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

[MajarTheLion]

9 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Oh do read with some comprehension and intelligence. If you read it in context you will see that I am clearly referring to TV - Thai Visa, if I want to discuss television, i say television. Read my post # 2446 above. 

 

I said to you "I could of course be wrong. Maybe you do read about things............on Info wars, or Breitbart or Conspiracy's R Us (i made the last one up for effect do you like it? I didn't think you would mind me making it up as that fits in with your daily strategy on TV)."

Thanks for clarifying your poorly-worded post. Yes, now it makes some sense now that you've decided that TV means Thai Visa. Hopefully next time you'll realize that TV is vastly understood to mean television.

[MajarTheLion]

8 hours ago, iReason said:

 

Yup. It's all one big conspiracy amongst these folks: 

 

Investigating the White House and it's associates are:

The F.B.I.

The House and Senate Intelligence Committees

The Senate Judiciary and House Oversight and Government Reform Committees

The Department of Justice with Special Counsel Mueller

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman along with the I.R.S. financial crimes unit.

 

In the case of Michael Flynn, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Treasury Department, which also has a financial-crimes division are investigating him.

Grand Juries in Virginia and D.C. have been convened.

Federal prosecutors in eastern Virginia have already issued subpoenas to Flynn associates.

Another FBI target is Carter Page, one-time Trump campaign adviser on foreign-policy issues.

 

And the fact that the occupier of the White House' son admitted that he, along with Senior Advisor Jared Kushner and said occupier's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, held a clandestine meeting with agents from a foreign adversary, Russia, has raised a lot of concerns. 

 

Yup. Just one big conspiracy.

 

Denial exemplified.

 

 

Odd... I don't see any mention of conspiracy in the post you responded to. In fact, it is you leftists who babbling about conspiracy theories: Collusion with Russia, back channel collusion, blah blah blah.

[MajarTheLion]

9 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Very very strange stuff indeed. Dont bother wasting your time mate. They are lost without logic or reason in the land of the living dead Hillary supporters, who refuse to accept Trump won, and they want him impeached for doing just that, while refusing to accept that he did that.  They are stuck in an endless 'time loop' without any hope of a break, unless Trump is impeached, and they are therefore desperately clutching at any and all straws that they think will justify impeachment.

 

The vote was no, and the answer is no - Trump will not be successfully impeached. Maybe the Dems and some RINOs will get together to get a 51% vote for impeachment to try and stop the Swamp being drained, but there is no way the Senate will vote 66+% guilty.  And any Rep who does support impeachment will be voted out at their next election cycle.

 

Trump has given up trying to get the RINOs like McConnell and Ryan to cooperate with his agenda, so now one of his tactics is to expose them so they are voted out. 

 

I should have known these people are the same everywhere. I'm used to these types on a few political boards I post on. I thought I'd pop in to see what the sore loser leftist types are here. Frankly, they're even more delusional than at the political boards. Wow.

 

I would hate to go through life so consumed by and emotionally invested in conspiracy theories that I'm hoping will get a president removed.

 

As you pointed out, they haven't thought this through. Even with Trump having part of the Republican party after him, impeachment still isn't going to happen. They're so invested in this *obstruction of justice* meme, they simply can't let go of it no matter what.

[MajarTheLion]

 

9 hours ago, RobFord said:

 

You don't get it. You obviously aren't keeping up. Do you understand obstruction of justice?

Trump has in the Washington Post interview admitted to obstructing justice.

This is also why his original draft for firing Comey is so important. He's stated it's to prevent that Russian thing.

And why Bannon is deflecting by claiming it was Jared's decision.

Did President Trump act illegally, obstructing justice? Perhaps. It seems fairly clear (at least if you believe former Director Comey, which I do) that the President did seek to “influence” (a statutory term) the “due administration of justice.” The remaining issue is what his motivations were, and whether those motivations fit the statutory requirement that the obstruction be conducted with a “corrupt” state of mind. Comey’s firing is the best evidence so far (when coupled with the earlier interactions) that Trump was acting corruptly.

https://www.vox.com/2017/6/8/15761962/james-comey-testimony-donald-trump-fbi-congress-russia



Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

OK, now I'm confused. You stated that Trump admitted to obstruction of justice in an interview with the Washington Post. That sounds pretty air tight to me.

 

Then you say "perhaps" he obstructed justice.

 

Which is it??????

Edited September 11, 2017 by MajarTheLion

[EvenSteven]

2 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

A cloud of suspicion. I see. Oh wait a minute, you've just stated that statements without evidence are meaningless. So obviously there's no reason for Trump to release his tax returns, given your basis for it is by your own definition meaningless.

 

Face it: you've got nothing. You're whining that Trump won't release his tax returns. Get over it. You've got nothing to back up your obstruction of justice charge. Of course, that also means your posts are meaningless- by YOUR own definition.

You're running around in circles and refusing to answer questions.  You're the one stating nothing will come of the obstruction of justice.  Where are you getting this from?

 

So firing Comey had nothing to do with Trump, even though Trump admits firing Comey because of the investigation into Russian links?  You're tying yourself in knots again.  Hilarious.

 

Let's see those tax returns, unless you've got something to hide.  lol

 

I think you need to get over the fact that Trump's days may be numbered.

[MajarTheLion]

1 minute ago, EvenSteven said:

You're running around in circles and refusing to answer questions.  You're the one stating nothing will come of the obstruction of justice.  Where are you getting this from?

 

So firing Comey had nothing to do with Trump, even though Trump admits firing Comey because of the investigation into Russian links?  You're tying yourself in knots again.  Hilarious.

 

Let's see those tax returns, unless you've got something to hide.  lol

 

I think you need to get over the fact that Trump's days may be numbered.

 

Here, let me help you out:

 

1) There will be no obstruction of justice charge. That's a straight line, no circles, no arcs, nothing.

 

2) When did I say firing Comey had nothing to do with Trump??????

 

3) Trump is under no obligation to release his tax returns. Now show yours. Or do you have something to hide?

 

4) Stating that something may be is not a FACT. It's speculation. Your speculation that Trump's "days may be numbered" isn't a fact at all.

[EvenSteven]

8 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

I thought I'd pop in to see what the sore loser leftist types are here.

Ad hominem attacks, especially really cheap ones, are confirmation of who lost the argument.

 

12 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

impeachment still isn't going to happen. They're so invested in this *obstruction of justice* meme, they simply can't let go of it no matter what.

Lol.  Where are you getting this from?   The investigation is ongoing.  Deal with it.

 

10 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

I would hate to go through life so consumed by and emotionally invested in conspiracy theories that I'm hoping will get a president removed.

Sounds like you must be hating yourself a whole lot these days.  After all, your "arguments" are based on the grandest of all conspiracy theories, that the intelligence community, not just in the US but also abroad, are conspiring against the rogue.  Reality is obviously too much for you.

 

 

[EvenSteven]

5 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

1) There will be no obstruction of justice charge. That's a straight line, no circles, no arcs, nothing.

You keep on telling yourself this.  Tell us from where are you getting this?

Edited September 11, 2017 by EvenSteven

[EvenSteven]

14 minutes ago, EvenSteven said:

You keep on telling yourself this.  Tell us from where are you getting this?

Disappeared, just as I thought.  lol

Edited September 11, 2017 by EvenSteven

[MajarTheLion]

25 minutes ago, EvenSteven said:

Ad hominem attacks, especially really cheap ones, are confirmation of who lost the argument.

 

Lol.  Where are you getting this from?   The investigation is ongoing.  Deal with it.

 

Sounds like you must be hating yourself a whole lot these days.  After all, your "arguments" are based on the grandest of all conspiracy theories, that the intelligence community, not just in the US but also abroad, are conspiring against the rogue.  Reality is obviously too much for you.

 

 

Oh you're hilarious. Perhaps you should be a bit introspective and look at your attacks on Trump. So yes, it's quite clear the stunning loss to Hillary has affected you greatly. This too shall pass- just not the way you think it will.

