Mueller Is Coming for Trump

[IM2]

But wasn't that all that document signing was about either before or right after inauguration???

Seems to me the biggest problem with Trump is because he is just that rich......more than any other.

No it seems that Trump is dishonest.

REALLY????????? WOW, what a shocker. Trump is the ONLY political figure EVER to tell a lie.....

Probably the only one to lie, almost every single day. I can imagine your reaction of Obama told just a small fraction of trumps lies

Obama's lies were about things like the Affordable Care Act...something that affected 1/6 of our economy. He repeated that "If you like your doctor...you can keep your doctor...if you like your health care plan...you can keep your health care plan..." over and over for months even though he knew it was total bullshit!

Over 90 percent of people kept their plan

Not much of a lie. He just didn't say "If you like your plan you can keep your plan, unless you have a real shitty plan"

He also didn't say that you can keep your plan unless your company is owned or ran by people who don't like Obama or Obama care and decide they won't offer that plan.

 

[Oldstyle]

Sooooooooo, if all that is REAL offenses against his position as President...then why hasn't that been called to the forefront especially if there are actual FACTS and hard data to back it up?
Why in the heck is so much time, money & effort spent on all the other bullshit that has NO hard facts or evidence to back it up????????

pretend an investigation releases all its evidence as it goes ....

now pretend RW'ers have the evidence that proves Trump is squeaky clean ... why wont they release it, better yet, WHY WONT TRUMP PROVE TO THE WORLD HE'S SQUEAKY CLEAN ?


HUH ?

If theres no evidence of his guilt, then there must be evidence of his innocence.

Dude, this is America...you need to show proof of guilt...before you demand that someone show proof of innocence! It's that whole rule of law thing that you liberals hate so much when it doesn't work in your favor?

The rule of law says when an investigation is over and a person is found not guilty, they are innocent of the crime and that's it. This application of the rule flaw seems impossible for you right wing wackjobs to follow as it pertains to Hilary Clinton at all or Obama relative to Benghazi.

Dude.

You don't really know much about our legal system...do you? The rule of law says nothing about someone being "innocent" or "guilty" simply because an investigation took place! You're innocent or guilty when you've had your day in court. It's juries and judges that decide whether someone is guilty or innocent in our legal system...not the people who conduct investigations!

and its the evidence thats presented to a jury or judge that decides innocence or guilt .. not to idiots like you.

It's still the judge or jury that decides guilt or innocence. What makes our system of justice work is that opposing forces argue the validity of the evidence that's presented to the judge or jury.

 

[Oldstyle]

What consequences have they had after ten months of investigating Trump, Ben? The "collusion" allegations seem to no longer be in play because you couldn't find any proof that took place. The "obstruction of justice" allegations are now dying out because you couldn't find any proof of that! So what's left? An investigation into Trump's business dealings? How did THAT in anyway affect the election which is what this whole tempest in a teapot was supposed to be about in the first place?

Who the fuck do you think you are, that the Justice department should be sharing their evidence with you and your kind?

My kind? I'm an American citizen. Who do you think they SHOULD share their evidence with? The Justice Department is supposed to work for all of us. That concept kind of got lost under Obama.

No it didn't. Maybe it got lost to Sean Hannity and the other right wing baiters, but not to the sane American public.

So Eric Holder was working for all Americans? Interesting concept...

Yes he was. Do not try pushing that race baited bullshit here

LOL...now I'm a "race baiter" because I point out how political the office of the Attorney General was under Barack Obama? What's next, IM2...you gonna call me a Nazi?

 

[jc456]

It doesn't...........my previous comments were directed at Reasonable's comments about how Trumps family was prospering while living 'on the publics dime'

Moron still making excuses for his fuhrer violating the constitution and his family prospering greatly while on the public's dime.

So I had been pointing out that other Presidents had also had business's before during & after serving in office.....most of which were on a global scale of some sort and had continued to make profits. .

Most modern presidents have put their assets into a blind trust. Trump was not only one of the first exceptions, he continues to own Trump inc, but also the biggest holder of foreign assets.

and so? there are no laws to have him do anymore than he did. get over it.

 

[jc456]

Is that so? Would you care to enlighten me where I was wrong???

'


sure thing..

So you're basically admitting that they have nothing on "collusion" or "obstruction of justice"


right there ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


next question ..

HUH???? My post had to do with all Presidents financial status..........I said NOTHING about collusion or obstruction of justice. dipshit

so what's that got to do with the DNC server?

It doesn't...........my previous comments were directed at Reasonable's comments about how Trumps family was prospering while living 'on the publics dime'

Moron still making excuses for his fuhrer violating the constitution and his family prospering greatly while on the public's dime.

So I had been pointing out that other Presidents had also had business's before during & after serving in office.....most of which were on a global scale of some sort and had continued to make profits. That point was to determine why & how would Trump be any different. I also included those career politicians that ONLY lived on the 'publics dime'



There's several different arguments going on here. You mention the DNC server, others still harping about collusion & obstruction & others still about something else altogether.

No president has done this.

how about George Washington?

 

[jc456]

Most modern presidents have put their assets into a blind trust. Trump was not only one of the first exceptions, he continues to own Trump inc, but also the biggest holder of foreign assets.

But wasn't that all that document signing was about either before or right after inauguration???

Seems to me the biggest problem with Trump is because he is just that rich......more than any other.

Nope. That was just Trump handing over control of Trump inc to his sons. Trump continues to own it, and to know exactly where his assets are invested. Which countries the Trump name is expanding into.

Trump said he would come down hard on China, but Trump inc just registgered several tradenames in China and is seeking to build a hotel there. Coincidence that Trump reversed himself on having China declared a currency manipulator?

and so, there is no law to force him to anymore than he has. get over it.

 

[sealybobo]

But.......if Trump handed the control over to his sons......they are the ones expanding to China........not him

Trump did a 180 on China as a currency manipulator at the same time his sons are trying to build a hotel in China. Trump told companies to buy Ivanka Trumps stuff. Trump continues to make money from foreigners.

Trump has changed policy in order to enrich his own assets.

Sooooooooo, if all that is REAL offenses against his position as President...then why hasn't that been called to the forefront especially if there are actual FACTS and hard data to back it up?
Why in the heck is so much time, money & effort spent on all the other bullshit that has NO hard facts or evidence to back it up????????

pretend an investigation releases all its evidence as it goes ....

now pretend RW'ers have the evidence that proves Trump is squeaky clean ... why wont they release it, better yet, WHY WONT TRUMP PROVE TO THE WORLD HE'S SQUEAKY CLEAN ?


HUH ?

If theres no evidence of his guilt, then there must be evidence of his innocence.

Why would he be constantly worrying about if he is under FBI investigation? If he was innocent like Obama was he would just go about his business and not worry about birthers or what should we call people who say Trump has ties to Russia? Truthers?

 

[sealybobo]

Most modern presidents have put their assets into a blind trust. Trump was not only one of the first exceptions, he continues to own Trump inc, but also the biggest holder of foreign assets.

But wasn't that all that document signing was about either before or right after inauguration???

Seems to me the biggest problem with Trump is because he is just that rich......more than any other.

Nope. That was just Trump handing over control of Trump inc to his sons. Trump continues to own it, and to know exactly where his assets are invested. Which countries the Trump name is expanding into.

Trump said he would come down hard on China, but Trump inc just registgered several tradenames in China and is seeking to build a hotel there. Coincidence that Trump reversed himself on having China declared a currency manipulator?

and so, there is no law to force him to anymore than he has. get over it.

You're one of those guys who says a president can't break the law because he's the president. But notice you didn't have that position when Obama was president?

 

[jc456]

There is a HUGE difference between this situation and Watergate because in Watergate...a crime took place which Nixon then tried to cover up! There is no crime here. Trump didn't do anything. Nor has he tried to coverup anything. As a matter of fact he's welcomed the investigation into Russian interference.

Actually there was an even bigger crime here. A foreign power hacking and stealing information from the election systems of 39 states. Watergate was one burglary, The underlying crime here was dozens of computer felonies.

And now Trump tries to keep the FBI from investigating who was involved on the american side. So move over Nixon, there's a new "tricky dick" about to take the lead.

What? When has Trump EVER tried to keep the FBI from investigating Russia's involvement in hacking our election systems? What reason would he possibly have for doing so? It's already been confirmed by numerous people that the Russians didn't affect any voting machines or tallying machinery. Trump knows he won that election and he knows WHY he won! That's why Trump told Comey to investigate the Russians.

You people are unbelievable! You accuse Trump of a crime when you've produced ZERO evidence he committed a crime! All Trump ever did was to use the Wikileaks information (factual information!) to show the voters exactly who Hillary Clinton was and how she conducted herself leading up to the election!

they have no principles.

 

[Siete]

pretend an investigation releases all its evidence as it goes ....

now pretend RW'ers have the evidence that proves Trump is squeaky clean ... why wont they release it, better yet, WHY WONT TRUMP PROVE TO THE WORLD HE'S SQUEAKY CLEAN ?


HUH ?

If theres no evidence of his guilt, then there must be evidence of his innocence.

Dude, this is America...you need to show proof of guilt...before you demand that someone show proof of innocence! It's that whole rule of law thing that you liberals hate so much when it doesn't work in your favor?

The rule of law says when an investigation is over and a person is found not guilty, they are innocent of the crime and that's it. This application of the rule flaw seems impossible for you right wing wackjobs to follow as it pertains to Hilary Clinton at all or Obama relative to Benghazi.

Dude.

You don't really know much about our legal system...do you? The rule of law says nothing about someone being "innocent" or "guilty" simply because an investigation took place! You're innocent or guilty when you've had your day in court. It's juries and judges that decide whether someone is guilty or innocent in our legal system...not the people who conduct investigations!

and its the evidence thats presented to a jury or judge that decides innocence or guilt .. not to idiots like you.

It's still the judge or jury that decides guilt or innocence. What makes our system of justice work is that opposing forces argue the validity of the evidence that's presented to the judge or jury.

and thats exactly why you'll never see any evidence made public before a trial in a court..

any idiot knows that, nobody should have to explain it to you

 

[jc456]

Dude, this is America...you need to show proof of guilt...before you demand that someone show proof of innocence! It's that whole rule of law thing that you liberals hate so much when it doesn't work in your favor?

The rule of law says when an investigation is over and a person is found not guilty, they are innocent of the crime and that's it. This application of the rule flaw seems impossible for you right wing wackjobs to follow as it pertains to Hilary Clinton at all or Obama relative to Benghazi.

Dude.

You don't really know much about our legal system...do you? The rule of law says nothing about someone being "innocent" or "guilty" simply because an investigation took place! You're innocent or guilty when you've had your day in court. It's juries and judges that decide whether someone is guilty or innocent in our legal system...not the people who conduct investigations!

and its the evidence thats presented to a jury or judge that decides innocence or guilt .. not to idiots like you.

It's still the judge or jury that decides guilt or innocence. What makes our system of justice work is that opposing forces argue the validity of the evidence that's presented to the judge or jury.

and thats exactly why you'll never see any evidence made public before a trial in a court..

any idiot knows that, nobody should have to explain it to you

so you don't have any idea if anything is anything right? wow, so you got fking nothing? dude too funny!!! you just can't make this bullshit up.

 

[IM2]

Who the fuck do you think you are, that the Justice department should be sharing their evidence with you and your kind?

My kind? I'm an American citizen. Who do you think they SHOULD share their evidence with? The Justice Department is supposed to work for all of us. That concept kind of got lost under Obama.

No it didn't. Maybe it got lost to Sean Hannity and the other right wing baiters, but not to the sane American public.

So Eric Holder was working for all Americans? Interesting concept...

Yes he was. Do not try pushing that race baited bullshit here

LOL...now I'm a "race baiter" because I point out how political the office of the Attorney General was under Barack Obama? What's next, IM2...you gonna call me a Nazi?

You are race baiting because the office did not work as you claim and because of what you imply when you said Holder was not working for all Americans

 

[IM2]

The rule of law says when an investigation is over and a person is found not guilty, they are innocent of the crime and that's it. This application of the rule flaw seems impossible for you right wing wackjobs to follow as it pertains to Hilary Clinton at all or Obama relative to Benghazi.

Dude.

You don't really know much about our legal system...do you? The rule of law says nothing about someone being "innocent" or "guilty" simply because an investigation took place! You're innocent or guilty when you've had your day in court. It's juries and judges that decide whether someone is guilty or innocent in our legal system...not the people who conduct investigations!

and its the evidence thats presented to a jury or judge that decides innocence or guilt .. not to idiots like you.

It's still the judge or jury that decides guilt or innocence. What makes our system of justice work is that opposing forces argue the validity of the evidence that's presented to the judge or jury.

and thats exactly why you'll never see any evidence made public before a trial in a court..

any idiot knows that, nobody should have to explain it to you

so you don't have any idea if anything is anything right? wow, so you got fking nothing? dude too funny!!! you just can't make this bullshit up.

The only people making things up here are you right wingers.

 

[The Original Tree]

So why won't YOU LEFTIST PUTIN COCKHOLSTERS Provide one example with EVIDENCE of how "RUSSIA ATTACKED OUR ELECTION"?

 

[The Original Tree]

My kind? I'm an American citizen. Who do you think they SHOULD share their evidence with? The Justice Department is supposed to work for all of us. That concept kind of got lost under Obama.

No it didn't. Maybe it got lost to Sean Hannity and the other right wing baiters, but not to the sane American public.

So Eric Holder was working for all Americans? Interesting concept...

