Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I think President Trump probably broke the law at some point, but...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #81
    Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post

    But why? At bare minimum, British royals, Saudi oil barons, and Israeli lobbyists have always been heavily invested in American elections. All Trump did was inadvertently lift the wool from people's eyes, as is his wont.
    You’re already providing me some good reasons for why I shouldn’t want to add to that little laundry list just so an extra US politician gets their emails hacked, lol.

    All the other candidates to have invested in American elections don’t get that much better than those three...

    Even Canadian politicians are involved in shady shit, and Canadians have a reputation for being nice...
    Last edited by RussianCoffeeAddict; November 17th, 2019, 03:04 AM.

    Comment


      #82
      Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post

      Moscow is quite literally the safest place in the world for a folk hero like Snowden. If he were dumb enough to willingly return to the US (seeing as they can't force extradition), he would no doubt be found dead a week later, having committed suicide by stabbing himself in the back repeatedly. Hell, he probably shouldn't risk it even after an official presidential pardon because that would provide an illusion of security at best.

      Now, unless you think Snowden was some deep-cover FSB plant placed with the sole intent of undermining American hegemony, this proves that even the boogeyman itself (i.e., Russia) can protect the interests of regular American citizens and not just the aristocracy like our own government. Sure, they clearly have their own agenda, but that's something that's true of everyone in every interaction they will ever make in their entire life, so getting hung up over that is pretty silly.

      Similarly, I'm glad that they uncovered this dirt on Clinton. People should know who they're potentially voting into office and there should be much more transparency throughout as Snowden previously proved. It's not like they just made this shit up either. If Hillary hadn't been dirty all day, she would've had nothing to fear.
      All of that might be true, but none of it changes the fact that asking a foreign government to attack your country is the very definition of treason. Lol

      ​​​​​​

      Comment


        #83
        Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post
        You know what's funny is that Trump is going to be impeached (successfully removed or not) for all these foreign affairs he mixed in with his political rivalries. Which is nice, I guess. But when Trump vetoed a bill to stop funding Saudi's brutal war on Yemen...nothing really happened.

        Nor did anyone in the establishment try to impeach Bush or Obama for all the wars they caused or other constitutionally questionable things they did (Patriot Act and the NSA-Snowden affair). Well, some people had an angry word or two...

        ...But when govvies start going after each other...

        ...That's when they bring out the big guns...
        Obama didn't declare war on anyone. Did I miss something? O.o

        There was some ruffled feathers with how Bush started and then ended that war. He tested the limits presidential powers and it is something Congress should've nipped in the butt afterward with some new amendments.

        The difference here is Trump was trying to strong arm another country to investigate a private US citizen that was running for office. I don't give a bloody damn how corrupt he thinks someone is. You don't get foreign powers to get involved. You get our courts and our politicans involved. He is the goddamn president, he should have enough political juice and power in his office to investigate a corrupt politician in the US especially one that holds no seat of power! Biden is not a mayor, governor, nothing. He holds no political seat right now. The guy is no different than you and me.

        So why do you even need a whole other country to investigate him. That's just bloody insane and damn shameful.

        Comment


          #84
          Originally posted by Kajin_Style View Post

          Obama didn't declare war on anyone. Did I miss something? O.o

          There was some ruffled feathers with how Bush started and then ended that war. He tested the limits presidential powers and it is something Congress should've nipped in the butt afterward with some new amendments.

          The difference here is Trump was trying to strong arm another country to investigate a private US citizen that was running for office. I don't give a bloody damn how corrupt he thinks someone is. You don't get foreign powers to get involved. You get our courts and our politicans involved. He is the goddamn president, he should have enough political juice and power in his office to investigate a corrupt politician in the US especially one that holds no seat of power! Biden is not a mayor, governor, nothing. He holds no political seat right now. The guy is no different than you and me.

          So why do you even need a whole other country to investigate him. That's just bloody insane and damn shameful.
          Obama didn’t declare war on anyone explicitly, but that’s not a requirement to spearhead or at least be involved in a war. So, the whole Libya affair he got involved in does kind of count (and even if it’s not a “war,” it was certainly military involvement that destabilized a region).

          Comment


            #85
            Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

            Obama didn’t declare war on anyone explicitly, but that’s not a requirement to spearhead or at least be involved in a war. So, the whole Libya affair he got involved in does kind of count (and even if it’s not a “war,” it was certainly military involvement that destabilized a region).
            The reason for this is because wars need congressional approval, and Congress never approved of our involvement in Lybia.

            Same thing with the Korean War. Legally speaking, it wasn't a war.
            Originally posted by Wade
            Everything is hidden in plain sight, like in Men in Black. We've all just been neuralized to think it is "normal".

            Comment


              #86
              Originally posted by Kajin_Style View Post

              Obama didn't declare war on anyone. Did I miss something? O.o

              There was some ruffled feathers with how Bush started and then ended that war. He tested the limits presidential powers and it is something Congress should've nipped in the butt afterward with some new amendments.

              The difference here is Trump was trying to strong arm another country to investigate a private US citizen that was running for office. I don't give a bloody damn how corrupt he thinks someone is. You don't get foreign powers to get involved. You get our courts and our politicans involved. He is the goddamn president, he should have enough political juice and power in his office to investigate a corrupt politician in the US especially one that holds no seat of power! Biden is not a mayor, governor, nothing. He holds no political seat right now. The guy is no different than you and me.

              So why do you even need a whole other country to investigate him. That's just bloody insane and damn shameful.
              How do you propose a president goes about investigating crimes committed in a foreign country without involving said foreign country?

              Comment


                #87
                Originally posted by Cid View Post

                In the part where everyone in Trump's circle has said "he didn't intend to release the aid until the investigation was launched."

                Just because Trump got scared and released the aid once it became clear that impeachment was on the table does not mean that he didn't commit a crime.

                An attempted murder is still a criminal act, you dumbass.
                Where's even the proof of an attempt? Attempted murder is a crime, telling somebody you want to kill somebody else isn't, dumbass.




                Originally posted by Cid View Post
                Except Mueller never said that, someone else said that was Meuller's intent. We know, for a fact, that Trump lied about his campaign's cooperation with Wikileaks. And he did it under oath. That's not speculation.
                Ok, so you just used "Trumps' circle" as a source of his intentions, but using a source close to Mueller as a source is invalid? Do we know that? Only person I've seen that has said he heard Trump talk about Wikileaks is Gates, and even he said he didn't hear the conversation just that Trump was talking to Stone. If there's such a sure fire case there, then Trump will surely be tried for perjury, let's see how that plays out.

                Originally posted by Cid View Post
                Nope.

                It's alright for the United States to withhold aid when a foreign country is protecting a corrupt politician.

                It's not alright for the President of the United States to withhold aid until a foreign country agrees to investigate one of the President's political opponents.

                Furthermore, Biden made the initial threat in a public hearing at the Ukraine Parliament... And when he did, he was aligning himself alongside many other groups who were also demanding that the prosecutor be fired for his corruption. He did not make that threat in a private conversation with the Ukrainian President and he didn't subsequently have that conversation moved to a top-secret file where the public couldn't access it.

                Furthermore still, as previously mentioned, Biden had no personal reasons to demand Shoakin be ousted. Hunter Biden was not under investigation in Ukraine. The prosecutor did have a case shelved against the company that Hunter was on the board of, but that investigation had been opened before Hunter was put on the board. Therefore there is zero reason to believe there was any foul play involved in this. Joe was not using his power as the VP to protect his son, he was using the authority of the United States to demand a corrupt prosecutor be removed from office.

                So drop it already, you're grasping at straws here and quite frankly, arguing this point over and over is a waste of both of our time. Just admit you made a mistake in not looking into it and move on. You'll definitely get more respect than you will if you keep pushing this as a reason that Trump's blatant abuse isn't wrong.
                Trump was asking for info on a corrupt politician, and there's no proof he withheld aid for that information since he didn't get any info. Remember when I said earlier, not even you are that dumb, well you keep proving me wrong. Why else would the head of a foreign company want the unqualified VP's son on its board besides the fact that his dad is VP? The link I posted showed even the Obama administration was worried that Hunter Biden's position with the company would be seen as a conflict of interest. If you feel responding is a " waste of time" then don't respond, though I hope you do because as I said earlier, your replies are always good for a laugh.

                Comment


                  #88
                  Originally posted by Cid View Post

                  All of that might be true, but none of it changes the fact that asking a foreign government to attack your country is the very definition of treason. Lol

                  ​​​​​​
                  Exposing a corrupt politician (regardless of what position they held/are holding) =/= attacking an entire country. If Russia truly "attacked" America, then surely we'd be obligated to respond, no? But we didn't. We didn't throw around so much as a sanction, which if you remember Crimea... Just because we don't want that beef doesn't mean Russia wants it either. Even a strictly conventional war would be catastrophic for both nations. This logically leads one to believe that nothing dastardly took place. Outside of the act of hacking, though it was decidedly gray-hat in this case. Not noble, but not ignoble either.

                  As such, all this is nothing more than thinly-veiled McCarthyism on the Democrats' part. Which is kind of sad when you think about it. Imagine resorting to cheap theater when, though relatively minor and unflashy they may be, you have a multitude of unsavory and probably illegal things that Trump has also done to choose from.
                  Last edited by Lord L'Zoril; November 18th, 2019, 03:00 AM.

                  Comment


                    #89
                    Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post

                    But why? At bare minimum, British royals, Saudi oil barons, and Israeli lobbyists have always been heavily invested in American elections.
                    Unfortunately

                    Comment


                      #90
                      Originally posted by King John View Post

                      How do you propose a president goes about investigating crimes committed in a foreign country without involving said foreign country?
                      He doesn't. That is out of his jurisdiction. A president shouldn't be pressuring other countries to investigate crimes that happened on their soil. It is one thing if the person did crimes on US soil and ran to another country to hide. It is another thing entirely if the person did the crimes on foreign soil. It is even worse if these crimes involve a future political opponent. That looks bad and sets a terrible precedence that any future president will try to do.


                      Furthermore he was asking them to investigate Biden, not Biden's son who was in the foreign country in the first place. Why are you investigating the father when it was the son who did the supposed crimes? That makes no sense.

                      Comment


                        #91
                        Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

                        Obama didn’t declare war on anyone explicitly, but that’s not a requirement to spearhead or at least be involved in a war. So, the whole Libya affair he got involved in does kind of count (and even if it’s not a “war,” it was certainly military involvement that destabilized a region).
                        Ah yes Libyra, but he wasn't doing that alone. He got the UN involved which means many other countries believed the issues there needed military intervention. I personally didn't like it but people like Trump can't complain about this either cause he got the UN to do its job, aka costing US less money to solve a problem everyone agreed needed dealing with.

                        Comment


                          #92
                          https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._to_putin.html

                          ”All Roads lead to Putin.”-Pelosi.

                          Translation:

                          “Oh, you thought it was Ukrainegate, BUT IT WAS ME, RUSSIAGATE!”

                          Even after Mueller closed the lid, it still doesn’t want to go away...

                          Comment


                            #93
                            Originally posted by King John View Post
                            Where's even the proof of an attempt?
                            Again, both Trump and one of his top aides have publicly admitted that it was quid-pro-quo and have instead went to claiming that it isn't illegal because he is the president. You can look it up on youtube yourself.


                            Originally posted by King John View Post
                            Ok, so you just used "Trumps' circle" as a source of his intentions, but using a source close to Mueller as a source is invalid? Do we know that? Only person I've seen that has said he heard Trump talk about Wikileaks is Gates, and even he said he didn't hear the conversation just that Trump was talking to Stone. If there's such a sure fire case there, then Trump will surely be tried for perjury, let's see how that plays out.
                            Yes, I'm using the words of multiple identified people who are part of Trump's circle and inside his administration and who are testifying under oath as a reliable source. Forgive me not believing that one guy who won't even give their name isn't reliable.

                            https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/18/polit...ler/index.html

                            Oh look, they made it official today.


