any of the other BS. ANY of it.

[Emjay]

Name one who resides on this board, please....because I've been here for years now and have seen no one that fits your description.

Beyond that, I know many Trump voters and NONE of them ascribe to the kind of blind followership you impute to them. My guess is that every Trump voter on this board would say the same...that they no nobody who "worships" the President. He is a god to no one, really, and your use of the term signifies that you'd rather avoid true argumentation on issues in favor of spewing liberal memes about "worshipping" the President. Be better than that, for god's sakes, the Dems don't need any more "useful idiots" from the right running around echoing their talking points.

For the record, Trump is no more a god to people than Cruz...Obama...Clinton...Clinton...there is always a tiny sliver of people who are wildly infatuated with a particular politician...just as there are a few who think they are Napoleon. This is no more common, however, amongst Trump supporters than any of the others cited above.

What you're doing, is simply repeating an idiotic Democratic meme that strives to impugn the intellect and character of anyone supporting the President. Supporters who are just as discerning, informed and conservative as yourself. So my advice to you, which you no doubt do not want, is to quit being a "useful idiot" for the Left and use your own intellect...by all means, disagree with the President and his supporters, but using Lefty talking points should be beneath anyone on THIS board.

As with all moronic "memes", there is a sliver of truth on which they are built. In this case, its very true that many people are deeply grateful to the President for fighting to Make America Great Again...in fact, why wouldn't everyone be grateful of such a goal? It doesn't make him our hero, it makes him the leader of the conservative movement to restore reason and greatness to a nation that has...in many ways...lost its way.

Thank you @Mesaclone   I cannot even tell you how sick I am of people attributing 'worship' to me because I support Trump most of the time.  It is insulting and moronic.  There are people on this forum who admire Trump to a greater extent than I do but I would not classify even their strong positive feelings as worship.

It is a cheap and overused tactic that some of the NTers here have as their only weapon. 

The reason I admire Trump as much as I do is because I think he has taken an approach to the Presidency that we haven't seen in a while, not because all previous presidents were bad men, although some of them were, but because they were not original thinkers.  Trump views things from a bit of an outsiders perspective.

He is outraged that the U.S. lets itself be bullied in trade deals and he does things about that.  He is outraged that the U.S. has taken far too casual approach about immigration.  He even suggested that all immigration be stopped for a period till we can get a better handle on it.

He has quietly done away with some useless agencies and curtailed the activities of others.  We will not miss them.  Given enough time, I think he could sharply reduce useless agencies, some are not just useless but harmful to farmers and business.

Right now, a lot of over-regulation of waterways is being looked at. 

I can't say I worship Trump; he's not really someone I would want to hang out with, but I think he is a far better President than we could possibly have hoped for, and it infuriates me when so many TBR members spend their days taking nasty little digs at him for non-substantive reasons ... just to satisfy some petty little grievance they have.

And then they top it off by construing any attempt to defend Trump on these criticisms as being hero worship.  Sick!!!

[Formerly Once-Ler]

So lets be clear.

If Mueller comes back and presents solid and convincing evidence that President Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin to infiltrate voting mechanisms, or to payoff political operatives, or to steal emails and intelligence from the Dems...everyone on this board will favor impeachment.

Sounds good.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Name one who resides on this board, please....because I've been here for years now and have seen no one that fits your description.

Beyond that, I know many Trump voters and NONE of them ascribe to the kind of blind followership you impute to them. My guess is that every Trump voter on this board would say the same...that they no nobody who "worships" the President. He is a god to no one, really, and your use of the term signifies that you'd rather avoid true argumentation on issues in favor of spewing liberal memes about "worshipping" the President. Be better than that, for god's sakes, the Dems don't need any more "useful idiots" from the right running around echoing their talking points.

For the record, Trump is no more a god to people than Cruz...Obama...Clinton...Clinton...there is always a tiny sliver of people who are wildly infatuated with a particular politician...just as there are a few who think they are Napoleon. This is no more common, however, amongst Trump supporters than any of the others cited above.

@Mesaclone questions your faith @Frank Cannon

[Frank Cannon]

You seem to be leaving some things out. Along with Cohen’s guilty plea for business related scams was his plea for false testimony before Congress, concerning Russian contacts. BTW - that false testimony was an integral part of a report Nunes released. So much for that. You also neglected to mention the ‘political synergy’ mentioned by a yet unnamed Russian national in the Cohen filing by Mueller.  Manafort was offering briefings, during the campaign, to Deripaska. This is a guy who’s under sanctions for ties to the Russian mob, plus he’s a Putin linked oligarch. Funny how Flynn’s lying is alleged. He was fired for it and entered a plea. Since then, he’s cooperated fully with Mueller and has been so helpful, prosecution and defense filed joint extensions on sentencing and agreed to recommend zero jail time. So much for him getting railroaded.

