Do you think Trump will be impeached or forced to resign?

[rhodie]

3 hours ago, EvenSteven said:

Straw man.  Only a grand jury will decide a guilty verdict, and Mueller has started the proceedings for it.  You asked - maybe I should say begged - for evidence of collusion.  I provided it and you didn't even comment on any of the content, which suggests that you didn't even read it nor care about evidence in the first place.  How disingenuous can a person be?

 

Btw, please explain how someone can be convicted during an investigation.  Do you not understand the concept of due process or the rule of law?  In any case, according to your thinking, Hitler, Stalin and Gaddafi must be innocent.  After all, they have not be convicted of anything. I'm not sure you have even heard of the concept of the abuse of power, have you?

You believe he is guilty but there is not 1 piece of evidence in your articles that directly implicate him in anything that is an impeachable offence. I believe he is innocent until proven in a court of law. I think most people accept that you are innocent until PROVEN guilty.

 

Where is the proof, not the speculation.

[rhodie]

7 hours ago, Slip said:

I don't think this is a worthy conversation point so mention it only to answer your question and for no other reason:

I consider the above baiting style to be trolling and post it purely as an example. You have every right to your opinion and I don't think that you believing Trump will not resign or be impeached is trolling in any way.   

 

However, my original reply to you was specifically in answer to your question 'is he insane?'

 

I would add that in the long run, you may well be proven correct and I wrong about what happens.  I just think that the way he is Mueller's sights will eventually lead either to his impeachment or his resignation.

 

All the best.

 

EDIT to add: On the subject of medical professionals being biased, of course they can be, but they would hardly be ethical professionals if they made professional judgments based on that bias.                 

Sorry but I am not baiting, just trying to differentiate between speculation and fact. Happy to accept that I may well be wrong as well. And that is all this is about. Those who believe yes, and those who believe no. The problem that I find on this thread is that the minute anyone posts a pro Trump comment there is a barrage of hot air and replies from all the many who are haters, but never any concrete proof to back their statements. 

 

[Slip]

9 minutes ago, rhodie said:

Sorry but I am not baiting, just trying to differentiate between speculation and fact. Happy to accept that I may well be wrong as well. And that is all this is about. Those who believe yes, and those who believe no. The problem that I find on this thread is that the minute anyone posts a pro Trump comment there is a barrage of hot air and replies from all the many who are haters, but never any concrete proof to back their statements. 

 

To be honest that happens from both sides, but point taken.

[Slip]

There were some comments at the beginning of the week about FISA and success rates that I think have since been deleted, but I came across an interesting thread on twitter that may offer some further information to those like me that don't really have any knowledge of the system.
 

 

[rhodie]

2 minutes ago, Slip said:

To be honest that happens from both sides, but point taken.

Agreed.

[ilostmypassword]

8 minutes ago, rhodie said:

Sorry but I am not baiting, just trying to differentiate between speculation and fact. Happy to accept that I may well be wrong as well. And that is all this is about. Those who believe yes, and those who believe no. The problem that I find on this thread is that the minute anyone posts a pro Trump comment there is a barrage of hot air and replies from all the many who are haters, but never any concrete proof to back their statements. 

 

There are plenty of legal scholars who believe that existing evidence would be enough to get Trump convicted of an obstruction of justice charge or that there is plenty of evidence to at least suggest that he did:

https://www.vox.com/2017/8/2/16075404/donald-trump-jr-russia-investigation-mueller-obstruction

 

[ilostmypassword]

21 minutes ago, rhodie said:

You believe he is guilty but there is not 1 piece of evidence in your articles that directly implicate him in anything that is an impeachable offence. I believe he is innocent until proven in a court of law. I think most people accept that you are innocent until PROVEN guilty.

 

Where is the proof, not the speculation.

I know one person who doesn't accept that you are innocent until proven guilty: Donald Trump.

He also believes that you are guilty even after you have been proven innocent.

