Jump to content

Democrats make legal bid for all Russia probe evidence, Trump poll numbers drop


Recommended Posts

Posted
14 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

And that is why we never pin our hopes to one single poll, research study or anecdote.  Remember that the next time somebody posts a link to a single Rasmussen poll showing Trump at 51%.

Agree. The real figures, from aggregators, is around 43-45%.

Anybody that gets excited about a poll of 1005 people, taken who knows where, is setting themselves up for disappointment.

 

  • Thanks 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Puchaiyank said:

You are referring to HRC's unprecedented destruction of emails, computers, and equipment? 

It looks like we're almost even now, so let's move along to better days, shall we?

Posted
3 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Get what? Nobody objects to him having it, except GJ testimony/infrmation which is controlled by statute.

 

More posturing to try to avoid the day of reckoning.

He’ll get it all.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Heart-broken 1
Posted
42 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

The 2 year long Witch Hunt is over and now time for some well-deserved payback. The investigators are now going to be investigated. 

I'm sure they will hire Republicans as needed to assist in the investigation of the investigators.  That's great news.  I can't think of better bait to keep those reprobates uselessly chasing their tails.

Posted
39 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I'm sure they will hire Republicans as needed to assist in the investigation of the investigators.  That's great news.  I can't think of better bait to keep those reprobates uselessly chasing their tails.

You realize that particular member posts tongue in cheek, yes? LULZ - I just learned that term today, and this is a perfect example.

  • Heart-broken 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, quandow said:

Again, you make noise about that of which you know nothing. Read the report or folks will know you are merely regurgitating party rhetoric.

 

"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  TO VOLUME II

(from page 4)

On June 17, 2017,  the President called McGahn  at home and directed  him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed.   McGahn  did not carry  out the  direction, however, deciding  that he would  resign rather than trigger what he regarded  as a potential Saturday Night Massacre."

 

This is textbook obstruction. There is more of the same, and if I were you, I wouldn't bet on "no obstruction charges" being brought. Read the report.

 

I remember when all this obstruction went down. Even die hard Democrats (Jingthing) thought (at that time) the charges were pretty marginal. He seems to have changed his opinion since.

 

My take is, it's obstruction if one is ultimately found guilty. It's what anyone would do if they thought they were innocent and the machine of state were moving against them and they had the ability to thwart it.. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem the state could make their case in a really persuasive way; YET.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, quandow said:

You realize that particular member posts tongue in cheek, yes? LULZ - I just learned that term today, and this is a perfect example.

What's ths LULZ thing that keeps appearing recently?

Posted
Just now, lannarebirth said:

What's ths LULZ thing that keeps appearing recently?

Google works wonders for things like this. That's how I found out. Try it, expand your horizons, multiply your wealth, widen your paradigms.

Posted
2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

My take is, it's obstruction if one is ultimately found guilty. It's what anyone would do if they thought they were innocent and the machine of state were moving against them. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem the state could make their case in a really persuasive way; YET.

No. If a man commits a crime in a forest and no one finds him guilty, has he still committed a crime? Uh, yes.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, quandow said:

No. If a man commits a crime in a forest and no one finds him guilty, has he still committed a crime? Uh, yes.

 

Sure he has, but if you want to convict him of that you need to produce the evidence.  Personally, I passed judgement on Trump 35 years ago and my opinion hasn't changed since.

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...