Yes he was. Do not try pushing that race baited bullshit here

LOL...now I'm a "race baiter" because I point out how political the office of the Attorney General was under Barack Obama? What's next, IM2...you gonna call me a Nazi?

You are race baiting because the office did not work as you claim and because of what you imply when you said Holder was not working for all Americans

Holder perjured himself under oath over Fast And Furious and Comey just gave him a slap on the ass, and an "ATTA BOY"

They Illegally sold 2,000 weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels, and not one person so much as got a MEAN TWEET from Comey or Obama over it.

 

[IM2]

'


sure thing..

So you're basically admitting that they have nothing on "collusion" or "obstruction of justice"


right there ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


next question ..

HUH???? My post had to do with all Presidents financial status..........I said NOTHING about collusion or obstruction of justice. dipshit

so what's that got to do with the DNC server?

It doesn't...........my previous comments were directed at Reasonable's comments about how Trumps family was prospering while living 'on the publics dime'

Moron still making excuses for his fuhrer violating the constitution and his family prospering greatly while on the public's dime.

So I had been pointing out that other Presidents had also had business's before during & after serving in office.....most of which were on a global scale of some sort and had continued to make profits. That point was to determine why & how would Trump be any different. I also included those career politicians that ONLY lived on the 'publics dime'



There's several different arguments going on here. You mention the DNC server, others still harping about collusion & obstruction & others still about something else altogether.

No president has done this.

how about George Washington?

George Washington? But we can't judge people from the past by todays standards. Isn't that what you guys say all the time right wingers?

 

[The Original Tree]

pretend an investigation releases all its evidence as it goes ....

now pretend RW'ers have the evidence that proves Trump is squeaky clean ... why wont they release it, better yet, WHY WONT TRUMP PROVE TO THE WORLD HE'S SQUEAKY CLEAN ?


HUH ?

If theres no evidence of his guilt, then there must be evidence of his innocence.

Dude, this is America...you need to show proof of guilt...before you demand that someone show proof of innocence! It's that whole rule of law thing that you liberals hate so much when it doesn't work in your favor?

The rule of law says when an investigation is over and a person is found not guilty, they are innocent of the crime and that's it. This application of the rule flaw seems impossible for you right wing wackjobs to follow as it pertains to Hilary Clinton at all or Obama relative to Benghazi.

Dude.

You don't really know much about our legal system...do you? The rule of law says nothing about someone being "innocent" or "guilty" simply because an investigation took place! You're innocent or guilty when you've had your day in court. It's juries and judges that decide whether someone is guilty or innocent in our legal system...not the people who conduct investigations!

and its the evidence thats presented to a jury or judge that decides innocence or guilt .. not to idiots like you.

It's still the judge or jury that decides guilt or innocence. What makes our system of justice work is that opposing forces argue the validity of the evidence that's presented to the judge or jury.

When someone presents some ACTUAL EVIDENCE, maybe we can have an ACTUAL ARGUMENT.

 

[IM2]

So why won't YOU LEFTIST PUTIN COCKHOLSTERS Provide one example with EVIDENCE of how "RUSSIA ATTACKED OUR ELECTION"?

I do think the intelligence agencies have said plenty about that.

 

[IM2]

Dude, this is America...you need to show proof of guilt...before you demand that someone show proof of innocence! It's that whole rule of law thing that you liberals hate so much when it doesn't work in your favor?

The rule of law says when an investigation is over and a person is found not guilty, they are innocent of the crime and that's it. This application of the rule flaw seems impossible for you right wing wackjobs to follow as it pertains to Hilary Clinton at all or Obama relative to Benghazi.

Dude.

You don't really know much about our legal system...do you? The rule of law says nothing about someone being "innocent" or "guilty" simply because an investigation took place! You're innocent or guilty when you've had your day in court. It's juries and judges that decide whether someone is guilty or innocent in our legal system...not the people who conduct investigations!

and its the evidence thats presented to a jury or judge that decides innocence or guilt .. not to idiots like you.

It's still the judge or jury that decides guilt or innocence. What makes our system of justice work is that opposing forces argue the validity of the evidence that's presented to the judge or jury.

When someone presents some ACTUAL EVIDENCE, maybe we can have an ACTUAL ARGUMENT.

Actual evidence has been presented.

 

[The Original Tree]

So why won't YOU LEFTIST PUTIN COCKHOLSTERS Provide one example with EVIDENCE of how "RUSSIA ATTACKED OUR ELECTION"?

I do think the intelligence agencies have said plenty about that.

Yah, they said NO COLLUSION.
BTW, have you seen THE DNC SERVER?
Yah, me neither.
NO ONE HAS.