U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-09-2017, 07:40 PM
 
Location: Somerville, MA
7,918 posts, read 15,980,470 times
Reputation: 9285

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1 View Post
And he WAS being blamed for something!

When WaldoKitty said he had been vindicated - since so many people were blaming him for colluding with the Russians - you argued that point.

You're still arguing the point, even though you're now talking in circles.

People on the left were blaming him. He's been vindicated.....found to be not guilty of the allegations being made about him.

To say he couldn't be vindicated unless charged was ridiculous.
What you're posting is ridiculous. Nobody that mattered (read: nobody on this forum matters as far as the investigation is concerned) has claimed Trump himself colluded. The investigation was and still is about his campaign's ties. Unless there's evidence to connect it to Trump, he's not being blamed by anyone that matters and that was the case before Comey spoke yesterday. So there's nothing to "vindicate" on that front unless it's really important for Trump that city-data posters and CNN comment section trolls be set straight. Nothing came out yesterday that changed anything about the current investigations in Trump's favor. Everyone in that room knew Trump himself wasn't under investigation when Comey was fired seeing as they are conducting the investigation. It's not at all revealing or vindicating.

What he HAS been blamed for is removing Comey specifically for not ending the ongoing investigation. There's a pretty solid case for that (if the reason really was his handling of the Clinton investigation he would have been gone before May). You may not like what Comey said, but if a former FBI director with 30 years of legal experience goes under oath and calls the President a liar and doubles down on some questionable (and that's an understatement) quotes from the president, that carries weight. Especially when the president himself has implied that there might be tapes of the conversations. So Comey is either very confident that what he testified was the truth, or his 30+ years of legal expericme have really failed him. If you think Trump is vindicated and this is over, you're kidding yourself. It's going to continue and Comey's testimony shifted some of the focus directly toward the president because he implied, under oath, that the president obstructed justice. There's a reason a criminal law expert was brought in today- they're looking to see if Comey's testimony could be enough to make a case for obstruction AND if the answer is yes, what the law and precedent says regarding the president if/how you can proceed (POTUS can't be charged like a normal citizen even if they committed the crime).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-09-2017, 07:44 PM
 
Location: Houston
5,341 posts, read 2,718,719 times
Reputation: 3301
It's funny how Trumplings complain that these accusations are getting "tiring" and "repetitive". They sure didn't seem to complain when it was Obama or Hillary in the hot seat. I seem to recall a that a lot of them were all too happy to offer their two cents on what they thought was going on. Endlessly I might add.

You Trumplings need to get used to this. It's just getting started. If you can't handle the comments in this forum, I would suggest you go elsewhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2017, 07:47 PM
 
Location: Suburb of Chicago
20,258 posts, read 9,891,136 times
Reputation: 19914
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
What you are asserting is that he was in fact charged. With colluding with the Russians. Don't you read what you wrote?

I do not believe there is any reasonable charge that Trump colluded with the Russians. It could turn out to be true but I do not believe it at this point. So you believe their was a rational charge that he colluded with the Russians?

I suppose if you wish to give credibility to the lunatic fringe he was charged. But they think he molests children as well. Do you find that a credible charge as well.

We need some standards on these issues. That someone somewhere said it is not that.

And there is no way he was found not guilty at least in the corporate sense. That is the question Comey would not answer in an open hearing.

I'm asserting no such thing.

The public was blaming Trump for colluding with Russians. Apparently, that is unfounded, so he has been vindicated.

That's what WaldoKitty posted and you kept arguing that without a charge, there cannot be vindication.

I posted the definition of vindication. It can involve blame - not a charge.

The problem is - you do not wish to accept that definition, because it means you're wrong in insisting that a charge must be present in order for their to be vindication. That's bull.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2017, 07:52 PM
 
Location: Suburb of Chicago
20,258 posts, read 9,891,136 times
Reputation: 19914
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox View Post
What you're posting is ridiculous. Nobody that mattered (read: nobody on this forum matters as far as the investigation is concerned) has claimed Trump himself colluded. The investigation was and still is about his campaign's ties. Unless there's evidence to connect it to Trump, he's not being blamed by anyone that matters and that was the case before Comey spoke yesterday. So there's nothing to "vindicate" on that front unless it's really important for Trump that city-data posters and CNN comment section trolls be set straight. Nothing came out yesterday that changed anything about the current investigations in Trump's favor. Everyone in that room knew Trump himself wasn't under investigation when Comey was fired seeing as they are conducting the investigation. It's not at all revealing or vindicating.