LOL. Political Synergy? 80% of the crimes against Cohen, and the ones with the most jail time were the taxi scam ones. The campaign finance shit was tacked on and we have no idea if they are valid because when you take a plea you never find out if the charge is legal or not. Manafart was all about tax evasion on shit from 20 years ago. The rest of the people that took pleas were nabbed on process crimes.

This is just like Watergate where they got G Gordon Liddy on bookmaking, Haldeman got burned on lying about what date he got a ham sandwich and Colson plead to keep his wife from getting arrested for not paying taxes, right? 

[edpc]

LOL. Political Synergy? 80% of the crimes against Cohen, and the ones with the most jail time were the taxi scam ones.

The legal trouble he faced from the SDNY led to his cooperation with Mueller, without a formal deal. The information he provided was directly related to the original investigation scope. LOL all you want – it’s there. Whenever someone says Mueller has nothing, a new court filing eventually gets revealed to state otherwise.


WASHINGTON (AP) - President Donald Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was in touch as far back as 2015 with a Russian who offered “political synergy” with the Trump election campaign and proposed a meeting between the candidate and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the federal special counsel said.

Court filings from prosecutors in New York and special counsel Robert Mueller’s office Friday laid out previously undisclosed contacts between Trump associates and Russian intermediaries and suggested the Kremlin aimed early on to influence Trump and his campaign by playing to both his political aspirations and his personal business interests.

https://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/7/us-trump-lawyer-met-russian-who-offered-political-/

[Frank Cannon]

The legal trouble he faced from the SDNY led to his cooperation with Mueller, without a formal deal. The information he provided was directly related to the original investigation scope. LOL all you want – it’s there.

Bullshit. He was looking at decades of time for the taxi scam. That is what the warrants were for that the FBI used to raid his offices. It is the issue that NY was looking into for a year previously to anyone ever hearing the name Stormy. It was the big issue. Mueller is drowning with nothing to show for so he goes and tacks this bullshit campaign finance on and says plead to this and we take 20 years down to 3. Who wouldn't take that deal?

BTW you keep thinking that because people plead to shit it means it's true and even a legal issue. They could get Cohen to plead to murdering Jon Bonet Ramsey if they wanted and no one will know if it is remotely true because there isn't a trial.

[edpc]

Bullshit. He was looking at decades of time for the taxi scam. That is what the warrants were for that the FBI used to raid his offices. It is the issue that NY was looking into for a year previously to anyone ever hearing the name Stormy. It was the big issue. Mueller is drowning with nothing to show for so he goes and tacks this bullshit campaign finance on and says plead to this and we take 20 years down to 3. Who wouldn't take that deal?

BTW you keep thinking that because people plead to shit it means it's true and even a legal issue. They could get Cohen to plead to murdering Jon Bonet Ramsey if they wanted and no one will know if it is remotely true because there isn't a trial.

Low level people and associates  get nailed on unrelated nickel and dime offenses all the time, then end up giving valuable information on larger, key figures. Someone who famously used this tactic to break up New York organized crime was noneother than Giuliani. You know this, so spare us the hewing and crying.  It is not just Cohen they have on the plea. There are at least two people from AMI and we don’t know yet what information they gleaned from Weisselberg. He did not receive immunity or nothing.

[Frank Cannon]

Low level people and associates  get nailed on unrelated nickel and dime offenses all the time, then end up giving valuable information on larger, key figures. Someone who famously used this tactic to break up New York organized crime was noneother than Giuliani. You know this, so spare us the hewing and crying.  It is not just Cohen they have on the plea. There are at least two people from AMI and we don’t know yet what information they gleaned from Weisselberg. He did not receive immunity or nothing.

So we have been going over 2 years on this Stupid Bobby shit and like clockwork you have been pimping him and carrying his water the whole way along. Has anything changed? Do we have President Pence? Nope. As a matter of fact some of Stupid Bobby's previous plea deals are now looking illegal and dirty.

You keep parroting the company line on Trump going down on this and that. I'll keep reading and laughing because I know you are despondent inside that this investigation isn't doing what you want it to.

[edpc]

Yeah, I know. For the same amount of time we’ve heard this judge or another was going to smack Mueller down for prosecutorial misconduct or exceeding his scope. Yet, here we are and each revelation as the case progresses leads to new information related to Russian contacts or separate investigations into other areas, handled by other districts.

In the meantime, Giuliani is cold calling news outlets to bitch, because sh*t rolls downhill.

[Oceander]

So we have been going over 2 years on this Stupid Bobby shit and like clockwork you have been pimping him and carrying his water the whole way along. Has anything changed? Do we have President Pence? Nope. As a matter of fact some of Stupid Bobby's previous plea deals are now looking illegal and dirty.

You keep parroting the company line on Trump going down on this and that. I'll keep reading and laughing because I know you are despondent inside that this investigation isn't doing what you want it to.

Trump will have one consolation in prison:  he’ll always be in fashion because his skin-tone will always match his outfit.  Prison orange.