• 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!

What law exactly has Trump broken?

coming to a conclusion before an investigation is complete? Really?

Unless there's even slight evidence for it. Yes. Treason has a very specific definition and there is absolutely no proof that he has done anything to meet that definition.
 
That was a spontaneous demonstration which just happened to involve mortars, RPGs and an assault on a US "diplomatic" compound resulting in the death of 4 Americans - clearly not a crime at all. ;)

I do not consider spin, which all politicians use as a crime.
 
Unless there's even slight evidence for it. Yes. Treason has a very specific definition and there is absolutely no proof that he has done anything to meet that definition.


didnt say treason did I?
 
for starters potential obstruction of justice

I realize you want so badly for that to be true, but the fact is there's no evidence for that either. Unless I'm mistaken. Can you cite it for me?
 

Funny how everyone close to Trump, as in "aides" and "officials" love talking about Trump to the media and yet not one of them ever step forward and say their name. Makes one wonder if that's really happening.

Either way, Trump still fired him, Flynn is no longer a part of the WH and as such is no longer connected to Trump.

Regardless of that though...what crime has Flynn been charged with? And how does it relate to Trump beyond them being associates? Do you accept the axiom of "guilt by association"? Or is this just a special case because its Trump?
 
Check the OP and get back to me.

That was a spontaneous demonstration which just happened to involve mortars, RPGs and an assault on a US "diplomatic" compound resulting in the death of 4 Americans - clearly not a crime at all. ;)

I thought we were talking about Benghazi. A witch hunt based on nothing used to smear and then eventually find evidence of wrongdoing.
 
I thought we were talking about Benghazi. A witch hunt based on nothing used to smear and then eventually find evidence of wrongdoing.

You thought wrong. As usual. Again, check the OP and get back to me. :shrug:
 
I do not consider spin, which all politicians use as a crime.

When your campaign slogan is "UBL is dead, GM is alive and AQ is on the run" then it is more than "spin" to officially assert that a (AQ?) terror attack was, in fact, something else. It is one thing to spew spin on the campaign trail and quite another to use (order?) the US government to officially back it up for you.
 
LOL, I understand why you want to deflect away from the topic of the thread. Nice try, but no cigar. What is the crime?

Is that the crime? That Trump regrets firing Flynn? Can you cite the statute?


enough suspicion of obstruction of justice to get the ball rolling.
 
Funny how everyone close to Trump, as in "aides" and "officials" love talking about Trump to the media and yet not one of them ever step forward and say their name. Makes one wonder if that's really happening.

Either way, Trump still fired him, Flynn is no longer a part of the WH and as such is no longer connected to Trump.

Regardless of that though...what crime has Flynn been charged with? And how does it relate to Trump beyond them being associates? Do you accept the axiom of "guilt by association"? Or is this just a special case because its Trump?



enough suspicion of obstruction of justice to get the ball rolling.
 
enough suspicion of obstruction of justice to get the ball rolling.

Okay, fair enough. What then is the suspicion of obstruction of justice? Please be specific.
 
enough suspicion of obstruction of justice to get the ball rolling.

Except for the fact that the ball started rolling before Trump was POTUS that makes complete sense. ;)
 


this is were we go back to what an investigation is and why they are conducted but the suspicion to get the ball rolling is dumbass calls to Comey asking the russia investigation be dropped.
 
Okay, fair enough. What then is the suspicion of obstruction of justice? Please be specific.

Trump refuses to adequately incriminate himself - is that not obvious evidence of obstruction of justice? ;)
 
the phone call to Comey asking that the russia investigation be dropped.

Nice link - do have any others? Somehow Comey forgot to report that obviously criminal act to his DOJ superiors. ;)
 
the phone call to Comey asking that the russia investigation be dropped.

Nope, sorry. Even if that actually occurred, and so far we don't know that. That, in and of itself is not a crime, let alone obstruction of justice.
 
It's a straw-man, and so is the video. Nice distraction.

Russia is being investigated as a foreign adversary that has, in ways now known to the public, meddled in our presidential election.
Because Trump's campaigners and Flynn, etc., and Trump himself, show an unsettling friendliness and communications towards our largest adversary in the world, it looks guilty enough to pursue opening up the investigation to include them, and to see where it leads.

During this time of investigation, Trump himself appears to be trying to derail the investigation and cover it up. His continued tweets, his meeting with Russians after firing Comey and his commitments, his unprofessional comments to Comey in trying to get him to back up Flynn, guage his loyalty directly, etc., all look guilty and add to the mountain of circumstantial evidence.

So the investigations continue. We're told they could take years before reaching any conclusions, and that it will largely be closed door/private during that time.

So the question "but what crime did he commit?!" is what the investigation is in part, trying to evaluate, if there is a crime that some of these guilty-looking Americans have gotten caught with.

Asking why there is outrage and an investigation, without there being evidence of a crime, is absurd. But then, that's really the central thesis to this presidency isn't it?

50% of the critical mass of this ongoing saga however has nothing to do with crimes. We have gotten the opportunity to see Trump in "action" these past 100+ days, and he's demonstrated a level of immaturity, impulsiveness, incompetence, ignorance, arrogance, selfishness, all rolled up with a complete and obvious disregard for honesty, to the point I know many people have lost all coincidence in him as POTUS, and are literally worried about the fate of the nation under his circus clown tent of madness. <- that, will never stop while he's POTUS, so you better buckle up. No investigation will end it, no evidence will end it. The only way to end it is if Trump grew up and educated himself, and we all know that will never happen in his lifetime.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom