• 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!

Barr, Mulvaney, or Giuliani Who Will Go Down First

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
25,357
Reaction score
11,557
Location
Post-Trump America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I think there's a Saturday massacre coming for these three stooges and that Trump will have to get rid of them all at once. However, for those who don't think this, who do you see going down first? Because it's not a question of if, it's a question of when...
 
It depends on what you mean by going down.

lol not like that.

I think Guiliani is already going down....down....down...to Chinatown.

Mulvaney will just resign.
 
I think there's a Saturday massacre coming for these three stooges and that Trump will have to get rid of them all at once. However, for those who don't think this, who do you see going down first? Because it's not a question of if, it's a question of when...

None of them will go down.
 
I think there's a Saturday massacre coming for these three stooges and that Trump will have to get rid of them all at once. However, for those who don't think this, who do you see going down first? Because it's not a question of if, it's a question of when...

Barr should be removed by the opposition imo. as for mulvaney and giuliani, they will stay until they are no longer useful to Trump.
 
I can see Guiliani, but not Barr or Mulvaney. Mick knows too much and Barr is Trump's fixer.
 
Well Giuliani's lawyer is already distancing himself from him, as is trump.

He is trumps personal lawyer so all the governmental information he has been privy to is not protected by lawyer client privilege, or executive privilege.

Giuliani is In the best position to plead his way out, but right now he is in deep ****...
 
Well Giuliani's lawyer is already distancing himself from him, as is trump.

He is trumps personal lawyer so all the governmental information he has been privy to is not protected by lawyer client privilege, or executive privilege.

Giuliani is In the best position to plead his way out, but right now he is in deep ****...

That quote about Michael Cohen did not age well for Trump... Something about him not knowing about something and having people ask Michael Cohen??? Where's he now... lolz.
 
Barr will last longer than the other two because he is a loyal roadie who can be depended on to fulfill his crucial role. The other two are dead men walking.
 
Hopefully the people who are actually corrupt like the Clintons and the Bidens.
There's no way that the whole shebang is just a ruse by politicians to rile the credulous. So Trump_DoJ has to take this crap seriously, right?

Trump_DoJ has had three years to work on this.
How far have they gotten?
Are the indictments from Trump_DoJ going to be handed down just any minute?
Or is Trump just too corrupt for to let that happen?
 
too bad so sad, those crocodile tears must be sweet candy for you to keep crying...
State Department finds no 'deliberate mishandling of classified information' related to Clinton email server

The report states that 38 people employed at one time by the State Department had sent classified emails to Hillary Clinton's private email server and there were nearly 100 violations of classification rules. Still, "by and large, the individuals interviewed were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them in their operations."
"There was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information," the report states.

Ask anyone who handles classified documents if it is OK to use a private server as long as they didn't mean to give away our information. Please.
 
There's no way that the whole shebang is just a ruse by politicians to rile the credulous. So Trump_DoJ has to take this crap seriously, right?

Trump_DoJ has had three years to work on this.
How far have they gotten?
Are the indictments from Trump_DoJ going to be handed down just any minute?
Or is Trump just too corrupt for to let that happen?

I don't know? It seems to be an impeachable crime for the president to look into corruption if the democrats are involved in the coruption.
 
My guess is Mulvaney, as he admitted the whole thing even more than Carrot Caligula did. Giuliani is insane, so those guys tend to last longer.
 
I don't know? It seems to be an impeachable crime for the president to look into corruption if the democrats are involved in the coruption.
Have you ever heard of equivocation?
Equivocation in the sense where someone takes two things which share similarities and tries to make the case that the two things are the same based on the shared similarities?
Like, I could say that al Qaida was a tea club. Al Qaida would get together, drink tea and socialize. Therefore, al Qaida was a tea club.

Similarly, someone could say that Trump (sooper) secretly requesting an investigation into a political rival during election season from a foreign government shares similarities with a president who has been concerned about corruption seeking an investigation into likely wrong-doing.
And therefore, all that was going on was Trump acting on behalf of the USDOJ (w/o letting them know) to secretly fight crime and corruption.

I suspect the difference has been explained to you more than once by people more capable than me.

What would help make the distinction more clear?
Can you imagine something which would make it obvious to you that the things are different?
 
Have you ever heard of equivocation?
Equivocation in the sense where someone takes two things which share similarities and tries to make the case that the two things are the same based on the shared similarities?
Like, I could say that al Qaida was a tea club. Al Qaida would get together, drink tea and socialize. Therefore, al Qaida was a tea club.