 

As far as Trump and obstruction of justice, I'm going by what I read on various web sites and brilliant lawyers like Alan Dershowitz.

 

I have yet to think or accuse the intelligence community of engaging in any conspiracy. Specifically, what post of mine do you base your accusation on?

[Scott]

Troll post removed.   I see a fair amount of bickering.   You may end up on suspension if you continue.  

[MajarTheLion]

37 minutes ago, EvenSteven said:

You keep on telling yourself this.  Tell us from where are you getting this?

 

From the collective of information from various web sites, what Trump was alleged to have said and from smart people.

 

Also, this doesn't sound like obstruction to me:

 

“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go"

 

Obstruction of justice sounds more like this:

 

 

 

[EvenSteven]

34 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

As far as Trump and obstruction of justice, I'm going by what I read on various web sites and brilliant lawyers like Alan Dershowitz

Hilarious.  Dershowitz, a loud and self-righteous Jew and an ardent supporter of anything Republican, has also called Chomsky a “Holocaust denier”.  That must be true too?  lol  Cherry picking at its finest.  And what you "read on various web sites" makes it true?  Who are you trying to fool with this crystal ball gazing?  Next.

[EvenSteven]

32 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

From the collective of information from various web sites, what Trump was alleged to have said and from smart people.

Various web sites?  It must be true, especially if you read it and it's on the internet!  lol  
And smart people?  Because you like what they have to say?  lol  We have terms for this.  It's called circular reasoning and confirmation bias.  Hilarious.

[Jingthing]

12 minutes ago, EvenSteven said:

Hilarious.  Dershowitz, a loud and self-righteous Jew and an ardent supporter of anything Republican, has also called Chomsky a “Holocaust denier”.  That must be true too?  lol  Cherry picking at its finest.  And what you "read on various web sites" makes it true?  Who are you trying to fool with this crystal ball gazing?  Next.

Was the antisemitic insinuation intentional or were you born that way? 

Anyway, actually Dershowitz is a very complex person. He's passionately pro Zionist but to call him all in on everything republican is total idiocy.

He's one of the most important defenders of civil liberties there is and he's a lifelong liberal DEMOCRAT. 

His controversial views regarding the current trump situation are more legal opinions than ideological. 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Jingthing

[EvenSteven]

23 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

a lifelong DEMOCRAT. 

He was.  But he has become quite the Trump and Republican supporter. And now he’s accusing Mueller of stacking the deck against Trump by assembling a grand jury in D.C. His reason? There are too many black people in D.C..

Apparently Dershowitz, along with many Trump supporters, don’t believe that racial minorities are capable of fairly assessing evidence. I’m not sure if they even realize how insulting and racist those comments are. But in this new Trump world, I guess this is just par for the course.

Edited September 12, 2017 by EvenSteven

[MajarTheLion]

14 minutes ago, EvenSteven said:

Hilarious.  Dershowitz, a loud and self-righteous Jew and an ardent supporter of anything Republican, has also called Chomsky a “Holocaust denier”.  That must be true too?  lol  Cherry picking at its finest.  And what you "read on various web sites" makes it true?  Who are you trying to fool with this crystal ball gazing?  Next.

1) I don't see what Dershowitz' religion has to do with anything.

 

2) Dershowitz voted for Hillary Clinton, so saying he's an ardent supporter of anything Republican is demonstrably and obviously false.

 

3) I have no idea if Chomsky is a holocaust denier, though Alan Dershowitz has made a decent case of why he thinks it:

 

https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/dershowitz-fake-news-holocaust-denial/

 

4) I am not sure what you are alluding to with your "cherry picking" accusation. Please feel free to elaborate so that I can provide an actual response.

 

5) I have no crystal ball, nor have I claimed to have one. Thus, I'm not sure why you're making such an accusation. I read a variety of web sites, including Politico, Salon, Breitbart, Drudge links, Fox News, MSNBC and others. I do confess CNN has become too dishonest to read anymore. I apply the BS filter to all (and it's needed on all of these sites and more) and come to my own conclusions.