Edited September 22, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[rhodie]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

There are plenty of legal scholars who believe that existing evidence would be enough to get Trump convicted of an obstruction of justice charge or that there is plenty of evidence to at least suggest that he did:

https://www.vox.com/2017/8/2/16075404/donald-trump-jr-russia-investigation-mueller-obstruction

 

There may well be, but it is still all speculation until he is actually convicted. The best legal scholars in the world have been right, but they have also been wrong. 

 

I know you believe every piece of journalism that denigrates Trump, but are any of them impartial?

[rhodie]

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I know one person who doesn't accept that you are innocent until proven guilty: Donald Trump.

He also believes that you are guilty even after you have been proven innocent.

That may well be true, but adds nothing here. Nothing so far to directly implicate him.

[ilostmypassword]

26 minutes ago, rhodie said:

There may well be, but it is still all speculation until he is actually convicted. The best legal scholars in the world have been right, but they have also been wrong. 

 

I know you believe every piece of journalism that denigrates Trump, but are any of them impartial?

Really, for someone who claims to believe in evidence, you have just given yourself the lie.

How exactly do you know that I "you believe every piece of journalism that denigrates Trump.."

Such nonsense.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Skywalker69]

51 minutes ago, rhodie said:

I have been living in a real world where I understand that he has been targeted by the tabloids that you believe and I don't. Lots of accusations and speculation but nothing concrete to convict. Or again, you have something that nobody else has? Give me the link.

Quote

 I understand that he has been targeted by the tabloids that you believe and I don't.

You are more like a Info War, Foxs News guy aren´t you?

[iReason]

29 minutes ago, rhodie said:

I have been living in a real world where I understand that he has been targeted by the tabloids

that you believe and I don't.

 

Your continued parroting of the term "tabloids" is reprehensible and jejune.

You are weakly attempting to change the narrative by categorizing many fine reporting institutions as such.

It reveals your less than sublime distaste for them and the facts.

 

If all that you read are "tabloids", then therein lies the evidence of your uninformed state.

Or, you are simply employing disingenuous Trolling.

[EvenSteven]

1 hour ago, rhodie said:

I have been living in a real world where I understand that he has been targeted by the tabloids that you believe and I don't. Lots of accusations and speculation but nothing concrete to convict. Or again, you have something that nobody else has? Give me the link.

You're going around in circles now and make no sense.  You don't understand the process of an investigation or the law.

[EvenSteven]

1 hour ago, rhodie said:

there is not 1 piece of evidence in your articles that directly implicate him in anything that is an impeachable offence.

You didn't even read the link I gave you yesterday.  Like a good troll and conspiracy theorist, you've shown that you're not interested in the on-going investigation.  Continue living in your bubble and "enjoy" the turd polishing while it lasts.

[rhodie]

39 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Really, for someone who claims to believe in evidence, you have just given yourself the lie.

How exactly do you know that I "you believe every piece of journalism that denigrates Trump.."

Such nonsense.

 

 

Sorry, I confused you with iReason who posts a link every few minutes. 

[elliss]

President Trump , after he totally destroys N.Korea ,

deserves the Nobel peace prize , God bless America .

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, elliss said:

President Trump , after he totally destroys N.Korea ,

deserves the Nobel peace prize , God bless America .

Is that an attempt at humor:  If not, you are clearly clueless about what is going on in Korea and how devastating war with North Korea would be to South Korea.

[iReason]

19 minutes ago, rhodie said:

Yes, I should not use the word tabloids. I just used it as a general term for all the news out there. I will refrain.

Given the fact that you "used it as a general term for all the news out there",

I fear it's far too late.

 

Who exactly, were you referring to as "tabloids"?

 

 

Edited September 22, 2017 by iReason

[iReason]

The occupier of the White House yuks it up with his buddies at the meeting,

the American Press was not allowed to attend:

 

Inside the Oval Office with Trump and the Russians: Broad smiles and loose lips

"Comfortable chastising and cajoling in his fluent English, Sergei Lavrov has brought scowls and smiles to the faces of officials from four U.S. administrations during more than two decades as a senior statesman from Russia."

 

"So it was no surprise that when the Russian foreign minister paid a visit to President Trump last Wednesday, there were broad grins all around the Oval Office — just in time for Moscow’s official photographer to memorialize a chummy image of a tête-à-tête that Trump might now wish he could forget."

 

"Lavrov — almost certainly aware of Trump’s proud indifference to the conventions of his office, especially when trying to impress visitors — listened as Trump bragged about the intelligence he receives and shared highly classified information from a U.S. partner with Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, who also attended, according to current and former U.S. officials."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-oval-office-with-trump-and-the-russians-broad-smiles-and-loose-lips/2017/05/16/2e8b0d14-3a66-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html

Edited September 22, 2017 by iReason

[iReason]

Russia probe could reveal Trump's closest-held secrets

"Since Election Day, President Trump’s businesses have sold at least 30 luxury condos and oceanfront lots for about $33 million."

 

"That includes millions of dollars in properties to secretive shell companies, which can hide the identities of buyers or partners involved in the deals, a USA TODAY investigation has found."

 

"The investigation could shine renewed light on eyebrow-raising deals from Trump’s past, such as his 2008 sale of a South Florida mansion to Russian tycoon Dmitry Rybolovlev for $95 million or the international financing behind a condo-hotel he developed with foreign partners in New York’s SoHo neighborhood."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/07/27/russia-investigation-delves-into-trumps-most-guarded-business-secrets/515961001/

 

 

Most Trump real estate now sold to secretive buyers

"Over the last 12 months, about 70% of buyers of Trump properties were limited liability companies –

corporate entities that allow people to purchase property without revealing all of the owners’ names."

"That compares with about 4% of buyers in the two years before."

"Profits from sales of those properties flow through a trust run by Trump’s sons."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/07/27/russia-investigation-delves-into-trumps-most-guarded-business-secrets/515961001/

 

Donald Trump Jr :

“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets"

"We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

 Donald, said at a 2008 real estate conference

[Scott]

Numerous troll posts removed.  

 

We really don't care what you do in hotel rooms, or what you watch.

 

Stay on topic.   The topic is not about YOU.  

[Opl]

2 hours ago, rhodie said:

That may well be true, but adds nothing here. Nothing so far to directly implicate him.

"If the Russia scandal is a hoax, why did the President fire James Comey to kill the investigation? Trump has admitted multiple times that he fired Comey over Russia, but firing the FBI Director would never have been necessary if Trump was innocent."

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/09/22/tweets-trump-giant-leap-closer-leaving-white-house-handcuffs.html

[F4UCorsair]

On 9/22/2017 at 3:38 AM, Slip said:

I'll take this first one:
 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world-0/donald-trump-dangerous-mental-illness-yale-psychiatrist-conference-us-president-unfit-james-gartner-a7694316.html

 

James Gilligan, a psychiatrist and professor at New York University, told the conference...

 

“I’ve worked with some of the most dangerous people our society produces, directing mental health programmes in prisons,”

 

“I’ve worked with murderers and rapists. I can recognise dangerousness from a mile away. You don’t have to be an expert on dangerousness or spend fifty years studying it like I have in order to know how dangerous this man is.”

 

What James conveniently forgot to add is....."and I am a Democrat!!!"

 

Seriously, making a diagnosis on the basis of a few speeches??   I can't believe anybody goes for that.

 

Why don't you guys take a powder. lie down and wait for the outcome of any investigations currently under way.  Trawling up things his father did 80 years ago, and what Trump himself may have, or may not have done, is really just plain silly.

 

 

On 9/22/2017 at 3:38 AM, Slip said:

 

 

[rhodie]

10 hours ago, Opl said:

"If the Russia scandal is a hoax, why did the President fire James Comey to kill the investigation? Trump has admitted multiple times that he fired Comey over Russia, but firing the FBI Director would never have been necessary if Trump was innocent."

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/09/22/tweets-trump-giant-leap-closer-leaving-white-house-handcuffs.html

Sure, but only speculation. Not fact. Next!

[Opl]

2 minutes ago, rhodie said:

Sure, but only speculation. Not fact. Next!

Stink Of Collusion Reeks Off Of GOP As Russia Connected Billionaire Pays Trump Legal Fees

"“President Donald Trump’s attorneys in the probe of Russian election interference are being funded in part through a Republican Party account with a handful of wealthy donors—including a billionaire investor, a property developer seeking U.S. government visas and a Ukrainian-born American who has made billions of dollars doing business with Russian oligarchs,”

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/09/22/rnc-money-russian-connected-billionaire-trumps-legal-fees.html

 

[boomerangutang]

10 hours ago, iReason said:

 

Looking at those pics, above, is further proof that Trump, in his profound ignorance, thinks he can fool most Americans.  Granted, he can continue to fool his hard-core 19%, but the vast majority of Americans have been able to see through his bs for months.

 

In the pics, he's having a grand time with Russian agents.  Contrast that to how he acts when around fervent US patriots like Nancy Pelosi - with whom he acts like a wooden Indian.

 

Similarly, look at how Trump speaks when, for example, he's trying to express empathy for Texas hurricane victims.  He's stiff, insincere, low-toned, and won't even go near any actual victim.  In contrast, when Trump speaks about something he's passionate about, like the canard 'fake news' he's brash, loud, red-faced passionate.

 

In sum:  Trump is anti-American.  He's a dangerous fool, and quite likely guilty of treason.

[iReason]

Trump on 2016: 'No, Russia did not help me'

"Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told lawmakers during a May public hearing that an intelligence community report concluding that Russia meddled in the US election was prepared by three agencies: the CIA, FBI, NSA and managed by Clapper's office, which oversees the entire intelligence community."

 

"I don't have any doubt" that Russia was behind these activities, Clapper told CNN's Jim Sciutto in July."

 

"And six intelligence leaders -- including Trump's Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo -- were asked by lawmakers on the Senate intelligence committee whether they agreed that Russian intelligence agencies were responsible for hacking and the leaking of information to influence the US election. All six said yes."

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/22/politics/trump-russia-alabama/index.html

[iReason]

'You don't need it all the way' and other things Trump said about 'the wall' on Friday

"If you can't have vision through it, you don't know whose on the other side," he said."

 

"You need to have a great wall, but it has to be see-through," Trump said.

 

"You don't need it all the way," Trump said, adding,

"We are going to have as much wall as we need; We have the wall up there now, and we're renovating it already"

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/22/politics/five-things-donald-trump-wall/index.html

 

The 2000 mile solar powered 30 foot wall that "just got 10 feet higher",

that Mexico is going to pay for, is now a transparent fence that: "You don't need ... all the way."

That Mexico is not going to pay for.

 

“I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.” DJT.

Edited September 23, 2017 by iReason

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, rhodie said:

Sure, but only speculation. Not fact. Next!

What's speculation? Trump admitted in a TV interview that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation.

And the fact that he asked everyone to leave the room when he asked Comey not to investigate Flynn qualifies as evidence that he knew he was doing something wrong. I've forgotten the legal term for it but it's a real thing. Something to do with "intent" I believe.

Edited September 23, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Andaman Al]

On 9/22/2017 at 9:01 AM, habanero said:

Bill Clinton is a rapist. Denying that is the same as telling someone O.J. didn't do it.

And Donald J Trump is a rapist - of a 12 and 13 year old girl and that is just what we know of. Court papers apply.  And you support him.

 

He is blatantly aroused by a desire for an incestuous relationship with his daughter. Countless TV clips and radio clips of Trump himself displaying this troubling trait apply.  And you support him.

 

And he likes hookers to pee all over his bed (The tapes WILL come). Recorded tapes and an investigation by one of the best and most credible intelligence agents in the UK applies. And you support him.

 

And that is all strange for a female, BUT the evangelicals don't seem to mind Trumps depraved sinful life so nothing really surprises me about Trump supporters.

 

I suggest as your messiah is actually not as white as driven snow that you don't start quoting 'rumours' of others, because for every one rumour of Bill Clinton there are a hundred for Trump.

 

So if they can't impeach Trump for the relatively boring but significant charges of treason in the Russia investigation, I am sure Mueller and the FBI will go all out to bring home the charges above as well as Trumps grand fraud, money laundering and tax evasion activities.Trump is going to be buried under the crap that is coming.