Similarly, someone could say that Trump (sooper) secretly requesting an investigation into a political rival during election season from a foreign government shares similarities with a president who has been concerned about corruption seeking an investigation into likely wrong-doing.
And therefore, all that was going on was Trump acting on behalf of the USDOJ (w/o letting them know) to secretly fight crime and corruption.

I suspect the difference has been explained to you more than once by people more capable than me.

What would help make the distinction more clear?
Can you imagine something which would make it obvious to you that the things are different?

I understand. He can ask a leader of another country to look into corruption as long as it is not a democrat involved.
 
I understand. He can ask a leader of another country to look into corruption as long as it is not a democrat involved.
Aww, diddums.
If your bottom lip stays stuck out pouting like that, a bird'll poop on it.

Maybe you'll understand better when you're older.
I'm not sure what else to tell you at this point.

Let me know if you think up anything which would help.
 
I understand. He can ask a leader of another country to look into corruption as long as it is not a democrat involved.
If you get a ticket for running a stop light or speeding, do you complain that only Democrats are allowed to drive on the road?

Or do you realize that not all driving on the road is the same as all other driving on the road?


Asking for a friend.
 
Aww, diddums.
If your bottom lip stays stuck out pouting like that, a bird'll poop on it.

Maybe you'll understand better when you're older.
I'm not sure what else to tell you at this point.

Let me know if you think up anything which would help.

Sorry but it is the facts. It is exactly what he did. He asked a leader of another country to look into corruption. Fact. Looking into corruption became an issue because it was a democratic leader at the time. Fact.
 
Sorry but it is the facts. It is exactly what he did. He asked a leader of another country to look into corruption. Fact. Looking into corruption became an issue because it was a democratic leader at the time. Fact.
None of your assertions address the differences between the vague, general case you are making and the idiosyncratic specifics of the Trump/Zelenski case.

ftsoa

That's like what I told the officer who ticketed me for running a red light.
The facts are:
  • it's perfectly legal for someone to drive down the street
  • I was just driving down the street
  • I'm a Trumpco customer.
Therefore you are giving me a ticket just because I'm a Trumpco customer.

All three of those are irrefutable facts.
 
None of your assertions address the differences between the vague, general case you are making and the idiosyncratic specifics of the Trump/Zelenski case.

ftsoa

That's like what I told the officer who ticketed me for running a red light.
The facts are:
  • it's perfectly legal for someone to drive down the street
  • I was just driving down the street
  • I'm a Trumpco customer.
Therefore you are giving me a ticket just because I'm a Trumpco customer.

All three of those are irrefutable facts.

No. It is OK for Trump to look into corruption as long as it is not a democrat running for office. They are pillaged.
 
Sorry but it is the facts. It is exactly what he did. He asked a leader of another country to look into corruption. Fact. Looking into corruption became an issue because it was a democratic leader at the time. Fact.

No. The big distinction is he referred to a specific person, which is not the same thing as investigating corruption in Ukraine as a whole. If Trump had been smart about it, he would have let others do this kind of thing; and if he felt compelled to speak to the Ukrainian president directly about it, he could have done so without naming anyone: "We have an ongoing corruption investigation we'd love to partner with your justice department" or something like that. This at least gives him plausible deniability about it being just to target Biden. The fact he's targeting a specific individual who is running against him is just a massive error.
 
Mulvaney would be gone, but who would want to replace him? Bannon? Maybe.

What self-respecting person would take any of those jobs?
 
No. The big distinction is he referred to a specific person, which is not the same thing as investigating corruption in Ukraine as a whole. If Trump had been smart about it, he would have let others do this kind of thing; and if he felt compelled to speak to the Ukrainian president directly about it, he could have done so without naming anyone: "We have an ongoing corruption investigation we'd love to partner with your justice department" or something like that. This at least gives him plausible deniability about it being just to target Biden. The fact he's targeting a specific individual who is running against him is just a massive error.

He believes he is above the law.
 
No. It is OK for Trump to look into corruption as long as it is not a democrat running for office. They are pillaged.

The idea of Trump looking into corruption is laughable. He, himself, is drowning it it.

The idea that he bothered by the adult child of a politician capitalizing on his father's power simply boggles the mind.

Like a true gangster, the only corruption he objects to is corruption where he doesn't get his own cut.
 
Back
Top Bottom