• 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!

"All the Presidents felons".

Chomsky said:
Where to start?

Kushner & Jr. were in the Trump Towers Russian meeting attempting to use Russian influence. Who knows how many other meetings or arrangements of this sort went down?

Hicks was present when the President concocted the Trump Towers Russian meeting obfuscation. This might be obstruction.

Pence has a Flynn problem. He claims Flynn lied. What will Flynn say?

And Preibus & Sessions were involved with and overhearing much of the President & his family's White House and other business. If any discussions of obstruction or other illegalities took place, they might have legal exposure.

I think my post pretty much answers the OP's question of who "might" be next. None of us know. But I don't think it's over.
Click to expand...

How is making up a phony story on the Trump Tower meeting obstruction? It is legal to lie to the American people and the press.
 
justabubba said:
they have admitted that they are "GUILTY"
i will accept them at their word that they are "GUILTY"
Click to expand...

You're funny. Would you accept them at their word if they said NOT GUILTY?

(C'mon, you walked into that one)
 
apdst said:
If it's exculpatory evidence, the law requires disclosure.
Click to expand...

Only if admissible and relevant. For example prosecutors have to disclose other "suspects" but not other "persons of interest." It's rather gray, since persons of interest often are suspects by every description but the name.
 
holbritter said:
You're funny. Would you accept them at their word if they said NOT GUILTY?

(C'mon, you walked into that one)
Click to expand...

saying 'not guilty' is to their benefit
saying 'guilty' is to their detriment
why would i not believe someone saying something detrimental to his own circumstance

(i also walked into a logic class. you should try it)
 
Chomsky said:
Where to start?

Kushner & Jr. were in the Trump Towers Russian meeting attempting to use Russian influence. Who knows how many other meetings or arrangements of this sort went down?

Hicks was present when the President concocted the Trump Towers Russian meeting obfuscation. This might be obstruction.

Pence has a Flynn problem. He claims Flynn lied. What will Flynn say?

And Preibus & Sessions were involved with and overhearing much of the President & his family's White House and other business. If any discussions of obstruction or other illegalities took place, they might have legal exposure.

I think my post pretty much answers the OP's question of who "might" be next. None of us know. But I don't think it's over.
Click to expand...

I have no problem disagreeing after all this is after all a debate site.

That being said looking for every aspect of what people do and call it a criminal act is disturbing to me. I never believed the phrase "Justice is blind". Say that in a poor versus rich neighborhood. Now looking to find a crime for political opponents seems like a dangerous road. Where does it stop.

Saying that Trump started it with the Lock Her Up crap (not that you did) is childish in my view. Trump says/does a lot of stuff that is stupid. Doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow.
 
Vetplus40 said:
Looks like "Wonder Boy" made a huge investment blunder with his 666 property.
Click to expand...

If he were a Democrat the Christian Right would be freaking about the 666 thing. It would be all over Facebook. Their outrage is always very selective.
 
washunut said:
Now looking to find a crime for political opponents seems like a dangerous road. Where does it stop.
Click to expand...

Remember Richard Nixon?

Every politician has political opponents. Every corrupt politician claims they are being framed by their political opponents.

Facts:

1. Trump's campaign had the GOP platform regarding Russia changed in Russia's favor.
2. Trump's campaign had numerous secret meeting with Russians that they lied about.
3. Trump's campaign manager, Manafort, used to work for Putin in Ukraine.

Ignoring these facts is willful blindness.
 
justabubba said:
saying 'not guilty' is to their benefit
saying 'guilty' is to their detriment
why would i not believe someone saying something detrimental to his own circumstance

(i also walked into a logic class. you should try it)
Click to expand...

Ok. Marked you down for 'no sense of humor' and 'insulting'.

I'll remember my mistake in the future.
 
apdst said:
They haven't been convicted, though.
Click to expand...

They have pleaded guilty to felonies, that means that they have been convicted of a crime. Please understand what you are talking about before writing a post, PLEASE!!!!!
 
independentusa said:
They have pleaded guilty to felonies, that means that they have been convicted of a crime. Please understand what you are talking about before writing a post, PLEASE!!!!!
Click to expand...

Those pleas can be withdrawn prior to sentencing. Technically, they haven't been convicted, until they're sentenced.

I've suppirted my argument in this thread. Go learn something.
 
apdst said:
Those pleas can be withdrawn prior to sentencing. Technically, they haven't been convicted, until they're sentenced.

I've suppirted my argument in this thread. Go learn something.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the prosecutor can use everything that the person pleading guilty has told them in any subsequent trial.
 
holbritter said:
Ok. Marked you down for 'no sense of humor' and 'insulting'.

I'll remember my mistake in the future.
Click to expand...

next time, post something humorous
 
Vetplus40 said:
1. Michael Flynn.

2. George "Papa D".

3. Rick Gates.


Who is next?

4. Paul Manaforte ????????

5. Carter Page ?????????
Click to expand...



I cut my journalistic teeth, from afar, on the Watergate Scandal. Since then I have discovered that many have similarities and one of them is there's a big, honking goose of a surprise down the way, think Watergate tapes, DNC memos, etc.

I only have a sense, but Mueller's team are onto something no one has considered.

The other thing I noticed with this one, Mueller doesn't leak.
 
washunut said:
I have no problem disagreeing after all this is after all a debate site.

That being said looking for every aspect of what people do and call it a criminal act is disturbing to me. I never believed the phrase "Justice is blind". Say that in a poor versus rich neighborhood. Now looking to find a crime for political opponents seems like a dangerous road. Where does it stop.

Saying that Trump started it with the Lock Her Up crap (not that you did) is childish in my view. Trump says/does a lot of stuff that is stupid. Doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow.
Click to expand...
I agree that we don't want to dog our administration & Congress with over-scrutiny.

But in this case, I think it's due. I had my doubts early on, but now everything I'm seeing come out of Mueller's probe, the press, and the actions of the White House itself, leads me to believe there's a reasonable possibility of criminal activity during the campaign, and perhaps even in the administration. Trump has surrounded himself with quite a few criminals, it seems. And I fear birds of feather, flock together. I also believe it's possible Trump was privy to some of these goings-on, tacitly, even if not actively involved - though he may have been actively involved.
 
Fletch said:
How is making up a phony story on the Trump Tower meeting obstruction? It is legal to lie to the American people and the press.
Click to expand...
You're confusing perjury with obstruction.

Hope Hicks was present on the plane, when they made their cover-up. And it's the cover-up that may get them. Remember, they're under investigation for Russian meddling, and that appears to be what may have occurred during that Trump Towers meeting. If on that plane they tried to cover nefarious deeds in Trump Jr's emails while under investigation, yeah they may have problems.

Mr. Corallo is planning to tell Mr. Mueller about a previously undisclosed conference call with Mr. Trump and Hope Hicks, the White House communications director, according to the three people. Mr. Corallo planned to tell investigators that Ms. Hicks said during the call that emails written by Donald Trump Jr. before the Trump Tower meeting — in which the younger Mr. Trump said he was eager to receive political dirt about Mrs. Clinton from the Russians — “will never get out.” That left Mr. Corallo with concerns that Ms. Hicks could be contemplating obstructing justice, the people said.
Click to expand...

Source: NYT: Mueller Zeros In on Story Put Together About Trump Tower Meeting


And while I realize you're making a legal - not ethical - argument here, the fact that a sitting President may have to make the argument that he has every right to lie to the citizens and media, greatly sickens me. This is what the Presidency has become? Argh!
 
Chomsky said:
I agree that we don't want to dog our administration & Congress with over-scrutiny.

But in this case, I think it's due. I had my doubts early on, but now everything I'm seeing come out of Mueller's probe, the press, and the actions of the White House itself, leads me to believe there's a reasonable possibility of criminal activity during the campaign, and perhaps even in the administration. Trump has surrounded himself with quite a few criminals, it seems. And I fear birds of feather, flock together. I also believe it's possible Trump was privy to some of these goings-on, tacitly, even if not actively involved - though he may have been actively involved.
Click to expand...

I understand that Flynn did things that are problematic, that being said he was a distinguished General. You may remember that Manafort was brought in prior to the convention. People lauded bringing him in as he was an establishment person who would help in the vote for nomination. He was quickly out of the campaign. The only thing that seems to conflate Carter Page to Russian collusion is that he gave a speech in Russia. Not unlike Bill Clinton, who was surely paid a lot more for his speech.

I don't think there is a single indictment from Mueller against Trump people for anything to do with the campaign. I understand that the daily/hourly drumbeat by the media can wear anyone down. That doesn't make the daily panels on CNN of what Trump did wrong today valid, same as the hour on TV for Sean Hannity does not make him credible IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom