Immigration Ban

BigRedBuster said:
Kind of like preventing people with information from testifying with what they know.
Click to expand...
Everything you just put in red is propaganda. Was every appointment he made suppose to have no history with foreign gov'ts? When it became known Manafort had issues he was let go. Seriously, this disinformation you've been fed is laughable.

I don't think Trump is above the law by any means. If he actually did something wrong then he should be held accountable. But the investigators must also be held accountable and just because they are investigating a political opponent does not mean constitutional protections don't apply. If you are going to investigate him do so with unbiased investigators. Do so with investigators who aren't using the investigation as an insurance policy. Do so with actual verifiable facts and not those made up and/or paid for by a political opponent. 

 
BigRedBuster said:
Not when the obstruction is part of the conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Wow. just wow.

It is amazing that is so easy for you to believe that there is this large conspiracy afoot when there have been thousands of hours of questioning, 3 years of investigation with millions of dollars spent, illegal and illegitimate FISA wire taps were obtained, and investigated by investigators with a bias against Trump. The end result is there is no concrete evidence of said conspiracy or collusion - no documents, no emails, no recordings, no testimony - its really astonishing. At what point do you have to step back and ask yourself, am I just delusional because I can't handle the person I voted for didn't win?

 
bugeater17 said:
Again, you are changing what we are talking about and commingling issues. Simply put, there is a difference between conspiracy (what is being discussed in this thread) and obstruction (the tweet in your post).  

Reading comprehension has really gone out the window. 
Click to expand...


I'll do without the snark. Thanks bud.

Secondly, no. I'll lay out for you exactly what's happening in this thread. You're laying out a very narrow legal defense and sticking specifically to charges you think are defensible in an effort to keep the discussion away from the utter dumpster fire that is the Trump presidency.

You come in here boldly touting Republican talking points in an effort to tamp down any any discussion about the shortcomings of a man who by his own behavior has proven himself a threat to the republic. Well, being as we aren't gullible idiots, you're not making that strong of a case.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Danny Bateman said:
I'll do without the snark. Thanks bud.

Secondly, no. I'll lay out for you exactly what's happening in this thread. You're laying out a very narrow legal defense and sticking specifically to charges you think are defensible in an effort to keep the discussion away from the utter dumpster fire that is the Trump presidency.

You come in here boldly touting Republican talking points in an effort to tamp down any any discussion about the shortcomings of a man who by his own behavior has proven himself a threat to the republic. Well, being as we aren't gullible idiots, but you're not making that strong of a case.
Click to expand...


If by clarifying the disjointed, commingled, and illogical Democratic argument/talking points, then I'm fine with that. 

 
bugeater17 said:
Wow. just wow.

It is amazing that is so easy for you to believe that there is this large conspiracy afoot when there have been thousands of hours of questioning, 3 years of investigation with millions of dollars spent, illegal and illegitimate FISA wire taps were obtained, and investigated by investigators with a bias against Trump. The end result is there is no concrete evidence of said conspiracy or collusion - no documents, no emails, no recordings, no testimony - its really astonishing. At what point do you have to step back and ask yourself, am I just delusional because I can't handle the person I voted for didn't win?
Click to expand...
Obstructing an investigation would be hiding such evidence or not allowing it to be accessed when asked for it by federal investigators. 

 
bugeater17 said:
If by clarifying the disjointed, commingled, and illogical Democratic argument/talking points, then I'm fine with that.  
Click to expand...


Anything to put those no-good Democrats in their place, yeah?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: You can learn a lot about someone by how far they'll stick their neck out defending Trump.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nebfanatic said:
Obstructing an investigation would be hiding such evidence or not allowing it to be accessed when asked for it by federal investigators. 
Click to expand...


Are we talking about Hillary now?

Because Trump hasn't been accused of deleting or hiding evidence. Instead, the potential obstruction issues have to do with how he reacted to being investigated and conversations about firing individuals...

 
bugeater17 said:
The elements for the underlying crime, intent, and a “meeting” (which is no where close to an overt act based on precedent) are laughable. Even the inherent bias contained within the report acknowledge such in multiple portions of the quoted blurb. 

Put simply, if you don’t have evidence of the underlying crime you don’t have evidence of conspiracy to commit that crime. 
Click to expand...
You don't actually have to commit a the end criminal act for conspiracy. All you have to do is commit an act that furthers the conspiracy itself.

 
ZRod said:
You don't actually have to commit a the end criminal act for conspiracy. All you have to do is commit an act that furthers the conspiracy itself.
Click to expand...
Agreed - but again, you have to look at the elements of the underlying crime. Here, the potential crime was campaign finance violations. So then you must ask, was there an overt act that furthers the underlying crime - to which there was not. That is why the portion about "intent" in the quoted blurb is important. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bugeater17 said:
Are we talking about Hillary now?

Because Trump hasn't been accused of deleting or hiding evidence. Instead, the potential obstruction issues have to do with how he reacted to being investigated and conversations about firing individuals...
Click to expand...
https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/mueller-report-says-messaging-apps-likely-destroyed-trump-russia-evidence

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/18/708965026/highlights-from-the-mueller-report

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/04/18/sean-hannity-lies-about-trump-campaign-and-associates-destroying-evidence/223513

Hannity lied to you buddy. 

 
bugeater17 said:
If you are going to investigate him do so with unbiased investigators. Do so with investigators who aren't using the investigation as an insurance policy. Do so with actual verifiable facts and not those made up and/or paid for by a political opponent. 
Click to expand...


Completely made up propaganda by someone who personally benefits from you believing that.

 
bugeater17 said:
When did I discuss Benghazi or Obama/Kenya???? 

The Hillary issue I've brought up is a fact. She deleted and white washed her server while under subpoena. So not sure what you are talking about?
Click to expand...


And I've said I don't support her, didn't vote for her and would support investigations into her.

But...for some reason, you continue to repeat propaganda from Trump about anyone and everyone who dares investigate him and work to hold him accountable.

 
BigRedBuster said:
And I've said I don't support her, didn't vote for her and would support investigations into her.

But...for some reason, you continue to repeat propaganda from Trump about anyone and everyone who dares investigate him and work to hold him accountable.
Click to expand...






It’s a pattern. When talking about Trump’s tax plans he brags about closed loopholes like it’s more important than a decrease in revenue, when his argument should be that the tax plan will take longer to pay dividends. 

 
Back
Top