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.
What if this were Obama under investigation for collusion with Russians?
I wonder if the conservatives would be downplaying things, saying that there was "no real crime committed."
Hmmm....I wonder.
I would go with Biden and Kerry over Obama since they both have family connected with and profiting from Ukrainian oil and gas interests and are deeply entangled with the local politics.
Podesta is another one since we have now learned that he received a large sum from a Russian state-run oil company.
Keep in mind that no one expected Trump to win, so the covering of tracks left by key Democrats was supposed to be handled by the incoming Clinton administration.
It was only when Trump pulled out an upset victory that the panic set in.
The whole Trump-Russia narrative reeks of desperation on the part of Democrats that appear to have a lot to hide.
Impeachment is a political charge, not a legal court proceeding. All it takes is a bunch of p.o.'d Congress members. If tRUMP continues to fall in the polls and GOP House sees him as obstructing their agenda, not getting bills through, they will impeach him when they feel the majority of US agrees it's time for President Bonkers to hit the road.
The GOP isn't going to let these first 2 years of a new administration pizz away their chance to get meaningful legislation. They are already worried about the mid-terms in 2018.
Impeachment is a political charge, not a legal court proceeding. All it takes is a bunch of p.o.'d Congress members. If tRUMP continues to fall in the polls and GOP House sees him as obstructing their agenda, not getting bills through, they will impeach him when they feel the majority of US agrees it's time for President Bonkers to hit the road.
The GOP isn't going to let these first 2 years of a new administration pizz away their chance to get meaningful legislation. They are already worried about the mid-terms in 2018.
Most people who voted for Trump are ecstatic with his job performance.
I'm sure that those who oppose Trump have a hard time getting their heads around that, but it's a fact.
Congressional representatives who come from districts carried by Trump will not be eager to tempt fate on this one.
So much deflection, and from the person who started the thread...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
Well, let's see....
As Secretary of State, Hillary signed off on a deal that gave Russia control over 20% of our uranium.
This happened right after the Russians made a big contribution to the Clinton Foundation.
Except that a whole lot of other U.S. agencies, from the Department of Defense to the Department of Energy also signed off on the deal to allow a Canadian company which is partly owned by Russians to obtain the uranium. You know, the uranium that hasn't left the United States?
Quote:
And the Clintons used foundation money as an expense account to pay for their lavish lifestyle and book speeches for Bill Clinton at up to $750,000 for 40 minutes.
Gee, imagine that. A former president, getting paid to make speeches...must be corruption somewhere in there....
Quote:
So Hillary Clinton is guilty of treason (much more than Trump could possibly be) and taking bribes -- but nothing has happened to her.
So you concede that treason doesn't amount to waging war against the U.S. or that the U.S. can have enemies that aren't currently at war with the United States.....
Sort of blows the original post in this thread out of the water, doesn't it?
Quote:
As Secretary of State, Hillary used a private server that she claimed did not process any classified documents. It turned out that it did process classified documents that could have been hacked by Russia.
Yes, out of all of those documents, the FBI found about three that were marked 'Confidential'...three...
FBI Director James Comey said that those three emails weren't properly marked.
Two of the 'classified' emails turned out to be mismarked.
Quote:
Hillary also deleted 30,000 emails in such a way that they could never be recovered. They might have contained classified information or indications that she was using the office of Secretary of State to do favors for foreign governments contributing money to the Clinton Foundation.
Except that they were recovered by the FBI through other sources. Your innuendo falls flat on its face.
Quote:
Congress subpoenaed Clinton's emails before she "acid washed" them, ordering her to preserve them as evidence. She ignored the subpoena and destroyed the evidence. Her staff who participated in that act refused to comply with a congressional subpoena to show up and testify. They also physically destroyed her cell phones using a hammer.
Why then, they must be guilty! In fact weren't some of them granted immunity for testifying?
Didn't both Donald Trump and Michael Flynn state unequivocally that only guilty people ask for immunity?