[Jingthing]

11 minutes ago, EvenSteven said:

He was.  But he has become quite the Trump and Republican supporter. And now he’s accusing Mueller of stacking the deck against Trump by assembling a grand jury in D.C. His reason? There are too many black people in D.C..

Apparently Dershowitz, along with many Trump supporters, don’t believe that racial minorities are capable of fairly assessing evidence. I’m not sure if they even realize how insulting and racist those comments are. But in this new Trump world, I guess this is just par for the course.

You twist things in a racially loaded way.

It's a fact that a jury in D.C. would tend to be heavily African American and heavily biased against trump. I think trump got 2 percent of the vote there. It's no secret that African Americans are overwhelmingly anti-trump as every one should be.

The way you wrote it sounds like you're accusing Dershowitz of complaining that there are too many blacks in D.C. in a racist way. He didn't. He's just making a logical legal observation about the kinds of juries to expect there in politically charged trials. That cuts both ways, you know, as a famous case in right wing very white Simi Valley California showed.

Not saying I support Dershowitz on his weird tolerance for trump but he has a public record as a legal mind that deserves respect.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Jingthing

[MajarTheLion]

26 minutes ago, EvenSteven said:

Various web sites?  It must be true, especially if you read it and it's on the internet!  lol  
And smart people?  Because you like what they have to say?  lol  We have terms for this.  It's called circular reasoning and confirmation bias.  Hilarious.

 

If you would like to make the case that I wrongly assign intelligence to Alan Dershowitz, especially on matters of law, that is certainly your right. May I suggest you follow Scott's cue and try to stay on topic?

 

Now, I'll be happy to review for  you. When I read a NY Times article that says Trump asked Comey to end the Flynn investigation, that tells me a lot. Asking is not obstruction of justice. When I read Trump's quote from the article that says, "I hope you can let this go" and again see the NY Times referring to Trump's actions as requesting, not pressuring or ordering.

 

Furthermore, another quote from Trump comes to mind regarding Flynn: 'I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go". That doesn't sound like obstruction of justice.

 

Then of course the thoughts of one of America's best attorneys goes a long way.

 

Now on to confirmation bias. That's certainly possible. That said, sometimes I agree with Dershowitz and sometimes I don't.

 

Is it possible you are doing that which you accuse me of as well with regards to confirmation bias?

Edited September 12, 2017 by MajarTheLion

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

If you would like to make the case that I wrongly assign intelligence to Alan Dershowitz, especially on matters of law, that is certainly your right. May I suggest you follow Scott's cue and try to stay on topic?

 

Now, I'll be happy to review for  you. When I read a NY Times article that says Trump asked Comey to end the Flynn investigation, that tells me a lot. Asking is not obstruction of justice. When I read Trump's quote from the article that says, "I hope you can let this go" and again see the NY Times referring to Trump's actions as requesting, not pressuring or ordering.

 

Furthermore, another quote from Trump comes to mind regarding Flynn: 'I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go". That doesn't sound like obstruction of justice.

 

Then of course the thoughts of one of America's best attorneys goes a long way.

 

Now on to confirmation bias. That's certainly possible. Is it possible you are doing that which you accuse me of as well?

Yes nothing wrong with asking at all. That's why he cleared the room of all other parties because there was nothing to see or hear that Trump has any reason to conceal. And of course, common sense tells us that when your boss, the person who can fire or promote you makes a request, it's no different from when a subordinate makes a request. And not only do we have Trump's admission that he fired Comey over the Russian investigation, but Mueller now has in his possession an earlier and angrier draft of the document that apparently makes his motivation for firing Comey a lot clearer.

[MajarTheLion]

14 minutes ago, EvenSteven said:

He was.  But he has become quite the Trump and Republican supporter. And now he’s accusing Mueller of stacking the deck against Trump by assembling a grand jury in D.C. His reason? There are too many black people in D.C..