                            Originally posted by King John View Post
                            Trump was asking for info on a corrupt politician, and there's no proof he withheld aid for that information since he didn't get any info. Remember when I said earlier, not even you are that dumb, well you keep proving me wrong. Why else would the head of a foreign company want the unqualified VP's son on its board besides the fact that his dad is VP? The link I posted showed even the Obama administration was worried that Hunter Biden's position with the company would be seen as a conflict of interest. If you feel responding is a " waste of time" then don't respond, though I hope you do because as I said earlier, your replies are always good for a laugh.
                            I never said that the shit surrounding Hunter's appointment to that company was shady, friend. I said that Biden calling for the firing of that prosecutor wasn't shady. And I proved it wasn't, and that's all that matters in this conversation. You accused Joe Biden of doing the same thing Trump did as a way to justify Trump's actions. You were very clearly wrong. Now sit down.

                            Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post

                            Exposing a corrupt politician (regardless of what position they held/are holding) =/= attacking an entire country. If Russia truly "attacked" America, then surely we'd be obligated to respond, no? But we didn't. We didn't throw around so much as a sanction, which if you remember Crimea... Just because we don't want that beef doesn't mean Russia wants it either. Even a strictly conventional war would be catastrophic for both nations. This logically leads one to believe that nothing dastardly took place. Outside of the act of hacking, though it was decidedly gray-hat in this case. Not noble, but not ignoble either.

                            As such, all this is nothing more than thinly-veiled McCarthyism on the Democrats' part. Which is kind of sad when you think about it. Imagine resorting to cheap theater when, though relatively minor and unflashy they may be, you have a multitude of unsavory and probably illegal things that Trump has also done to choose from.
                            Look Morph, I'm not really sure what you're even getting at here.

                            Yes, attacking Hillary's email accounts was an attack on the United States itself. Not only was she the former secretary of state and a former senator, but she was also the Democratic nominee and as part of the process, was being briefed on matters of national security. (Trump was briefed on them too, it's part of the election process) She had access to classified information, much of which was stored in those emails. Her emails being jeopardized was a national security crisis, as we all clearly knew. And yet Trump still wanted more of her emails exposed and he publicly asked foreign governments to do it.

                            It's the literal definition of treason. Like, by-the-book definition. But because it was Hillary, it was ok? That just doesn't make any sense, whatsoever.

                            Comment


                              #94
                              Originally posted by Cid View Post

                              Again, both Trump and one of his top aides have publicly admitted that it was quid-pro-quo and have instead went to claiming that it isn't illegal because he is the president. You can look it up on youtube yourself.
                              Why not just provide the vid?

                              Comment


                                #95
                                Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

                                Why not just provide the vid?
                                Because 90% of the time I'm posting from mobile. Because King John's opinion isn't worth the time it'd take me to find the videos and the trouble in copying the URL and posting it here. Both instances were widely covered by the media, they're easy enough to find.

                                Comment


                                  #96
                                  Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

                                  Why not just provide the vid?
                                  His acting chief of said basically admitted quid pro quo ya know with out saying the actual term "quid pro quo"

                                  starts at 38sec mark



                                  Comment


                                    #97
                                    Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post
                                    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._to_putin.html

                                    ”All Roads lead to Putin.”-Pelosi.

                                    Translation:

                                    “Oh, you thought it was Ukrainegate, BUT IT WAS ME, RUSSIAGATE!”

                                    Even after Mueller closed the lid, it still doesn’t want to go away...
                                    She's not wrong... it all leads back to Russia.

                                    Comment


                                      #98
                                      Originally posted by Kajin_Style View Post

                                      She's not wrong... it all leads back to Russia.
                                      Yeah, no.

                                      We put the lid on that jar months ago.

                                      Comment


                                        #99
                                        Originally posted by Kajin_Style View Post

                                        His acting chief of said basically admitted quid pro quo ya know with out saying the actual term "quid pro quo"

                                        starts at 38sec mark



                                        Well, that’s kind of damning. I’d like a more firm investigation, though, to get the precise details.

                                        Just waiting on the “I’m the president, I can do whatever I want” quote that Cid cited back on the first page. There a vid of Trump saying that?

                                        Wouldn’t surprise me given his impulsive attitude and large ego...but still.
                                        Last edited by RussianCoffeeAddict; November 19th, 2019, 11:28 AM.

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post


                                          Well, that’s kind of damning.
                                          Are you seriously just hearing about this today for the first time

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X