Oh wait...that sorta backfired on them, didn't it...
Quote:
So Hillary is guilty of mishandling classified documents, destroying evidence, and obstruction of justice.
But nothing has happened to her.
After a massive investigation by the FBI, which found that there wasn't enough evidence to make any charges stick in a court of law...something you admit right below here...
Quote:
While Hillary was under investigation by the FBI, the head of the Justice Department (of which the FBI is a part) Loretta Lynch secretly met with Bill Clinton on a plane in Phoenix, thus compromising the integrity of the investigation into Clinton. Immediately thereafter, James Comey, the FBI director, citing a statute that criminalizes even the unintentional mishandling of classified documents, insisted that Hillary should not be prosecuted because she had no intent to mishandle said documents.
So Loretta Lynch and James Comey are guilty of obstruction of justice.
But nothing has happened to them.
So these two are guilty of obstruction? Then why isn't Trump's justice department pursuing charges?
Because there's nothing to pursue.
Quote:
You all were saying something about Trump and the Russians....?
Again, the first post in this thread was such a flop, there's nothing left but deflection.
You mean the same kind of treason when a secretary of state disappears during a terrorist attack on an embassy and then lies about it? That kind of treason?
Most people who voted for Trump are ecstatic with his job performance.
I'm sure that those who oppose Trump have a hard time getting their heads around that, but it's a fact.
Actually, it's probably a valid claim that most people who voted for President Donald Trump approve of his job performance.
About 46% of the voters cast their ballots for Donald Trump. His approval ratings are about 35%. Assuming that people who voted against Trump probably don't approve of the job he's doing, then those 35% who do approve are Trump voters.
Three out of four people who did vote for him most probably approve of the way he's doing things.
Quote:
Congressional representatives who come from districts carried by Trump will not be eager to tempt fate on this one.
Sure the'll tempt fate. In fact, the Freedom Caucus shut him down on TrumpCare.
The Freedom Caucus congressmen won their districts by larger margins that Trump won their districts - they're much more popular with their voters back home than Trump is. On top of that, the Koch brothers financially support the congressmen of the Freedom Caucus - and they have much deeper pockets than Donald Trump.
As to what law Trump broke, no one has accused Donald Trump of anything.
Are you that ignorant about the subject, or just outright lying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tillman7
It's called treason.
You clearly don't know what treason is. In spite of what liberals constantly work on, words do have meaning, and so far nothing Trump has done is treason. Hillary could easily be guilty of it, but I'm sure neither of you think that.
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
50 USCS § 2204 [Title 50. War and National Defense; Chapter 39. Spoils of War], enemy of the United States means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States
Funny how in 2015 liberals didn't consider Russia the enemy, back when Hillary and Obama were selling radioactive material to them. Even the Boston Globe didn't consider them an enemy. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...tlN/story.html
Assuming Trump "colluded" with the Russians and got them to hack the Hillary campaign's emails, what law did he break?
I know it wouldn't be the law against treason, which only comes into play if you a) levy war against the United States or b) give aid and comfort to the enemy.
Russia is not an official enemy of the United States.
We have not declared war on them, nor they on us.
So what law did Trump break?
And what law did Flynn break when -- as incoming national security adviser -- he promised the Russians that Trump would lift some of the sanctions imposed by Obama? (assuming that actually happened.)
From what I can tell, no laws were broken.
So what we're seeing now is just political theater.
Law? Maybe not a law, but he certainly put into question the most sacred covenant we have with the government: fair elections.
He broke McCain law. I think it is Logan act. You can see here former AG response to these kind of questions. It is going to be moral outrage rather than breaking some law. Basically moral outrage turning into impeachment. I think, that is what democrats are hoping for.
Since becoming law, the Logan Act has been broken over and over every year, by incoming Presidents and legislators.
No one, and I repeat, NO ONE has ever been prosecuted and I do not see Jeff Sessions bringing charges for it now, to start a new trend.
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.
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.
