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.
Trump has already said he is willing to be questioned under oath. This may be problematic because now the investigation may have documents with clear time lines and proof of what Trump knew and when he knew it. He won't be able to be evasive if that time comes. I'm looking for him to detract his willingness to be questioned under oath.
I think this as well. He surrounded himself with crooked and stupid people, many of whom are going to get caught. But Trump himself, he's probably not guilty of actual crimes. Sure, maybe they can prove he knew of some of this stuff going on, but I won't be surprised if they never find a "gotcha" piece of evidence, like an e-mail to or from Trump or a document he signed or any "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence.
I'm curious to see how this might all play out for Trump if many of those around him and his inner-circle DO end up going down for this, but he remains. I wonder if he'd resign or just serve out the rest of his presidency in shame and ranting on Twitter while the democratic Congress stonewalls him on everything after November.
I'm not so sure about Trump himself not being guilty of crimes.
Apparently, he is careful to not use email, and to use cutouts like Cohen for a lot of things, but I don't buy that he was Mr. Magoo wandering cluelessly through a nest of criminals and traitors.
Stop lying to yourself. They wont' stop with just Trump. They'll come after even YOU if you dare disagree with them. They are Communists, plain and simple! They are thousands of times worse than Joe McCarthy during the Red Scare. At least he, unlike the Deep State and Comrade Mueller, was RIGHT about a lot of what he was claiming.
They, they, they!!! Who are these people you're so scared of? The FBI, which is run by a Trump appointee? The U.S. Atty for the Southern District of New York, a Trump appointee?
You keep posting the same irrelevant thing.
The raid was going after Michael Cohen, not Donald Trump.
Michael Cohen is subject to the same laws that you and I are (actually, more laws than you and I).
The only way Dershowitz's claims come in to play:
- The taint team find documents indicating that Trump committed crimes, and Cohen found out about them after the fact.
- Those documents are handed to Mueller, and he uses them to charge Trump.
If that happens, Dershowitz's point would be relevant. Until then, he is playing to his new base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loves2read
Agree with all you say except the last part
We HOPE Trump is not dumb enough to fire him...
Pressure turns some lumps of coal into diamonds and irritation turns some grains of sand into pearls
I don't know we will get that type of positive result from Trump in this situation
I think that if Trump fires Mueller, it gives the Democrats a genuine chance of taking the House and Senate.
We would control the narrative for the next few months. We have a treasonous president, and he is interfering with the rule of law to defraud our country.
We would have the highest voter turnout in history, and while some will never be convinced, we should have more than enough.
Dershowitz has gotten all weird lately. Does he want to handle the appeal that will arise from any actions from the investigations?
In any case, I read some things he said about this Cohen search and seizure warrant, but I stopped when he talked about Mueller doing it. Because Dershowitz was WRONG. This wasn't a Mueller action. This was a New York state action against Cohen for bank and wire fraud (felonies).
Everything about this seems to have been done by the book. Lots of people signed off on it.
Dershowitz seems to have lost his magic. When you aren't careful to have the facts before you speak about them, you are no longer an ace attorney.
What was interesting to me is when Republican pundits, Trump supporters have been presented with evidence that Trump makes stuff up, lies, is misinformed (however you choose to see it) -- they smile and say something to the effect "That's who he is...we all know he is inclined to stretch the truth to make a point."
Oh isn't that endearing.
And isn't it indictable at some point as well...
:-)
I think this as well. He surrounded himself with crooked and stupid people, many of whom are going to get caught. But Trump himself, he's probably not guilty of actual crimes. Sure, maybe they can prove he knew of some of this stuff going on, but I won't be surprised if they never find a "gotcha" piece of evidence, like an e-mail to or from Trump or a document he signed or any "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence.
I'm curious to see how this might all play out for Trump if many of those around him and his inner-circle DO end up going down for this, but he remains. I wonder if he'd resign or just serve out the rest of his presidency in shame and ranting on Twitter while the democratic Congress stonewalls him on everything after November.
I have made much the same point before. It is well known that Mr. Trump has difficulty in not blurting out things that would better be left unsaid (witness, when he first became President, his meeting with some Russians in the Oval Office where he apparently spilled some secret concerning Israel).
Thus, I can see where those around him, wishing him to beat the odds and become President, may have entered into conspiracies with Russians and Wikileaks, to name but two, to improve his chances. Yet, knowing how Mr. Trump is, keeping him well 'out of the loop'.
Indeed, that day when Candidate Trump suddenly asked Russia to get the missing Clinton emails (I still think he was joking), those like Manafort et al may have been gasping in shock, but thankful that Mr. Trump was utterly ignorant of what was going on behind the scenes.
To me, the question is: did Mr. Trump subsequently discover what his team had been doing, and 'covered up' for them? Again, it is similar to Mr. Nixon: he did not order or know about the break-in to the Democratic party headquarters in the Watergate complex; however, once he was informed it was his own people (three days after the break-in), he, loyal to a fault, began to engage in the cover-up.
Or the judge is a typical New York Liberal hack looking for acceptance.
Ahhh. So you backed off the claim that the judge's career and liberty was at stake. We're making progress.
But wait. Federal judges are appointed for life, so why would he need "acceptance"?
Keep trying, PMF. Eventually you'll come around to the notion that the judge signed a search warrant because there was probable cause that a crime was committed and they need the evidence to prove it.
Last edited by Marlow; 04-10-2018 at 09:37 AM..
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.