Apparently Dershowitz, along with many Trump supporters, don’t believe that racial minorities are capable of fairly assessing evidence. I’m not sure if they even realize how insulting and racist those comments are. But in this new Trump world, I guess this is just par for the course.

Specifically, what has Dershowitz said that leads you to believe he thinks racial minorities are inferior?

[EvenSteven]

1 minute ago, MajarTheLion said:

Then of course the thoughts of one of America's best attorneys goes a long way.

You don't even understand the concept of cherry picking.  Here's my cherry pick, if you want to play that game.  It cites Hoah Feldmon, a Harvard law professor:

 

https://lawnewz.com/opinion/theres-legal-basis-for-impeaching-trump-now-but-congress-needs-to-get-its-act-together-to-do-it/

[MajarTheLion]

2 minutes ago, EvenSteven said:

You don't even understand the concept of cherry picking.  Here's my cherry pick, if you want to play that game.  It cites Hoah Feldmon, a Harvard law professor:

 

https://lawnewz.com/opinion/theres-legal-basis-for-impeaching-trump-now-but-congress-needs-to-get-its-act-together-to-do-it/

His name is Noah Feldman. Never heard of him. However, I was mildly amused with your article's whining about how Trump handled Charlottesville and even alluded to it as a basis for impeachment. Funny stuff, given the three instances of Trump addressing Charlottesville were all true and correct.

 

1) He's right. There were savages "on all sides". True.

 

2) He specifically denounced white supremacists, the KKK, Nazis and others. Correct.

 

3) He stated there were good people from both sides of the argument at Charlottesville. Obviously true and correct.

 

So do you agree with your article, that Trump's reaction to Charlottesville is grounds for impeachment? Smells like desperation to me. Feel free to use facts and logic to tell me how I'm wrong.

[MajarTheLion]

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Yes nothing wrong with asking at all. That's why he cleared the room of all other parties because there was nothing to see or hear that Trump has any reason to conceal. And of course, common sense tells us that when your boss, the person who can fire or promote you makes a request, it's no different from when a subordinate makes a request. And not only do we have Trump's admission that he fired Comey over the Russian investigation, but Mueller now has in his possession an earlier and angrier draft of the document that apparently makes his motivation for firing Comey a lot clearer.

 

Great! So then Mueller will definitely be recommending an obstruction of justice charge against Trump, correct?

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

Great! So then Mueller will definitely be recommending an obstruction of justice charge against Trump, correct?

Like you, i haven't seen the evidence. Unlike you, I don't make definitive claims about the evidence.

[MajarTheLion]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

Like you, i haven't seen the evidence. Unlike you, I don't make definitive claims about the evidence.

I have seen the evidence leftists keep telling us about. It's not impressive at all. I haven't made any definitive claims. I have merely stated that it doesn't sound like Trump has obstructed justice and don't believe such a charge will be recommended by Comey.

[EvenSteven]

33 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

I read a variety of web sites, including Politico, Salon, Breitbart, Drudge links, Fox News, ...

 

[MajarTheLion]

2 minutes ago, EvenSteven said:

 

 

Sorry, but that quote has been thoroughly debunked:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/trump-quote-facebook-trnd/index.html

 

Have a nice evening.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

7 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

I have seen the evidence leftists keep telling us about. It's not impressive at all. I haven't made any definitive claims. I have merely stated that it doesn't sound like Trump has obstructed justice and don't believe such a charge will be recommended by Comey.

Really, you have seen the evidence? Great. Then could you please reveal to posters here on Thaivisa.com exactly what was written in that earlier draft that led to the firing of Comey?

[MajarTheLion]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

Really, you have seen the evidence? Great. Then could you please reveal to posters here on Thaivisa.com exactly what was written in that earlier draft that led to the firing of Comey?

Please reread my post. It clearly states: "I have seen the evidence leftists keep telling us about". I have posted some specifics on what that evidence is. I don't recall mentioning this draft you speak of. Perhaps you can show it to me and everyone else so it can be given its due consideration.