What he HAS been blamed for is removing Comey specifically for not ending the ongoing investigation. There's a pretty solid case for that (if the reason really was his handling of the Clinton investigation he would have been gone before May). You may not like what Comey said, but if a former FBI director with 30 years of legal experience goes under oath and calls the President a liar and doubles down on some questionable (and that's an understatement) quotes from the president, that carries weight. Especially when the president himself has implied that there might be tapes of the conversations. So Comey is either very confident that what he testified was the truth, or his 30+ years of legal expericme have really failed him. If you think Trump is vindicated and this is over, you're kidding yourself. It's going to continue and Comey's testimony shifted some of the focus directly toward the president because he implied, under oath, that the president obstructed justice. There's a reason a criminal law expert was brought in today- they're looking to see if Comey's testimony could be enough to make a case for obstruction AND if the answer is yes, what the law and precedent says regarding the president if/how you can proceed (POTUS can't be charged like a normal citizen even if they committed the crime).
I'm talking about the public - not "anyone who matters".

And since you got the rest of my post wrong by saying I think he was vindicated - I'm done with this exchange.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2017, 07:53 PM
 
9,430 posts, read 2,291,528 times
Reputation: 4644
" Who's the Liar? "

Lemme see ...

One person has a reputation for lying, swindling customers and cheating contractors. He also has a petty vindictive streak.

The other person is a fastidious note taker with a law degree and three decades of public service.

Hmmm ... hard to say
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2017, 08:00 PM
 
12,565 posts, read 4,743,906 times
Reputation: 5549
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1 View Post
I'm asserting no such thing.

The public was blaming Trump for colluding with Russians. Apparently, that is unfounded, so he has been vindicated.

That's what WaldoKitty posted and you kept arguing that without a charge, there cannot be vindication.

I posted the definition of vindication. It can involve blame - not a charge.

The problem is - you do not wish to accept that definition, because it means you're wrong in insisting that a charge must be present in order for their to be vindication. That's bull.
"Blame" is a charge. We simply disagree. There is no rational "charge" or "blame" That Trump colluded with the Russians.

"Public"? Who the hell is that? You lost all touch with reality?

I posted the standard definition of vindicated.

You should think about staying out of semantic discussions. They do not appear to be your thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2017, 08:01 PM
 
12,565 posts, read 4,743,906 times
Reputation: 5549
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1 View Post
I'm talking about the public - not "anyone who matters".

And since you got the rest of my post wrong by saying I think he was vindicated - I'm done with this exchange.
Hey good. I was getting tired of it...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2017, 08:03 PM
 
Location: Somerville, MA
7,918 posts, read 15,980,470 times
Reputation: 9285
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1 View Post
I'm talking about the public - not "anyone who matters".

And since you got the rest of my post wrong by saying I think he was vindicated - I'm done with this exchange.
"The public" didn't think DJT was directly under investigation. Sure, a few nutties may have thought that and thought they were going to get a smoking gun, but nothing changed their mind yesterday, so there was no "vindication" for them either.

You also absolutely DID say he was vindicated:

"He's been vindicated...found not guilty of the allegations..."

He wasn't found "not guilty" of anything yesterday. It was simply reinforced that he, personally wasn't under investigation at that time- which most of us already knew. That's why this whole "vindicated" thing is so laughable. What DID happen yesterday is that the former FBI director made some pretty bold claims under oath about the president's comments to him, their motives and their questionable legality. That's not insignificant by a long shot. But if it makes some people feel better to say Trump is "vindicated" because Comey repeated what we already knew about the investigation, go ahead... do your victory dance. The reality is that Comey's testimony assured, at the very least, that this thing is going to go on a good deal longer and that Trump's actions regarding the Comey firing will be scrutinized heavily.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2017, 08:22 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,154 posts, read 33,583,941 times
Reputation: 14140
Now that he has incriminated himself and Lynch to obstruct justice in the Clinton e-mail investigation, the Clinton e-mail investigation is back open and open Big League..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2017, 08:24 PM
 
4,532 posts, read 5,089,874 times
Reputation: 3983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios View Post
" Who's the Liar? "

Lemme see ...

One person has a reputation for lying, swindling customers and cheating contractors. He also has a petty vindictive streak.

The other person is a fastidious note taker with a law degree and three decades of public service.

Hmmm ... hard to say
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top