• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Schiff: Trump should probably be indicted when he leaves office

JacksinPA

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Schiff: Trump should probably be indicted when he leaves office | TheHill

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that President Trump should probably be indicted once he leaves the White House for his alleged role in campaign finance law violations and bank fraud.

Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty last year to multiple crimes he says he carried out at Trump's behest, though most legal experts agree that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
==================================
If he gets reelected, he may be able to avoid this via the statute of limitations But if he loses next year, all bets are off.
 
JacksinPA said:
Schiff: Trump should probably be indicted when he leaves office | TheHill

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that President Trump should probably be indicted once he leaves the White House for his alleged role in campaign finance law violations and bank fraud.

Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty last year to multiple crimes he says he carried out at Trump's behest, though most legal experts agree that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
==================================
If he gets reelected, he may be able to avoid this via the statute of limitations But if he loses next year, all bets are off.
Click to expand...

Schiffty still trying to influence public opinion with unsupported nonsense.

Oh...wait...it IS supported nonsense. Supported by Cohen. LOL!!
 
JacksinPA said:
Schiff: Trump should probably be indicted when he leaves office | TheHill

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that President Trump should probably be indicted once he leaves the White House for his alleged role in campaign finance law violations and bank fraud.

Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty last year to multiple crimes he says he carried out at Trump's behest, though most legal experts agree that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
==================================
If he gets reelected, he may be able to avoid this via the statute of limitations But if he loses next year, all bets are off.
Click to expand...


If his status as president stops him from being indicted, it should also put the statute of limitations on hold. Like being out of the country does.
 
Translation: "I got nothin'."

Bug eyes is struggling.
 
Mycroft said:
Schiffty still trying to influence public opinion with unsupported nonsense.

Oh...wait...it IS supported nonsense. Supported by Cohen. LOL!!
Click to expand...

Do the terms unindicted conspirator, or individual one ring any bells???
 
Really folks what else is Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) going to say?
He has attacked president Trump for the last two years. Why would anything
change now? Schitt is going to scream this each and everyday.
So what?
 
GDViking said:
Do the terms unindicted conspirator, or individual one ring any bells???
Click to expand...

And where does that nonsense come from?

Oh yeah...Cohen.

Moving on...
 
Mycroft said:
Schiffty still trying to influence public opinion with unsupported nonsense.

Oh...wait...it IS supported nonsense. Supported by Cohen. LOL!!
Click to expand...

wow MC, this is a big step for you admitting there is supporting evidence. Hey remember your birther days when you actually believed an "investigative team" found President Obama's real BC.
Mycroft said:
while I THINK Obama is a citizen and that he has some kind of birth certificate, I believe the investigative team's findings about the thing that Obama presented as a representation of his birth certificate are correct...that is, it's a fake.
Click to expand...

Oh and MC, in case you were trying to be sarcastic, don't think Cohen's testimony is the only evidence.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Really folks what else is Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) going to say?
He has attacked president Trump for the last two years. Why would anything
change now? Schitt is going to scream this each and everyday.
So what?
Click to expand...

As he should, we have a criminal in the Whitehouse and he is an embarrassment to our nation.

As long as the rest of the world understands that the majority of the country is not fooled we can retain some level of credibility...
 
Vern said:
wow MC, this is a big step for you admitting there is supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about "supporting evidence". I said "unsupported nonsense".

Oh and MC, in case you were trying to be sarcastic, don't think Cohen's testimony is the only evidence.
Click to expand...

I wasn't being sarcastic. If you know of any actual evidence, trot it out. I haven't seen it.
 
Why did Schiff change his tune to now we should indicate Trump AFTER he leaves office?

And what's up with the PROBABLY ambiguity?


That's all a far cry from what Schiff has been saying the past 2+ years when he was certain he'd get the goods on Trump.
 
Mycroft said:
And where does that nonsense come from?

Oh yeah...Cohen.

Moving on...
Click to expand...

Wrong those terms predate Cohen's testimony.

Mueller is hot on his trail and SDNY is trailing him from a different direction, and now Schiff and company are coming after him from a third.

It is only a matter of time before he's treed...
 
Mycroft said:
I said nothing about "supporting evidence". I said "unsupported nonsense".



I wasn't being sarcastic. If you know of any actual evidence, trot it out. I haven't seen it.
Click to expand...


That is due to wilful ignorance, the rest of the world has seen tons of evidence...
 
Amelia said:
If his status as president stops him from being indicted, it should also put the statute of limitations on hold. Like being out of the country does.
Click to expand...
I don't think Trump's going to be in the most legal trouble from his campaign finance violations alone.

The US Attorney's, local state offices, and Congress are going to dig through his business and find all kinds of fraud and scheming of banks, charities, insurance companies, investors, and the tax code system, and it's going to ruin his business and result in serious legal trouble for him like he's never had before.

While I'd speculate Trump has yet unseen money flowing in from former Soviet states, he's clearly more worried about the underlying fraud involving those transactions, rather where the money is coming from itself.
 
Amelia said:
If his status as president stops him from being indicted, it should also put the statute of limitations on hold. Like being out of the country does.
Click to expand...

A lot of the legal professionals I follow on Twitter agree, saying that anything else is indistinguishable from the President being above the law.
 
JacksinPA said:
Schiff: Trump should probably be indicted when he leaves office | TheHill

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that President Trump should probably be indicted once he leaves the White House for his alleged role in campaign finance law violations and bank fraud.

Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty last year to multiple crimes he says he carried out at Trump's behest, though most legal experts agree that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
==================================
If he gets reelected, he may be able to avoid this via the statute of limitations But if he loses next year, all bets are off.
Click to expand...

Shiff is a POS. If Trump committed a crime then he needs to impeach. It should be INCUMBENT on him to impeach if he knows there's a crime. If he's going to blow it off until Trump gets out of office then all he's doing is ****ing with the guy.
 
GDViking said:
That is due to wilful ignorance, the rest of the world has seen tons of evidence...
Click to expand...

No. All we've seen is unsupported claims from a guy who lied to Congress, apologized to Congress for lying...and turned right around and lied again...and speculation from a raft of media talking potato heads who believe rumors.

None of that is evidence of anything.

I keep asking you to trot out your evidence...and you won't/can't.
 
Mycroft said:
I said nothing about "supporting evidence". I said "unsupported nonsense".
I wasn't being sarcastic. If you know of any actual evidence, trot it out. I haven't seen it.
Click to expand...
well I'm not on the committee but I did see the cancelled checks. that's evidence right? Remember, you believed an "investigative team" found President Obama's real BC and the one he showed was a fake. Where's that evidence? Anyhoo, here's some more evidence. The Steele dossier accurately predicted trump's actions after the wiki hack which it said Russia was behind.

Vern said:
"Parts of the dossier have been stood up and in places it looks prophetic. One Steele memo says the Kremlin was behind the hacking of DNC emails, claiming these were released via WikiLeaks for reasons of “plausible deniability”. In return, Trump agreed to “sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine” as a campaign issue and to raise “US/Nato defence commitments in the Baltics and eastern Europe” to deflect attention.

This is precisely what happened at the Republican National Convention last July, when language on the US’s commitment to Ukraine was mysteriously softened. Meanwhile, in a series of tweets, Trump questioned whether US allies were paying enough into Nato coffers.
"
What do we know about alleged links between Trump and Russia? | US news | The Guardian
Click to expand...

You might even call that a smoking gun.
 
Lutherf said:
Shiff is a POS. If Trump committed a crime then he needs to impeach. It should be INCUMBENT on him to impeach if he knows there's a crime. If he's going to blow it off until Trump gets out of office then all he's doing is ****ing with the guy.
Click to expand...

What, from your point of view, is the purpose of instigating impeachment if it's guaranteed that Republican Senators would never agree to remove him from office?
 
Vern said:
well I'm not on the committee but I did see the cancelled checks. that's evidence right? Remember, you believed an "investigative team" found President Obama's real BC and the one he showed was a fake. Where's that evidence? Anyhoo, here's some more evidence. The Steele dossier accurately predicted trump's actions after the wiki hack which it said Russia was behind.



You might even call that a smoking gun.
Click to expand...

Canceled checks mean nothing if there is no crime.

NEWS FLASH!!! TRUMP SAYS OBAMA IS A CITIZEN!! (he said that 2 1/2 years ago, btw)

Wait...the Steele dossier was a PREDICTION??? That's news. So, you mean the FBI acquired a FISA warrant based on a PREDICTION??? Now THAT'S some top-notch police work there, isn't it.
 
JacksinPA said:
Schiff: Trump should probably be indicted when he leaves office | TheHill

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that President Trump should probably be indicted once he leaves the White House for his alleged role in campaign finance law violations and bank fraud.

Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty last year to multiple crimes he says he carried out at Trump's behest, though most legal experts agree that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
==================================
If he gets reelected, he may be able to avoid this via the statute of limitations But if he loses next year, all bets are off.
Click to expand...

How ****ed up is that?

Pretty sad since we were taught that no one is above the law when in fact, some are.

Miserable bitch should be in jail with Cohen, Manafort, the nut case with Nixon on his back and his Russian buddies, if they can get them back here.
 
Mycroft said:
Canceled checks mean nothing if there is no crime.
Click to expand...
er uh MC, Cohen is going to jail and the payoffs to Stormy is one of the crimes putting him there. You really are having a hard time with facts. Oh yea, you're fact resistant.

NEWS FLASH!!! TRUMP SAYS OBAMA IS A CITIZEN!! (he said that 2 1/2 years ago, btw)
Click to expand...

does this mean we should ignore trump's statements the 7 years before that? Or people like you who believed the unsupported nonsense? and don't forget you're literally whining about "unsupported nonsense". and what makes your whining so funny is that Cohen's evidence is neither unsupported nor nonsense. But again, you're fact resistant.

Wait...the Steele dossier was a PREDICTION??? That's news. So, you mean the FBI acquired a FISA warrant based on a PREDICTION??? Now THAT'S some top-notch police work there, isn't it.
Click to expand...

poor MC, the facts must be breaking through your "resistance" because you're really starting to reach for any string of words to make the mean ole facts go away. The steele dossier was intel that correctly predicted that Russia was behind the hacks and correctly predicted trump's actions regarding Ukraine and attacking Nato. And again, that's evidence.
 
Vern said:
er uh MC, Cohen is going to jail and the payoffs to Stormy is one of the crimes putting him there. You really are having a hard time with facts. Oh yea, you're fact resistant.
Click to expand...

Take Trump to court. See if he pleads guilty. LOL!! He won't. Then the prosecutor will HAVE to prove that a crime had been committed...something that wasn't done with Cohen.

No crime...your "evidence" is useless.

does this mean we should ignore trump's statements the 7 years before that? Or people like you who believed the unsupported nonsense? and don't forget you're literally whining about "unsupported nonsense". and what makes your whining so funny is that Cohen's evidence is neither unsupported nor nonsense. But again, you're fact resistant.
Click to expand...

Dude...the past is past.

Dismissed.

poor MC, the facts must be breaking through your "resistance" because you're really starting to reach for any string of words to make the mean ole facts go away. The steele dossier was intel that correctly predicted that Russia was behind the hacks and correctly predicted trump's actions regarding Ukraine and attacking Nato. And again, that's evidence.
Click to expand...

LOL!!

Hell, I could have predicted Trump's actions regarding Ukraine and NATO. He never made a secret of what he thought about those topics. If that's all you got out of the Steele Dossier...well, as we know, you have nothing. BTW, Obama said the Russians were behind the hacks BEFORE Steele did. Looks like he was just "predicting" something that we already knew.

Look. I fully understand you hate Trump. I fully understand you'll trot out the same kind of unsupported nonsense that Schiffty does. Heck, it's all you got. But don't think you can justify ANYTHING with this nonsense. It just ain't gonna happen.

So, if you don't have anything substantive, I'll leave you to your hatred.

Moving on...
 
Shiftless thinks he's Archibald Cox, but in reality he's Bozo the Clown.
 
Cardinal said:
What, from your point of view, is the purpose of instigating impeachment if it's guaranteed that Republican Senators would never agree to remove him from office?
Click to expand...

If there's a crime then I can't imagine that Republicans will let it stand. They'll vote to impeach if there's a verifiable crime....unless you think Republicans will just ignore criminal acts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom